compound for the taxes by a fixed sum, free from the exactions of the sheriff. Need of money made Henry II. and his sons Richard I. and John willing to sell charters to the towns, by which these privileges were secured to them. The nobles were influenced by the same reasons; and 1,500 royal and 49 baronial charters which are still extant give us an idea of the extent of this revolution, which however was not always accomplished without a struggle, sometimes, as in the case of St. Albans, a bloody and in the end disastrous struggle.

Political power was not one of the objects sought by the towns in the twelfth century; they did not yet aspire to a voice in the government of the country. The city of London alone possessed such a voice. She took an important part in the election of Stephen to the crown. In his reign her power and wealth were so great that the barons called her 'the head of all the realm.' The Bishop of Winchester, Stephen's brother, when holding a council at Winchester to declare Matilda queen, said: "We have despatched messengers for the Londoners, who, from the importance of their city in England, are almost as it were nobles, to meet us on this business, and have sent them a safe-conduct; wherefore let us wait for them.' It is said that London furnished 20,000 horse and 60,000 infantry in Stephen's time. Yet London did not obtain its recognition as a self-governing corporation till 1191; the right to elect its mayors annually was granted by John in Industry and 1215. But though in the next century the towns Feudalism. were called upon to send representatives to the great council of the nation, the fact of primary importance in their history is not that through them the middle classes rose to political power, but that the rise of the industrial system put an end to the social economy of Feudalism. We have seen how the village community, growing its own food, and supplying all its own wants, was succeeded by the feudal community, the lord surrounded by his dependents, who were bound to cultivate his fields, and to supply him with such articles as his womenkind did not manufacture in his own household. But as the village becomes a town, and the traders and manufacturers of the town, increasing in wealth and importance, are able to throw off the yoke of the lord, and to compound for their services in kind by fixed payments

in money, we can see that a death-blow has been struck at feudalism as a social system. The new power of Industry will be fatal to an order of things which encourages fighting and idleness and despises work. We may be sure that the class which has thus secured its position will soon rise to political power. And we already see the self-sufficing community of early times changed for a broader system of division of labour, whereby the towns and hamlets of England are linked through trade and commerce with the larger life of the world.

Narrowness

Guilds.

While we look with pleasure on the emancipation of the towns as the sign both of the rise of a middle class and of the strong spirit of English independence, we must not forget that the word freedom in the twelfth century had not that large sense which it has now. Freedom, indeed, as we conceive it, did not exist then; it means now the possibility of development shared equally by all, and limited only by its universality; it meant then privilege, the private franchise, not the common right. Only certain classes enjoyed the franchise of the city, and there was an eternal feud between them and the unprivileged. It was a glorious thing that the serf who fled from his tyrannous lord could be received into the guild of the city, and if he remained of Merchant there a year and a day, could not be recovered by his lord any more. But the same merchant guild was often tyrannous in relation to other interests, as, for example, to the craft guilds. The merchant guild at first included all the traders and manufacturers of a town; and as long as all handicraftsmen were also merchants, the tailors, for example, importing their own cloth, there was no separation of interests in the town. But with increasing wealth came division of labour, and then only the wealthier citizens became merchants, and the different guilds of weavers, fullers, tailors, and others, were confined to craftsmen only. The struggle of the craft guilds with the merchant guild for civil power belongs to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and therefore does not come within the scope of the present work. But the unequal distribution of public burthens between the richer and poorer citizens was the cause of the first popular insurrection in England, the conspiracy of William Fitzosbert in the city of London in 1196.

The craft guilds themselves, though their professed aim

The craft guilds.

was 'the better maintenance and profit of the poorer sort,' only sought to secure this aim by obtaining monopolies. We must stay for a moment to glance at these guilds, which were such a marked feature of our ancient towns, and which date from Anglo-Saxon times. At first they appear to have been almost like clubs, meeting for good-fellowship and for religious services, and providing wax-lights, masses, and burial services for departed members. Others were formed as mutual assurance societies; others for works of charity. The craft guilds in many respects resembled our modern trades-unions; like them they had their praiseworthy side in so far as they aimed at the protection of the weak against the strong, and their bad side in so far as they meant the tyranny of the weak or the lazy over the strong. They insisted that none should carry on their trade who did not belong to their guild, and that all other craftsmen should strictly confine themselves to their own craft. They kept the management of their craft entirely in their own hands, and the minuteness with which they regulated all its conditions and processes must have been very vexatious, and a great hindrance to improvements. They obtained in time the right to be sole judges of their members in accusations relating to their craft. Rattening (taking away tools) was made use of to enforce the payment of fees and fines from guild-brothers. They limited the hours of work, and enforced certain holidays, to prevent competition. Every guildbrother was surrounded by restrictions on the free development of his industry. On the other hand, those who met with losses had a claim for help from the funds of the guild. Of course the guilds attempted to fix prices; it was the universal belief of the middle ages that this was a matter which could be and ought to be regulated by authority. The guilds bought from the kings the right of enforcing their privileges; and from them are descended the chartered Livery Companies of London, so called from the distinctive dress, which was the badge of every guild.

In one important respect there was no parallel between the guilds and modern trades-unions. They were not associations to protect the interests of Labour against those of Capital. Until the middle of the fourteenth century there was no working class distinct from the employers of labour.

The master craftsmen all worked with their own hands, employing for the most part only apprentices, who after their seven years' term of service themselves became masters. Disputes between labour and capital were as yet unheard of. It was not until the abolition of serfdom that difficulties of that kind came to the front.

The Jews.

The treatment of the Jews is a sad page in the civic history of the middle ages. The Jews had settled in England after the Norman Conquest, and were protected by the Norman kings; not for any respect they had for this ancient and most industrious nation, but because their love of money was stronger than their religious prejudices. The Jews were the only money-holders in Europe, and the Norman kings protected them from the bigoted hatred of their Christian subjects only in order that they might wring money from them themselves. In all the larger towns the Jews had their separate quarter called the Jewry, and were regarded with bitter jealousy by their fellow-citizens. When King Richard I. came to the throne the third crusade was already proclaimed, and the outburst of crusading spirit was one cause of the frightful massacres of the Jews, which began in London on the very day of the king's coronation, and spread to Lynn, Stamford, Lincoln, and York. The following account of the fearful tragedy of York is taken from William of Newburgh, a contemporary chronicler.

Benedict and Jocens, the chief Jews of York, had built themselves houses which were like kings' palaces, stone houses being then very rare in towns. It was very grievous to the Christians to see the prosperity of the Jews, especially when they were conscious that they owed them money. Benedict was killed in the massacre of the Jews at London, but Jocens escaped. When King Richard I. left England a great conspiracy was formed against the Jews of York, chiefly by some nobles who were greatly in debt, and youths who had taken the cross and wanted money; the graver citizens held aloof, knowing the Jews to be under the royal protection. On a stormy night the conspirators set fire to the city, that under cover of the fire they might plunder more easily. They broke into the house of Benedict, slew all whom they found, and made off with the booty, after having set fire to the house. Jocens and other Jews, terrified by this, took

refuge in the castle of York, with their wives and children and their treasures. The mob then plundered and burnt the Jews' quarter, and slew all the Jews they could find who refused baptism. Unfortunately, the commander of the castle having gone out on business, the Jews in the castle were in a state of such terror and distrust that on his return they would not let him in. He forthwith went to the sheriff, who happened to be in the city with some of the forces of the shire, and the sheriff indignantly ordered siege to be laid to the castle. The mob rushed to the work with such fury that the sheriff repented of his command, and tried to hold back the besiegers, but it was too late. The handicraftsmen, the youth of the city, crowds of country folk, and not a few soldiers, formed the body of the besiegers; the clergy also were represented; a certain hermit distinguished himself by his savage eagerness in leading on the besiegers, and he was the only one of them killed, by a stone from the walls. As the Jews had neither sufficient food nor means of defence, it was soon plain that they could not hold out long. They held a council of despair. Then arose an ancient Rabbi, much revered by them all, and said: "God, to whom no one can say, Why dost thou do this? commands us now to die for our law. And behold, our death is in the gates, as ye see; unless ye choose what is worse than death, to die apostates. Therefore with our own hands let us willingly give to the Creator the life which He demands, without waiting for the cruelty of our enemies." The greater part of the Jews followed his advice; having destroyed or spoilt their treasures as far as they could, they set fire to the roof of the castle, and then cut the throats of their wives and children, and their own. In the morning the survivors showed the horrible sight to the Christians, and begged for mercy, offering to receive baptism. Most people were moved with horror and pity, but one Richard Mala Bestia (or the Evil Beast) and the chief conspirators enticed them out of the castle, and murdered them all. The conspirators then went to the cathedral, and destroyed the schedules of their debts, which were kept there.

Though we are expressly told that the graver citizens held aloof from this deed of blood, and though no doubt the worst share of the blame belongs to the low rough population which