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}