towns they stood at the head of the craftsmen, and in all the contests of the handicraft class with the patricians and merchants, for political freedom and power, the earlier struggles and the victories were those of the weavers. In all the chief manufacturing towns of that time, the most ancient were the weavers'-guilds, which existed in England, Flanders, Brabant, and the Rhenish Provinces. The guilds of the London weavers, and also that of the Oxford weavers, were chartered by Hen. I.; and in the reign of Hen. II. the weavers'-guilds, which existed at Nottingham, York, Huntingdon, Lincoln, and Winchester, were confirmed by charter by the king. Thus early in the twelfth century, the craft-guilds of the weavers were firmly established, under charter by the Crown.

§ 10. On the Continent they were scarcely less powerful. The wool-weavers'-guild, at Cologne, existed as early as the eleventh century, and the oldest German charter known is that of the Cologne weavers'-guild. In 1149 the pillow-case weavers formed a fraternity, with the consent of the judges, sheriffs, and aldermen, and thenceforth all who wished to carry on trade within the town were obliged to join and submit to its rules. The record proves that this union of handicraftsmen had existed prior to 1149, and that it was merely confirmed in that year. At Spire a guild of the wool-weavers existed at the beginning of the twelfth century; there is also mention of one at Mayence, in 1099, and of another at Worms, in 1114; while at Frankfort-on-Maine, the wool-weavers always ranked first among the crafts. In Flanders and Brabant, which occupied the first rank in the manufacture of woollen goods, the wool-weavers' guild was still more influential and prominent, where it appears as almost the sole leader in all the movements and revolutions of the handicraft class. Even the serfs seem here to have confederated into guilds; so deeply did the old idea of guild brotherhoods permeate the inhabitants of these independent provinces, that it has been suggested that probably the first craft-guilds originated with the industrious and stubborn weavers of these provinces. This, however, is not the case.

§ 11. The first craft-guilds which were formed, were composed of free handicraftsmen, with the object of promoting their

interests, and improving their condition; but the influence of this new organisation soon had the effect of assisting to elevate the lower members of the handicraft class. When the bond handicraftsmen were liberated many of the companies, or societies into which they had been ranged, gradually passed over into free craft-guilds; hence they were to be found everywhere in greater numbers about the time when the last traces of feudal bondage disappear. When these obtained their privileges they were frequently compelled to pay certain fixed imposts in return for their greater independence in labour and trade, and for the remission of fines on inheriting property-to which their lords, episcopal and lay, were entitled-and for other concessions. These imposts were levied on a kind of ad valorem principle, in proportion to the privileges obtained so they were greater or less in amount. As these societies gradually changed into craftguilds, they became impregnated with a different spirit, and were elevated into a new life, with higher objects and nobler aims. The origin of the craft-guilds, and the conversion of the societies of bondmen into free guilds, began with the dawn of the eleventh century, and extended to the middle of the thirteenth century, but the growth of certain of these guilds depended entirely on the development of the various native trades and handicrafts in the several towns. Some analogy has been traced between the transformation of the societies of bondmen into free craft-guilds, and the change, in later times, of friendly societies into trade unions; making due allowance for altered circumstances and conditions, there may be some slight resemblance, but it is certainly not very striking.

§ 12. The organisation of the free craftsmen into guilds was due to their want of protection against the abuse of power on the part of the lords and full citizens of the towns, who were trying to reduce them to dependence, and by imposts and other. wise to encroach on their earnings. By the institution of the craft-guild they were able to resist these attempts on their liberties, and the guild-brothers, by means of their organisation, maintained the customs of their craft, framed ordinances for its regulation, saw that these were properly executed, and punished all those who infringed them. To effect all this it was necessary

that every craftsman in the town should belong to the guild; but as in the first instance they were voluntary societies, the members could not enforce their regulations in a legitimate manner until the guild had been confirmed by the lord of the town, or by the general body of the citizens. The craft-guild as a voluntary society did not need confirmation by the authorities; but in course of time some craftsmen sprung up who refused to be governed by the guild, or who left it because they would not submit to the rules which were framed for ensuring good work and protecting the general interests of the trade; and as it was impossible to prevent this, or to check the evils which were likely to arise therefrom, then it became of the first importance that the confirmation of the guild should be obtained, especially when the members wanted it to be recognised as the special and independent association, which was thenceforth to regulate the trade of the town, instead of being regulated by the citizen authorities. When this power was once granted it was well known that all further protective measures would be sure to follow, in the interest of the guild-members.

§ 13. The great object of the craft-guild was to effect the transfer of all trade matters to the management and jurisdiction of the guild. This could only be done by obtaining a confirmation of their ordinance, which gave them power to prevent any one carrying on trade within the town or district, unless he belonged to, or joined, the guild. In return for this privilege the guild had to pay certain taxes yearly. In London these taxes went to the king; the London weavers under Hen. I. (1100-1133) and succeeding kings, paid to the Crown a rent for their guild, and other eighteen guilds are enumerated by Madox which were fined as a penalty under Hen. II. (1154– 1189), as being unlawful for neglecting to pay this tax. The citizen burghers saw that if these privileges were conferred on the craft guilds, the consequence would be that their own undivided sway could no longer be maintained in the towns; they were therefore extremely jealous of the new power which had sprung up in their midst, and threatened their own jurisdiction; hence they opposed with all their might the establishment of the craft-guilds as being detrimental to their own

interests. The whole of the early history of these guilds, from the date of their first formation, down to the time when they obtained the mastery in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, appears to have been nothing less than one continual struggle, the handicraftsmen against the citizens of the towns, for these coveted privileges.

§ 14. The Norman kings appear to have looked at these contests between the craftsmen and citizens only as a means of enriching their exchequer, for they seem to have confirmed or suppressed the guilds according as the one party or other was the higher bidder. This was their method of adjusting the claims, or reconciling the conflicting interests, of the two contending parties. The contest of the weavers with the citizens of London affords a striking example of the struggles between the rising craft-guilds and the old city burghers. The weavers had obtained from Hen. I. the privilege that "nobody, except by becoming a member of their guild, shall introduce himself within the city into their mystery, and nobody within. Southwark or other places belonging to London, except he be a member of their guild." This was confirmed to them by Hen. II. This exemption from the authority and jurisdiction. of the city excited the jealousy of the citizens to such a degree, that the weavers'-guild was involved in the most violent contests in order to maintain their privileges, and preserve their property. King John, in answer to the prayer of the citizens, promised "that the guild of weavers shall not from henceforth be in the city of London, neither shall (it) be at all maintained," but as the weavers'-guild had been accustomed to pay the king eighteen marks per annum, the citizens "should pay twenty marks in money for a gift" instead. In the sixth year of the reign of Hen. III. (1221-1222), the weavers'-guild and the citizens of London were again engaged in strife. Madox relates that "the weavers of London, fearing that the mayor and the citizens of London should extort from them their charter and liberties, granted to them by King Henry II., delivered their charter into the exchequer, to be kept in the treasury there, and to be delivered to them again when they should want it, and afterwards to be laid up in the treasury."

D

In 14 Ed. II. (1320-1321) we find the weavers still contending with the citizens for their privileges, but in this case it was in a court of justice. They had to answer a complaint of having transgressed and abused their privileges, and they had to prove their right to have a guild, as well as the legality of every single ordinance framed by them for the regulation of their trade. Their privileges, however, could not be impugned as a whole, but several regulations were pointed out which had crept in after the grant of their charter. These contests were not confined to London, for we find that the tailors'-guild at Exeter was engaged in a similar struggle with the authorities of the town. The charter of this guild was granted by 6 Ed. IV., but in consequence of a petition of the mayor and corporation of the town, it was repealed in the twenty-second year of the same reign; and yet we find the guild still going on, and prospering, and exercising all the powers contained in the charter, just as if the Act had not been passed. The reason seems to be that the quarrel was made up between the corporation and the guild, both bodies treating the Act of Parliament as a nullity. Certain it is that the guild and the corporation flourished side by side, and on the best of terms, as though no such quarrel ever existed. The charter was renewed and confirmed again and again, in succeeding reigns, and new ordinances and bye-laws were made, which were sanctioned by the judges in due form of law. The charter of Ed. IV., account of the quarrel between the guild and the corporation, and the king's award, are given at length in Mr. Toulmin Smith's collection, "English Gilds," pp. 299-330. places it would seem as if these conflicts between the new organisation of the handicraftsmen and the authorities of the towns, were the chief cause of fixing the rights of the craft-guilds in a charter, as was the case with the bakers' guild at Bâle. Whatever other results these contests may have had, they were not effective in suppressing the craft-guilds, either in England or on the Continent.

the

In some

§ 15. It was absolutely indispensable, as a condition of complete independence, that the craft-guilds should have the right of freely electing the wardens, whose duty it was to regulate the