230
THE BOROUGH COMMUNITY
By the date of John’s charter the borough community had
secured an elective head of its own, a mayor, and the gild
organization fell into the background.
An interesting confirmation of the interpretation, here
offered of the formula in dispute, comes from Gloucester.
In 1200 King John gave his burgesses there control of the
provostry in fee farm, empowering them to elect the reeves.1
The borough community thus attained a certain corporate
status and provided itself with a communal seal. But as
John had included in his charter the privileges of Winchester
copied from its charter of Ii90, the burgesses inscribed on
the seal, which with slight variations remained in use until
1660, the legend : Sigillvm bvrgensivm de gilda merca-
TORVM Glovcestrie.2
The same conclusion can be reached from another side.
There is some evidence that, where the gild merchant did
not include all the burgesses, the privilege of general exemp-
tion from tolls was not confined to the gildsmen. At
Southampton,- at any rate, where there was a class of fran-
chised men who were outside the gild, this privilege belonged
to “ the men of Southampton,” without mention of the gild.3
As in the great majority of boroughs this privilege was granted
to “ all the burgesses,” and, as it was enjoyed prescriptively
by all tenants on ancient demesne, it would have been strange
had it been limited to a section of the burgesses in one small
group of towns.
So far, a certain amount of evidence has been brought to-
gether which seems to reveal the organization of the burgesses
in gild merchant as the active communal principle in the
English borough until the end of the twelfth century. An
association originally allowed merely for trading purposes
it is not merely trading privileges that she is bestowing. For admission
to the gild at Winchester from the thirteenth century onwards as the one
and only means of being admitted to the franchise of the city, though its
constitution was not framed on gild lines, see Furley, City Government of
Winchester (1923), p. 73.
ɪ Gross, op. cit. ii. 373.
, G. S. Blakeway, The City of Gloucester, 1924, p. 38. Gross mentions
this seal (op. cit. ii. 374), but does not attempt to explain the legend. One
would have expected the same inscription on the thirteenth-century seal
of Winchester, but according to Mr. Furley (The Ancient Usages of
Winchester, 1927, p. 56) it was sigill. civςvm Wintoniensivm, though no
trace of it is visible in his photograph.
’ Gross, op. cit. ii. 174. The wording is the more significant because
the writ prescribes reciprocal freedom from toll with " homines nostri de
Marleberg' qui sunt in Gilda Mercanda de Marleberg'.”
COMMUNITY AND GILD MERCHANT
231
acquired importance in civic affairs owing to the weak, de-
pendent organization of the borough community in its port-
moot. The burgesses, in their gild capacity might act through
a separate organization as at Southampton and Leicester, or
more commonly, as appears to have been the case at
Winchester 1 and at Oxford,2 through the portmoot itself. In
either event, the gild aiderman became the recognized head of
the community. It is not surprising that this should have led
to some ambiguity in nomenclature.
It may, perhaps, be objected, however, that the evidence we
have adduced for assuming this gild prominence is too largely
of a diplomatic kind, interpretation of phrases in charters
and the like, that the only actual instance given, that of Ox-
ford, comes from the anarchy in Stephen’s reign, and that
Chesney was no normal gild aiderman. When, in the thir-
teenth-century Custumal of Southampton, the aiderman is
described as “ head of the town and the gild,” this is said by
Gross to be a clear mark of a later stage of development.3
But evidence, that has come to light since Gross wrote, shows
that this was an overhasty judgement. Chesney’s position
at Oxford in 1147, though exceptional in his personality, was
normal in other respects. Down to the end of the century
at least, the aiderman (or aidermen) was the head of the town
administration, frequently heads the list of witnesses to deeds
executed in portmoot or elsewhere, and occasionally con-
firms such a deed by his (private) seal,4 which was used in
1191 to authenticate an agreement® between the canons of
St. Frideswide’s and the citizens. About 1200 he attests
a land grant as “ aiderman of Oxford.” β The mention of the
aiderman and reeves of Lincoln in this same year is not quite
so clear, because the action for which they were called to
1 There is no trace later at Winchester of any trade legislation else-
where than in the boroughmoot, the gild meetings being devoted to con-
viviality and the collection of funds from the citizens for the city treasury
(Furley, City Govt, of Winchester, pp. 71 ff.).
2See above, p. 226. It is significant that in a deed of 1183 or 1184
the town court (placita régis) is said to be called Moregespeche, " morning
speech,” a term usually confined to gild assemblies (Oseney Cartulary,
ed. Salter (Oxf. Hist. Soc.), i. 71) ; Gross, op. cit. i. 32 n. Gross rashly infers
that its gild use was derivative. The meeting of the pre-Conquest thegns’
Gild at Cambridge was a morgenspæe (Thorpe, Diplomatarium, p. 610).
3 Gross, op. cit. i. 62 n.
4 Salter, Early Oxford Charters, nos. 86-90.
5 Cartulary of St. Frideswide’s (Oxf. Hist. Soc.), i. 36, 38 ; Cartulary of
Oseney, iv. no. 63B. See below, p. 235.
3 Cartulary of Eynsham Abbey (Oxf. Hist. Soc.), ii. 228.