«Промышленная история Англии»

ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ ИСТОРИЯ АНГЛИИ

THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND

BY

H. DE B. GIBBINS,

LITT.D., M.A.

SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD AND UNIVERSITY (COBDEN) PRIZEMAN IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

WITH FIVE MAPS AND A PLAN

TWENTY-SEVENTH EDITION

METHUEN & CO. LTD.

36 ESSEX STREET W.C.

LONDON

Впервые опубликовано

Июль 1890 г.

Второе издание

1890

Третье издание

1892

Четвертое издание

1895

Пятое и шестое издания

1897

Седьмое издание

1900

Восьмое издание

1902

Девятое издание

1903

Десятое издание

1904

Одиннадцатое и двенадцатое издания

1906

Тринадцатое и четырнадцатое издания

1907

Пятнадцатое издание

1908

Шестнадцатое издание

1910

Семнадцатое издание

1911

Восемнадцатое издание, переработанное

1912

Девятнадцатое издание

1913

Двадцатое издание

1914

Двадцать первое издание

1916

Двадцать второе издание

1917

Двадцать третье, двадцать четвертое и двадцать пятое издания

1918

Двадцать шестое издание

1919

Двадцать седьмое издание

1920

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ

Эта небольшая книга представляет собой попытку в краткой, сжатой и простой форме изложить основные контуры экономической и промышленной истории Англии. Она призвана служить введением в более глубокое изучение предмета и предварительным очерком, который читатель впоследствии, при желании, сможет дополнить самостоятельно, обратившись к более объемным трудам, посвященным отдельным периодам. В то же время есть надежда, что этот очерк поможет не только студенту, но и обычному читателю получить общее представление о той стороне истории, которой слишком часто пренебрегают, но которая имеет важнейшее значение для правильного понимания истории английской нации. Я стремился, насколько это было возможно в рамках столь краткой работы, связать экономические и промышленные вопросы с социальными, политическими и военными движениями, полагая, что только в такой взаимосвязи исторические события могут обрести свою полную значимость.

Крайняя необходимость простоты и краткости в очерке подобного рода вынудила меня опустить или лишь вкратце упомянуть многие моменты, которые те, кто знаком с моим предметом, могли бы ожидать увидеть. Я, например, не приводил подробных статистических данных или объемных сносок о фактическом состоянии нашей торговли в различные периоды. Я также не дал ничего, кроме общего очерка старых и новых законов о бедных, финансовых мер или банковского дела; и с большим нежеланием я опустил обсуждение колониальной торговли. Но все эти вопросы, за исключением, пожалуй, последнего, студент может оставить до тех пор, пока не перейдет к гораздо более крупным работам; хотя надлежащая экономическая история наших колоний еще ждет своего написания. Тем не менее, я надеюсь, что этот общий взгляд на широкие контуры роста нашего богатства и промышленности в их связи с общей историей Англии окажется полезным.

Я предпочел не утомлять читателя постоянными ссылками на авторитетные источники в сносках, а выразил признательность различным авторам, чьи труды были изучены, в приложении, где также можно найти рекомендации для дальнейшего чтения.

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ К ВОСЕМНАДЦАТОМУ ИЗДАНИЮ

С момента первой публикации этой книги в 1890 году прошло двадцать один год, и автор, чью безвременную кончину оплакивают все ученые, успел внести различные исправления, которые сделали эту книгу более полно гармонирующей с его более крупным трудом «Промышленность в Англии». По некоторым вопросам он был вынужден изменить свои взгляды — шаг, неизбежный для книги, охватывающей столь обширную область.

В предисловии к пятому изданию он писал: «Говорили, что я пишу с предубеждением против землевладельцев, но это не так. Земельное дворянство Англии на протяжении нескольких столетий обладало преобладающей властью в государстве и обществе и, что вполне естественно, во многих случаях использовало ее для продвижения собственных интересов. Долг историка — указать на это, но из этого не следует делать вывод, что он испытывал какую-то особую предвзятость по отношению к этому классу. Любой другой класс, безусловно, поступил бы так же, как, например, владельцы фабрик поступали со своими наемными работниками в начале этого века, и как, по всей вероятности, будут поступать рабочие классы, когда дальнейшее расширение демократического правления даст им такую возможность».

«Недостаток человеческой природы заключается в том, что ей редко можно доверить безответственную власть, и если влияние одного класса общества не уравновешивается в той или иной степени влиянием другого, всегда будет существовать тенденция к некоторой несправедливости. Я надеюсь, что мои читатели будут помнить об этом при чтении следующих страниц и поверят, что я не намерен проявлять несправедливость по отношению к земельному дворянству Англии, которое сделало многое для укрепления славы и стабильности своей страны».

Настоящее, восемнадцатое издание было тщательно пересмотрено М. Э. Херст, магистром искусств, и в дополнение к этой редакции она написала новую главу (главу VIII), которая посвящена новой эре промышленного расширения. Таким образом, «Промышленная история Англии» продолжена с того момента, на котором ее оставил автор, и доведена до 1911 года.

CONTENTS

ПЕРИОД I

АНГЛИЯ ДО НОРМАННСКОГО ЗАВОЕВАНИЯ

ГЛ. I. ВВЕДЕНИЕ — РИМЛЯНЕ И ИХ ПРЕЕМНИКИ — ТОРГОВЛЯ

1

ГЛ. II. ЗЕМЛЯ: ЕЕ ВЛАДЕЛЬЦЫ И КУЛЬТИВАТОРЫ

5

ПЕРИОД II

ОТ НОРМАННСКОГО ЗАВОЕВАНИЯ ДО ЦАРСТВОВАНИЯ ГЕНРИХА III (1066–1216 гг. н. э.)

ГЛ. I. КНИГА СТРАШНОГО СУДА И МАНОРЫ

10

ГЛ. II. ГОРОДА И ГИЛЬДИИ

22

ГЛ. III. ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТЬ И ТОРГОВЛЯ: XI–XIII ВЕКА

31

ПЕРИОД III

С XIII ДО КОНЦА XV ВЕКА, ВКЛЮЧАЯ ВЕЛИКУЮ ЧУМУ (1216–1500 гг.)

ГЛ. I. СЕЛЬСКОЕ ХОЗЯЙСТВО В СРЕДНЕВЕКОВОЙ АНГЛИИ

40

ГЛ. II. ШЕРСТЯНАЯ ТОРГОВЛЯ И ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТЬ

47

ГЛ. III. ГОРОДА, ПРОМЫШЛЕННЫЕ ДЕРЕВНИ И ЯРМАРКИ

57

ГЛ. IV. ВЕЛИКАЯ ЧУМА И ЕЕ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ ПОСЛЕДСТВИЯ

67

ГЛ. V. ВОССТАНИЕ КРЕСТЬЯН 1381 ГОДА И ПОСЛЕДУЮЩЕЕ ПРОЦВЕТАНИЕ РАБОЧЕГО КЛАССА

75

ПЕРИОД IV

С XVI ВЕКА ДО КАНУНА ПРОМЫШЛЕННОЙ РЕВОЛЮЦИИ (1509–1760 гг.)

ГЛ. I. ЗЛОДЕЯНИЯ ГЕНРИХА VIII И ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В XVI ВЕКЕ

83

ГЛ. II. РОСТ ВНЕШНЕЙ ТОРГОВЛИ

91

ГЛ. III. ЕЛИЗАВЕТИНСКАЯ АНГЛИЯ

100

ГЛ. IV. РАЗВИТИЕ СЕЛЬСКОГО ХОЗЯЙСТВА В XVII И XVIII ВЕКАХ

109

ГЛ. V. КОММЕРЦИЯ И ВОЙНА В XVII И XVIII ВЕКАХ

121

ГЛ. VI. ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТЬ И ГОРНОЕ ДЕЛО

132

ПЕРИОД V

ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ РЕВОЛЮЦИЯ И СОВРЕМЕННАЯ АНГЛИЯ

ГЛ. I. КАНУН РЕВОЛЮЦИИ

144

ГЛ. II. ЭПОХА ВЕЛИКИХ ИЗОБРЕТЕНИЙ

157

ГЛ. III. ВОЙНЫ, ПОЛИТИКА И ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТЬ

167

ГЛ. IV. ФАБРИЧНАЯ СИСТЕМА И ЕЕ РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ

176

ГЛ. V. ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ РАБОЧЕГО КЛАССА

187

ГЛ. VI. ПОДЪЕМ И УПАДОК СОВРЕМЕННОГО СЕЛЬСКОГО ХОЗЯЙСТВА

198

ГЛ. VII. СОВРЕМЕННАЯ ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ АНГЛИЯ

211

ГЛ. VIII. НОВАЯ ЭПОХА, 1897–1911 гг.

223

ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ ОБ ИСТОЧНИКАХ ПО ПРОМЫШЛЕННОЙ ИСТОРИИ

241

ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ

243

УКАЗАТЕЛЬ

253

СПИСОК КАРТ И ДИАГРАММ

ДИАГРАММА МАНОРА

стр. 21

АНГЛИЯ ВСКОРЕ ПОСЛЕ ВРЕМЕНИ СОСТАВЛЕНИЯ КНИГИ СТРАШНОГО СУДА, 1100–1200 гг. н. э.

напротив стр. 38

ИНДИЯ ВО ВРЕМЕНА КЛАЙВА, С УКАЗАНИЕМ АНГЛИЙСКИХ ФАБРИК И РАЙОНОВ ПОД НАШИМ ВЛИЯНИЕМ

напротив стр. 128

ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ АНГЛИЯ, 1700–1750 гг.

напротив стр. 134

АНГЛИЯ, С УКАЗАНИЕМ УГОЛЬНЫХ БАССЕЙНОВ И СООТВЕТСТВУЮЩИХ ПРОИЗВОДСТВ

напротив стр. 164

INDUSTRIAL ENGLAND, 1890

напротив стр. 210

THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND

ПЕРИОД I АНГЛИЯ ДО НОРМАННСКОГО ЗАВОЕВАНИЯ

ГЛАВА I ВВЕДЕНИЕ — РИМЛЯНЕ И ИХ ПРЕЕМНИКИ — ТОРГОВЛЯ

§ 1.

ALTHOUGH the industrial history of England does not properly begin until the settlement made by the Norman Conquest, it is nevertheless impossible to omit some reference to the previous economic condition of the country. As everybody knows, the Romans were the first to invade Britain, although it had been known, probably for centuries previously, to the Phenicians and Carthaginians who used to sail here for its tin and lead. The Romans, however, first colonized the country and began to develop its resources; and they succeeded in introducing various industries and in opening up a considerable commerce.

Под властью Рима Британия достигла высокого уровня процветания, и этому факту есть множество свидетельств римских писателей. Они говорят о богатых природных ресурсах Британии, о ее многочисленных стадах, о ее полезных ископаемых, о различных торговых возможностях и о доходах, получаемых из этих источников.

Мы знаем, что в середине III века н. э. в Британии было не менее пятидесяти девяти городов, и население, вероятно, было довольно значительным, хотя у нас нет точных статистических данных по этому вопросу. Из страны вывозилось большое количество зерна: однажды было отправлено до 800 судов для снабжения римских городов в Германии. Это свидетельствует о довольно развитом сельском хозяйстве. Олово также было важным экспортным товаром, как, впрочем, и всегда; а британские рабы постоянно отправлялись на рынок в Рим. В самой стране велись масштабные материальные работы: строились обнесенные стенами города, мощеные дороги, акведуки и великие общественные здания, которые остались свидетельствовать о величии своих строителей долгое время после того, как их имена стали далеким воспоминанием. Военная система римлян способствовала промышленным результатам, поскольку римские солдаты принимали активное участие в строительстве дорог, возведении дамб, работе на рудниках и проведении крупных инженерных операций, которые отмечали римское правление. Главные города в значительной степени обязаны своим возникновением своей важности как военных станций; и большинство из них, такие как Йорк, Лондон, Честер, Линкольн, Бат и Колчестер, с тех пор продолжали оставаться значительными центрами населения, хотя, конечно, с периодическими колебаниями. Однако, когда римляне окончательно покинули Британию (в 410 г. н. э.), торговля и сельское хозяйство начали приходить в упадок; города разрушались; и на протяжении веков Англия становилась полем битвы различных хищнических племен с континента, которые постепенно осуществили поселение, сначала во многих королевствах, но в конечном итоге в одном, и стали известны как «англичане» или англосаксонская национальность (827 г. н. э.).

1 См. примечание 1, стр. 243, о населении римской Британии.

§ 2. Торговля в англосаксонский период —But although Egbert became Lord of the Saxons in 827, it was not till {3} the reign of Edgar (958–975) that England became one united kingdom, and indeed throughout this period internal war was almost constant, and naturally prevented any great growth of home industry or foreign trade. The home industry, such as it was, was almost entirely agricultural, under a system of which I shall speak in the next chapter. The separate communities living in the country villages or small towns were very much disinclined for mutual intercourse, and endeavoured as far as possible to be each a self-sufficing economic whole, getting their food and clothing, coarse and rough as it generally was, from their own flocks and herds, or from their own land in the mark or manor. 2 Hence only the simplest domestic arts and manufactures were carried on.

2 См. следующую главу.

§ 3. Внутренняя торговля. Деньги —But, however much a community may desire to be self-sufficing, it cannot be so entirely. Differences of soil, mineral wealth, and other advantages cause one community to require what another has in abundance. Salt, for instance, was largely in request for salting meat for the winter, and it cannot be universally procured in England. Hence local markets arose, at first always on the neutral boundary between two marks, 3 the place of the market being marked by the boundary stone, the origin of the later “market cross.” These markets at first took place only at stated times during the year. Shrines and burial-places of noted men were the most frequented spots for such annual fairs. Thus, e.g., the origin of Glasgow may be traced from the burial-place of St Ninian (A.D. 570). There seems to have been a well-defined, though small, trading class; but, at any rate at first, most people of different occupations met {4} at well-known, convenient places, and bartered without the assistance of any kind of middlemen.

3 См. примечание 2, стр. 243, о рынках на границах.

Простой бартер, однако, утомителен и обременителен; и хотя до времени Альфреда (870 г. н. э.) значительная часть, хотя и не вся, английской внутренней торговли велась таким образом, использование металлов для обмена начинает становиться обычным в IX веке; а в 900 г. н. э. зафиксированы регулярные денежные платежи арендаторов. А когда мы подходим к сбору датских денег (991 г. н. э.) — налога, введенного Этельредом в качестве выкупа датчанам, — становится ясно, что денежная чеканка должна была получить широкое распространение и находиться в общем обращении.

§ 4. Внешняя торговля —Trade of all kinds had suffered a severe blow when the Romans quitted Britain, but during the Anglo-Saxon period English merchants still did a certain amount of foreign trade. They were encouraged too in this by a doom, of Danish origin, 4 which provided that “if a merchant thrived so that he fared thrice over the sea by his own means, then was he of thane-right worthy,” which gave him a comparatively high rank. The settlement of German merchants in London, pointing to some continental trade, also dates from the time of Ethelred the Unready (about A.D. 1000). Much of this foreign trade lay in the treasures of precious metals and embroideries, which were imported for use in monasteries. It is interesting, by the way, to note that St Dunstan (who died in 988) encouraged handicraft work in metals, especially in ironwork. The exports from England were chiefly wool—which we shall afterwards see becomes of great importance—some agricultural produce, and also, as before, lead and tin. English merchants we know went to Marseilles, and others frequented the great French fairs of Rouen and St Denis in the ninth century; while, {5} rather earlier, we have a most interesting document, our first treaty of commerce in fact, dated A.D. 796, by which Karl the Great, or Charlemagne, as some people call him, grants protection to certain English traders from Mercia. And in King Alfred’s days one English bishop even “penetrated prosperously” to India with the king’s gifts to the shrine of St Thomas.

4 См. примечание 3, стр. 243, о датском влиянии на торговлю.

§ 5. Общее резюме —Taking a general view of the period between the Saxon Conquest and the Norman Conquest, we see that crafts and manufactures were few and simple, being confined as far as possible to separate and isolated communities. Fine arts, and works in metal and embroideries were limited to the monasteries, which also imported them. The immense mineral wealth of the island in iron and coal was untouched. Trade was small, though undoubtedly developing. The mass of the population was engaged in agriculture, and every man had, so to speak, a stake in the land, belonging to a manor or parish. A landless man was altogether outside the pale of social life. The owners of the land, and the method of its cultivation, will occupy us in the next chapter.

ГЛАВА II ЗЕМЛЯ: ЕЕ ВЛАДЕЛЬЦЫ И КУЛЬТИВАТОРЫ

§ 1. Марка —We have just said that the population of England as a whole was almost entirely engaged in agriculture; and indeed for some centuries onward this industry was by far the most important in the country. Now, it is impossible to understand the conditions of this industry without first glancing at the tenure of land as existing about this time. It has been thought, but it is {6} not at all certain, that in very early times before the tribes afterwards called English had crossed over to England, or perhaps even before they had arrived in Europe, all land was held in common by various communities of people, perhaps at first with only a few families in each. The land occupied by this community (whether it was a whole tribe or a few families) had probably been cleared away from the original forests or wastes, and was certainly separated from all other communities by a fixed boundary or mark, 5 whence the whole land thus separated off was called a mark. Within this mark was the primitive village or “township,” where each member of the community had his house, and where each had a common share in the land. This land was of three kinds—(1) The forest, or waste land, from which the mark had been originally cleared, useful for rough natural pasture, but uncultivated. (2) The pasture land, sometimes enclosed and sometimes open, in which each mark-man looked after his own hay, and stacked it for the winter, and which was divided into allotments for each member. (3) The arable land, which also was divided into allotments for each mark-man. To settle any question relating to the division and use of the land, or to any other business of common importance, the members of the mark, or mark-men, met in a common council called the mark-moot, an institution of which relics survived for many centuries. This council, and the mark generally, formed the political, social, and economic unit of the early English tribes. How far it actually existed when these tribes occupied England it is difficult to say, and it is probable that it had already undergone considerable transformation towards what is called the manorial {7} system. But this much is certain, that in England, as in Germany, traces of communal life still remain. Our commons, still numerous in spite of hundreds of enclosures, and the names of places ending in ing, which termination frequently implies a primitive family settlement, are evidences which remain among us to-day. And it is only comparatively recently that the “common fields,” yearly divided among the commoners of a parish, together with the “three-field system,” which this allotment involved, have disappeared from our English agriculture.

5 Критику теории марки см. в «Промышленности в Англии», стр. 47–61.

§ 2. Манор —But when we come to the time when the Anglo-Saxons had made a final settlement, and were ruled by one king, we find a different system prevailing—i.e. the manorial system. The word “manor” is a Norman name for the Saxon “township,” or community, and it differs from the mark in this: the mark 6 was a group of households organized and governed on a common, democratic basis, while in the manor we find an autocratic organization and government, whereby a group of tenants acknowledge the superior position and authority of a “lord of the manor.” But although “manor” is a Norman name, the change from the old mark system had taken place long before the Norman Conquest, and even if perhaps occasional independent communities still existed, they were completely abolished under the Norman rule. The great feature of the manor was, that it was subject to a “lord,” who owned absolutely a certain portion of the land therein, and had rights of rent (paid in services, or food, or money, or in all three) over the rest of the land. It is probable that the lord of the manor had gained his position under a promise of aiding and protecting his humbler brethren; but, even in later {8} times, he had to acknowledge certain rights belonging to them.

6 т. е. предполагая, что он когда-либо существовал.

§ 3. Совместное земледелие —In the manor, just as in the earlier stage, all agriculture was carried on collectively by the tenants of the manor. Men gathered together their oxen to form the usual team of eight wherewith to drag the plough, pastured their cattle in common, and employed a common swineherd or shepherd for their pigs and sheep.

Отличительной чертой этого совместного земледелия была трехпольная система. Вся пахотная земля возле деревни была разделена на три полосы и засевалась следующим образом: поле засевалось пшеницей или рожью осенью одного года; но из-за медлительности примитивного земледелия этот урожай не успевали собрать вовремя для осеннего посева следующего года, поэтому посев происходил следующей весной, а следующим урожаем был овес или ячмень; после этого урожая земля год находилась под паром. Таким образом, из этих трех полос каждый год одна была занята пшеницей или рожью, другая — овсом или ячменем, а третья находилась под паром. Земля каждого отдельного человека была неизбежно разбросана между различными участками его соседей, чтобы каждый мог иметь справедливую долю земли хорошего качества. Этот стиль земледелия, конечно, давал очень скудные результаты, но, по-видимому, его было достаточно для простых нужд жителей той эпохи.

§ 4. Феодальная система —In the next period we shall see this manorial system consolidated and organized under the Norman rule, and so may defer a full description of a typical manor till then. Here we may say that the manor is closely connected with the feudal system, which, it must be remembered, had begun a considerable time before the Norman Conquest. For the manor afforded a convenient political and social unit for the estimation of {9} feudal services, and the lord of the manor became more and more a feudal chief. But it must be understood that the manorial system was not the same as the feudal system, though it helped to prepare the way for it; and eventually the lords of the manors became nominally the protectors, but really the masters of the village husbandmen dwelling around them. The lord professed to take them under his protection if they surrendered their independence to him, and it was probably owing to the frequent incursions of the Danes that the system grew as it did. In Canute’s reign we find it in full force, for at this time the kingdom was divided into great military districts, or earldoms, the “earl” being responsible to the king and receiving the profits of his district. When William the Norman conquered England he did not, as is often supposed, impose a feudal system upon the people. The system was there already, developed from the old manors, and all William I. did was to reorganize it, and give the English people Norman instead of Anglo-Saxon or Danish lords.

ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ. Теория марки (которая сейчас считается весьма сомнительной) более подробно рассматривается в гл. IV моей книги «Промышленность в Англии», где также обсуждаются свидетельства общинной деревенской жизни; и я должен отослать своих читателей к ней для ознакомления с более современными взглядами.

ПЕРИОД II ОТ НОРМАННСКОГО ЗАВОЕВАНИЯ ДО ЦАРСТВОВАНИЯ ГЕНРИХА III (1066–1216 гг. н. э.)

ГЛАВА I КНИГА СТРАШНОГО СУДА И МАНОРЫ

§ 1. Книга Страшного суда —It was very natural that, when William the Norman conquered England, he should wish to ascertain the capabilities of his kingdom both in regard to military defence and for taxation; and that he should endeavour to gain a comprehensive idea of the results of his conquest. So he ordered a grand survey of the kingdom to be made, and sent commissioners into each district to make it. These officials were bidden to inquire about all the estates in the realm—who held them, what was the value of each, how many men occupied it and how many cattle each supported. The results of this survey form our earliest and most reliable statistics for English industrial history; and it is to be regretted that no general table or analysis of this great work has yet been made, or that historians do not use it more copiously for gaining a knowledge of the social and economic conditions of the time. For this latter purpose it is absolutely unrivalled. 7

7 О недавних работах о Книге Страшного суда см. стр. 242.

§ 2. Экономическое состояние страны, показанное в Книге Страшного суда —From it we may gather the following few facts {11} as to the economic condition of England about the time of the Norman Conquest. The population numbered about 2,000,000, three-fourths of whom lived by agricultural labour, the remaining fourth being townsfolk, gentry, and churchmen. The East and South, especially the county of Kent, were the best tilled, richest, and most populous parts of the country. “The downs and wolds gave fine pasturage for sheep, the copses and woods formed fattening grounds for swine, and the hollows at the downs’ foot, the river flats, and the low, gravel hills, were the best and easiest land to plough and crop. Far the largest part of the country was forest—i.e. uncleared and undrained moor, wood, or fen.” 8 The chief towns were London, Canterbury, Chester, Lincoln, Oxford, York, Hereford, and Winchester; but these were trading centres rather than seats of manufacturing industry. A small foreign export trade was done in wool and lead, the imports being chiefly articles of luxury. There were 9250 villages or manors in the land; in these about three-fifths of each is waste—i.e. untilled, common land—one-fifth pasture, and one-fifth arable.

8 См. «Промышленность в Англии», стр. 69.

§ 3. Маноры и их владельцы —Now each of these manors after the Norman Conquest was held by a “lord,” who held it more or less remotely from the king. For it is the distinguishing feature of the Conquest, that William the Norman made himself the supreme landlord of the country, so that all land was held under him. He himself of course held a good many manors, which were farmed by his bailiffs, and for each of these manors he was the lord. But the majority of the manors were held by his followers, the Norman nobles, and nearly all of them had several manors apiece. Now it was impossible for a noble to look after all his manors himself, and they {12} found it was not always the best plan to put their bailiffs in to work them; so they used to sublet some of their manors to other tenants, often to Englishmen who had submitted to the Norman Conquest. The nobles who held the land direct from the king were called tenants in chief, 9 the tenants to whom they sublet it were called tenants in mesne. 10 If a noble let a manor to a tenant in mesne the tenant then took his place, and became the lord of the manor. Thus, then, we have some manors owned directly by the king, others by the great nobles, and others again by tenants in mesne. For instance, in the part of Domesday relating to Oxfordshire, we find that one Milo Crispin, a tenant in chief, held several manors from the king, but also let some of them to sub-tenants, that of Cuxham, e.g., being let to one Alured, who was therefore its lord. So in Warwickshire the manor of Estone (now Aston) was one of those belonging to William Fitz-Ansculf, but he had let it to Godmund, an Englishman, who was then “lord of the manor of Estone.”

9 Или in capite (непосредственно от короны).

10 т. е. субарендаторы.

§ 4. Жители маноров —Besides the lord himself (whether king, noble, or sub-tenant), with his personal retainers, and generally a parish priest or some monks, there were three other classes of inhabitants. (1) First came the villeins, who formed 38 per cent. of the whole population recorded in Domesday, and who held their land in virgates, a virgate being some thirty acres of arable land, scattered of course in plots (cf. p. 20) among the common fields of the manor, together with a house and messuage in the village. These villeins were often called virgarii (or yardlings), from this term virgate. (2) Below the villeins came the cottars, or bordars, a class distinct from and below the former, who probably held {13} only some five or ten acres of land and a cottage, and did not even possess a plough, much less a team of oxen, apiece, but had to combine among themselves for the purpose of ploughing. They form 32 per cent. of the Domesday population. Finally came (3) the slaves, who were much smaller in numbers than is commonly supposed, forming only 9 per cent. of the Domesday population. Less than a century after the Conquest these disappear and merge into the cottars.

§ 5. Положение этих жителей —The chief feature of the social condition of these classes of people was that they were subject to a lord. They each depended upon a superior, and no man could be either lordless or landless; for all persons in villeinage, which included everyone below the lord of the manor, were subject to a master, and bound to the land, except, of course, “free tenants” (p. 15). But even against their lord the villeins had certain rights which had to be recognized. They had, moreover, many comforts and little responsibility, except to pay their dues to their lord. Moreover, it was possible for a villein to purchase a remission of his services, and become a “free tenant.” Or he might become such by residing in a town for a year and a day, and being a member of a town gild, as long as during that period he was unclaimed by his lord. And in course of time the villein’s position came to be this—he owed his lord the customary services (see p. 14) whereby his lord’s land was cultivated; but his lord could not refuse him his customary rights in return—“his house and lands, and rights of wood and hay”—and in relation to everyone but his lord he was a perfectly free citizen. His condition tended to improve, and up to the time of the Great Plague (1348) a large number of villeins had become actually free, having commuted their services {14} for money payments. What these services were we shall now explain. But finally, we wish to point out that the state of villeinage and of serfage was practically the same thing in two aspects; the first implying the fact that the villein was bound to the soil, the second that he was subject to a master. A serf was not a slave; and, as we saw above, slaves became extinct soon after the Norman Conquest.

§ 6. Повинности, причитающиеся лорду от его арендаторов в вилланидже —Under the manorial system rent was paid in a very different manner from that in which it is paid to-day, for it was a rent not so much of money, though that was employed, as of services. The services thus rendered by tenants in villeinage, whether villeins or cottars, may be divided into week-work, and boon-days or work on special days. The week-work consisted of ploughing or reaping, or doing some other agricultural work for the lord of the manor for two or three days in the week, or at fixed times, such as at harvest; while boon-day work was rendered at times not fixed, but whenever the lord of the manor might require it, though the number of boon-days in a year was limited. When, however, the villein or cottar had performed these liabilities, he was quite free to do work on his own land, or for that matter on any one else’s land, as indeed the cottars frequently did, for they had not much land of their own, and so often had time and labour to spare. It was from this cottar class with time to spare that a distinct wage-earning class, like our modern labourers, arose, who lived almost entirely by wages. We shall hear more of them later on; but at the time of the Conquest they hardly existed.

§ 7. Денежные платежи и рента —It was also usual for a tenant, besides rendering these servile services, to pay his lord a small rent either in money or kind, generally {15} in both. Thus on Cuxham manor we find a villein (or serf) paying his lord ½d. on November 12th every year and 1d. whenever he brews. He also pays, in kind, 1 quarter of seed-wheat at Michaelmas; 1 peck of wheat, 4 bushels of oats, and 3 hens on 12th November; also 1 cock and 2 hens, and 2d. worth of bread every Christmas. His services are—to plough and till ½ acre of the lord’s land, to give 3 days’ labour at harvest, and other days when required by the bailiff. This was the rent for about 12 or 15 acres of land (half a virgate), and upon a calculation of the worth of labour and provisions at that time (end of thirteenth century) comes to about 6d. an acre for his land, and 3s. a year for his house and the land about it (curtilage).

§ 8. Свободные арендаторы. Сокмены —So far I have been speaking only about tenants in villeinage. But in the Domesday Book we find another class of tenants, called free, who had to pay a rent fixed in amount, either in money or kind, and sometimes in labour. This rent was fixed and unalterable in amount, and they were masters of their own actions as soon as it was paid. They were not, like the villeins, bound to the soil, but could transfer their holdings or even quit the manor if they liked. They were, however, subject to their lord’s jurisdiction in matters of law, and hence were called soke-men (from soke or soc = jurisdiction exercised by a lord). They also were bound to give military service when called upon, which the villeinage tenants had not to give. If they had any services to render, these were generally commuted into money payments; and here we may observe, that there was a constant tendency from the Conquest to the time of the Great Plague (1348) towards this commutation. Villeins also could, and did frequently, commute their labour rents for money rents. {16}

В Книге Страшного суда мы находим, что восточные и восточно-центральные графства были теми местами, где «свободные» арендаторы или сокмены были наиболее распространены. Там они составляют от 27 до 45 процентов жителей этих частей, хотя, если брать всю Англию в целом, они составляют лишь 4 процента от общей численности населения. Однако число свободных арендаторов постоянно росло, даже среди арендаторов в вилланидже, поскольку лорд часто находил более полезным иметь деньги и был готов разрешить замену повинностей; или, опять же, он мог предпочесть не обрабатывать всю свою землю (свой домен), а сдать ее в аренду за фиксированную денежную ренту виллану, чтобы тот делал с ней, что мог; и таким образом виллан становился свободным человеком, в то время как лорд был уверен в получении фиксированной суммы со своей земли каждый год, независимо от того, был ли урожай хорошим или плохим.

§ 9. Иллюстрации старых маноров. (1) Эстон —To make clear what I have said in this chapter, it will perhaps be well to give two illustrations drawn from the Domesday Book (eleventh century) and from bailiffs’ accounts of a later period (end of thirteenth century).

Сначала мы возьмем манор в Уорикшире из Описания Страшного суда (1089 г.) — Эстон, ныне Астон, близ Бирмингема. Он был одним из многих, принадлежавших Уильяму, сыну Анскульфа, который был держателем-в-главе, но сдал его в аренду некоему Годмунду, субарендатору. В Описании говорится: «Уильям Фиц-Анскульф держит от короля Эстон, а Годмунд — от него. Там 8 гайд. Пашня требует 20 плугов; в домене пашня требует 6 плугов, но сейчас плугов нет. Там 30 вилланов со священником, 1 крепостной и 12 бордаров [т. е. коттаров]. У них 18 плугов. Мельница приносит 3 шиллинга. Лес 3 мили в длину и полмили в ширину. Он стоил 4 фунта; сейчас 100 шиллингов».

11 Гайда варьировалась по размеру и была (после Завоевания) равна карукате, которая могла составлять от 80 до 120 или 180 акров. Возможно, 120 — это справедливое среднее значение, хотя некоторые говорят 80.

Здесь мы имеем хороший пример манора, удерживаемого субарендатором и содержащего все три класса, упомянутые в § 4 этой главы — вилланов, коттаров и рабов (т. е. крепостных). Весь манор должен был составлять около 5000 акров, из которых 1000, вероятно, была пахотной землей, которая, конечно, была разделена на полосы между вилланами, лордом и священником. Поскольку на 30 вилланов приходилось всего 18 плугов, очевидно, что некоторым из них, по крайней мере, приходилось использовать плуг и волов сообща. Доменная земля, по-видимому, не очень хорошо обрабатывалась Годмундом, лордом, так как на ней не было плугов, хотя она была достаточно большой, чтобы занять шесть. Возможно, Годмунд, будучи англичанином, сражался с нормандцами во времена Гарольда и позволил ей выйти из обработки, или, возможно, прежний владелец погиб на войне, а Годмунд арендовал землю у нормандского дворянина, которому ее дал Уильям.

§ 10. Манор Каксем в XI и XIII веках —Our second illustration can be described at two periods of its existence—at the time of Domesday and 200 years later. It was only a small manor of some 490 acres, and was held by a sub-tenant from a Norman tenant in chief, Milo Crispin. It is found in the Oxfordshire Domesday, in the list of lands belonging to Milo Crispin. The Survey says: “Alured [the sub-tenant] now holds 5 hides for a manor in Cuxham. Land to 4 ploughs; now in the demesne, 2 ploughs and 4 bondsmen. And 7 villeins with 4 bordars have 3 ploughs. There are 3 mills of 18 shillings; and 18 acres of meadow. It was worth £3, now £6.” Here, again, our three classes of villeins, cottars or bordars, and slaves are represented. The manor was evidently a good one, for though smaller than Estone it {18} was worth more, and has three mills and good meadow land as well. Now, by the end of the thirteenth century this manor had passed into the hands of Merton College, Oxford, which then represented the lord, but farmed it by means of a bailiff. Professor Thorold Rogers gives us a description of it, 12 drawn from the annual accounts of this bailiff, which he has examined along with a number of others from other manors. We find one or two changes have taken place, for the bondsmen have entirely disappeared, as indeed they did in less than a century after the Conquest all through the land. The number of villeins and bordars has increased. There are now 13 villeins and 8 cottars, and 1 free tenant. There is also a prior, who holds land (6 acres) in the manor but does not live in it; also two other tenants, who do not live in the manor, but hold “a quarter of a knight’s fee” (here some 40 or 50 acres)—a knight’s fee comprising an area of land varying from 2 hides to 4 or even 6 hides, but in any case worth some £20. As the Cuxham land was good, the quantity necessary for the valuation of a fee would probably be only the small hide or carucate of 80 acres, and the quarter of it of course 20 acres or a little more. The 13 serfs hold 170 acres, but the 8 cottars only 30 acres, including their tenements. The free tenant holds 12⁠¾ acres, and Merton College as lord of the manor some 240 acres of demesne. There are now two mills instead of three, one belonging to the prior, and the other to another tenant. There were altogether, counting the families of the villeins and cottars, but not the two tenants of military fees, about 60 or 70 inhabitants, the most important being the college bailiff and the miller.

12 В его книге «Шесть веков труда и заработной платы».

§ 11. Описание манорной деревни —Now in both these country manors, as in all others, the central feature {19} would be the dwelling of the lord, or manor-house. It was substantially built, and served as a court-house for the annual sittings of the court baron and court leet. 13 If the lord did not live in it, his bailiff did so, and then the lord would come once or twice a year to hold these courts. Near the manor-house generally stood the church, often large for the size of the village, because the nave was frequently used as a town-hall for meetings or for markets. Then there would be the house of the priest, possibly in the demesne; and after these two the most important building was the mill, which, if there was a stream, would be placed on its banks in order to use the water-power. The rest of the tenants generally inhabited the principal street or road of the village, near the stream, if one ran through the place. The houses of these villages were poor and dirty, not always made of stone, and never (till the fifteenth century) of brick, but built of posts wattled and plastered with clay or mud, with an upper storey of poles reached by a ladder. The articles of furniture would be very coarse and few, being necessarily of home manufacture; a few rafters or poles overhead, a bacon-rack, and agricultural tools being the most conspicuous objects. Chimneys were unknown, except in the manor-houses, and so too were windows, and the floor was of bare earth. Outside the door was the “mixen,” a collection of every kind of manure and refuse, which must have rendered the village street alike unsavoury, unsightly and unwholesome. But though their life was rude and rough, it seems that the villagers were fairly happy, and, considering all things, about as well off as are their descendants now.

13 См. примечание 4, стр. 243, о манорных судах.

§ 12. Виды земли в маноре —Before concluding this chapter, it is necessary, in order to complete our {20} sketch of the manorial system from the time of the Conquest onwards, to understand how the land was divided up. We may say that there were seven kinds of land altogether, (1) First came the lord’s land round about the manor-house, the demesne land, which was strictly his own, and generally cultivated by himself or his bailiff. All other land held by tenants was called land in villeinage. (2) Next came the arable land of the village held by the tenants in common fields. Now these fields were all divided up into many strips, and tenants held their strips generally in quite different places, all mixed up anyhow (cf. diagram, where the tenants are marked A, B. C, etc.). The lord and the parson might also have a few strips in these fields. There were at least three fields, in order to allow the rotation of crops mentioned before (p. 8). Each tenant held his strip only till harvest, after which all fences and divisions were taken away, and the cattle turned out to feed on the stubble. (3) Thirdly came the common pasture, for all the tenants. But each tenant was restricted or stinted in the number of cattle that he might pasture, lest he should put on too many, and thus not leave enough food for his neighbours’ cattle. Sometimes, however, we find pasture without stint, as in Port Meadow at Oxford to this day. (4) Then comes the forest or woodland, as in Estone, which belonged to the lord, who owned all the timber. But the tenants had rights, such as the right of lopping and topping certain trees, collecting fallen branches for fuel; and the right of “pannage”—i.e. of turning cattle, especially swine, into the woods to pick up what food they could. (5) There was also in most manors what is called the waste—i.e. uncultivated—land, affording rough pasture, and on which the tenants had the right of cutting turf and bracken for fuel and fodder. Then near the stream there would {21}

DIAGRAM OF A MANOR

КОРОЛЬ (верховный землевладелец)

ДЕРЖАТЕЛЬ-В-ГЛАВЕ, владеющий различными манорами.

СУБАРЕНДАТОР, или держатель-в-мезне, лорд манора ниже.

возможно, будет немного (6) луговой земли, как в Каксеме; но она всегда принадлежала лорду, и если он сдавал ее в аренду, то всегда взимал дополнительную ренту (скажем, восемь пенсов вместо шести пенсов за акр), так как она была очень ценной, обеспечивая хороший запас сена на зиму. Наконец, если арендатор мог себе это позволить и хотел иметь другую землю, помимо общинных полей, где он мог бы пасти свой скот или более тщательно обрабатывать землю, он мог занять (7) огороженный участок, или часть земли, специально отмеченную и сданную в аренду отдельно. У лорда всегда был огороженный участок в его домене, и у главных арендаторов обычно тоже был один или два. Огороженная земля, конечно, арендовалась дороже, чем земля на общинных полях.

Прилагаемая диаграмма показывает типичный манор, удерживаемый субарендатором от держателя-в-главе, который держит его от короля. Он содержит все различные виды земли, хотя, конечно, они не всегда существовали все в одном маноре. На ней также показаны манорный дом, церковь, мельница и деревня.

14 См. примечание 5, стр. 244, об упадке манорной системы.

ГЛАВА II ГОРОДА И ГИЛЬДИИ

§ 1. Происхождение городов —As in the case of the manor, which was the Norman name for the Saxon “townships,” the town, in the modern sense of the word, had its origin from the primitive settlement known as the mark (p. 6). The only difference between a town and a manor originally lay in the number of its population, and in the fact that the town was a more defensible place than the {23} “township,” or rural manor, probably having a mound or moat surrounding it, instead of the hedges which ran round the villages. In itself it was merely a manor or group of manors; as Professor Freeman puts it, “one part of the district where men lived closer together than elsewhere.” The town had at first a constitution like that of a primitive village in the mark, but its inhabitants had gradually gained certain rights and functions of a special nature. These rights and privileges had been received from the lord of the manor on which the town had grown up; for towns, especially provincial towns, were at first only dependent manors, which gained safety and solidity under the protection of some great noble, prelate, or the king himself, who finally would grant the town thus formed a charter.

§ 2. Рост городов в Англии —Towns first became important in England towards the end of the Saxon period Saxon England had never been a settlement of towns, but of villages and townships, or manors. But gradually towns did grow up, though differing widely in the circumstances and manner of their rise. Some grew up in the fortified camps of the invaders themselves, as being in a secure position; some arose from a later occupation of the once sacked and deserted Roman towns. Many grew silently in the shadow of a great abbey or monastery. Of this class was Oxford, which first came into being round the monasteries of St Frideswide and Osney. Others clustered round the country houses of some Saxon king or earl. Several important boroughs owed their rise to the convenience of their site as a port or a trading centre. This was the origin of the growth of Bristol, whose rise resulted directly from trade; and London of course had always been a port of high commercial rank. A few other towns, like Scarborough and Grimsby, were at first {24} small havens for fishermen. But all the English towns were far less flourishing before the arrival of the Normans than they afterwards became.

§ 3. Города в Книге Страшного суда: Лондон —If, now, we once more go back to our great authority, the survey made by William the Norman, we find that the status of these towns or boroughs is clearly recognized, though they are regarded as held by the lord of the manor “in demesne,” or in default of a lord, as part of the king’s demesne. Thus Northampton at that time was a town in the king’s demesne; Beverley was held in demesne by the Archbishop of York. It was possible, too, that one town might belong to several lords, because it spread over, or was an aggregate of, several manors or townships. Thus Leicester seems to have included four manors, which were thus held in demesne by four lords—one by the king, another by the Bishop of Lincoln, another by a noble, Simon de Senlis, and the fourth by Ivo of Grantmesnil, the sheriff. In later times it was held under one lord, Count Robert of Meulan.

Итак, в Книге Страшного суда упоминается сорок один провинциальный город или боро, большинство из которых являются окружными центрами сегодняшнего дня. Есть также десять укрепленных городов, имеющих большее значение, чем другие. Это Кентербери, Йорк, Ноттингем, Оксфорд, Херефорд, Лестер, Линкольн, Стаффорд, Честер и Колчестер. Лондон был городом особняком, как это было всегда, и был единственным городом, который имел гражданскую конституцию, регулируемую порт-ривом и епископом, и имевшим своего рода хартию, хотя впоследствии привилегии этой хартии были значительно расширены. Лондон, конечно, был крупным портом и торговым центром, в нем было много иностранных купцов. Он был тогда, как и в последующие века, центром английской национальной жизни, и голос его граждан имел значение в национальных делах. Другими крупными портами Англии в то время были Бристоль, Саутгемптон и Норидж, и по мере того, как торговля росла и процветала, многие другие порты выдвигались на первый план (см. стр. 64).

§ 4. Особые привилегии городов —Even at the time of the Conquest most towns, though small, were of sufficient importance to have a certain status of their own, with definite privileges. The most important of these was the right of composition for taxation, i.e. the right of paying a fixed sum, or rent, to the Crown, instead of the various tallages, taxes, and imposts that might be required of other places. This fixed sum, or composition, was called the firma burgi, and by the time of the Conquest was nearly always paid in money. Previously it had been paid both in money and kind, for we find Oxford paying to Edward the Confessor six sectaries of honey as well as £20 in coin; while to William the Norman it paid £60 as an inclusive lump sum. By the end of the Norman period all the towns had secured the firma burgi, and the right of assessing it themselves, instead of being assessed by the sheriff; they had the right also of choosing a mayor of their own, instead of the king’s bailiff or reeve. They had, moreover, their own tribunals, a charter for their customs, and special rules of local administration, and, generally speaking, gained entire judicial and commercial freedom.

§ 5. Как города получали свои хартии —It is interesting to see what circumstances helped forward this emancipation of the towns from the rights possessed by the nobles and the abbeys, or by the king. The chief cause of the readiness of the nobles and kings to grant charters during this period (from the Conquest to Henry III.) was their lack of ready money. Everyone knows {26} how fiercely the nobles fought against each other in Stephen’s reign, and how enthusiastically they rushed to the Crusades under Richard I. They could not indulge their love of fighting, which in their eyes was their main duty, without money to pay for their fatal extravagances in this direction, and to get money they frequently parted with their manorial rights over the towns that had grown up on their estates. Especially was this the case when a noble, or king, was taken prisoner, and wanted the means of his ransom. In this way Portsmouth and Norwich gained their charters by paying part of Richard I.’s ransom (1194). Again, Rye and Winchelsea gained theirs by supplying the same king (in 1191) with two ships for one of his Eastern crusades. Many other instances might be quoted from the cases of nobles who also gave charters when setting out upon these extraordinary religious and sentimental expeditions. Indeed, the Crusades had a very marked influence in this way upon the growth of English towns. Someone had to pay for the wars in which the aristocracy delighted, and it is well to remember the fact that the expenses of all our wars—and they have been both numerous and costly—have been defrayed by the industrial portion of the community. And the glories and cruelties of that savage age of so-called knightly chivalry, which has been idealized and gilded by romancers and history-mongers, with its tournaments and torture-chambers, were paid for by that despised industrial population of the towns and manors which contained the real life and wealth of mediæval England.

§ 6. Гильдии и города. Различные виды гильдий —But besides the indirect effect of the Crusades, there was another powerful factor in the growth and emancipation of the towns after the Conquest. I refer to the merchant {27} gilds, which were becoming more and more prominent all through this period, though the height of their power was reached in the fourteenth century. These merchant gilds were one out of four other kinds of gilds, all of which seem to have been similar in origin. The earliest gilds are found in Saxon times, and were very much what we understand by clubs. At first they were associations of men for more or less religious and charitable purposes, and formed a sort of artificial family, whose members were bound by the bond not of kinship, but of an oath; while the gild-feast, held once a month in the common hall, replaced the family gatherings of kinsfolk. These gilds were found both in towns and manors, but chiefly in the former, where men were brought more closely together. Besides (1) the religious gilds, we find in Saxon times (2) the frith gilds, formed for mutual assistance in case of violence, wrong, or false accusation, or in any legal affairs. But this class of gilds died out after the Conquest. The most important were (3) the merchant gilds mentioned above, which existed certainly in Edward the Confessor’s time, being called in Saxon ceapemanne gilds, and they were recognized at the time of the Conquest, for they are recorded in Domesday here and there as possessing lands. The merchant members of these gilds had various privileges, such as a monopoly of the local trade of a town, and freedom from certain imposts. They had a higher rank than the members of the (4) craft gilds. These last were associations of handicraftsmen, or artisans, and were separate from the merchant gilds, though also of great importance. If a town was large enough, each craft or manufacture had a gild of its own, though in smaller towns members of various crafts would form only one gild. Such gilds were found, too, not only in towns but in country villages, as is known, e.g., in the case of some {28} Norfolk villages, and remains of their halls in villages have been found. Their gild feasts are probably represented to this day in the parish feasts, survivals of ancient custom.

§ 7. Как купеческие гильдии способствовали росту городов —Now it was only natural that the existence of these powerful associations in the growing boroughs should secure an increasing extent of cohesion and unity among the townsmen. Moreover, the craft and merchant gilds had a very important privilege, which could make many men anxious to join their ranks, namely, that membership in a gild for a year and a day made a tenant in villeinage a free man, as were all the members of a gild. Thus the gilds included all the free tenants in a town, and in becoming a merchant gild the body of free citizens, who formed the only influential portion of a town, began to enlarge their municipal powers. It became their special endeavour to obtain from the king or from their lord wider commercial privileges, grants of coinage, of holding fairs, and of exemption from tolls. Then they asked for freedom of justice and of self-government; and more especially did the gilds, as representing practically the town, buy up the firma burgi, or fixed tax, and thus became their own assessors, and finally bought a charter, as we have seen, from a king or noble in need of ready money. And so gradually, and by other steps which are not always clear, the emancipation of the towns was won by the gilds; the boroughs became free from their lords’ restrictions and dues; till by the end of the twelfth century chartered towns, which were very few at the time of the Conquest, became the general rule.

§ 8. Как ремесленные гильдии способствовали промышленности —So far we have specially noted the work of the merchant gilds, which, as it were, built up the constitution and freedom of the towns. {29}

Теперь мы должны на мгновение взглянуть на работу ремесленных гильдий, которые впоследствии стали очень важными. Эти гильдии встречаются не только в Лондоне, но и в провинциальных городах. Лондонские ткачи упоминаются как ремесленная гильдия во времена Генриха I (1100 г. н. э.), и большинство этих гильдий, по-видимому, существовали уже в течение длительного периода. Гильдия ювелиров претендовала на то, что владела землей еще до нормандского завоевания, и она была довольно влиятельной во времена Генриха II (1154 г. н. э.), поскольку он нашел удобным попытаться подавить ее. Но она не получила официального признания в виде хартии до XIV века. Они возникли, конечно, сначала в городах и первоначально, по-видимому, состояли из небольшой группы ведущих людей определенного ремесла, которым было доверено регулирование конкретной отрасли, вероятно, как только эта отрасль была признана достаточно важной для регулирования. Гильдия стремилась обеспечить качественную работу со стороны своих членов и пыталась подавить производство товаров безответственными лицами, не являющимися членами гильдии. Их фундаментальный принцип заключался в том, что член гильдии должен работать не только для своей личной выгоды, но и для репутации и блага своего ремесла; поэтому плохая работа наказывалась, и любопытно отметить, что ночная работа была запрещена, так как она вела к низкому качеству работы. Гильдия заботилась об обеспечении притока компетентных рабочих в будущем путем обучения молодых людей своему конкретному ремеслу, и отсюда возникла система ученичества, которая, по крайней мере, сначала имела значительные преимущества.