Prior to the year 1798, the condition of a Swiss Canton was that of a great feudal lord, with an aggregate of many separate seigniorial properties; acquired partly by conquest, partly by purchase. In the town Cantons, such as Bern, Basel, and Zurich, the town was the lord, and the country districts were attached to each as dependent properties. In the rural Cantons, such as Uri and Schwyz, it was an aggregate of democratic communities, which exercised lordship over other dependent communities in their neighborhood. The conquered districts, instead of being created into new Cantons, remained subject, in some cases to individual Cantons, in others to associations of Cantons for their members jointly. In the rustic communities the government was a pure democracy; in the cities it was tempered with a small mixture of aristocracy. Each Canton had a separate coinage, its batzen and rapps, kreutzers and schillings, sous and centimes, that would not pass beyond its frontier.[45] Each Canton had its own agents accredited to foreign powers. Each Canton kept a custom-house, and manned a tower at every bridge, at which each load of grass, butt of wine, sack of corn, and pound of cheese that passed the boundary was taxed. Every Canton was a distinct body, independent from any other, and exercising the sovereign power within itself; looking upon the rest as mere allies to whom it was bound only by such acts to which it had consented, and when any new thing not comprehended in this agreement happened to arise, each Canton retained the power of determining the matter for itself. The idea that the minority of Cantons was bound by the decision of the majority took root slowly, and internal affairs depended for settlement on remonstrance and mediation. They were kept together by the peculiarity of their topographical position, by their individual weakness, by their fear of powerful neighbors, by the few sources of contention among a people of such simple and homogeneous manners, and by their joint interest in their dependent possessions. The conditions of the country and of its society contributed to divide instead of to unite the different Cantons. Mountains and lakes separated them into almost distinct nationalities; they were peopled by different races, with differences of language, religion, customs, industries, material interest, and social development,--more than a hundred parcels of territory, each having its separate history, and in many cases a far greater difference between the inhabitants than between the people of Maine and Texas, of Massachusetts and California, for they were a polyglot people without a community of language, to which, as a cohesive force, nothing can compare, especially in a democratic state governed by opinion expressed through universal suffrage. Many were the difficulties and dangers through which the Cantons had to struggle to break up this system and overcome these causes of dissension. This was gradually accomplished by the