During the 12th and 13th centuries, a remarkable revolution took place, in regard to the condition of towns, which powerfully operated upon political go vernment, throughout the whole of Europe. This slow and silent revolution was partly a natural con sequence of the riches acquired by the inhabitants of towns, by their application to industry and com merce, and was also partly owing to a new line of policy which the princes of Europe found it expe dient to adopt. They had, at first, endeavoured to make use of the influence of the clergy, in order to repress the overgrown and formidable power of the nobility ;' but having, at length, gradually lost the greater part of their authority over the church, they were forced to look round for some other means of diminishing the weight of their powerful vassals. Such a counterbalance naturally presented itself in the increasing wealth and importance of the towns, agd accordingly we find, that during the period above mentioned, the inhabitants of towns began, by de grees, to emerge out of that state of dependence and degradation in which they had hitherto existed, and ' at length to exert an influence on the affairs of go vernment. Somi: of them asserted their independence by main force, others obtained it from their needy lords in consideration of a sum of money, and all were desirous of securing it by royal charters. This revolution in the political state of the towns began in Italy at. the commencement of the llth century. In France, Louis the Fat, who commenced his reign in 1103, was the first of the French kings who granted corporate privileges to the towns of his demesnes, either from views of political expediency, or from more mercenary motives ; and his subjects followed his example. The greaterpart of these charters are of the 12th or beginning of the 13th century. The reader will find a long list of them in.Du Cange's Glossary, v. Commune. In Germany, the emperor Henry V. 'was the first who adopted this line of policy; and the measures which he and his successors pursued, gave rise to that, powerful body of towns, which, as long as the German constitution remained entire, formed a distinct college or chamber at the imperial diet. The enjoyment of liberty and secu rity gave a spur to the industry of the towns, and their population increased with their wealth. These communities had now an independent political exist ence, and were at length admitted to bear a part in the national councils. The example was given by England during the reign of Henry III. It was fol lowed by France in the reign of Philip the Fair; and by Germany under the Emperor Henry VII. But in no country has this system been pursued to such extent, or attended with such,salutary practical ef fects, as in England.
It has been a question acrimoniously disputed, among our learned antiquaries, at what period the re. presentatives of boroughs were first called to take a share in the national councils. Some have endeavour ed to trace their origin as far back as the Saxon IVittenagemote: Others, on the contrary, have main tained, that the commons formed no part of the great council, till some time after the conquest. This con troversy we are certainly inclined to consider as more curious than important. If the system .of popular representation be of great antiquity, and if it be in itself salutary and expedient, it really appears to us to be a matter of very little consequence, whether its origin is to be dated from a more barbarous, or from a more civilized age. At the same time, we conceive it to be our duty to present our readers with a sum mary of the arguments by which the advocates of either side of the question have endeavoured to sup port and illustrate their opinions. Those who are desirous of enquiring more minutely into the merits of this controversy, may consult the volumes to which we refer them at the end of this article.
The advocates of the higher antiquity of the com mons maintain, that their origin is to be traced to the original customs of the ancient German nations, among whom, according to Tacitus, (de Mor. Germ. c. 25.) all the freeholders enjoyed an equal right with the nobles to assist in important deliberations. This right they exercised, upon their first settlement in foreign countries, by assembling together in open plains ; and this is asserted to have been the practice among the Auglo•Saxons, the meadow near Staines, 1 in which King John granted the great charter, being ` called Runemeed, or the Meadow of Council, be cause in ancient times it had been usual to. meet there,
and consult upon business which concerned the peace of the kingdom. This custom, it is said, had gone into disuse under, and even previous to, the Norman .government ; and the meeting in the reign of King John is the only instance of its having been revived. From a record cited by Dr Brady, so late as the .fifteenth year of King John, it appears, that not only the greater barons, but all the inferior tenants in chief of the crown, had a right to be summoned to Parliament by particular writs ; from which it is concluded, that till then, they had attended the great councils of the nation personally, and not by repre sentatives. But these did not constitute all the free holders of the kingdom ; for this description compre hended all who held of the 'barons, either by knight service, or free soccage, all the possessors of allodial estates, and all the free inhabitants of cities and bo roughs not holding of the crown. Was that nume rous class of men altogether excluded from Parlia ment, or were they present by any kind of representa tion ?' It has been supposed by some learned writers, that every superior tenant of the crown gave an opi nion on matters of government, which bound all his vassals. But in this case, the allodial proprietors could not have been represented, nor, consequently, bound by the acts of the barons, to whom they were not attached by any feudal tie.. Upon the above hi pothesis, too, the right of the barons to sit in Parlia ment arose wholly from their tenures, and not from any trust conferred upon them by the people. It is certain, however, that the feudal superiority was the same under the government of Henry III. as under that of William the Conqueror. If, therefore, the barons, and superior holders of great feifs of the crown, had, by virtue of the institutions of William I. been supposed to represent their vassals in Parliament, and the notion then was, that every inferior feudatory was bound by the parliamentary acts of his lord ; how came that notion to be discarded in the 49th year of Henry III., to which period this change has been referred. An existing record, it is said, de monstrates this date to be false. A writ of summons, directed to the sheriffs of Bedfordshire and Bucking hamshire, and requiring two knights.to be sent' for each of these counties, is extant in the close roll of the 38th year of Henry III. And there is also a clause in the great charter of the 9th of .the same king, whereby it is declared, that, together with the spi ritual and temporal lords, other inferior freeholders, et omnes de regno, by which, it is alleged, we are to understand, the whole commonalty of the realm," granted to the king the fifteenth part of all their moveable goods, in return for the liberties acceded to them in that charter. We have no reason, it is observed, to presume, that so great an alteration was then first made in the constitution of England. Such . an innovation must have produced disputes, which would have been noticed 'by some of the numerous historians of that age. But the English history is' altogether silent as to any disputes between the no bility and the people, on this account, from the ear, liest periods ,of the Saxon government down to the reign of Charles I. Hence it is concluded, that the right of the commons must have been incontestably established by custom, and interwoven into the ori. ginal frame of our constitution. Again : If we sup pose, with some, that the sitting in Parliament was at that time considered only as a trouble and burden; the imposition of such a burden on orders of men, who had been previmisly exempt from it, must have -been on their part resisted and opposed. But from the words of the act of the 4th Edw. III. by which " It is accorded, that a parliament shall be holden every year once, and more often, if need be," it may be inferred, that it was rather regarded as a privi lege of which they earnestly desired the frequent en yment, than as a burden from which they wished to be exempt. There were some boroughs, indeed, which, on account of their poverty, were unable to bear the expense of sending members to Parliament, and therefore declined the exercise of that privilege ; but it were unfair to form any general conclusion from these particular instances. Besides, there are examples of boroughs petitioning to be restored to the use of the privilege of sending members to Par liament, after a very long interruption.