hire was spreading into the open country,[5] and,
doubtless, in other counties as well; and the "beautiful houses" which had
fallen into decay, were those which, in the old times of insecurity, had
been occupied by wealthy merchants and tradesmen, who were now enabled, by
a strong and settled government, to dispense with the shelter of locked
gates and fortified walls, and remove their residences to more convenient
situations. It was, in fact, the first symptom of the impending social
revolution. Two years before the passing of this Act, the magnificent
Hengrave Hall, in Suffolk, had been completed by Sir Thomas Kitson, "mercer
of London,"[6] and Sir Thomas Kitson was but one of many of the rising
merchants who were now able to root themselves on the land by the side of
the Norman nobility, first to rival, and then slowly to displace them.

This mighty change, however, was long in silent progress before it began to
tell on the institutions of the country. When city burghers bought estates,
the law insisted jealously on their accepting with them all the feudal
obligations. Attempts to use the land as "a commodity" were, as we shall
presently see, angrily repressed; while, again, in the majority of
instances, such persons endeavoured, as they do at present, to cover the
recent origin of their families by adopting the manners of the nobles,
instead of transferring the habits of the towns to the parks and chases of
the English counties. The old English organisation maintained its full
activity; and the duties of property continued to be for another century
more considered than its rights.

Turning, then, to the tenure of land--for if we would understand the
condition of the people, it is to this point that our first attention must
be directed--we find that through the many complicated varieties of it
there was one broad principle which bore equally upon every class, that the
land of England must provide for the defence of England. The feudal system,
though practically modified, was still the organising principle of the
nation, and the owner of land was bound to military service for his country
whenever occasion required. Further, the land was to be so administered,
that the accustomed number of families supported by it should not be
diminished, and that the State should suffer no injury from the
carelessness or selfishness of the owners.[7] Land never was private
property in that personal sense of property in which we speak