Chapter XXI: Attempts at Popular Government

_The Cost of Popular Government_.--The early forms of government were for the most part based upon hereditary authority or upon force. The theories of government first advanced seldom had reference to the rule of the popular will. The practice of civil affairs, enforcing theories of hereditary government or the rule of force, interfered with the rights of self-government of the people. Hence every attempt to assume popular government was a struggle against old systems and old ideas. Freedom has been purchased by money or blood. Men point with interest to the early assemblies of the Teutonic people to show the germs of democratic government, afterward to be overshadowed by imperialism, but a careful consideration would show that even this early stage of pure democracy was only a developed state from the earlier hereditary nobility. The Goddess of Liberty is ideally a creature of beautiful form, but really her face is scarred and worn, her figure gnarled and warped with time, and her garments besprinkled with blood. The selfishness of man, the struggle for survival, and the momentum of governmental machinery, have prevented the exercise of justice and of political equality.

The liberty that has been gained is an expensive luxury. It has cost those who have tried to gain it the treasures of accumulated wealth and the flower of youth. When it has once been gained, the social forces have rendered the popular will non-expressive of the best government. Popular government, although ideally correct, is difficult to approximate, and frequently when obtained in name is far from real attainment. After long oppression and subservience to monarchy or aristocracy, when the people, suddenly gaining power through great expense of treasure and blood, assume self-government, they find to their distress that they are incapable of it when {329} struggling against unfavorable conditions. The result is a mismanaged government and an extra expense to the people. There has been through many centuries a continual struggle for popular government. The end of each conflict has seen something gained, yet the final solution of the problem has not been reached. Nevertheless, imperfect as government by the people may be, it is, in the long run, the safest and best, and it undoubtedly will triumph in the end. The democratic government of great nations is the most difficult of all forms to maintain, and it is only through the increased wisdom of the people that its final success may be achieved. The great problem now confronting it arises from purely economic considerations.

_The Feudal Lord and the Towns_.--Feudalism made its stronghold in country life. The baronial castle was built away from cities and towns--in a locality favorable for defense. This increased the importance of country life to a great extent, and placed the feudal lord in command of large tracts of territory. Many of the cities and towns were for a time accorded the municipal privileges that had been granted them under Roman rule; but in time these wore away, and the towns, with a few exceptions, became included in large feudal tracts, and were held, with other territory, as feudatories. In Italy, where feudalism was less powerful, the greater barons were obliged to build their castles in the towns, or, indeed, to unite with the towns in government. But in France and Germany, and even to a certain extent in England, the feudal lord kept aloof from the town.

There was, consequently, no sympathy existing between the feudal lord and the people of the cities. It was his privilege to collect feudal dues and aids from the cities, and beyond this he cared nothing for their welfare. It became his duty and privilege to hold the baronial court in the towns at intervals and to regulate their internal affairs, but he did this through a subordinate, and troubled himself little about any regulation or administration except to further his own ends.

{330}

_The Rise of Free Cities_.--Many of the towns were practically run by the surviving machinery of the old Roman municipal system, while many were practically without government except the overlordship of the feudal chief by his representative officer. The Romans had established a complete system of municipal government in all their provinces. Each town or city of any importance had a complete municipal machinery copied after the government of the imperial city. When the Roman system began to decay, the central government failed first, and the towns found themselves severed from any central imperial government, yet in possession of machinery for local self-government. When the barbarians invaded the Roman territory, and, avoiding the towns, settled in the country, the towns fell into the habit of managing their own affairs as far as feudal regime would permit.

It appears, therefore, that the first attempts at local self-government were made in the cities and towns. In fact, liberty of government was preserved in the towns, through the old Roman municipal life, which lived on, and, being shorn of the imperial idea, took on the spirit of Roman republicanism. It was thus that the principles of Roman municipal government were kept through the Middle Ages and became useful in the modern period, not only in developing independent nationality but in perpetuating the rights of a people to govern themselves.

The people of the towns organized themselves into municipal guilds to withstand the encroachments of the barons on their rights and privileges. This gave a continued coherence to the city population, which it would not otherwise have had or perpetuated. In thus perpetuating the idea of self-government, this cohesive organization, infused with a common sentiment of defense, made it possible to wrest liberty from the feudal baron. When he desired to obtain money or supplies in order to carry on a war, or to meet other expenditures, he found it convenient to levy on the cities for this purpose. His exactions, coming frequently and irregularly, aroused the {331} citizens to opposition. A bloody struggle ensued, which usually ended in compromise and the purchase of liberty by the citizens by the payment of an annual tax to the feudal lord for permission to govern themselves in regard to all internal affairs. It was thus that many of the cities gained their independence of feudal authority, and that some, in the rise of national life, gained their independence as separate states, such, for instance, as Hamburg, Venice, Luebeck, and Bremen.

_The Struggle for Independence_.--In this struggle for independent life the cities first strove for just treatment. In many instances this was accorded the citizens, and their friendly relations with the feudal lord continued. When monarchy arose through the overpowering influence of some feudal lord, the city remained in subjection to the king, but in most instances the free burgesses of the towns were accorded due representation in the public assembly wherever one existed. Many cities, failing to get justice, struggled with more or less success for independence. The result of the whole contest was to develop the right of self-government and finally to preserve the principle of representation. It was under these conditions that the theory of "taxation without representation is tyranny" was developed. A practical outcome of this struggle for freedom has been the converse of this principle--namely, that representation without taxation is impossible. Taxation, therefore, is the badge of liberty--of a liberty obtained through blood and treasure.

_The Affranchisement of Cities Developed Municipal Organization_.--The effect of the affranchisement of cities was to develop an internal organization, usually on the representative plan. There was not, as a rule, a pure democracy, for the influences of the Roman system and the feudal surroundings, rapidly tending toward monarchy, rendered it impossible that the citizens of the so-called free cities should have the privileges of a pure democracy, hence the representative plan prevailed. There was not sufficient unity of purpose, nor common sentiment of the ideal government, sufficient to maintain {332} permanently the principles and practice of popular government. Yet there was a popular assembly, in which the voice of the people was manifested in the election of magistrates, the voting of taxes, and the declaration of war. In the mediaeval period, however, the municipal government was, in its real character, a business corporation, and the business affairs of the town were uppermost after defense against external forces was secured, hence it occurred that the wealthy merchants and the nobles who dwelt within the town became the most influential citizens in the management of municipal affairs.

There sprang up, as an essential outcome of these conditions, an aristocracy within the city. In many instances this aristocracy was reduced to an oligarchy, and the town was controlled by a few men; and in extreme cases the control fell into the hands of a tyrant, who for a time dominated the affairs of the town. Whatever the form of the municipal government, the liberties of the people were little more than a mere name, recognized as a right not to be denied. Having obtained their independence of foreign powers, the towns fell victims to internal tyranny, yet they were the means of preserving to the world the principles of local self-government, even though they were not permitted to enjoy to a great extent the privileges of exercising them. It remained for more favorable circumstances to make this possible.

_The Italian Cities_.--The first cities to become prominent after the perpetuation of the Roman system by the introduction of barbarian blood were those of northern Italy. These cities were less influenced by the barbarian invasion than others, on account of, first, their substantial city organization; second, the comparatively small number of invaders that surrounded them; and, third, the opportunity for trade presented by the crusades, which they eagerly seized. Their power was increased because, as stated above, the feudal nobility, unable to maintain their position in the country, were forced to live in the cities. The Italian cities were, therefore, less interfered with by barbarian and feudal influences, and continued to {333} develop strength. The opportunity for immense trade and commerce opened up through the crusades made them wealthy. Another potent cause of the rapid advancement of the Italian cities was their early contact with the Greeks and the Saracens, for they imbibed the culture of these peoples, which stimulated their own culture and learning. Also, the invasions of the Saracens on the south and of the Hungarians on the north caused them to strengthen their fortifications. They enclosed their towns with walls, and thus made opportunity for the formation of small, independent states within the walls.

Comparatively little is known of the practice of popular government, although most of these cities were in the beginning republican and had popular elections. In the twelfth century freedom was granted, in most instances, to the peasantry. There were a parliament, a republican constitution, and a secret council (_credenza_) that assisted the consuls. There was also a great council called a senate, consisting of about a hundred representatives of the people. The chief duty of the senate was to discuss important public measures and refer them to the parliament for their approval. In this respect it resembled the Greek senate (_boule_). The secret council superintended the public works and administered the public finance. These forms of government were not in universal use, but are as nearly typical as can be found, as the cities varied much in governmental practice. It is easy to see that the framework of the government is Roman, while the spirit of the institutions, especially in the earlier part of their history, is affected by Teutonic influence. There was a large number of these free towns in Italy from the close of the twelfth to the beginning of the fourteenth century. At the close of this period, the republican phase of their government declined, and each was ruled by a succession of tyrants, or despots (_podestas_).

In vain did the people attempt to regain their former privileges; they succeeded only in introducing a new kind of despotism in the captains of the people. The cities had fallen {334} into the control of the wealthy families, and it mattered not what was the form of government, despotism prevailed. In many of the cities the excessive power of the despots made their reign a prolonged terror. As long as enlightened absolutism prevailed, government was administered by upright rulers and judges in the interests of the people; but when the power fell into the hands of unscrupulous men, the privileges and rights of the people were lost. It is said that absolutism, descending from father to son, never improves in the descent; in the case of some of the Italian cities it produced monsters. As the historian says: "The last Visconti, the last La Scalas, the last Sforzas, the last Farnesi, the last Medici--magnificent promoters of the humanities as their ancestors had been--were the worst specimens of the human race." The situation of government was partially relieved by the introduction at a later period of the trade guilds. All the industrial elements were organized into guilds, each one of which had its representation in the government. This was of service to the people, but nothing could erase the blot of despotism.

The despots were of different classes, according to the method by which they obtained power. First, there were nobles, who were representatives of the emperor, and governed parts of Lombardy while it was under the federated government, a position which enabled them to obtain power as captains of the people. Again, there were some who held feudal rights over towns and by this means became rulers or captains. There were others who, having been raised to office by the popular vote, had in turn used the office as a means to enslave the people and defeat the popular will. The popes, also, appointed their nephews and friends to office and by this means obtained supremacy. Merchant princes, who had become wealthy, used their money to obtain and hold power. Finally, there were the famous _condottieri_, who captured towns and made them principalities. Into the hands of such classes as these the rights and privileges of the people were continually falling, and the result was disastrous to free government.

{335}

_Government of Venice_.--Florence and Venice represent the two typical towns of the group of Italian cities. Wealthy, populous, and aggressive, they represent the greatest power, the highest intellectual development, becoming cities of culture and learning. In 1494 the inhabitants of Florence numbered 90,000, of whom only 3,200 were burghers, or full citizens, while Venice had 100,000 inhabitants and only 5,000 burghers. This shows what a low state popular government had reached--only one inhabitant in twenty was allowed the rights of citizens.

Venice was established on the islands and morasses of the Adriatic Coast by a few remnants of the Beneti, who sought refuge upon them from the ravages of the Huns. These people were early engaged in fishing, and later began a coast trade which, in time, enlarged into an extensive commerce. In early times it had a municipal constitution, and the little villages had their own assemblies, discussed their own affairs, and elected their own magistrates. Occasionally the representatives of the several tribal villages met to discuss the affairs of the whole city. This led to a central government, which, in 697 A.D., elected a doge for life. The doges possessed most of the attributes of kings, became despotic and arbitrary, and finally ruled with absolute sway, so that the destinies of the republic were subjected to the rule of one man. Aristocracy established itself, and the first families struggled for supremacy.

Venice was the oldest republic of modern times, and continued the longest. "It was older by 700 years than the Lombard republics, and it survived them for three centuries. It witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire; it saw Italy occupied by Odoacer, by Charlemagne, and by Napoleon." Its material prosperity was very great, and great buildings remain to this day as monuments of an art and architecture the foundations of which were mostly laid before the despots were at the height of their power.

_Government of Florence_.--There was a resemblance between Florence and Athens. Indeed, the former has been called the {336} Athens of the West, for in it the old Greek idea was first revived; in it the love for the artistic survived. Both cities were devoted to the accumulating of wealth, and both were interested in the struggles over freedom and general politics. Situated in the valley of the Arno, under the shadow of the Apennines, Florence lacked the charm of Venice, situated on the sea. It was early conquered by Sulla and made into a military city of the Romans, and by a truce the Roman government and the Roman spirit prevailed in the city. It was destroyed by the Goths and rebuilt by the Franks, but still retained the Roman spirit. It was then a city of considerable importance, surrounded by a wall six miles in circumference, having seventy towers.

After it was rebuilt, the city was governed by a senate, but finally the first families predominated. Then there arose, in 1215, the great struggle between the papal and the imperial parties, the Ghibellines and the Guelphs--internal dissensions which were not quieted until these two opposing factions were driven out and a popular government established, with twelve _seignors_, or rulers, as the chief officers. Soon after this the art guilds obtained considerable power. They elected _priors_ of trades every two months. At first there were seven guilds that held control in Florence; they were the lawyers, who were excluded from all offices, the physicians, the bankers, the mercers, the woollen-drapers, the dealers in foreign cloths, and the dealers in pelts from the north. Subsequently, men following the baser arts--butchers, retailers of cloth, blacksmiths, bakers, shoemakers, builders--were admitted to the circle of arts, until there were twenty-one.

After having a general representative council, it was finally (1266) determined that each of the seven greater arts should have a council of its own. The next step in government was the appointment of a _gonfalconier_ of justice by the companies of arts that had especial command of citizens. But soon a struggle began between the commons and the nobility, in which for a long time the former were successful. Under the {337} leadership of Giano della Bella they enacted ordinances of justice destroying the power of the nobles, making them ineligible to the office of _prior_, and fining each noble 13,000 pounds for any offense against the law. The testimony of two credible persons was sufficient to convict a person if their testimony agreed; hence it became easy to convict persons of noble blood. Yet the commons were in the end obliged to succumb to the power of the nobility and aristocracy, and the light of popular government went out.

_The Lombard League_.--The Lombard cities of the north of Italy were established subsequent to the invasion of the Lombards, chiefly through the peculiar settlement of the Lombard dukes over different territories in a loose confederation. But the Lombards found cities already existing, and became the feudal proprietors of these and the territory. There were many attempts to unite these cities into a strong confederation, but owing to the nature of the feudal system and the general independence and selfishness of each separate city, they proved futile. We find here the same desire for local self-government that existed in the Greek cities, the indulgence of which was highly detrimental to their interests in time of invasion or pressure from external power. There were selfishness and rivalry between all these cities, not only in the attempt to outdo each other in political power, but by reason of commercial jealousy. "Venice first, Christians next, and Italy afterward" was the celebrated maxim of Venice.

To the distressing causes which kept the towns apart, the strife between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines increased the trouble. Nor had the pope any desire to see a strong, unified government so near him. In those days popes were usually not honored in their own country, and, moreover, had enough to do to control their refractory subjects to the north of the Alps. Unity was impossible among cities so blindly and selfishly opposed to one another, and it was, besides, especially prevented by jealous sovereigns from without, who wished rather to see these cities acting independently and separately {338} than effectively, in a strong, united government. Under these circumstances it was impossible there should be a strong and unified government; yet, could they have been properly utilized, all the materials were at hand for developing a national life which would have withstood the shock of opposing nationalities through centuries. The attempt to make a great confederation, a representative republic, failed, however, and with it failed the real hopes of republicanism in Italy.

_The Rise of Popular Assemblies in France_.--In the early history of France, while feudalism yet prevailed, it became customary for the provinces to have their popular assemblies. These assemblies usually were composed of all classes of the people, and probably had their origin in the calls made by feudal lords to unite all those persons within their feudatories who might have something to say respecting the administration of the government and the law. In them the three estates were assembled--the clergy, the nobility, and the commons. Many of these old provincial assemblies continued for a long time, for instance, in Brittany and Languedoc, where they remained until the period of the revolution.

It appears that every one of these provinces had its own provincial assembly, and a few of these assemblies survived until modern times, so that we know somewhat of their nature. Although their powers were very much curtailed on the rise of monarchy, especially in the time of the Louis's, yet the provinces in which they continued had advantages over those provinces which had lost the provincial assemblies. They had purchased of the crown the privilege of collecting all taxes demanded by the central government, and they retained the right to tax themselves for the expenses of their local administration and to carry on improvements, such as roads and water-courses, without any administration of the central government. Notwithstanding much restriction upon their power within their own domain, they moved with a certain freedom which other provinces did not possess.

_Rural Communes Arose in France_.--Although feudalism had prevailed over the entire country, there was a continual growth {339} of local self-government at the time when feudalism was gradually passing into monarchial power. It was to the interest of the kings to favor somewhat the development of local self-government, especially the development of the cities while the struggle for dominion over feudalism was going on; but when the kings had once obtained power they found themselves confronted with the uprising spirit of local government. The struggle between king and people went on for some centuries, until the time when everything ran to monarchy and all the rights of the people were wrested from them; indeed, the perfection of the centralized government of the French monarch left no opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard.

The rural communes existed by rights obtained from feudal lords who had granted them charters and given them self-government over a certain territory. These charters allowed the inhabitants of a commune to regulate citizenship and the administration of property, and to define feudal rights and duties. Their organ of government was a general assembly of all the inhabitants, which either regulated the affairs of a commune directly or else delegated especial functions to communal officers who had power to execute laws already passed or to convoke the general assembly of the people on new affairs. The collection of taxes for both the central and the local government, the management of the property of the commune, and the direction of the police system represented the chief powers of the commune. The exercise of these privileges led into insistence upon the right of every man, whether peasant, freeman, or noble, to be tried by his peers.

_The Municipalities of France_.--As elsewhere related, the barbarians found the cities and towns of France well advanced in their own municipal system. This system they modified but little, only giving somewhat of the spirit of political freedom. In the struggle waged later against the feudal nobility these towns gradually obtained their rights, by purchase or agreement, and became self-governing. In this struggle we find the Christian church, represented by the bishop, always arraying itself on the side of the commons against the nobility, {340} and thus establishing democracy. Among the municipal privileges which were wrested from the nobility was included the right to make all laws that might concern the people; to raise their own taxes, both local and for the central government; to administer justice in their own way, and to manage their own police system. The relations of the municipality to the central government or the feudal lord forced them to pay a certain tribute, which gave them a legal right to manage themselves.

Their pathway was not always smooth, however, but, on the contrary, full of contention and struggle against overbearing lords who sought to usurp authority. Their internal management generally consisted of two assemblies--one a general assembly of citizens, in which they were all well represented, the other an assembly of notables. The former elected the magistrates, and performed all legislative actions; the latter acted as a sort of advisory council to assist the magistrates. Sometimes the cities had but one assembly of citizens, which merely elected magistrates and exercised supervision over them. The magistracy generally consisted of aldermen, presided over by a mayor, and acted as a general executive council for the city.

Municipal freedom gradually declined through adverse circumstances. Within the city limits tyranny, aristocracy, or oligarchy sometimes prevailed, wresting from the people the rights which they had purchased or fought for. Without was the pressure of the feudal lord, which gradually passed into the general fight of the king for royal supremacy. The king, it is true, found the towns very strong allies in his struggle against the nobility. They too had commenced a struggle against the feudal lords, and there was a common bond of sympathy between them. But when the feudal lords were once mastered, the king must turn his attention to reducing the liberties of the people, and gradually, through the influence of monarchy and centralization of government, the rights and privileges of the people of the towns of France passed away.

{341}

_The States-General Was the First Central Organization_.--It ought to be mentioned here that after the monarchy was moderately well established, Philip the Fair (1285-1314) called the representatives of the nation together. He called in the burghers of the towns, the nobility, and the clergy and formed a parliament for the discussion of the affairs of the realm. It appeared that the constitutional development which began so early in England was about to obtain in France. But it was not to be realized, for in the three centuries that followed--namely, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth--the monarchs of France managed to keep this body barely in existence, without giving it any real power. When the king was secure upon his throne and imperialism had received its full power, the nobility, the clergy, and the commons were no longer needed to support the throne of France, and, consequently, the will of the people was not consulted. It is true that each estate of nobility, clergy, and commons met separately from time to time and made out its own particular grievances to the king, but the representative power of the people passed away and was not revived again until, on the eve of the revolution, Louis XVI, shaken with terror, once more called together the three estates in the last representative body held before the political deluge burst upon the French nation.

_Failure of Attempts at Popular Government in Spain_.--There are signs of popular representation in Spain at a very early date, through the independent towns. This representation was never universal or regular. Many of the early towns had charter rights which they claimed as ancient privileges granted by the Roman government. These cities were represented for a time in the popular assembly, or Cortes, but under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Cortes were seldom called, and when they were, it was for the advantage of the sovereign rather than of the people. Many attempts were made in Spain, from time to time, to fan into flame this enthusiasm for popular representation, but the predominance of monarchy and the dogmatic centralized power of the church tended to {342} repress all real liberty. Even in these later days sudden bursts of enthusiasm for constitutional liberty and constitutional privilege are heard from the southern peninsula; but the transition into monarchy was so sudden that the rights of the people were forever curtailed. The frequent outbursts for liberty and popular government came from the centres where persisted the ideas of freedom planted by the northern barbarians.

_Democracy in the Swiss Cantons_.--It is the boast of some of the rural districts of Switzerland, that they never submitted to the feudal regime, that they have never worn the yoke of bondage, and, indeed, that they were never conquered. It is probable that several of the rural communes of Switzerland have never known anything other than a free peasantry. They have continually practised the pure democracy exemplified by the entire body of citizens meeting in the open field to make the laws and to elect their officers. Although it is true that in these rural communities of Switzerland freedom has been a continuous quantity, yet during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Switzerland, as a whole, was dominated by feudalism. This feudalism differed somewhat from the French feudalism, for it represented a sort of overlordship of absentee feudal chiefs, which, leaving the people more to themselves, made vassalage less irksome.

At the beginning of the fourteenth century, in the year 1309, the cantons, Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden, lying near Lake Lucerne, gained, through the emperor, Henry VII, the recognition of their independence in all things except allegiance to the empire. Each of these small states had its own government, varying somewhat from that of its neighbors. Yet the rural cantons evinced a strong spirit of pure democracy, for they had already, about half a century previous, formed themselves into a league which proved the germ of confederacy, which perpetuated republican institutions in the Middle Ages. The spirit of freedom prevailing throughout diverse communities brought the remainder of the Swiss cantons into the confederation.

{343}

The first liberties possessed by the various cantons were indigenous to the soil. From time immemorial they had clung to the ancient right of self-government, and had developed in their midst a local system which feudalism never succeeded in eradicating. It mattered not how diverse their systems of local government, they had a common cause against feudal domination, and this brought them into a close union in the attempt to throw off such domination. It is one of the remarkable phenomena of political history, that proud, aristocratic cities with monarchial tendencies could be united with humble and rude communes which held expressly to pure democracy. It is but another illustration of the truth that a particular form of government is not necessary to the development of liberty, but it is the spirit, bravery, independence, and unity of the people that make democracy possible. Another important truth, also, is illustrated here--that Italian, German, and French people who respect each other's liberty and have a common cause may dwell together on a basis of unity and mutual support.

Switzerland stands, then, for the perpetuation of the early local liberties of the people. It has always been the synonym of freedom and the haven of refuge for the politically oppressed of all nations, and its freedom has always had a tendency to advance civilization, not only within the boundaries of the Swiss government, but throughout all Europe. Progressive ideas of religion and education have ever accompanied liberty in political affairs. The long struggle with the feudal lords and the monarchs of European governments, and with the Emperor of Germany, united the Swiss people on a basis of common interests and developed a spirit of independence. At the same time, it had a tendency to warp their judgments respecting the religious rights and liberties of a people, and more than once the Swiss have shown how narrow in conception of government a republic can be. Yet, upon the whole, it must be conceded that the watch-fires of liberty have never been extinguished in Switzerland, and that the light they {344} have shed has illumined many dark places in Europe and America.

_The Ascendancy of Monarchy_.--Outside of Switzerland the faint beginning of popular representation was gradually overcome by the ascendancy of monarchy. Feudalism, after its decline, was rapidly followed by the development of monarchy throughout Europe. The centralization of power became a universal principle, uniting in one individual the government of an entire nation. It was an expression of unity, and was essential to the redemption of Europe from the chaotic state in which it had been left by declining feudalism.

Monarchy is not necessarily the rule of a single individual. It may be merely the proclamation of the will of the people through one man, the expression of the voice of the people from a single point. Of all forms of government a monarchy is best adapted to a nation or people needing a strong central government able to act with precision and power. As illustrative of this, it is a noteworthy fact that the old Lombard league of confederated states could get along very well until threatened with foreign invasion; then they needed a king. The Roman republic, with consuls and senate, moved on very well in times of peace, but in times of war it was necessary to have a dictator, whose voice should have the authority of law. The President of the United States is commander-in-chief of the army, which position in time of war gives him a power almost resembling imperialism. Could Greece have presented against her invaders a strong monarchy which could unite all her heroes in one common command, her enemies would not so easily have prevailed against her.

Monarchy, then, in the development of European life seemed merely a stage of progress not unlike that of feudalism itself--a stage of progressive government; and it was only when it was carried to a ridiculous extreme in France and in England--in France under the Louis's and in England under the Stuarts--that it finally appeared detrimental to the highest interests of the people. On the other hand, the weak {345} republicanism of the Middle Ages had not sufficient unity or sufficient aggressiveness to maintain itself, and gave way to what was then a form of government better adapted to conditions and surroundings. But the fires of liberty, having been once lighted, were to burst forth again in a later period and burn with sufficient heat to purify the governments of the world.

_Beginning of Constitutional Liberty in England_.--When the Normans entered England, feudalism was in its infancy and wanted yet the form of the Roman system. The kings of the English people soon became the kings of England, and the feudal system spread over the entire island. But this feudalism was already in the grasp of monarchy which prevailed much more easily in England than in France. There came a time in England, as elsewhere, when the people, seeking their liberties, were to be united with the king to suppress the feudal nobility, and there sprang up at this time some elements of popular representative government, most plainly visible in the parliament of Simon de Montfort (1265) and the "perfect parliament" of 1295, the first under the reign of Henry III, and the second under Edward I. In one or two instances prior to this, county representation was summoned in parliament in order to facilitate the method of assessing and collecting taxes, but these two parliaments marked the real beginnings of constitutional liberty in England, so far as local representation is concerned.

Prior to this, in 1215, the nobles and the commons, working together, had wrested the concession of the great _Magna Charta_ from King John, and thus had established a precedent of the right of each class of individuals to have its share in the government of the realm; under its declaration king, nobility, and commons, each a check upon the other, each struggling for power, and all developing through the succeeding generations the liberty of the people under the constitution. This long, slow process of development, reminding one somewhat of the struggle of the plebeians of Rome against the patricians, {346} finally made the lower house of parliament, which represents the people of the realm, the most prominent factor in the government of the English people--and at last, without a cataclysm like the French Revolution, established liberty of speech, popular representation, and religious liberty.

We find, then, that in England and in other parts of Europe a liberalizing tendency set in after monarchy had been established and become predominant, which limited the actions of kings and declared for the liberties of the people. Imperialism in monarchy was limited by the constitution of the people. England laid the foundations of democracy in recognizing the rights of representation of all classes.

SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. What phases of popular government are to be noted in the Italian cities?

2. What is the relation of "enlightened absolutism" to social progress?

3. The characteristics of mediaeval guilds.

4. Why were the guilds discontinued?

5. The rise and decline of popular assemblies and rural communes of France.

6. The nature of the government of the Swiss cantons.

7. The transition from feudalism to monarchy.

8. In what ways was the idea of popular government perpetuated in Europe?

{347}