The proprietors of small freeholds, that is, the freemen of the middle class, had fallen, in consequence of the tyranny of the nobles, into a worse condition than that of the tenants and serfs."The expenses of war weighed less heavily upon the serf than upon the freeman; and, as for legal protection, the seigniorial court, where the serf was judged by his peers, was far preferable to the cantonal assembly.It was better to have a noble for a seignior than for a judge."So it is better to-day to have a man of large capital for an associate than for a rival.The honest tenant--the laborer who earns weekly a moderate but constant salary--is more to be envied than the independent but small farmer, or the poor licensed mechanic.
At that time, all were either seigniors or serfs, oppressors or oppressed."Then, under the protection of convents, or of the seigniorial turret, new societies were formed, which silently spread over the soil made fertile by their hands, and which derived their power from the annihilation of the free classes whom they enlisted in their behalf.As tenants, these men acquired, from generation to generation, sacred rights over the soil which they cultivated in the interest of lazy and pillaging masters.As fast as the social tempest abated, it became necessary to respect the union and heritage of these villeins, who by their labor had truly prescribed the soil for their own profit."I ask how prescription could take effect where a contrary title and possession already existed? M.Laboulaye is a lawyer.
Where, then, did he ever see the labor of the slave and the cultivation by the tenant prescribe the soil for their own profit, to the detriment of a recognized master daily acting as a proprietor? Let us not disguise matters.As fast as the tenants and the serfs grew rich, they wished to be independent and free;they commenced to associate, unfurl their municipal banners, raise belfries, fortify their towns, and refuse to pay their seigniorial dues.In doing these things they were perfectly right; for, in fact, their condition was intolerable.But in law--I mean in Roman and Napoleonic law--their refusal to obey and pay tribute to their masters was illegitimate.
Now, this imperceptible usurpation of property by the commonalty was inspired by religion.
The seignior had attached the serf to the soil; religion granted the serf rights over the soil.The seignior imposed duties upon the serf; religion fixed their limits.The seignior could kill the serf with impunity, could deprive him of his wife, violate his daughter, pillage his house, and rob him of his savings;religion checked his invasions: it excommunicated the seignior.
Religion was the real cause of the ruin of feudal property.Why should it not be bold enough to-day to resolutely condemn capitalistic property? Since the middle ages, there has been no change in social economy except in its forms; its relations remain unaltered.
The only result of the emancipation of the serfs was that property changed hands; or, rather, that new proprietors were created.Sooner or later the extension of privilege, far from curing the evil, was to operate to the disadvantage of the plebeians.Nevertheless, the new social organization did not meet with the same end in all places.In Lombardy, for example, where the people rapidly growing rich through commerce and industry soon conquered the authorities, even to the exclusion of the nobles,--first, the nobility became poor and degraded, and were forced, in order to live and maintain their credit, to gain admission to the guilds; then, the ordinary subalternization of property leading to inequality of fortunes, to wealth and poverty, to jealousies and hatreds, the cities passed rapidly from the rankest democracy under the yoke of a few ambitious leaders.Such was the fate of most of the Lombardic cities,--Genoa, Florence, Bologna, Milan, Pisa, &c,.--which afterwards changed rulers frequently, but which have never since risen in favor of liberty.The people can easily escape from the tyranny of despots, but they do not know how to throw off the effects of their own despotism; just as we avoid the assassin's steel, while we succumb to a constitutional malady.As soon as a nation becomes proprietor, either it must perish, or a foreign invasion must force it again to begin its evolutionary round.
The spirit of despotism and monopoly which animated the communes has not escaped the attention of historians."The formation of the commoners' associations," says Meyer, "did not spring from the true spirit of liberty, but from the desire for exemption from the charges of the seigniors, from individual interests, and jealousy of the welfare of others....Each commune or corporation opposed the creation of every other; and this spirit increased to such an extent that the King of England, Henry V., having established a university at Caen, in 1432, the city and university of Paris opposed the registration of the edict.
"The communes once organized, the kings treated them as superior vassals.Now, just as the under vassal had no communication with the king except through the direct vassal, so also the commoners could enter no complaints except through the commune.
"Like causes produce like effects.Each commune became a small and separate State, governed by a few citizens, who sought to extend their authority over the others; who, in their turn, revenged themselves upon the unfortunate inhabitants who had not the right of citizenship.Feudalism in unemancipated countries, and oligarchy in the communes, made nearly the same ravages.
There were sub-associations, fraternities, tradesmen's associations in the communes, and colleges in the universities.
The oppression was so great, that it was no rare thing to see the inhabitants of a commune demanding its suppression...."--Meyer: Judicial Institutions of Europe.
