The Growth of Cities and Towns After Rome's Fall

The inhabitants of cities and towns were, after the fall of the Roman empire, not more favoured than those of the country. They consisted, indeed, of a very different order of people from the first inhabitants of the ancient republics of Greece and Italy. These last were composed chiefly of the proprietors of lands, among whom the public territory was originally divided, and who found it convenient to build their houses in the neighbourhood of one another, and to surround them with a wall, for the sake of common defence. After the fall of the Roman empire, on the contrary, the proprietors of land seem generally to have lived in fortified castles on their own estates, and in the midst of their own tenants and dependants. The towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who seem, in those days, to have been of servile, or very nearly of servile condition. The privileges which we find granted by ancient charters to the inhabitants of some of the principal towns in Europe, sufficiently show what they were before those grants. The people to whom it is granted as a privilege, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage without the consent of their lord, that upon their death their own children, and not their lord, should succeed to their goods, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, must, before those grants, have been either altogether, or very nearly, in the same state of villanage with the occupiers of land in the country.

After the fall of the Roman empire, people in cities and towns were no better off than those in the countryside. They were, indeed, a very different kind of people from the first inhabitants of the ancient republics of Greece and Italy. Those first inhabitants were chiefly landowners, among whom the public land had originally been divided. They found it convenient to build their houses near one another and surround them with a wall for common defence. After the fall of the Roman empire, by contrast, landowners generally seem to have lived in fortified castles on their own estates. There they lived among their tenants and dependants. Towns were inhabited chiefly by tradespeople and craftspeople. In those days, they seem to have been serfs, or to have lived in nearly the same condition as serfs. The privileges granted by old charters to the inhabitants of some major European towns clearly show their earlier condition. These people were granted the privilege of giving their daughters in marriage without their lord's consent. They were also granted the right to leave their goods to their children, rather than their lord, when they died. And they could dispose of their property by will. Before these grants, they must have been in the same state of serfdom as those who occupied land in the countryside, or very nearly so.

They seem, indeed, to have been a very poor, mean set of people, who seemed to travel about with their goods from place to place, and from fair to fair, like the hawkers and pedlars of the present times. In all the different countries of Europe then, in the same manner as in several of the Tartar governments of Asia at present, taxes used to be levied upon the persons and goods of travellers, when they passed through certain manors, when they went over certain bridges, when they carried about their goods from place to place in a fair, when they erected in it a booth or stall to sell them in. These different taxes were known in England by the names of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage. Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord, who had, it seems, upon some occasions, authority to do this, would grant to particular traders, to such particularly as lived in their own demesnes, a general exemption from such taxes. Such traders, though in other respects of servile, or very nearly of servile condition, were upon this account called free traders. They, in return, usually paid to their protector a sort of annual poll-tax. In those days protection was seldom granted without a valuable consideration, and this tax might perhaps be considered as compensation for what their patrons might lose by their exemption from other taxes. At first, both those poll-taxes and those exemptions seem to have been altogether personal, and to have affected only particular individuals, during either their lives, or the pleasure of their protectors. In the very imperfect accounts which have been published from Doomsday-book, of several of the towns of England, mention is frequently made, sometimes of the tax which particular burghers paid, each of them, either to the king, or to some other great lord, for this sort of protection, and sometimes of the general amount only of all those taxes. {see Brady’s Historical Treatise of Cities and Boroughs, p. 3. etc.}

They seem, indeed, to have been a very poor, lowly group. They apparently traveled with their goods from place to place and from fair to fair, like today’s hawkers and peddlers. In those days, taxes were levied on travelers and their goods throughout Europe, just as they now are under several Tartar governments in Asia. Travelers paid taxes when passing through certain manors or crossing certain bridges. They also paid when carrying goods around a fair or setting up a booth or stall there to sell them. In England, these taxes were called passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage. Sometimes the king granted particular traders a general exemption from these taxes. Sometimes a great lord did so, as he apparently had the authority to do on certain occasions. They granted exemptions especially to traders who lived on their own estates. Though these traders were otherwise in a servile or nearly servile condition, they were called free traders because of their exemption. In return, they usually paid their protector a kind of annual poll tax. In those days, protection was seldom granted without valuable payment. This tax might perhaps be seen as compensation for what their patrons might lose through the traders’ exemption from other taxes. At first, both the poll taxes and the exemptions seem to have been entirely personal. They affected only particular individuals, either for life or for as long as their protectors wished. Published accounts from Doomsday-book of several English towns are very incomplete. Yet they frequently mention either the tax each burgher paid to the king or another great lord for such protection, or only the total amount of all these taxes. {see Brady’s Historical Treatise of Cities and Boroughs, p. 3. etc.}

But how servile soever may have been originally the condition of the inhabitants of the towns, it appears evidently, that they arrived at liberty and independency much earlier than the occupiers of land in the country. That part of the king’s revenue which arose from such poll-taxes in any particular town, used commonly to be let in farm, during a term of years, for a rent certain, sometimes to the sheriff of the county, and sometimes to other persons. The burghers themselves frequently got credit enough to be admitted to farm the revenues of this sort which arose out of their own town, they becoming jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent. {See Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 18; also History of the Exchequer, chap. 10, sect. v, p. 223, first edition.} To let a farm in this manner, was quite agreeable to the usual economy of, I believe, the sovereigns of all the different countries of Europe, who used frequently to let whole manors to all the tenants of those manors, they becoming jointly and severally answerable for the whole rent; but in return being allowed to collect it in their own way, and to pay it into the king’s exchequer by the hands of their own bailiff, and being thus altogether freed from the insolence of the king’s officers; a circumstance in those days regarded as of the greatest importance.

However dependent the original condition of town inhabitants may have been, they clearly gained freedom and independence much earlier than the occupiers of land in the countryside. The king’s revenue from poll taxes in a particular town was commonly leased out for a fixed rent for a term of years. Sometimes the lease went to the county sheriff, and sometimes to others. The townspeople themselves often gained enough credit to be allowed to lease this revenue from their own town. They became jointly and individually responsible for the entire rent. {See Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 18; also History of the Exchequer, chap. 10, sect. v, p. 223, first edition.} Leasing revenue in this way was entirely consistent with the usual practice of European sovereigns, I believe, in all the different countries. They frequently leased whole manors to all their tenants. The tenants became jointly and individually responsible for the entire rent. In return, they were allowed to collect it in their own way and pay it into the king’s treasury through their own bailiff. They were thus freed altogether from the insolence of the king’s officers. In those days, this freedom was regarded as extremely important.

At first, the farm of the town was probably let to the burghers, in the same manner as it had been to other farmers, for a term of years only. In process of time, however, it seems to have become the general practice to grant it to them in fee, that is for ever, reserving a rent certain, never afterwards to be augmented. The payment having thus become perpetual, the exemptions, in return, for which it was made, naturally became perpetual too. Those exemptions, therefore, ceased to be personal, and could not afterwards be considered as belonging to individuals, as individuals, but as burghers of a particular burgh, which, upon this account, was called a free burgh, for the same reason that they had been called free burghers or free traders.

At first, the town’s farm was probably leased to the burghers for only a term of years, as it had been to other farmers. Over time, however, the usual practice seems to have been to grant it to them in fee, or forever. They paid a fixed rent that could never be increased. Since the payment had become permanent, the exemptions granted in return naturally became permanent too. Those exemptions were therefore no longer personal. They could no longer be seen as belonging to people as individuals, but as burghers of a particular burgh. For this reason, the burgh was called a free burgh, just as they had been called free burghers or free traders.

Along with this grant, the important privileges, above mentioned, that they might give away their own daughters in marriage, that their children should succeed to them, and that they might dispose of their own effects by will, were generally bestowed upon the burghers of the town to whom it was given. Whether such privileges had before been usually granted, along with the freedom of trade, to particular burghers, as individuals, I know not. I reckon it not improbable that they were, though I cannot produce any direct evidence of it. But however this may have been, the principal attributes of villanage and slavery being thus taken away from them, they now at least became really free, in our present sense of the word freedom.

Along with this grant, the townspeople who received it were generally given the important privileges mentioned above. They could give their daughters in marriage, pass their property on to their children, and leave their belongings by will. I do not know whether these privileges had usually been granted before to individual townspeople, along with freedom of trade. I think they probably had been, though I cannot provide direct evidence of it. But whatever the case, the main marks of serfdom and slavery had now been removed. The townspeople had at last become truly free, in our present sense of the word.

Nor was this all. They were generally at the same time erected into a commonalty or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates and a town-council of their own, of making bye-laws for their own government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, by obliging them to watch and ward; that is, as anciently understood, to guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises, by night as well as by day. In England they were generally exempted from suit to the hundred and county courts: and all such pleas as should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left to the decision of their own magistrates. In other countries, much greater and more extensive jurisdictions were frequently granted to them. {See Madox, Firma Burgi. See also Pfeffel in the Remarkable events under Frederick II. and his Successors of the House of Suabia.}

Nor was this all. They were generally also established as a self-governing community or corporation. They gained the right to have their own magistrates and town council, make bylaws, and build defensive walls. They could also place all their inhabitants under a kind of military discipline by requiring them to keep watch and guard. In the old sense, this meant guarding and defending the walls against all attacks and surprise assaults, by night and day. In England, they were generally exempt from the authority of the hundred and county courts. Their own magistrates decided all disputes arising among them, except cases involving the crown. In other countries, they were often granted much greater and wider legal authority. {See Madox, Firma Burgi. See also Pfeffel on the remarkable events under Frederick II. and his successors of the House of Suabia.}

It might, probably, be necessary to grant to such towns as were admitted to farm their own revenues, some sort of compulsive jurisdiction to oblige their own citizens to make payment. In those disorderly times, it might have been extremely inconvenient to have left them to seek this sort of justice from any other tribunal. But it must seem extraordinary, that the sovereigns of all the different countries of Europe should have exchanged in this manner for a rent certain, never more to be augmented, that branch of their revenue, which was, perhaps, of all others, the most likely to be improved by the natural course of things, without either expense or attention of their own; and that they should, besides, have in this manner voluntarily erected a sort of independent republics in the heart of their own dominions.

Towns allowed to collect their own revenues probably needed some power to compel their citizens to pay. In those disorderly times, it might have been extremely inconvenient to seek such justice from another court. But it must seem extraordinary that sovereigns across Europe exchanged this source of revenue for a fixed rent that would never increase. Perhaps more than any other source of revenue, it was likely to grow naturally, without any expense or attention on their part. It is also extraordinary that, in doing so, they voluntarily established a kind of independent republic within the heart of their own territories.

In order to understand this, it must be remembered, that, in those days, the sovereign of perhaps no country in Europe was able to protect, through the whole extent of his dominions, the weaker part of his subjects from the oppression of the great lords. Those whom the law could not protect, and who were not strong enough to defend themselves, were obliged either to have recourse to the protection of some great lord, and in order to obtain it, to become either his slaves or vassals; or to enter into a league of mutual defence for the common protection of one another. The inhabitants of cities and burghs, considered as single individuals, had no power to defend themselves; but by entering into a league of mutual defence with their neighbours, they were capable of making no contemptible resistance. The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not only as a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from themselves. The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and they plundered them upon every occasion without mercy or remorse. The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords. The king hated and feared them too; but though, perhaps, he might despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers. Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king to support them against the lords. They were the enemies of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and independent of those enemies as he could. By granting them magistrates of their own, the privilege of making bye-laws for their own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency of the barons which it was in his power to bestow. Without the establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could either have afforded them any permanent security, or have enabled them to give the king any considerable support. By granting them the farm of their own town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion, that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the farm-rent of their town, or by granting it to some other farmer.

To understand this, we must remember the situation at the time. Perhaps no ruler in Europe could protect weaker subjects from the oppression of the great lords throughout his entire territory. Those whom the law could not protect, and who could not defend themselves, had two choices. They could seek protection from a great lord and become his slaves or vassals to obtain it. Or they could join together in a league for their mutual defense. The inhabitants of cities and towns had no power to defend themselves as individuals. But by joining their neighbors in a league of mutual defense, they could put up a respectable resistance. The lords despised the townspeople. They saw them not only as a different class, but as a bunch of freed slaves, almost a different species from themselves. The townspeople’s wealth always provoked the lords’ envy and indignation. The lords plundered them at every opportunity, without mercy or remorse. The townspeople naturally hated and feared the lords. The king hated and feared the lords too. But although he might perhaps despise the townspeople, he had no reason to hate or fear them. Their mutual interests therefore led the townspeople to support the king and the king to support them against the lords. They were the enemies of his enemies. It was in his interest to make them as secure and independent of those enemies as he could. The king gave them their own magistrates and the right to make bylaws for their own government. He also gave them the right to build walls for their defense and to place all their inhabitants under a kind of military discipline. In this way, he gave them every means in his power to make them secure and independent of the barons. Without an established government of this kind, no voluntary league of mutual defense could have given them lasting security. Nor could it have enabled them to give the king much support. The league also needed some authority to compel the inhabitants to act according to a definite plan or system. The king also granted the townspeople a permanent right to collect their town’s revenues in return for a fixed rent. In this way, he removed any grounds for jealousy or suspicion among those he wanted as friends and, one might say, allies. They no longer had reason to fear that he would oppress them later by raising the rent or granting the right to collect the revenues to someone else.

The princes who lived upon the worst terms with their barons, seem accordingly to have been the most liberal in grants of this kind to their burghs. King John of England, for example, appears to have been a most munificent benefactor to his towns. {See Madox.} Philip I. of France lost all authority over his barons. Towards the end of his reign, his son Lewis, known afterwards by the name of Lewis the Fat, consulted, according to Father Daniel, with the bishops of the royal demesnes, concerning the most proper means of restraining the violence of the great lords. Their advice consisted of two different proposals. One was to erect a new order of jurisdiction, by establishing magistrates and a town-council in every considerable town of his demesnes. The other was to form a new militia, by making the inhabitants of those towns, under the command of their own magistrates, march out upon proper occasions to the assistance of the king. It is from this period, according to the French antiquarians, that we are to date the institution of the magistrates and councils of cities in France. It was during the unprosperous reigns of the princes of the house of Suabia, that the greater part of the free towns of Germany received the first grants of their privileges, and that the famous Hanseatic league first became formidable. {See Pfeffel.}

Princes who had the worst relations with their barons seem to have been the most generous in granting such privileges to their towns. King John of England, for example, appears to have been an exceptionally generous benefactor to his towns. {See Madox.} Philip I of France lost all authority over his barons. Towards the end of his reign, his son Lewis, later known as Lewis the Fat, consulted the bishops of the royal estates. According to Father Daniel, Lewis asked them how best to restrain the violence of the great lords. They offered two proposals. The first was to establish a new system of local government, with magistrates and a council in every sizeable town on the royal estates. The second was to form a new militia from the inhabitants of those towns. Under their own magistrates, they would march out to assist the king when needed. According to French antiquarians, city magistrates and councils in France date from this period. It was during the troubled reigns of the princes of the house of Suabia that most free towns in Germany first received their privileges. The famous Hanseatic league also first became formidable during this period. {See Pfeffel.}

The militia of the cities seems, in those times, not to have been inferior to that of the country; and as they could be more readily assembled upon any sudden occasion, they frequently had the advantage in their disputes with the neighbouring lords. In countries such as Italy or Switzerland, in which, on account either of their distance from the principal seat of government, of the natural strength of the country itself, or of some other reason, the sovereign came to lose the whole of his authority; the cities generally became independent republics, and conquered all the nobility in their neighbourhood; obliging them to pull down their castles in the country, and to live, like other peaceable inhabitants, in the city. This is the short history of the republic of Berne, as well as of several other cities in Switzerland. If you except Venice, for of that city the history is somewhat different, it is the history of all the considerable Italian republics, of which so great a number arose and perished between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the sixteenth century.

In those days, city militias seem to have been as strong as those in the countryside. They could also be assembled more quickly in an emergency. So they often had the advantage in disputes with neighboring lords. In countries such as Italy and Switzerland, the sovereign lost all authority. This happened because they were far from the main seat of government, because the land itself was naturally defensible, or for some other reason. In such countries, cities generally became independent republics and conquered all the nobles in their neighborhoods. They forced the nobles to pull down their country castles and live in the city like other peaceful inhabitants. This is the history, in brief, of the republic of Berne and several other cities in Switzerland. It is also the history of all the major Italian republics, except Venice, whose history is somewhat different. A great many of these Italian republics arose and perished between the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century.

In countries such as France and England, where the authority of the sovereign, though frequently very low, never was destroyed altogether, the cities had no opportunity of becoming entirely independent. They became, however, so considerable, that the sovereign could impose no tax upon them, besides the stated farm-rent of the town, without their own consent. They were, therefore, called upon to send deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom, where they might join with the clergy and the barons in granting, upon urgent occasions, some extraordinary aid to the king. Being generally, too, more favourable to his power, their deputies seem sometimes to have been employed by him as a counterbalance in those assemblies to the authority of the great lords. Hence the origin of the representation of burghs in the states-general of all great monarchies in Europe.

In countries such as France and England, the sovereign’s authority was often very weak, but it was never completely destroyed. The cities therefore had no opportunity to become entirely independent. They nevertheless became important enough that the sovereign could impose no additional tax on them without their consent. The only tax he could impose without it was the town’s fixed farm-rent. The cities were therefore called upon to send deputies to the general assembly of the kingdom’s estates. There, their deputies could join the clergy and the barons in granting the king extraordinary financial aid on urgent occasions. The cities also generally favored the king’s power more than the great lords did. Their deputies therefore seem sometimes to have been used by the king to counterbalance the great lords’ authority in those assemblies. This was the origin of the representation of burghs in the estates-general of all the great monarchies of Europe.

Order and good government, and along with them the liberty and security of individuals, were in this manner established in cities, at a time when the occupiers of land in the country, were exposed to every sort of violence. But men in this defenceless state naturally content themselves with their necessary subsistence; because, to acquire more, might only tempt the injustice of their oppressors. On the contrary, when they are secure of enjoying the fruits of their industry, they naturally exert it to better their condition, and to acquire not only the necessaries, but the conveniencies and elegancies of life. That industry, therefore, which aims at something more than necessary subsistence, was established in cities long before it was commonly practised by the occupiers of land in the country. If, in the hands of a poor cultivator, oppressed with the servitude of villanage, some little stock should accumulate, he would naturally conceal it with great care from his master, to whom it would otherwise have belonged, and take the first opportunity of running away to a town. The law was at that time so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords over those of the country, that if he could conceal himself there from the pursuit of his lord for a year, he was free for ever. Whatever stock, therefore, accumulated in the hands of the industrious part of the inhabitants of the country, naturally took refuge in cities, as the only sanctuaries in which it could be secure to the person that acquired it.

In this way, order and good government were established in cities, along with individual liberty and security. At the same time, people who worked the land in the countryside were exposed to every kind of violence. In such a defenseless state, people naturally content themselves with the bare necessities of life. Acquiring more might only tempt their oppressors to take it from them unjustly. By contrast, when people are secure in enjoying the fruits of their labor, they naturally work to improve their condition. They seek to acquire not only necessities, but also the comforts and refinements of life. Work aimed at more than bare subsistence was therefore established in cities long before country landholders commonly practiced it. Suppose a poor farmer, burdened by the servitude of villeinage, managed to save a little property. He would naturally take great care to hide it from his lord, who would otherwise have owned it. He would also take the first opportunity to run away to a town. At that time, the law favored town dwellers and sought to reduce the lords' authority over country people. If the farmer could hide in a town from his lord for a year, he was free forever. Whatever property the industrious people of the countryside accumulated therefore naturally found refuge in cities. Cities were the only places where their property could be safe in the hands of those who acquired it.

The inhabitants of a city, it is true, must always ultimately derive their subsistence, and the whole materials and means of their industry, from the country. But those of a city, situated near either the sea-coast or the banks of a navigable river, are not necessarily confined to derive them from the country in their neighbourhood. They have a much wider range, and may draw them from the most remote corners of the world, either in exchange for the manufactured produce of their own industry, or by performing the office of carriers between distant countries, and exchanging the produce of one for that of another. A city might, in this manner, grow up to great wealth and splendour, while not only the country in its neighbourhood, but all those to which it traded, were in poverty and wretchedness. Each of those countries, perhaps, taken singly, could afford it but a small part, either of its subsistence or of its employment; but all of them taken together, could afford it both a great subsistence and a great employment. There were, however, within the narrow circle of the commerce of those times, some countries that were opulent and industrious. Such was the Greek empire as long as it subsisted, and that of the Saracens during the reigns of the Abassides. Such, too, was Egypt till it was conquered by the Turks, some part of the coast of Barbary, and all those provinces of Spain which were under the government of the Moors.

The inhabitants of a city must ultimately get their food, and all the materials and means for their work, from the countryside. But a city near the coast or a navigable river need not get these things only from the surrounding countryside. Its reach is much wider. It may draw supplies from the most remote corners of the world. It can exchange its own manufactured goods for them. Or it can carry goods between distant countries, exchanging the products of one for those of another. In this way, a city might grow very wealthy and splendid, even while the surrounding countryside and all its trading partners were poor and miserable. Each of those countries, taken alone, might perhaps supply only a small part of the city's food or employment. But together, they could supply ample food and employment. Even so, within the limited trade network of those times, some countries were wealthy and industrious. The Greek empire was one, as long as it lasted. Another was the empire of the Saracens during the reigns of the Abassides. Egypt was also wealthy and industrious until the Turks conquered it. So were part of the coast of Barbary and all the provinces of Spain ruled by the Moors.

The cities of Italy seem to have been the first in Europe which were raised by commerce to any considerable degree of opulence. Italy lay in the centre of what was at that time the improved and civilized part of the world. The crusades, too, though, by the great waste of stock and destruction of inhabitants which they occasioned, they must necessarily have retarded the progress of the greater part of Europe, were extremely favourable to that of some Italian cities. The great armies which marched from all parts to the conquest of the Holy Land, gave extraordinary encouragement to the shipping of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, sometimes in transporting them thither, and always in supplying them with provisions. They were the commissaries, if one may say so, of those armies; and the most destructive frenzy that ever befel the European nations, was a source of opulence to those republics.

The cities of Italy seem to have been the first in Europe to become considerably wealthy through trade. Italy lay at the center of what was then the developed and civilized part of the world. The Crusades also greatly benefited some Italian cities. Yet the Crusades must have slowed progress across most of Europe, because they wasted so much wealth and destroyed so many lives. Great armies marched from all parts to conquer the Holy Land. They gave an extraordinary boost to shipping in Venice, Genoa, and Pisa. These cities sometimes transported the armies there and always supplied them with provisions. They were, so to speak, the supply agents of those armies. The most destructive frenzy ever to befall the nations of Europe was a source of wealth for those republics.

The inhabitants of trading cities, by importing the improved manufactures and expensive luxuries of richer countries, afforded some food to the vanity of the great proprietors, who eagerly purchased them with great quantities of the rude produce of their own lands. The commerce of a great part of Europe in those times, accordingly, consisted chiefly in the exchange of their own rude, for the manufactured produce of more civilized nations. Thus the wool of England used to be exchanged for the wines of France, and the fine cloths of Flanders, in the same manner as the corn in Poland is at this day, exchanged for the wines and brandies of France, and for the silks and velvets of France and Italy.

Residents of trading cities imported better manufactured goods and expensive luxuries from richer countries. These goods gave great landowners something to satisfy their vanity. They eagerly bought them with large quantities of raw produce from their own lands. As a result, much of Europe's trade at that time consisted chiefly of exchanging its own raw produce for manufactured goods from more civilized nations. For example, England's wool was exchanged for French wines and fine cloth from Flanders. In the same way, Poland's grain is now exchanged for French wines and brandies and for silks and velvets from France and Italy.

A taste for the finer and more improved manufactures was, in this manner, introduced by foreign commerce into countries where no such works were carried on. But when this taste became so general as to occasion a considerable demand, the merchants, in order to save the expense of carriage, naturally endeavoured to establish some manufactures of the same kind in their own country. Hence the origin of the first manufactures for distant sale, that seem to have been established in the western provinces of Europe, after the fall of the Roman empire.

In this way, foreign trade introduced a taste for finer, more sophisticated manufactured goods into countries that did not produce them. But when this taste became widespread enough to create considerable demand, merchants naturally tried to make similar goods in their own countries. They did this to save on transportation costs. This seems to have been the origin of the first industries producing goods for sale in distant markets in the western provinces of Europe after the fall of the Roman empire.

No large country, it must be observed, ever did or could subsist without some sort of manufactures being carried on in it; and when it is said of any such country that it has no manufactures, it must always be understood of the finer and more improved, or of such as are fit for distant sale. In every large country both the clothing and household furniture or the far greater part of the people, are the produce of their own industry. This is even more universally the case in those poor countries which are commonly said to have no manufactures, than in those rich ones that are said to abound in them. In the latter you will generally find, both in the clothes and household furniture of the lowest rank of people, a much greater proportion of foreign productions than in the former.

It must be noted that no large country has ever survived, or could survive, without some manufacturing. When a large country is said to have no manufacturing, this always means finer, more advanced goods, or goods suitable for sale far away. In every large country, the vast majority of people make their own clothing and household furniture. This is even more universally true in poor countries commonly said to have no manufacturing than in rich countries said to have plenty. In the rich countries, you will generally find a much larger share of foreign goods among the clothing and household furniture of the lowest rank of people than in the poor countries.

Those manufactures which are fit for distant sale, seem to have been introduced into different countries in two different ways.

Goods suitable for sale in distant markets seem to have been introduced into different countries in two ways.

Sometimes they have been introduced in the manner above mentioned, by the violent operation, if one may say so, of the stocks of particular merchants and undertakers, who established them in imitation of some foreign manufactures of the same kind. Such manufactures, therefore, are the offspring of foreign commerce; and such seem to have been the ancient manufactures of silks, velvets, and brocades, which flourished in Lucca during the thirteenth century. They were banished from thence by the tyranny of one of Machiavel’s heroes, Castruccio Castracani. In 1310, nine hundred families were driven out of Lucca, of whom thirty-one retired to Venice, and offered to introduce there the silk manufacture. {See Sandi Istoria civile de Vinezia, part 2 vol. i, page 247 and 256.} Their offer was accepted, many privileges were conferred upon them, and they began the manufacture with three hundred workmen. Such, too, seem to have been the manufactures of fine cloths that anciently flourished in Flanders, and which were introduced into England in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, and such are the present silk manufactures of Lyons and Spitalfields. Manufactures introduced in this manner are generally employed upon foreign materials, being imitations of foreign manufactures. When the Venetian manufacture was first established, the materials were all brought from Sicily and the Levant. The more ancient manufacture of Lucca was likewise carried on with foreign materials. The cultivation of mulberry trees, and the breeding of silk-worms, seem not to have been common in the northern parts of Italy before the sixteenth century. Those arts were not introduced into France till the reign of Charles IX. The manufactures of Flanders were carried on chiefly with Spanish and English wool. Spanish wool was the material, not of the first woollen manufacture of England, but of the first that was fit for distant sale. More than one half the materials of the Lyons manufacture is at this day foreign silk; when it was first established, the whole, or very nearly the whole, was so. No part of the materials of the Spitalfields manufacture is ever likely to be the produce of England. The seat of such manufactures, as they are generally introduced by the scheme and project of a few individuals, is sometimes established in a maritime city, and sometimes in an inland town, according as their interest, judgment, or caprice, happen to determine.

Sometimes these manufactures were introduced in the way described above, through the forceful application, so to speak, of particular merchants’ and entrepreneurs’ capital. They established the manufactures in imitation of similar foreign ones. Such manufactures are therefore the offspring of foreign commerce. The ancient silk, velvet, and brocade manufactures that flourished in Lucca during the thirteenth century seem to have been of this kind. They were driven out by the tyranny of Castruccio Castracani, one of Machiavel’s heroes. In 1310, nine hundred families were driven out of Lucca. Thirty-one of them went to Venice and offered to introduce silk manufacturing there. {See Sandi Istoria civile de Vinezia, part 2 vol. i, page 247 and 256.} Their offer was accepted, and they were granted many privileges. They began manufacturing with three hundred workers. The fine cloth manufactures that once flourished in Flanders, and were introduced into England early in Elizabeth’s reign, also seem to have been of this kind. So do the present silk manufactures of Lyons and Spitalfields. Manufactures introduced in this way generally use foreign materials, since they imitate foreign manufactures. When the Venetian manufacture was first established, all its materials came from Sicily and the Levant. The older manufacture of Lucca also used foreign materials. Growing mulberry trees and breeding silkworms do not seem to have been common in northern Italy before the sixteenth century. These arts were not introduced into France until the reign of Charles IX. The manufactures of Flanders relied chiefly on Spanish and English wool. Spanish wool was not used in England’s first woollen manufacture, but it was used in the first whose products were fit for sale in distant places. More than half the material used in the Lyons manufacture today is foreign silk. When the manufacture was first established, all or nearly all of it was foreign. None of the material used in the Spitalfields manufacture is ever likely to be produced in England. Such manufactures are generally introduced through the plans and projects of a few individuals. They are sometimes established in a maritime city and sometimes in an inland town, according to those individuals’ interests, judgment, or whims.

At other times, manufactures for distant sale grow up naturally, and as it were of their own accord, by the gradual refinement of those household and coarser manufactures which must at all times be carried on even in the poorest and rudest countries. Such manufactures are generally employed upon the materials which the country produces, and they seem frequently to have been first refined and improved in such inland countries as were not, indeed, at a very great, but at a considerable distance from the sea-coast, and sometimes even from all water carriage. An inland country, naturally fertile and easily cultivated, produces a great surplus of provisions beyond what is necessary for maintaining the cultivators; and on account of the expense of land carriage, and inconveniency of river navigation, it may frequently be difficult to send this surplus abroad. Abundance, therefore, renders provisions cheap, and encourages a great number of workmen to settle in the neighbourhood, who find that their industry can there procure them more of the necessaries and conveniencies of life than in other places. They work up the materials of manufacture which the land produces, and exchange their finished work, or, what is the same thing, the price of it, for more materials and provisions. They give a new value to the surplus part of the rude produce, by saving the expense of carrying it to the water-side, or to some distant market; and they furnish the cultivators with something in exchange for it that is either useful or agreeable to them, upon easier terms than they could have obtained it before. The cultivators get a better price for their surplus produce, and can purchase cheaper other conveniencies which they have occasion for. They are thus both encouraged and enabled to increase this surplus produce by a further improvement and better cultivation of the land; and as the fertility of the land had given birth to the manufacture, so the progress of the manufacture re-acts upon the land, and increases still further its fertility. The manufacturers first supply the neighbourhood, and afterwards, as their work improves and refines, more distant markets. For though neither the rude produce, nor even the coarse manufacture, could, without the greatest difficulty, support the expense of a considerable land-carriage, the refined and improved manufacture easily may. In a small bulk it frequently contains the price of a great quantity of rude produce. A piece of fine cloth, for example which weighs only eighty pounds, contains in it the price, not only of eighty pounds weight of wool, but sometimes of several thousand weight of corn, the maintenance of the different working people, and of their immediate employers. The corn which could with difficulty have been carried abroad in its own shape, is in this manner virtually exported in that of the complete manufacture, and may easily be sent to the remotest corners of the world. In this manner have grown up naturally, and, as it were, of their own accord, the manufactures of Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Wolverhampton. Such manufactures are the offspring of agriculture. In the modern history of Europe, their extension and improvement have generally been posterior to those which were the offspring of foreign commerce. England was noted for the manufacture of fine cloths made of Spanish wool, more than a century before any of those which now flourish in the places above mentioned were fit for foreign sale. The extension and improvement of these last could not take place but in consequence of the extension and improvement of agriculture, the last and greatest effect of foreign commerce, and of the manufactures immediately introduced by it, and which I shall now proceed to explain.

At other times, industries producing goods for distant markets grow naturally, almost of their own accord. They develop as household crafts and other basic forms of manufacturing gradually improve. These basic crafts must exist even in the poorest and least developed countries. They generally use materials produced locally. They also seem often to have first improved in inland regions a considerable, though not a great, distance from the coast. Sometimes these regions were even far from any waterway used for transport. A fertile inland region where land is easy to cultivate produces far more food than its farmers need. But transporting goods over land is expensive, and river transport can be inconvenient. So it may often be difficult to send this surplus elsewhere. The abundance of food therefore makes it cheap and encourages many workers to settle nearby. They find that their work can earn them more of life's necessities and comforts there than elsewhere. They make goods from the materials the land produces. They exchange their finished goods, or the money from selling them, for more materials and food. The workers give new value to the surplus raw produce by saving the cost of carrying it to a waterway or distant market. In exchange, they supply farmers with useful or pleasing goods on better terms than the farmers could have obtained before. The farmers get a better price for their surplus produce and can buy other comforts they need more cheaply. They are thus both encouraged and able to increase their surplus by improving and cultivating the land further. Just as the land's fertility gave rise to manufacturing, the growth of manufacturing in turn makes the land still more productive. At first, manufacturers supply the surrounding area. Later, as their work improves and becomes finer, they supply more distant markets. Raw produce and even coarse manufactured goods could bear the cost of long overland transport only with great difficulty. But finer, improved goods can easily bear that cost. A small quantity of these goods often contains the value of a large quantity of raw produce. For example, a piece of fine cloth weighing only eighty pounds contains the value of eighty pounds of wool. It also sometimes contains the value of several thousand pounds of grain used to support the workers and their direct employers. The grain could hardly have been shipped elsewhere in its original form. In this way, it is virtually exported as a finished product and can easily be sent to the remotest corners of the world. This is how the industries of Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Wolverhampton grew naturally, almost of their own accord. These industries are the offspring of agriculture. In modern European history, they have generally expanded and improved later than industries born of foreign trade. England was known for fine cloth made from Spanish wool more than a century before any industries in the places named above produced goods fit for foreign markets. These later industries could expand and improve only after agriculture had expanded and improved. That improvement of agriculture was the last and greatest effect of foreign trade and the industries it directly introduced. I shall now explain how it came about.