towns were bound to certain military services towards their lord; we find the citizens at a very early period marching to war, generally grouped around their priests. In 1094, in an expedition of Philip I. against the castle of Breherval

"The priests lead their parishioners with their banners.” In 1108, at the death of Philip I.—

"A popular community," says Orderic Vital, "was established in France by the bishops; in such a way that the priests accompanied the king to battle and sieges, with banners, and all the parishioners."

According to Suger:

"The corporations of the parishes of the country took part in the siege of Thoury, by Louis le Gros."

In 1119, after the repulse of Brenneville, the following counsel was given to Louis le Gros:

"Let the bishops and counts and all the powerful men of thy kingdom, repair to thee, and let the priests with all their parishioners go with thee where thou shalt order them. . . .

"The king resolved to do all these things. ... he sent out prompt messengers, and sent his edict to the bishops. They willingly obeyed him, and threatened to anathematize the priests of their diocese, with their parishioners, if they did not hasten to join themselves, at about the time fixed, to the expedition of the king, and if they did not fight the rebel Normans with all their strength.

"The people of Burgundy and of Berry, of Auvergne, and of the country of Sens, of Paris, and of Orleans, of Saint Quentin, and of Beauvais, of Laon and of Etampes, and many others, like wolves, rushed greedily upon their prey.

...

"The bishop of Noyon and he of Laon, and many others went to this expedition; and by reason of the ill estimation in which they held the Normans, sanctioned all sorts of crimes in their people. They even allowed them, as in virtue of a Divine permission, to pillage the sacred edifices, in order thus to increase their legions by flattering them in every way, and to animate them against their enemies by promising them all things."

This need of increasing the legions which followed them to war was indisputably one of the principal motives which induced the proprietors of fiefs to favour these agglomerations of population upon their domains, and consequently to the

ceding of privileges which alone could attract new inhabitants. These very incomplete privileges, dictated solely by personal interest, incessantly violated, often revoked, did not, I repeat, constitute true corporations invested with an inde penent jurisdiction, nominating their magistrates, and almost governing themselves; but they contributed none the less powerfully to the general formation of that new class which, at a later period, became the third estate.

I now come to the third of these origins, to that which M. Thierry has so well pointed out and developed; that is to say, the violent struggle of the citizens against the lords. This is a source of the boroughs properly so called, and one of the most efficacious causes of the formation of the third estate. The vexations which the lords put upon the inhabitants of the boroughs and towns situated in their domains were of daily occurrence, often of an atrocious character, immensely irritating; security was wanting even more than liberty. With the progress of wealth, the attempts at resistance became more frequent and more energetic. The twelfth century saw the insurrection of the citizens break forth in a thousand directions; they formed into petty local confederations to defend themselves against the violence of their lords, and to obtain guarantees. Thence arose an infinity of petty wars, some terminated by the ruin of the citizens, others by treaties which, under the name of communal charters, conferred upon many boroughs and towns a kind of intra muros sovereignty, then the only possible guarantee for security and liberty

As these concessions were the result of conquest, they were generally more extensive and efficacious than those which I just spoke of. It was, accordingly, to the struggle at the sword's point that must be attributed the formation of the strongest and most glorious boroughs, those which have taken a position in history. You know, however, that they did not long preserve their political independence, and that their condition ended by being very similar to that of other towns which had not carried on the same combats.

Such are the three origins of the French bourgeoisie, of the third estate. 1. The Roman municipal system, which continued to exist in a large number of towns. 2. The ag

glomeration of population which was naturally formed upon the estates of many of the lords, and which, by the sole influence of increasing wealth, by the need which the lords had of their services, successively obtained concessions, privileges, which, without giving them a political existence, still ensured the development of their prosperity, and consequently of their social importance. 3. Finally, the corporation, properly so called that is to say, the boroughs and towns which, by force of arms, by a struggle of greater or less duration, wrested from their lords a considerable portion of the sovereignty, and constituted petty republics of them.

"

Here we have the true character of the municipal movement in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; here it is seen in all its truth, far more various and extensive than it is generally represented. We shall now penetrate into the interior of the different kinds of corporations which I have described to you; we shall apply ourselves to distinguish them one from another, and to determine with some precision, what was the municipal system, in the municipalities of Roman origin, in the boroughs which possessed simple privileges conceded by the lords, or in the true corporations formed by war and conquest. We shall thus arrive at a very serious question, and one which, in my opinion, is very much neglected; at the question what essential difference exists between the ancient Roman municipality and the corporation of the middle ages. Doubtless, there was Roman municipality in the boroughs at the middle ages, and it is by far too generally overlooked. But it is also true, that in the middle ages there was brought about, even in the towns of Roman origin, a considerable change, a true revolution, which gave another character, another tendency to their municipal system. I will first, and in a few words, point out what has occurred to me as being the essential difference: the predominant characteristic of Roman municipality was aristocracy; the predo minant characteristic of the modern corporation was democracy. This is the result to which we shall be led by an attentive examination of this question.

In a word, when we shall have thoroughly studied, on the one hand, the formation of the boroughs and cities of the middle ages, and on the other their interior system, we shall

follow the vicissitudes of their history from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, during the course of the feudal period; we shall endeavour to determine the principal revolutions to which they were subjected during that period, and what they were at the commencement, and what they were at the end. We shall then have a somewhat complete and precise idea of the origin and early destinies of the French third estate.

SEVENTEENTH LECTURE.

Why it is important never to lose sight of the diversity of the origins of the third estate-1. Towns in which the Roman municipal system was perpetuated-Why the documents relating thereto are rare and incomplete-Perigueux-Bourges-2. Towns which, without having been, properly speaking, erected into boroughs, received various privileges from their lords-Orleans-Customs of Lorris in Gatinais-3. Boroughs, properly so called-Charter of Laon-True meaning of this charter and of the communal revolution of the eleventh century-Birth of modern legislation.

I HOPE you will not for a moment lose sight of the true question which occupies us at this moment; it is not only the formation and the first development of the boroughs, but the formation and the first development of the third estate. The distinction is important, and I insist upon it here for many

reasons.

First, it is real, and founded upon facts. The word third estate is evidently more extensive, more comprehensive than that of the borough. Many social situations, individuals which are not comprehended in the word borough, are com prehended in that of the third estate; the officers of the king, for example, the lawyers-that cradle whence have issued almost all the magistrates of France-evidently belong to the class of the third estate; they have been for a long time incorporated in it, and have only been separated from it in ges immediately neighbouring upon our own, while we ar not rank them among the boroughs.

Moreover, the distinction has often been overlooked, and the result has been errors in the manner in which the facts have been presented. Some historians, for example, have Been, especially in the third estate, the portion derived fro