English and French Towns in the Sixteenth Century

Comparative history, to paraphrase Rodney Hilton in the first line of his last book English and French Towns in Feudal Society, 'is rather a risky venture'.¹ Nevertheless, it is a valuable exercise for determining what is peculiar in a particular national context, as long as the historian is aware of the pitfalls of generalization. Hilton in this book set out to compare the relative integration of English and French urban communities into medieval economic and social structures, as well as their role in feudal society. He identified a number of trends which he posited would be consolidated in the following centuries, in particular, the dominance of officialdom in France and of a mercantile elite in England. The comparative approach will be used here not so much to establish what had changed in urban communities by 1600, but rather what perspectives a sixteenth-century viewpoint can give us on some of Hilton's conclusions. Of course, one century is far too short a period over which to expect much to have changed, and 1500 is a rather artificial divide for the essentially socio-economic developments Hilton discussed. Arguably it is 1600 rather than 1500 which marks the more significant watershed.² As Peter Clark and Paul Slack put it, the 'traditional, relatively closed, and semi-autonomous worlds' of early sixteenth-century towns contrast with 'the more modern, open and integrated urban society' in existence by 1700, a theme which has been continued by others.³ At any rate, the sixteenth century is far from being a foreign country for late medievalists; certainly its urban politics and culture should be clearly recognizable.

English and French towns in the pre-modern period had much experience in common, but as Hilton recognized, their most obvious difference was size.⁴ London was the only substantial urban community in England, whereas seven towns had a population in excess of 20,000 in France by 1500, a result of entrenched regionalism as well as France having a much larger overall population (estimated at some 16 million, compared with England's 2.5 million).⁵ In general, England was 'lightly urbanised by European standards in 1540', with only 5 per cent of its population living in communities of over 5,000 inhabitants (rising to 8 per cent by 1600). Nevertheless, it was also distinctive for the continuing growth of its smaller towns.⁶ Economically, too, England and France are traditionally held to have followed quite divergent paths. As a consequence, France suffers in comparison with England, especially with regard to their respective socio-economic developments during the early modern period. However, the usual picture of a stagnant and backward agricultural economy in France has to be offset by examples of investment and innovation, as well as an active mercantile sector which compares favourably with most other parts of Europe.⁷

Towns in Early Modern Society

Whilst recognizing 'the special features of urban existence', Rodney Hilton saw towns as very much part of feudal society, not antagonistic to it; all elements, urban and rural, formed part of a single system.⁸ Definitions of 'feudal society' aside, early modernists would not demur from this view of urban integration into the wider socio-economic and political order.⁹ Yet, despite the evident continuities between the late medieval and early modern periods, there are also definite trends which begin to distinguish the period, especially after 1550: in the position of the town in relation to the countryside, and in reaction to demographic change and other factors. These should be seen, however, as consolidating existing trends, rather than in any sense innovatory. Philip Benedict identifies five characteristic developments:

1. 1. the extension of urban control over rural landed property (through purchase by elites or reversion to them through the growing indebtedness of the peasantry)

2. 2. the growth of rural industry, especially textiles, controlled by urban merchants tempted by cheaper labour costs (what is commonly known as the putting-out system)

3. 3. the expansion of state and town-based administrative elites (especially men of law, but also rentiers who lived off rents and other investments, with time on their hands...