PROGRESS OF COMMERCE.

113

towns directed their attention, had considerable influence in enlarging their liberties, and giving them a power which the barons could not successfully oppose. The Italians, by their connexion with Constantinople and other towns of the Greek empire, enjoyed in their own country the commodities and manufactures of the East; and this taste was greatly increased by the trading consequent on the crusades. Thus an inclination for the refinements and luxuries of life arose, which gave employment to a large body of merchants, who kept up a constant stream of intercourse between the Italian cities and the countries of the East. The people thus began to look abroad; they broke through the narrow conventionalities which had prevailed in the interpretation of such words as 'society,' "country,' 'nation,' and 'mankind;' and they were thus in a condition to assail the fundamental principle of feudal power. In the Netherlands, too, a spirit of commerce and manufactures arose; in England, the same occurred under Edward III.; while over the whole north of Europe, an extraordinary confederation, known by the name of the Hanseatic League, and formed originally for commercial purposes only, gradually acquired a power which affected the German barons as much as the commerce of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, affected the Italian barons.

All this, as it was in part the consequence of a rise in the political and social power of the people, so did it also tend to increase that power; thus strengthening the agency which gave it birth, and weakening that feudal authority which was now slowly crumbling into dust.

LORD AND VASSAL.

8

CHAPTER XI.

THE DECLINE OF FEUDALISM.

V. AS INFLUENCED BY THE INCREASE OF KINGLY POWER.

Inherent Weakness and Defects of the Feudal System. Military Attendance of the Feudal Lords and their Retainers insufficient for National Defence. Remedy adopted. Fines for Default of Military Attendance expended in hiring Troops. Origin of the 'Standing Armies' of Europe and of Alliances between different Nations. The Contests between England and France lead to the downfal of the Feudal System in the latter Country by maintaining the Standing Army. Conduct of Louis XI. He completes the Downfal of the Feudal System in France. Conduct of Henry VII. of England. Downfal of the Feudal System in England, Spain, Italy, and Germany.

THERE were internal sources of decay which would have destroyed the feudal system, even if all the various circumstances which have been narrated had not operated: one of its weakest points was the want of unity of action among the feudal barons as members of one nation.

'No political institution,' says Mr. Hallam, 'can endure, which does not rivet itself to the hearts of men, by ancient prejudice or acknowledged interest. The feudal compact had originally much of this character. Its principle of vitality was warm and active. In fulfilling the obligations of mutual assistance and fidelity by military service, the energies of friendship were awakened, and the ties of moral sympathy superadded to those of positive compact. While private wars were at their height, the connexion of lord and vassal grew close and cordial, in proportion to their enmity towards others. It was not the object of a baron to disgust and impoverish his vavassors by enhancing the profits of seigniory; for there was no rent of such price as blood, nor any labour so serviceable as that of the sword. But the nature of feudal obligation was far better adapted to the partial quarrels of neighbouring lords than to the

DEFECTS OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

115

wars of kingdoms. Customs, founded upon the poverty of the smaller gentry, had limited their martial duties to a period never exceeding forty days, and diminished according to the subdivisions of the fief. They could undertake an expedition, but not a campaign; they could burn an open town, but had seldom leisure to besiege a fortress. Hence, when the kings of France and England were engaged in wars, which on our side at least might be termed national, the inefficiency of the feudal militia became evident.'

The nobles were not much disposed to regret this inefficiency for national purposes, since they desired to keep down the kingly power. The monarch could not insist on the attendance of many more troops than the vassals on his own domain, and was obliged to be content with the military aid afforded by the feudal tenure. Even if the army for the national defence had been more numerous and permanent, it would yet have been weak from the predominance of cavalry over infantry. In the flourishing times of the Roman republic, infantry was the most valuable part of the army; and it is always considered that infantry is more effective for conquest or defence than cavalry. But the Romans, in their effeminate state under the empire, allowed their infantry to fall into disuse, and gave their preference to cavalry as exposing the soldier to fewer hardships: this accelerated the conquest of the empire by the barbarians. In after times the feudal barons in like manner preferred cavalry to infantry, not perhaps on account of fatigue, but as a symbol of superiority, especially when the crusades and tournaments had given rise to a glittering display of horses and armour. When, therefore, during the wars and contests of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the barons and their retainers joined the monarch in martial form, the barons, knights, and all who had any skill in military tactics, appeared on horseback, while the infantry consisted of the dregs of the people, badly armed and badly disciplined.

When the kings of England and of France became possessed of the sovereignty-nominal if not real-the military tenants of a large extent of country could not engage on distant service within their usual term of forty days, to which they were bound, even if the inclinations of the barons had tended that way. A remedy had therefore to be found, before this state of things could be amended, and anything like national operations carried on. The first expedient was to keep the crown vassals in service after the expiration of their forty days, at a stipulated rate of pay. But this was frequently neither convenient to the tenant, who was anxious to return back to his household, nor to the king, who could not readily defray the charges of an army. It was necessary therefore to devise some other expedient, even though less consistent with the feudal system. By the feudal law, the fief was in strictness forfeited by neglect of attendance upon the lord in any expedition. By a milder usage, as the beginning of a new system, a fine was imposed, by which the superior or monarch obtained money for the furtherance of his designs. These fines were often very heavy, and imposed arbitrarily. William of Normandy was very rigid in the exaction of them; and some years afterwards, when the conduct of king John led to the compulsory demand of Magna Charta, it was deemed important to regulate this part of the kingly privileges by defined rules.

When once the king obtained money as a fine for default of military attendance, he had the means of providing mercenary troops, hired expressly to fight his battles, and to remain in arms at his pleasure. Before the feudal system came to full vigour, every man was called on to defend his country; under the feudal tenure, every man was bound to fight the battles of his liege lord, whether for the country's good or not; but under this altered system, a hired body of fighting men arose, which is considered to be the origin of the 'standing armies' of modern Europe.

This formation of a national force was one of the means

ORIGIN OF STANDING ARMIES.

117

whereby nations became allied in order to repress ambitious projects on the part of a common enemy: this again tended to lower the power of the feudal barons, opening to general view a more comprehensive prospect of actions and motives, than the limits of a fief would afford. At the present day every European nation is acquainted with the general tenor of the political proceedings in all the others; and if one monarch oversteps the bounds of his legitimate authority, he is soon checked by other governments, or by an alliance of the forces of two or more nations. But in the times to which reference is now made, no such concerted arrangement could exist; each country was not only partitioned into a number of petty sovereignties or fiefs, but was socially dissevered from other countries, each one being comparatively powerless in respect to the proceedings of the rest. When the monarchs began, however, to obtain the command of mercenary troops, by which the feudal power was rendered more insignificant than it had yet been, they were in a condition to watch the proceedings of their neighbours, and to aid or repel foreign attacks as seemed best to accord with their interests. There were a few distinct events in the history of Europe about the period under consideration, which tended to produce these three results; namely, the establishment of standing armies;-the maintenance of political intercourse between different nations;-and the extinction of feudal power.

England had possessed for a considerable period a portion of what now constitutes France. This greatly interfered with the proceedings of the French monarchs; for, harassed by the English on one hand and by the powerful barons on the other, they could not form any large and comprehensive national plans. The English were nominally the vassals of the French crown for the territories which they held in France; but in effect they were independent, and often combined with the feudal nobles to frustrate the plans of the monarch. Had this state of things continued, France would never have been able to