Sir Henry Maine tells us that in Hindustan nearly all the great towns and cities have arisen either from the simple expansion or from the expansion and coalescence of primitive village-communities; and such as have not arisen in this way, including some of the greatest of Indian cities, have grown up about the intrenched camps of the Mogul emperors.[10] The case has been just the same in modern Europe.  Some famous cities of England and Germany—­such as Chester and Lincoln, Strasburg and Maintz,—­grew up about the camps of the Roman legions.  But in general the Teutonic city has been formed by the expansion and coalescence of thickly-peopled townships and hundreds.  In the United States nearly all cities have come from the growth and expansion of villages, with such occasional cases of coalescence as that of Boston with Roxbury and Charlestown.  Now and then a city has been laid out as a city ab initio, with full consciousness of its purpose, as a man would build a house; and this was the case not merely with Martin Chuzzlewit’s “Eden,” but with the city of Washington, the seat of our federal government.  But, to go back to the early ages of England—­the country which best exhibits the normal development of Teutonic institutions—­the point which I wish especially to emphasize is this:  in no case does the city appear as equivalent to the dwelling-place of a tribe or of a confederation of tribes.  In no case does citizenship, or burghership, appear to rest upon the basis of a real or assumed community of descent from a single real or mythical progenitor.  In the primitive mark, as we have seen, the bond which kept the community together and constituted it a political unit was the bond of blood-relationship, real or assumed; but this was not the case with the city or borough.  The city did not correspond with the tribe, as the mark corresponded with the clan.  The aggregation of clans into tribes corresponded with the aggregation of marks, not into cities but into shires.  The multitude of compound political units, by the further compounding of which a nation was to be formed, did not consist of cities but of shires.  The city was simply a point in the shire distinguished by greater density of population.  The relations sustained by the thinly-peopled rural townships and hundreds to the general government of the shire were co-ordinate with the relations sustained to the same government by those thickly-peopled townships and hundreds which upon their coalescence were known as cities or boroughs.  Of course I am speaking now in a broad and general way, and without reference to such special privileges or immunities as cities and boroughs frequently obtained by royal charter in feudal times.  Such special privileges—­as for instance the exemption of boroughs from the ordinary sessions of the county court, under Henry I.[11]—­were in their nature grants from an external source, and were in nowise inherent in the position or mode of origin