BOROUGH. 



737 



Borough, degradation in which they had hitherto existed, and 

 ' v' ' at length to exert an influence on the affairs of go- 

 vernment. SonK oi 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 11th century. In 

 France, Louis the Fat, who commenced his reign in 

 1 10S, 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 

 liis example. The greater part 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 

 Wittenagemote : 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 



VOL. III. PART IV. 



among the Anglo- Saxons, the meadow near Staines, Borough, 

 in which King John granted the great charter, being w~ 



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 hy- 

 pothesis, too, the right of the barons to sit in Parlia- 

 ment arose wholly from their tenures, and not from 

 anyjtrust 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, 

 hainshirc, 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, 

 el 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 ea- 

 4 7. 



