discussed by Brentano, Stubbs, Wilda and Hartwig that a mere summary of their conclusions will suffice. The materials for the history of Gilds before the Conquest are very slight; though, as England and possibly London is the birthplace of Gilds, their early history is entirely English'. But this paucity of evidence tells against the theory of Roman origin, for a view of Craft-gilds which derives them from the Collegia Opificum "needs rather to be proved historically by its adherents, than refuted by its opponents." It is true that in the Laws of Ine and Alfred, a class of gegildan are mentioned, but who they were and how they were connected with the kinless man's wergeld is a matter of great obscurity. There is also under Athelstan3, the code of a London frithgild, for mutual defence; and at the beginning of the 11th century, we have three GildStatutes, of Abbotsbury, Exeter and Cambridge. Three, if not four classes of Gilds are found to exist: (1) the religious or social Gild, whose chief purposes are good fellowship and common performance of religious offices. The members hold periodical banquets, and their contributions provide for religious services, festivals and the burial of members with proper solemnities. The Exeter and Abbotsbury Gilds are of this class. (2) The Frithgild added to these religious and social purposes the temporal functions of mutual defence and responsibility. The members of such a gild were protected against criminals, and the Gild was responsible for the sins of its members. The Cambridge Gild and the London one, (tempore Athelstan) were of this class'. (3) The Merchants' or Trading Gild is at least as old as the Conquest; it regulated the trade of its members, and attempted to regulate that of the town Originally independent of the municipality, it came to be either 1 Brentano, p. 50. 2 Ine, §§ 16, 21. Stubbs, 1. 89, 414. 432-438. Alfred, §§, 27, 28. 2 Athelstan vi. 1-12; Judicia Civitatis Lundoniae. Stubbs, 1. 414. 4 Brentano, c. I. Stubbs, I. 412— 415. 5 Brentano, c. 2, pp. 17-28. 6 As to the functions of the Collegia Opificum, see the authorities quoted in the Report of the City Guilds Commission, 1884, p. 8, note. Coote, Romans in Britain, pp. 383-396. 7 Stubbs, 1. 416. Brentano, c. 3. pp. 29-49. identical with, or closely connected with the governing body of the towns. It was usually of a distinctly aristocratic character. A similar class of bodies, though of different origin is, (4) the Craft Gilds', composed of the freemen and bondsmen of each trade, who aimed at furthering the livelihood of their members in their respective crafts. They were later in origin than the Merchant Gilds, and usually came into violent collision with them in a battle of rich against poor, privilege against the people. But this struggle was more marked in the Continental than in the English Gilds. A well-recognized theory refers the origin of the Religious Gilds to the feasts of the Northern Scandinavian tribes, which are expressly called "Gilds." These, originally of a heathen character become Christianized as the Religious Gilds. Wilda admits the Scandinavian origin of the banquets, but ascribes their special character to monastic institutions: this Hartwig* rejects, referring their origin to Christianity in the mixed associations of clergy and laity for mutual support. Against them Brentano argues for the essentially pagan character of the original Gilds, which subsequently came under Christian and monastic influences. The development of fellowship he regards as purely English. England is the birthplace of Gilds": the Frith-, Merchant-, and Craft-Gilds come to England from no foreign source, but are indigenous, arising from the needs of the time and based on the development of the mutual regulation and assistance contained in the German family. This English view is adopted by the Bishop of Chester, and by Mr Freeman in a letter to the City Guilds Commission, in which he says: "the trade of London is as old as it well can be. The gap between the Roman and English periods is hidden by the blackness of darkness, which shrouds our settlement of Britain, and which...teaches much more clearly than any light 1 Brentano, Stubbs, 1. 417. c. 4, pp. 50-100. 2 Brentano, pp. 3—6. 3 Das Gildewesen in Mittelalter. Halle, 1831. Unt. über die ersten anfange des Gildewesens. Göttingen, 1860. 5 Brentano, Pref. ix. 61884. Report, p. 8, note. could what the nature of that settlement really was. Had there been any continuity between the institutions of the two periods, that blackness of darkness could hardly have been." The Commissioners remark that "the better opinion appears to be that the mediaeval Gilds were not a relic of Roman civilization, but an original institution." We may safely adopt the same view, or at least pronounce that the case of Roman origin has not been proved by its advocates2. 1 Report, p. 8. 2 See also Coote's "Ordinances of the Secular Gilds of London." London, 1871. For Mr Freeman's criticism on Mr Coote's general theory, see Macmillan's Magazine, June, 1870. Freeman, N. C. v. 887. CHAPTER VII. ROMAN LAW AND THE NORMAN CONQUEST. THE Norman Conquest effects no sudden or sweeping changes in our institutions and laws: historical continuity of growth may be traced throughout. The "Feudal system", as it is misleadingly called, the chief product of Norman rule, was present in germ before the Conquest, and would probably have developed even if William had never crossed the channel. True it is that English institutions underwent great changes during the 12th and 13th centuries: Ranulf Flambard, the Justiciar of William Rufus, elaborated the details of feudal tenure with oppressive ingenuity: the Henries, with the clerical family of the Le Poors, developed an administrative system far in advance of the Saxon period both in finance and in the judicature. The second Henry did much to modify the law by direct legislation, and paved the way for our English Justinian, the first Edward. But all these changes are rather in the history of institutions than in the history of Law. Our records of cases are scant and difficult': the Year Books do not commence till 1274; the written Law is scanty. The study of the Law of Rome does not revive till the latter half of the 12th century, and not until between 1180 and 1190 is the great work of Ranulf Glanvil, the Justiciar, published. We have of course three codes extant, which, if genuine, would be of great assistance to our task, the so-called Laws of 1 Collected in Bigelow's Placita S. C. pp. 74, 80, 100. Stubbs, Preface Anglo-Normannica. London, 1879. to Roger of Hoveden, II. 22-47. Thorpe, pp. 190-267. 2 Freeman N. C. v. 868. Stubbs LAWS OF EDWARD AND WILLIAM I. 59 Edward the Confessor, of William I., and of Henry I. But their unofficial and informal character has been so completely established by the Bishop of Chester and Mr Freeman, that a very brief notice will suffice. The Laws of Edward the Confessor1 purport to be the result of the inquiries ordered by the Conqueror in 1069 to be made, through 12 wise men from each shire, as to the laws and customs of the realm. But one article distinctly refers to a Danegeld under William II.3, and the preamble contains historical anachronisms, fatal to its claims as a contemporary record. The version supplied by Hoveden is probably a version prepared by Glanvil about A.D. 1170, and possibly founded on an early report of the inquiry by jurors in A.D. 1070. It contains no evidence of Roman influences. The so-called Laws of William, his new legislation apart from the confirmation of old law, are extant in two widely different versions; one, the most ancient, contained in the Textus Roffensis and Hoveden, and reprinted by the Bishop of Chester*; the second and fuller one, in the Red Book of the Exchequer and printed in Thorpe. The latter version has been fully discussed by the Bishop, who holds it to date most probably from the reign of Edward I. One of its clauses purports to remit tallages, a boon appropriate in the reign which saw "De Tallagio non Concedendo" presented to the king, and the Confirmatio Cartarum granted. The form of the charter in the 1st person plural is unique at so early a date. The verbose description in the preamble; "Francos et Britones Walliae et Cornubiae, Pictos et Scotos Albaniae", is appropriate to the reign of Edward rather than to the time of the Conqueror. All the evidence therefore points to the Bishop's conclusion, in which Mr Freeman concurs, that the longer version dates from the time of Edward I., and is suggested by the controversies of his reign. The shorter form given by Hoveden' is probably |