ways of obtaining the franchise, and the most important of these was by admission into the gild1. At London, Bristol and Chester 2, no stranger was to be admitted to the freedom of the city without the consent of the merchants or craftsmen of his occupation; this rule served at first to strengthen the position of the craft gilds, but was liable to abuse as a means of checking the competition of strangers, since only a freeman could exercise any mistery or trade 3. In other towns also, apprenticeship was the usual qualification for the acquisition of civic rights, and as a result the municipal government must have been largely identified with and dominated by the craft element. In 1351 and 1352 the members of the London common council, who had previously been elected from the wards, were now elected from the misteries, a sign of the growing prestige of the gilds. In 1376 power was again transferred from the wards to the misteries, and it was ordained that the council should always be chosen by the latter 5. However, in 1384 the older system was restored, and to the present day the wards still retain the right of election. There was evidently a reaction in this year against the influence of the misteries, for they were forbidden to elect to the council more than eight persons from the same mistery 7. In 1475 it was further enacted that two aldermen of the same mistery could not be nominated together for the mayoralty 8. Again at York (1518) the members of the common council were chosen from the craft gilds, two from each of the thirteen principal

1 First Report of the Municipal Corporations (1835), 18-19. Other methods were by gift or purchase, and by birth or marriage; admission to the gild would be of course mainly through apprenticeship. At Bristol in 1500 it was still possible to obtain the freedom by purchase, or by marriage with the widow or daughter of a burgess: Latimer, Merchant Venturers, 33. Similarly at Northampton: Records, ii. 311.

2 (i.) London: Riley, Liber Custumarum, i. 269 (1319). (ii.) Bristol: Little Red Book, ii. 166 (1439). (iii.) Chester: Morris, 389 (1549).

3 On the other hand, a gild could not admit a 'foreigner' unless he took up the freedom of the city; and in 1585 the weavers of Chester were fined for receiving a non-burgess (Morris, 385, 409). Similarly Bristol (1346): Little Red Book, ii. 4. Letter Book F, 237 (1351); ibid. G, 3. • Ibid. 227.

5 Ibid. H, 36.

7 Ibid. 227.

The statement in Herbert (Livery Companies, i. 29) that the Grocers at one time had 16 aldermen among their members is a mistake. The highest number for any one year is 9: English Hist. Review, xxii. 523. • Ibid. L, 132.

crafts and one from each of the fifteen "lower crafts "1; while at Beverley (1493) only members of the livery could be elected as governors 2. The close relation between the craft gilds and the municipal body was shown in another way when the crafts served as the basis of municipal activities. In an assessment of 1227 the inhabitants of Wallingford were grouped according to their occupation as mercers, glovers, shoemakers and the like 3. This does not necessarily imply that the various trades were already organized in gilds, but in London and Coventry at any rate the crafts were sometimes utilized for purposes of military organization. With another aspect of the problem we are considering-the interaction of the craft gilds and the municipality-we need only deal briefly. That the crafts were able to bring pressure to bear upon the municipality is doubtless true; where every craftsman was required to be a citizen 5, they would naturally include in their ranks the leading men of the town, who would be able to manipulate the government of the city and utilize its sanction to fortify their own authority. In this way we can to some extent explain the successful opposition of the masters to the journeymen gilds. But it is idle to suppose that the craft gilds were able with impunity to set at defiance the interests of the community, or issue ordinances at will unshackled by authority. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has been given to establish the contention that they were constantly called to account for injurious enactments. At no period in the Middle Ages were the powers of the municipality ever completely absorbed by the gilds; at no period did the municipality ever lose its separate and distinct identity. It is true, of course, that the governing body of the town did not itself always represent the community, and from a constitutional standpoint tended to become narrow and oligarchical. But from the economic standpoint it does appear on the whole to have represented the commonalty, 2 Beverley Town Documents, 59.

1 Drake, Eboracum, 207.

3 Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. App. 576.

4 (i.) London: Williams, Annals of the Founders' Company, 211 seq. (1469). (ii.) Coventry: Leet Book, i. 244 (1450).

5 Supra, p. 341 (n. 3).

and its control of the market, its supervision of the gilds and its execution of the assizes were all in the best interests of the general body of consumers within the towns.

craft gilds

unions.

Some writers have endeavoured to establish a connexion Combetween the gild system and trade unionism1, but there are parison of many striking differences between mediaeval craft gilds and and trade modern trade unions, not only in regard to membership but also in functions. In one respect they are similar, for both alike are industrial organizations concerned ultimately with the same fundamental purpose, the maintenance of the standard of life'2. The chief object of the trade union is to organize the workers, in order to raise the standard of living and by the co-operation of forces prevent the degradation of their social and economic status. The craft gilds were no less concerned with securing to every one of their members opportunities for a fair and just remuneration of their labour. Both bodies rest in principle upon the conviction that combined action can alone ensure adequate maintenance for the workers; to this degree the trade unions carry on the tradition of the older gild system. Here, however, the resemblance ends.

ship.

(1) The craft gilds comprised only skilled artisans, but Restricted outside their ranks lay an ever-growing body of unskilled memberworkmen, devoid of organization, in receipt of inferior wages, and altogether on a lower plane than their more favoured fellows. The craft gilds were, in fact, select bodies whose members were the competent men of the trade, and at no time apparently did they contain within their ranks the whole body of workers within the town3. It is this aspect of the gild as an exclusive organization, restricted as a general rule to skilled workmen, that constitutes one of its most essential characteristics. The class of uncovenanted' labour, or 'working class', grew as the gild began artificially

1 G. Howell, Conflicts of Capital and Labour (1890), 69. Trade Unions are the real and legitimate descendants " of the craft gilds.

2 S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism (1911), 19.

3 As early as 1260 the London Lorimers exacted 30s. from apprentices (Riley, Liber Custumarum, i. 78), which must imply that many engaged in the trade were shut out of the craft organization. See also supra, p. 290; Webb, op. cit. 37 (n. 1); Green, Town Life, ii. 101 seq.

Urban institutions.

Compulsory membership.

Com

position.

to limit its membership. It must also be borne in mind that membership of a craft gild was confined to those who enjoyed citizen rights. In practice, however, this limitation was unimportant, since admission to the gild enabled the stranger to attain burgess-ship as a matter of course.

(2) Again the craft gild was distinctly an urban institution, an industrial group consisting of the men of a particular locality. Normally its membership extended only to those who dwelt within the walls of one and the same town; this was in accordance with the characteristics of an age in which economic life was organized on the basis of the borough and the manor. We must avoid, however, the temptation to lay down hard and fast rules. There are grounds for believing that the craft gild sometimes included country workmen. The crafts of weavers and fullers at Coventry would seem to have comprised non-resident members 1, and this may also have been the case among some of the gilds of Norwich 2. However this may be, the members of a trade union are drawn from a wider area, which may even cover the whole kingdom. This difference measures the whole extent of progress from one stage of social evolution to another, from the city state to the country state.

(3) Further, membership of the mediaeval gild was not voluntary but compulsory; and the authorities of the gild were empowered to force every skilled artisan to become a member. The modern trade union is a voluntary association of workers based upon community of interests and the sense of solidarity.

(4) But the vital difference between the two institutions is that the craft gild did not consist, like the trade union, of one grade of producers only, the hired worker, but of all grades the manual worker, the middleman and the entrepreneur. The modern trade union is a combination of manual workers; while the gild embraced also the

1 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 727 (1538), 738 (1539). Thus no inhabitant was to give work to weavers of the city or of the country", unless they were members of the craft gild.

2 Records of Norwich, ii. 284. The wardens were to hold "assemblies of their craft of them that be citizens and none other four times in the year at the least". This suggests non-residence, though (less probably) it may

refer to non-freemen.

masters. The master craftsman of the gild system played in his time many parts. He was at once an artisan and an employer of labour; a manufacturer who worked up the finished product and a trader who disposed of his goods directly to the consumer; a capitalist who provided tools and a small store of capital, and an entrepreneur who sometimes supplied also the material or even anticipated the demand of the market. The gild system worked well, because in the earlier stages of its development there was little occasion for extreme antagonism between the employer of labour and the wage-earner. Capital, as we have seen, did not play in mediaeval industry the predominant part which it does at the present day, and the journeyman had reasonable prospects of achieving his independence. There were no permanent classes of employers and employees, the one rigidly divided from the other by an almost impassable barrier of wealth and social status. These conditions facilitated the harmonious co-operation of the different groups engaged in production, and rendered possible the efficient working of the gild system. It is true that the control of the gild would rest primarily with the masters, but the interests of neither apprentices nor journeymen were neglected. An apprentice who suffered ill-treatment could appeal for redress to the authorities of the gild1, and an employer who withheld his servant's wages beyond the appointed day of payment was either suspended from his craft or otherwise punished 2. Moreover, wages were determined not by the individual master, but by the authority of the gild3. The obvious drawback to this practice no doubt was that wages might tend to become stereotyped and remain fixed at the appointed maximum; on the other hand, it prevented a master from exploiting his men by paying them less than the customary minimum. Again, whenever strife or discord broke out between master and man the wardens of the craft were called in to arbitrate

1 Supra, p. 281.

2 Riley, Memorials, 307 (alien Weavers: 1362), 514 (Founders: 1389); Young, Barber Surgeons of London, 175 (1556); Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 216 (Glovers: 1499), 237 (Tailors: 1465).

3 Supra, p. 300.