Early History of the Gilds. Probably the real solution of the controversy is that we have here two aspects of the same question. The members of the Craft Gilds, whether rich or poor, were perforce residents in the Wards. They would therefore be equally interested in wresting the control of their Wards from the hands of the Aldermen, and at the same time of having a voice in the election of the Mayor, the Sheriffs, and the Common Council, while there are many indications which show that the Crafts were increasing in power. Dr. Stubbs says that municipal independence so far as it was based on the Gild must be regarded as the result of a series of infringements on the ancient rights of the free inhabitants'. This, though no doubt true of later times, would scarcely apply to this date. Even if the Craft Gilds were really at this time in the hands of the more well to do, they would at least represent more popular interests than the Aldermen, and the struggle may be called one of the mercantile and industrial against the aristocratic element. Moreover, the Gilds were then in the stage when, as Dr. Stubbs himself says in the same sentence, 'they stood for the protection of the weak'.' It is upon the Gilds that we must now concentrate our attention. Here, therefore, will be a good opportunity for a brief review of their previous history and of the position they now held in London. The Gild was a universal institution in Mediaeval Western Europe, and indeed, under different forms, is to be found even in the East. It is, in fact, a natural social development in the direction of association, which followed or accompanied the weakening of the family tie, and was rendered all the more necessary because of the absence of a strong central government and of a uniform system of justice at that early date. In no country is the history of these Gilds more interesting and more enduring than in England, based as they were on the I Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 419. We find an interesting parallel in the struggle in Flanders between the rich 'poorters' ('viri hereditarii', ‘ledigangers, who had abandoned trade, and the smaller craftsmen, especially those of the woollen trade. Cf. Pirenne, Belgique, i. 284. 2 For Eastern forms of Gilds, cf. Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London, p. 2, and authorities there quoted. English love of local association, of self-government and self-help, and yet the English dislike to abrupt constitutional change obscures their rise and fall, while on the Continent the rule of the Crafts frequently corresponds to a definite period in the constitutional history of the towns'.' When we meet with the Gild in the twelfth century it has many aspects, social, religious, and economical, and it is unwise to look for any single origin for so complex an institution. The earliest Gilds of which we have any knowledge in England are the so-called Frith Gilds, of which one existed in London in the reign of Athelstane. This was an association partly for the purpose of maintaining the peace and for the suppression of theft, partly for mutual help, to which was attached the duty of providing masses for the departed members of the Fraternity. Although its ordinances were enforced by the public authorities, it was probably not the creation of law, but was originally a voluntary association which came to be used as a part of the police organization, and in this respect it resembles the later Gilds which are constantly, often unconsciously, 'crossing the line which separates public from private functions, compulsory from voluntary association'. As no more is heard of this London Frith Gild it can scarcely have had any lasting influence on the municipal constitution. The same may be said of the Cnighten Gilds, of which the most interesting is that of London. This Gild, which held a charter from Edward the Confessor and claimed to have existed as early as the days of Cnut, was partly a religious and partly a social Gild. It was granted land and the soke of what became subsequently the Ward of Portsoken, and was apparently composed of lesser Thanes, although at the time of its dissolution most of its fifteen members were Aldermen or relations of Aldermen. Possibly the Gild undertook the duty of defending the City, but there is no evidence to show that it formed any part of the I 1 Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 15. 2 Cf. Stubbs's Charters, Judicia Civitatis Lundonne, p. 67; Liebermann, Geschichte der Angelsachsen, i. 173; Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 178; Unwin, Gilds and Companies of London, p. 19. For other Anglo-Saxon Gilds, which were mostly voluntary religious Fraternities, cf. Stubbs, Constit. Hist., i. 413. Earliest Gilds and government of the town, as Mr. Loftie would have us believe. It received Charters from William I, William II, and Henry I, and then in 1125, with his consent, surrendered its land, its soke, and the church of St. Botolph to the Prior of Holy Trinity. Henceforth the Prior became the ex officio Alderman of the Ward and remained so until the Reformation.' The idea, therefore, of association in Fraternities or Gilds was well known in London, as elsewhere, before the Norman ConCraft Gilds. quest. But the Anglo-Saxon Gild had not extended its functions much beyond the sphere of mutual help and protection. Of trading Gilds or Craft Gilds we have no mention until the 1 Cf. Letter Book C, xviii, and pp. 217 ff.; Round, Commune, p. 104; Geoffrey de Mandeville, Appendices K, P; Loftie, i. 98. 2 We have already stated that there is no evidence to show that London ever had a Gild Merchant. This, which in other towns was a department of the town organization, more or less connected with the municipal government, was perhaps unnecessary in London, where the more rapid extension of Crafts and of trade led to an earlier development of Craft Gilds than elsewhere, and where the more highly developed constitution could do all that the Gild Merchant did elsewhere. Nor had the Cinque Ports any such Gild, possibly because, owing to their dependence on foreign trade, they were less exclusive. The Gild Merchant, of which the earliest mentioned are those of Burford and Canterbury at the close of the eleventh century, was probably of foreign origin. The number of towns in England, which had such a Gild in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was very large. Although not originally, at least, a definite part of the municipal constitution, but rather an association of the chief traders and business men of the City, it soon became an important, if subsidiary part of the municipal machinery subordinated to the civic magistrates, though with greater autonomy than any department of the town government enjoys to-day. The Gild concerned itself mainly with the regulation of trade. Its judicial authority was at first very limited. It formed a tribunal before which brethren were expected to appear before carrying their quarrels to the ordinary Courts, and in some cases in the thirteenth century also exercised jurisdiction in pleas relating to trade matters. Thus, while the Gild Merchant was not the origin of municipal government, it influenced its development. The Gild Merchant was not definitely confined to the wealthy, although the entrance or initiation fee, which in many cases was high, would be a serious bar in the way of the poor. Craftsmen were admitted, but in those days the distinction between a Merchant and a Craftsman was not strongly emphasized, since most traders made the goods they sold. Nor, in spite of much jealousy between the richer and poorer traders and masters, is there evidence for Brentano's theory, that those jealousies took the form of a struggle between the Gild Merchant and the Craft Gilds, ending in the victory of the latter. When, however, the Crafts twelfth century, if we accept the doubtful case of the Saddlers, whose claim rests upon tradition alone.1 In the year 1155, however, the Bakers of London are recorded in the Pipe Roll of the Exchequer as paying £6 a year for the privilege of having a Gild, and are subsequently found holding their Hall-moots, while the Fishmongers claim a very early origin as well as the right to have their Hall-moot.3 But the earliest and by far the most important Charter is that of Henry I to the Weavers, which gave them the control of their trade and thereby, as was subsequently maintained, the right to hold a court with jurisdiction over their members in a plea of debt, contract or small transgression'.+ Perhaps the success of those Crafts in gaining privileges may have excited others to organize themselves, especially during the weakness of Stephen's rule, since we learn that in 1179-89 eighteen Gilds were declared to be 'adulterine' and fined because increased in number, and organized themselves under their separate Gilds, there was no further use for the Gild Merchant. It therefore disappeared, or, in the few cases where it survived, it had in the fifteenth century either been transformed into a simple religious Fraternity, or had become completely merged in the municipal organization. Borough and Gild, Burgess and Gildsman became, as they had not been before, identical terms, and the head of the town was the head of the Gild. Abroad the Merchant Gilds are not mentioned before the middle of the eleventh century, and when, in the twelfth century, they became important, they are less connected with the civic government than they are in England. The concession of a Gild Merchant, or rather of a Merchant Gild, is rarely mentioned among the privileges granted to a town. More often these Gilds receive Charters of their own, and resemble the later English mercantile Gilds or Companies, such as the Merchants of the Staple, the Merchant Adventurers, and the Mercers' Company, organized either for foreign trade or to regulate some part of a local monopoly. In some cases Craftsmen were still admitted as members, and in a few cases the Merchant Gilds controlled the Crafts. Cf. Gross, Gild Merchant; Ashley, Surveys Historic and Economic, p. 213; Maitland, Collected Papers, ii. 222. This is made in a document which is certainly not earlier than the reign of John, and at that date they seem to have been only a religious Fraternity. Loftie, London, i. 173; Unwin, Gilds, p. 53. 2 Liber Custum., Rolls Series, i. 420–2. 3 Liber Albus, p. 323. Unwin, p. 44. The Charter itself does not exist, but it is recited in one of Henry II. they had not obtained the royal licence. It should, however, be noted that only four of those are connected with the names of trades or Crafts, the Goldsmiths, the Pepperers, the Cloth-finishers, and the Butchers. The others appear to have been either religious or social Gilds, and Mr. Unwin is inclined to believe that even those connected with the names of trades or Crafts were rather religious or social Fraternities than trade Gilds in the strict sense, and that the Goldsmiths' Gild of 1180 is very possibly the same as 'the Fraternity of St. Dunstan' which we find in existence in 1272, and which supplied the basis for the later Livery Company. It is also possible that some, if not all, of these adulterine Ĝilds, more especially those bearing the name of their Aldermen,3 as well as the richer Gilds of the Goldsmiths and Pepperers, whose fine is very high, represented the political aims which had appeared in the attempted organization of the Commune in Stephen's reign and were to triumph in the grant of the Commune and the Mayor in the reign of Richard I; aims which we know were distasteful to Henry II. However that may be, there can be no doubt that the number of religious Fraternities increased rapidly and that, whether the Fraternity was the original association or not, all the greater and most of the lesser Gilds were finally connected with one.5 4 Cf. Pipe Roll of 1179-89. Subsequently the City authorities had the power to authorize the formation of Gilds. 2 Of the other fourteen: seven are alluded to by the name of their Aldermen ; five are called Gilds of Bridge, which may mean that the levying of contributions for the rebuilding of London Bridge, which was going on at that time, was part of the objects of the Gilds; two are called the Gild of St. Lazarus and the Gild of Haliwell (Holywell?) respectively. 3 N.B. The Alderman of the Gild must be distinguished from the Alderman of a Ward. * From the evidence to be derived from the Wills in Sharpe's Calendar of Wills and from the Gild Certificates of 1389, it is pretty clear that the majority of the Gilds of London up to the end of the fourteenth century were solely religious and social, and not connected with any particular trade. 5 Thus the Saddlers' Fraternity was connected with St. Martin's le Grand; the Fraternity of St. Dunstan, which may be the same as the Goldsmiths' adulterine Gild of 1180, was connected with the Goldsmiths' Company; the Skinners' Company with the Fraternity of Corpus Christi; the Grocers' Company with the Fraternity of St. Antonin; the Taylors' Company with the Fraternity of St. John the Baptist; the Drapers' Company with the Fraternity of St. Mary of Bethlehem. Mr. Unwin holds that in most cases the religious Fraternity was the earlier |