therefore dangerous to pass by, to the great decay and hinderance of the
said boroughs and towns."[4]

At present, the decay of a town implies the decay of the trade of the town;
and the decay of all towns simultaneously would imply a general collapse of
the trade of the whole country. Walled towns, however, before the
Reformation, existed for other purposes than as the centre points of
industry: they existed for the protection of property and life: and
although it is not unlikely that the agitation of the Reformation itself
did to some degree interrupt the occupation of the people, yet I believe
that the true account of the phenomenon which then so much disturbed the
parliament, is, that one of their purposes was no longer required; the
towns flagged for a time because the country had become secure. The woollen
manufacture in Worcestershire 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