The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Influence and Development of English
Gilds, by Francis Aiden Hibbert
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Influence and Development of English Gilds
As Illustrated by the History of the Craft Gilds of Shrewsbury
Author: Francis Aiden Hibbert
Release Date: March 3, 2012 [EBook #39030]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INFLUENCE AND ***
Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google Print
project.)
THE INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH GILDS.
London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
LEIPZIG: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
NEW YORK: MACMILLAN AND CO.
Cambridge Historical Essays. No. V.
THE INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF ENGLISH GILDS:
AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE HISTORY OF
THE CRAFT GILDS OF SHREWSBURY.
BY FRANCIS AIDAN HIBBERT, B.A.,
OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;
ASSISTANT MASTER IN DENSTONE COLLEGE.
_THIRLWALL DISSERTATION_, 1891.
Cambridge:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1891
[_All Rights reserved._]
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
_TO THE REV. D. EDWARDES, M.A.,
HEAD MASTER OF DENSTONE,
IN REMEMBRANCE OF MUCH KINDNESS
AND ENCOURAGEMENT._
PREFACE.
I should explain that, in the present Essay, I have restricted myself to
associations which had for their object the regulation of trade. Frith
Gilds and Religious or Social Gilds have received only passing notice.
The Merchant Gild is too wide a subject to be treated in an Essay such as
this. Moreover the records of the Shrewsbury Merchant Gild are too meagre
to afford much information, and I would therefore have gladly passed over
the whole question in silence but that without some notice of it the Essay
would have seemed incomplete.
My attention has thus been concentrated on the Craft Gilds, and on the
later companies which arose out of these.
It is greatly to be regretted that we have no work on Gilds which deals
with the subject from an English point of view, and traces the development
of these pre-eminently English institutions according to its progress on
English soil.
The value of Dr Brentano's extremely able Essay is very largely
diminished, for Englishmen, not only because he is continually attempting
to trace undue analogies between the Gilds and Trades Unions, but still
more because he has failed to appreciate the spirit which animated English
Merchants and Craftsmen in their relations with one another, and so has
missed the line of Gild development in England. If he had not confined his
attention, so far as English Gilds are concerned, solely to the London
Companies he could hardly have failed to discover his mistake.
Something has been done to set the facts of the case in a clearer light by
Dr Cunningham briefly in his _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_[1].
But it is to be feared that Mr J. R. Green's _History_ is so deservedly
popular, and Mr George Howell's _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_ is so
otherwise reliable, that views differing from those which these writers
set forward--following Dr Brentano as it appears--stand little chance of
being generally known.
Great as is the weight which must attach to such important authorities, I
have endeavoured--by looking at the facts in my materials from an
independent standpoint--to avoid being unduly influenced by their
conclusions, or by a desire to find analogies where none exist.
The materials from which I have worked call for but little description.
They are simply the records of the Shrewsbury Gilds--either in their
original form as preserved in the town Museum and Library, or as printed
in the Shropshire Archæological Society's _Transactions_.
Though my view has been thus confined it has been kept purposely so.
English local history is its own best interpreter, and although in some
instances the documents have required illustrating and supplementing from
extraneous sources, these occasions have been few. At the same time I have
not omitted to notice how the effects of national events were felt in
provincial changes, and I have especially striven to point out how the
Shrewsbury records bear upon the various theories which have been put
forward respecting Gilds. Writing thus in a historical rather than an
antiquarian spirit I have not considered it necessary to overburden the
pages with needless footnotes referring repeatedly simply to the records
of the Shrewsbury Gilds.
_October, 1890._
NOTE.--_The Gild Merchant_, by Charles Gross, Ph.D. (Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1890), appeared after the above had been written and the Essay sent
in. I have since had the advantage of reading it. The general conclusions
at which the writer arrives are so similar to those I had already formed,
that I have not found it necessary to alter what I had written. I have
however to some extent made use of the material he has brought together in
Vol. II., chiefly by way of strengthening the authorities in the footnotes
to which reference is made in the text.
EXTRACT FROM THE REGULATIONS FOR THE THIRLWALL PRIZE.
"There shall be established in the University a prize, called the
'Thirlwall Prize,' to be awarded for dissertations involving original
historical research."
"The prize shall be open to members of the University who, at the time
when their dissertations are sent in, have been admitted to a degree, and
are of not more than four years' standing from admission to their first
degree."
"Those dissertations which the adjudicators declare to be deserving of
publication shall be published by the University singly or in combination,
in an uniform series, at the expense of the fund, under such conditions as
the Syndics of the University Press shall from time to time determine."
CONTENTS.
PAGES
CHAPTER I.
Introductory 1-6
CHAPTER II.
The Merchant Gild 7-29
Note 1. Chronological Table of Merchant Gilds 24-28
Note 2. List of Trades and Professions 28-29
CHAPTER III.
The Craft Gilds 30-54
Note 1. Indenture of Apprenticeship (1414) 52-53
Note 2. Oath of Freemen 53-54
CHAPTER IV.
The Early History of the Gilds 55-76
CHAPTER V.
Reconstruction of the Gild System 77-97
CHAPTER VI.
The Degeneracy of the Companies 98-112
CHAPTER VII.
Shrewsbury Show 113-127
CHAPTER VIII.
The End of the Companies 128-144
Appendix I. Non-Gildated Tradesmen 145-156
Appendix II. Authorities cited 157-159
Index 160-168
NOTE.
On page 26 Liverpool should be inserted. The charter was granted in 1229,
by the king.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
[Sidenote: _Local life in England always varied._]
In these days of convenience and easy transit, when distance has been
annihilated by the telegraph wire and the express train, we can hardly
realise, even with an effort, the extent to which such changes have
revolutionised the social life of Englishmen. Of local sentiment there can
be now but little, yet local sentiment has played a greater part in our
history than perhaps any other motive. The England of to-day is little
more than a great suburb of its capital. Yet it is a peculiar feature of
the England of the past that its local life was always singularly varied,
not only in the Middle Ages but down to quite recent times. Indeed the
characteristic is still more than traceable in some of our less busy
districts.
In the past, too, some parts possessed the feature in a more marked degree
than others. We should naturally expect that few towns would have a
stronger infusion of local feeling than Shrewsbury. Through all its
history it has indeed been marked by strong individuality.
[Sidenote: _Early growth of Shrewsbury._]
Situated in the midst of the Marches of Wales, the centre round which long
waged the struggle for the fair lands westward of the Severn, its strong
walls and insular position soon gave it a marked commercial superiority
over the surrounding country. In consequence we find Shrewsbury at an
early date considerably more advanced than the unprotected land outside,
which lay open to the ravages of the Welsh. This condition of affairs, the
reverse of favourable for commercial advancement, continued to depress the
neighbourhood after Edward the First's conquest of the Principality, for
the disorders of the Lords Marchers kept the Borders in a state of
continual alarm, and prevented the inhabitants from settling down to any
regular and profitable industry[2].
Henry IV. on the death of Glendower effected the reconquest of Wales, and
enacted severe laws against the inhabitants. The only result was, however,
the organisation of robber bands whose definite object was to plunder and
harass more completely their English neighbours. The evil became so
intolerable that a special court had to be erected to remove it, and in
1478 was formed the Court of the President and Marches of Wales.
By dint of powers of summary jurisdiction over disturbers of the public
peace, a diminution was effected in the disorders, and the border lands
were able to participate in the increase of trade which was such a marked
feature of the fourteenth century. In spite of the temporary shock given
to industry by the Reformation, the district had, by the latter part of
the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth, quite
recovered from the Welsh ravages, and its prosperity at this time was very
remarkable.
The fertility of the district brought wealth to the market towns, and
provided a wide area of comfortable purchasers for the products of their
industries. The expansion of the Welsh cloth trade gave rise to a twofold
struggle. There was firstly a strenuous effort of the border towns to keep
it to themselves, and secondly a private quarrel as to which of them
should engross the market. Shrewsbury eventually secured the monopoly
after an arduous contest, and the importance of the town was thus
considerably enhanced.
[Sidenote: _Its later prosperity._]
The internal history of its Gilds will show how peculiarly the state of
Shrewsbury illustrates the period of quiet prosperity before the
introduction of machinery broke in upon the comfortable life of provincial
England.
The county towns then possessed an importance of which they have since
been shorn by various causes[3]. Each was the capital of its district,
filling the part of a distant metropolis to which neither the country
gentleman nor the wealthy burgess could expect to go more than once or
twice in a lifetime. Shrewsbury, in particular, was possessed of features
which serve not only to make it especially typical of the social habits of
the period, but which at the same time give it an interest exceptionally
its own[4].
[Sidenote: _Its stationary condition in recent times._]
And when the introduction of machinery transformed the face of England to
such a large extent, the changes which it brought to Shrewsbury were
extremely slight. Local life was strong. The town was slow to accommodate
itself to new conditions of industry. Its Gilds and companies maintained
their vigour to the end. Their yearly pageant continued to our own day.
The timbered houses which the substantial tradesmen built in the days of
their prosperity are still, many of them, standing. The streets of the
town have been only gradually altered and improved. They still follow the
old lines, often inconvenient, but always interesting: they still are
called by their old names, full of confusion to the stranger, full of
significance to the student.
[Sidenote: _Importance of history of its Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Their quiet development._]
Shrewsbury, then, exhibits a character eminently its own, from whatever
point we view its history. But it is a distinction of similarity rather
than the prominence of singularity. The progress of the town has gone on
quietly and calmly, seldom interrupted and never forced. The history of
its Gilds must of necessity present similar features. It will be a record
of silent development, often leaving few traces, yet not the less evident
to careful observation.
[Sidenote: _Peculiarities._]
But it is also a history in studying which we must be particularly on our
guard against being led astray by the analogy of similar institutions in
other parts of England or on the Continent. The desire to arrive at, or to
conform to, general conclusions often blinds writers to the fact to which
we have already drawn attention, namely, that local life in England was
always varied; that each town and district had its own strongly-marked
peculiarities. Bearing this in mind, deviations--apparent or real--from
the ordinary course of Gild history will cause us no surprise. The
shearmen's maypole quarrel[5] with the bailiffs is almost the only trace
of serious conflict at Shrewsbury between the municipal authorities[6] and
the companies until the seventeenth century. There are no signs of the
rise of Yeomen Gilds[7] in earlier or later years, though evidence in
plenty is found of the complete disregard shown by the masters for the
interests of the journeymen[8]. On the other hand, so far from the Court
of Assistants being a late creation we meet with it at Shrewsbury very
early in Gild history.
[Sidenote: _Especial points of value._]
It will also be a record rich in illustrations of contemporary social
life[9]. The closeness of relationship between religion and the ordinary
business pursuits of the mediæval burgess; the wide public influence
exercised by the Gilds in their earlier years, and the remarkable family
feeling they maintained within the boundaries of the old towns even down
to the time when the companies had become utterly demoralised, will be
exemplified not less remarkably than the continuity of the Gild sentiment
through the shocks of the Reformation period, through the economic changes
of Elizabeth, and even (in some sort) through the Reforms of 1835.
It is a history too which will help us to understand a problem of
considerable difficulty. We shall not only see the degenerated societies
of capitalists in full vigour down to the date of their enforced
termination as trading companies, but we shall also be enabled to perceive
how it was that they managed to retain their prejudicial and antiquated
privileges to the very end of their existence.
It is indeed in the light which their history throws on the conditions of
provincial trade and the social customs of an ordinary provincial town
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that its special
importance lies. The rapid progress which marked the commencement of that
period, not less than the torpor and decay which characterised the
corporate towns at its close will be found to be eminently exemplified in
the history of the Shrewsbury Gilds.
CHAPTER II.
THE MERCHANT GILD.
[Sidenote: _Universality of Gild feeling._]
Dr Brentano[10] is particularly desirous to make it clear that he
considers England "the birthplace of Gilds." But it is scarcely necessary
to point out that the conception of the Gild belongs to no particular age
and to no particular country. Not to insist unduly on the universality of
an institution from which some writers have derived the Gilds, and to
which they certainly bear considerable resemblance, the family--common to
humanity itself--we note that the Greeks had their [Greek: eranoi][11] and
their [Greek: xunômosiai][12], and the Romans their _collegia
opificum_[13], each exhibiting not a few of the features of the mediæval
Gilds. _Corps des métiers_ existed in France in very early times, perhaps
in direct continuation of the Roman institutions, and played a great part
in the beginnings of many towns[14]. So early as to be anterior to the
earliest known Frith Gilds, that is to say in the latter half of the
seventh century, a regularly organised system of confederation existed
among the Anglo-Saxon monasteries throughout England, according to the
rules of which the united Abbeys and Religious Houses undertook to pray
for the members, living and departed, of one another[15]:
[Sidenote: _English and Continental Gilds._]
Each of these associations, so various in date and object, bore great
resemblance to the Gilds of later times, according as the latter are
considered in the light of some one or other of their functions: now it is
the common feast, now it is the possession of corporate property, here it
is the union of all the workmen of a craft into one sodality, there it is
the association of neighbours for mutual responsibility and protection;
now it is the confraternity "in omni obsequio religionis." Such a
tendency to association is simply the result of man's gregarious nature,
and there is no need to restrict what is found alike in all peoples and
all periods. But it is none the less true that the tendency has been more
strongly marked in England than elsewhere. The earliest Gild Statutes
which have come down to us are English[16], and the development of Gilds
in England proceeded according to its normal course without being diverted
and confused by external and disturbing circumstances. The real history of
Gilds will thus be the history of _English_ Gilds, not of those of the
Continent, whose records detail rather a bitter struggle between rival
classes in the towns[17]. If the constitutional importance of the Gilds
was thus greater on the Continent than it was in England[18], this was
because _there_ a social institution was dragged out of its proper sphere
of action, and in the arena of politics was shorn of the most attractive
of its features.
[Sidenote: _Value of history of local Gilds._]
In these pages we shall be concerned solely with examples drawn from the
history of our own country. Where necessary reference will be made to the
institutions of other towns, but in general our attention will be
concentrated on one provincial borough only--a town, as we have seen, well
calculated to illustrate the social life of England in the past. It is
only by working out the several departments of local municipal history
that anything like a complete view of the subject can be ultimately
obtained[19]. In the following chapters an attempt will be made to
contribute something towards such a consummation.
The records of the later Craft Gilds at Shrewsbury are entirely
satisfactory, but unfortunately those of the Merchant Gild are of the most
meagre description. They throw but little light therefore on its functions
or history, and still less on the interesting question as to the precise
nature of the relationship which existed between the Gilda Mercatoria and
the Communa. Our attention will consequently be chiefly directed to an
examination of the history and development of the _Craft Gilds_. A few
remarks, more or less general in their scope, on the Merchant Gild seem
however to be called for, in anticipation of the history of the later
trade associations.
[Sidenote: _Growth of towns in twelfth century._]
In England, as elsewhere, the growth of the towns was one of the most
marked features of the twelfth century. This was due to various causes.
William's conquest had opened up increased facilities for communication
with the Continent: the Norman soldiers brought skilled Norman traders in
their train, and so war ministered to commerce just as subsequently the
Crusades were largely helpful to the growth of trade and the progress of
the towns. The vigorous administration of Henry I. and Henry II. had also
facilitated the expansion of industry. Henry I. favoured the rising towns
both because of their commercial utility and in order to make use of their
counterbalancing influence against the power of the Barons. Shrewsbury he
took into his own hands, having enforced the surrender of the town from
the rebellious Robert de Belesme. The amendment of the currency and the
organisation of the Courts of King's Bench and Exchequer were also as
favourable to material prosperity as were the legal reforms of Henry II.
afterwards. The circuits of the Justices Itinerant were restored, and
appeals to the king in Council were established. A further weakening of
baronial power was also effected by the destruction of the castles which
the lawlessness of Stephen's tenure of the sovereignty had permitted;
while the introduction of scutage made the king in some measure
independent of the feudal forces by enabling him to call in the support of
mercenary troops. On the other hand the Assize of Arms restored the
national militia to its old important place.
Shrewsbury had seemed to be depressed by the conquest. The town had been
granted, in the first instance, to Roger de Montgomery, whose two great
works, his castle and his abbey, yet remain. Both the earl and his works
were at first the cause of complaint. In Domesday Book it is pointed out
that Montgomery had destroyed 51 houses to make room for his castle; to
the abbey he had granted 39 burgesses; 43 houses in the town were held by
Normans and exempted from taxation. Consequently, as the same sum was
required from the town as had been paid _tempore regis Edwardi_, the
burden fell with undue hardship on the English inhabitants who remained.
But the ultimate result of both castle and monastery was beneficial to the
town. The latter attracted trade and the former protected it[20], and
Shrewsbury early became a commercial centre of some importance.
[Sidenote: _They differed little from country, except in possession of a
Merchant Gild_]
The towns at this period differed but little from the country. They both
engaged in agriculture as well as trade; they were alike governed by a
royal officer, or by some lord's steward. In the towns the houses were of
course more closely clustered, and a further difference arose afterwards
in the fact that a freeman in the town, when admitted to the Gild, might
be landless[21]. The chief distinction indeed between town and country lay
in the fact that the former had a Merchant Gild.
[Sidenote: _to preserve peace._]
The origin of such commercial unions is lost in the dimness of antiquity.
Even in Anglo-Saxon times Dover had its Gildhall, and Canterbury and
London are said to have been also possessed of trading associations. They
came into being at first probably to preserve peace. At the date of the
Conquest the right of jurisdiction almost invariably belonged to whoever
held the town, but we cannot conceive that Roger Montgomery's successors
would be likely to concern themselves overmuch with internal police. As a
fact it would rest with the burghers themselves to protect their goods
and persons from mishap.
[Sidenote: _A.-S. Frith Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Trade regulations._]
[Sidenote: _Royal authorisation: earliest mention._]
Frith Gilds, with much the same objects, had been common anterior to the
Conquest[22]. In most places where there was a market it was essential
that some recognised authority should be in existence to keep the peace,
as well as to be witness to sales[23]. The "laws of the city of London"
were apparently drawn up with the express design of supplementing
defective law[24]. They exhibit to us a complete authority for the
supervision of trade, corresponding to the later Merchant Gild in nearly
every particular: there is the common stock, the head man, the periodical
meetings at which "byt-fylling" plays its usual important part[25]. The
"ordinance which King Ethelred and his Witan ordained as 'frith-bot' for
the whole nation" imposed the duty of pursuing offenders on the town to
which they belonged[26]. There was thus evidently some organisation within
the boundaries of the town, and as the chief of the burgesses forming this
organisation were also the chief merchants (since trade was the
_raison-d'être_ of the towns) it soon began naturally to frame commercial
regulations[27]. So the Town Gild became, when, after the Norman Conquest,
trade had assumed important dimensions, the Gilda Mercatoria with
exclusive powers and privileges by royal charter. The earliest
unmistakable mention of a Merchant Gild is at the end of the eleventh or
the beginning of the twelfth century[28]. Under Henry I. grants of
Merchant Gilds appear in one or two of the charters granted to towns[29],
and under Henry II., Richard and John they become more frequent[30].
Shrewsbury was one of the few which had the Merchant Gild confirmed as
early as the reign of Henry II.[31]
By these charters what had originally been a voluntary association now
became an exclusive body to which trade was restricted.
Important as were the advantages gained by the procuring of such royal
authorisation, these charters only set the seal to what had existed in
effect before. The landed and mercantile interests were practically
identical within the towns: the great merchants were also the great
landowners; the Gilda Mercatoria could thus frame regulations which it
would be extremely difficult for any trader to disregard[32].
[Sidenote: _Functions._]
Besides, the benefits which resulted from common trading would be too
obvious for any individual who could procure entrance into the Gild to
abstain from doing so. It was far more to the common interest that one
representative should buy for all and then divide the purchase equitably
than that each should compete with each and so minister simply to the
profit of the seller.
There are several examples of such combined purchasing by a royal or
municipal officer in towns where there was no Merchant Gild[33]. It was
however generally effected by means of the latter, the granting of which
meant the according of permission to the members to settle for themselves
their custom in buying and selling.
The retail trade within the town was restricted to their own members
individually, and the wholesale trade coming _to_ the town was reserved to
themselves collectively. Members of the Merchant Gild alone might sell
within the walls, and traders coming from without might sell only to the
Merchant Gild.
There was no danger then as there would be now of such a practice driving
all trade away from the town, for the restrictions in force at one place
would be paralleled almost exactly in every other. At the periodical fairs
alone did free trade prevail.
But the exclusive privileges might be exceedingly harmful if the main body
of householders were not members of the Merchant Gild. It was then the
fact that the restricted trading was not "to the advantage of the
community of the borough but only to the advantage of those who are of the
said society[34]." When however the great majority of the householders
were members of the trading corporation the arrangement would work well
and beneficially for the whole town.
[Sidenote: _All Burgesses are Gildsmen._]
The effect of the granting of royal authorisation was, therefore, to
finally draw all burgesses into the Gild, for all townsmen of any
importance were traders. The records of the Shrewsbury Merchant Gild,
though of the scantiest description, are sufficient to show how
comprehensive was its range. All branches of trade were, at least down to
the time of Edward I., represented in it[35]; it comprised every rank and
degree, proportioning its fines and payments accordingly. The progress of
the fusion of races is shown by the lists of names, which are both Saxon
and Norman in indiscriminate order.
[Sidenote: _Duties of Gildsmen._]
[Sidenote: _Tendency to amalgamation of Gild and Communa._]
So closely indeed did the practical boundaries of Gild and town coincide
that in many places the former seemed to become the Communa, when the
kings began to grant charters of incorporation. Richard I. can even say
that all the privileges of his charter are granted "_civibus nostris
Wintoniæ de gilda mercatorum_[36]," seeming to imply that at Winchester at
least there were no citizens extraneous to the Merchant Gild. The villain
flying from his lord could only be admitted to freedom through the
machinery of the Merchant Gild. The Merchant Gild was ready to the hand of
the burgesses as a centre, and the only centre, round which to rally when
engaged in defending their liberties or in procuring fresh privileges. On
the other hand the existence of such a secure and wealthy body, which
would be at all times able to ensure payment of the _firma burgi_, and
the frequent royal assessments which were laid upon the towns, would be an
additional inducement to the kings in granting the charters of liberties.
Glanvill, in the time of Henry II., doubtless already looked on the
Merchant Gild and the Communa as, for all practical purposes,
identical[37], from which the inference seems to lie that the possession
of such a gild had thus early come to be looked upon as the sign and
symbol of municipal independence. It is true that a town _might_ become a
free borough without possessing a Merchant Gild, but this would be an
exception to the general rule. It would be similar to the case of a free
borough not holding the _firma burgi_: such a contingency was possible but
unusual. To the mind of the lawyer therefore the possession of a Merchant
Gild seemed the necessary precursor of a royal charter of privileges. And
in practice this was found to be, speaking generally, the case.
This apparent identity of Burgesses and Gildsmen would find palpable
expression in the fact of the Gild Hall becoming the Town Hall. This
naturally did not take place to any considerable extent before the 14th
century, though during that period it became fairly common. It may have
been that the Merchant Gild permitted the use of its Hall for public
purposes, at first only occasionally and then more and more frequently
until at length what had been exceptional became normal (either through
precedent or purchase[38]); certain it is that the two names of Gild Hall
and Town Hall became practically synonymous in about the 14th and 15th
centuries. This had been foreshadowed at an early date. Domesday Book
spoke of the "gihalla Burgensium[39]" at Dover.
At Shrewsbury, in a charter of 1445, the Town Hall is called, as it is at
this day, the Gildhall.
[Sidenote: _But all Gildsmen not Burgesses._]
But the _ideas_ of Gild-members and townsmen were long kept separate.
Burgess-ship depended on residence[40] and the possession of a
burgage-tenement, but not so membership of the Merchant Gild, which often
comprised among its numbers many outsiders[41]. In this way the two bodies
were clearly distinguished. At Ipswich it was ordered in John's
charter[42] that the statutes of the town were to be kept distinct from
those of the Gild "as is elsewhere used in cities and boroughs where there
is a Gild Merchant," for the latter would probably consist of both "de
hominibus civitatis" and also "de aliis mercatoribus comitatus[43]."
Ecclesiastics[44] and women might also be members of the Gild, but of
course could not be burgesses. Such members had, in some towns, to pay
additional fees[45].
[Sidenote: _Distinction between Gild and Communa preserved in Charters,
but not in practice._]
The charters were always granted to the "Burgesses," without reference to
their capacity as Gild-members, except in the cases where the privileges
granted were such as would only concern members of the Gild. It was the
"burgesses" who purchased the _firma burgi_ and who paid such goodly sums
for trading and other privileges. But in making up these payments they
were glad to avail themselves of the assistance of the non-burgess
merchants, not the least of whose recommendations seemed doubtless to lie
in the share they were willing to bear in contributing to the periodical
tallages and similar royal charges. They were indeed as a document
expresses it most serviceable when it was requisite "_defectus burgi
adimplere_[46]." Although in name it was the burgesses who paid the money
and who purchased the _firma burgi_, it was in fact the Merchant Gild
which bore the largest part.
In another way also the "foreigners" who were members of the Merchant Gild
were useful to the burgess-members of it.
During earlier years all the Craftsmen who so desired, and could afford
the necessary payments, were admitted into the Gild of Merchants. The
designation 'merchant' was then extended to all who engaged in trade. But
as the Gilda Mercatoria became in practice more and more identical with
the Communa the idea seems to have grown up that landless men, renters of
their shops within the towns, should not be admitted to the Gild.
[Sidenote: _Gild seems to become Communa._]
For in this period, that is during the 14th and 15th centuries, the old
democratic government of the towns was giving place to a close governing
council[47]. This was in no sense the Merchant Gild, though probably all
the members of the select body would be members of the Gild[48]. Being
also the most important of its members they would be able to use its
influence for their own ends, and in these measures they would generally
have on their side the majority of the "foreigners," who would not know or
care much about the internal concerns of the town. Thus it came about that
having secured important trading privileges the influence of the Merchant
Gild was chiefly directed, though by a small coterie of its members,
towards municipal rather than mercantile objects.
[Sidenote: _Rise of Craft Gilds favoured by Merchant Gild and Communa._]
[Sidenote: _This favour natural under the circumstances and proved by the
Charters._]
These latter it left to be dealt with by the new companies into which the
craftsmen were beginning to amalgamate. In this action they were helped
and encouraged by the Merchant Gild, or as it now was in practice, the
municipal authority. It is a mistake to speak of the rise of the Craft
Gilds in England as a movement bitterly hostile to the Merchant Gilds and
therefore strenuously opposed by the latter. The reverse was the fact. The
increased complexity of the task of regulating trade, as division of
labour developed and commerce expanded its bounds, became difficult, and
the central body was for this additional reason glad to depute its powers
to, and to exercise its functions through, smaller and specialised
agencies. The charters of the Craft Gilds too contain no articles which
would stand the members in stead in a conflict with a higher power,
whereas if these charters had been the hardly-won prize of a severely
contested struggle they would assuredly have contained some bitter
articles in consequence of the past and in preparation for the future. We
shall however examine the rise and history of the Craft Gilds in the
subsequent chapters.
[Sidenote: _Summary._]
The substance of the foregoing paragraphs may be briefly summarised thus.
The most noticeable feature in the Economic history of England during the
years immediately succeeding the Norman Conquest was the growth of the
towns. They differed however but little from the country districts in
government except in the particular that they possessed a Merchant Gild.
These trading corporations are first unmistakeably perceived soon after
the Conquest, originating probably in the need which arose, as the towns
increased in wealth and importance, for the existence of some authority to
preserve peace within their borders, as without peace and order trade
could not prosper.
Such an union for securing internal peace, consisting as it did of the
principal persons interested, easily went on to enact commercial
regulations. These were, on the one hand, the reserving to its own body
the privilege of purchasing the stock of the foreign merchant, and, on the
other, restricting the right of selling within the town to its own
members. Royal authorisation set the seal to this practice. When the kings
began to give charters to the towns, the legal recognition of their
Merchant Gild was one of the chief of the privileges desired by the
townsmen.
This restricted trading was not prejudicial to the town because
practically all the burgesses were members of the Gild. If they all were
not Gildsmen _before_ the royal authorisation they would be likely to
become so afterwards.
But all Gildsmen were not burgesses. The latter _must_ be residents: the
former frequently included outsiders among their number.
Nevertheless as the years went by, the Gild seemed to become the Communa,
even as the Gild Hall became the Town Hall. Various reasons conduced to
this. There were practically no burgesses extraneous to the Merchant Gild,
though there were often Gildsmen who were not burgesses. The Merchant Gild
was the only machinery for freeing the fugitive villain after a year and a
day's residence in the town. It also afforded the best, and as a fact the
only, centre round which the burgesses could rally in the defence of their
old privileges or in the struggle for fresh ones. Its wealth and stability
were also an additional inducement to the kings in granting to the towns
their _firma burgi_. In theory the Gilda Mercatoria might be kept distinct
from the Communa, but in practice the two bodies were found to be
identical. But the later Communa did not take cognisance of trade affairs
except indirectly through the Craft Gilds which the increasing complexity
of trade was calling into being. Many of the members of these latter
bodies were members of the Merchant Gild, and to them were added large
numbers of the lesser craftsmen. The Craft Gilds specialized the work of
the Merchant Gild, which gradually ceased to discharge any important
office as a collective whole, though through the many branches into which
it had ramified its influence continued to be of the greatest importance
to the welfare of town and trade.
NOTE 1.
LIST OF MERCHANT GILDS.
The following is an attempt to construct a table of grants of the Merchant
Gild (down to 1485), in chronological order, and showing also, where
possible, by whom the grant was made.
Unfortunately the list is in several cases only approximately correct, as
the document from which I have obtained my date shows that the Merchant
Gild has evidently been granted at some previous time. In all cases
however the earliest known mention of the Gild is given.
In compiling this table I should acknowledge my plentiful use of the
materials recently made available in _The Gild Merchant_, by Charles Gross
(Oxford, 1890).
_William II. and Henry I._ (1087-1135)
Burford 1087-1107 Earl of Gloucester
Canterbury 1093-1109
_Henry I._ (1100-35)
Wilton 1100-35 King
Leicester 1107-18 Robert, Earl of Mellent
Beverley 1119-35 Abp Thurstan of York
York 1130-31
_Stephen_ (1135-54)
Chichester King
Lewes Reginald de Warrenne
_Stephen and Henry II._ (1135-89)
Petersfield
_Henry II._ (1154-89)
Carlisle King
Durham
Fordwich
Lincoln King
Oxford
Shrewsbury King
Southampton King
Wallingford King
Winchester King
Marlborough 1163 King
Andover 1175-6 King
Salisbury 1176 King
Bristol 1188 John, Earl of Moreton
_Richard I._ (1189-99)
Bath 1189 King
Bedford King
Gloucester
Nottingham John, Earl of Moreton
Bury S. Edmund's 1198
_John_ (1199-1216)
Chester 1190-1211 Earl of Chester
Dunwich 1200 King
Ipswich 1200 King
Cambridge 1201 King
Helston 1201 King
Derby 1204 King
Lynn Regis 1204 King
Malmesbury 1205-22
Yarmouth 1208 King
Hereford 1215 King
Bodmin 1216 King
Totnes 1216 King
Newcastle-on-Tyne 1216 King
_Henry III._ (1216-1272)
Preston
Haverfordwest
Portsmouth
Worcester 1226-27 King
Bridgenorth 1227 King
Rochester 1227 King
Montgomery 1227 King
Hartlepool 1230 Bp of Durham
Dunheved (Launceston) 1231-72 Richard, Earl of Cornwall
Newcastle-under-Lyme 1235 King
Liskeard 1239-40 Richard, Earl of Cornwall
Wigan 1246 King
Sunderland 1247 King
Cardigan 1249 King
Reading 1253 King
Scarborough 1253 King
Guildford 1256
Kingston-on-Thames 1256 King
Boston ? 1260
Macclesfield 1261 King
Coventry 1267-68 King
Lostwithiel 1269
_Edward I._ (1272-1307)
Berwick
Bridgwater
Congleton Henry de Lacy
Devizes King
Welshpool Griffith, Lord of Cyveiliog
Aberystwith 1277 King
Windsor 1277 King
Builth 1278 King
Rhuddlan 1278 King
Lyme Regis 1284 King
Caernarvon 1284 King
Conway 1284 King
Criccieth 1284 King
Flint 1284 King
Harlech 1284 King
Altrincham 1290 Hamon de Massy
Caerswys 1290 King
Overton 1291-2
Newport (Salop) 1292
Chesterfield 1294 John Wake
Kirkham 1295 King
Beaumaris 1296 King
Henley-on-Thames 1300 ? Earl of Cornwall
Barnstaple 1302
Newborough 1303 King
_Edward II._ (1307-1327)
Llanfyllin
Ruyton 1308-9 Earl of Arundel
Wycombe 1316
Bala 1324 King
_Edward III._ (1327-1377)
Gainsborough Earl of Pembroke
Bamborough 1332
Grampound 1332
Lampeter 1332
Denbigh 1333 King
Lancaster 1337
Cardiff 1341 Hugh le Despenser
Nevin 1343-76 Prince of Wales
Llantrissaint 1346 Hugh le Despenser
Hedon 1348 King
Hope 1351 Prince of Wales
Pwllheli 1355 Prince of Wales
Neath 1359 Edward le Despenser
Kenfig 1360 Edward le Despenser
Newton (S. Wales) 1363 Prince of Wales
_Richard II._ (1377-1399)
Axbridge
Newport 1385 Earl of Stafford
Oswestry 1398 King
_Henry IV._ (1399-1413)
Saffron-Walden
Cirencester 1403 King
_Henry V._ (1413-1422)
None
_Henry VI._ (1422-1461)
Plymouth 1440
Walsall 1440
Weymouth 1442
Woodstock 1453 King
_Edward IV._ (1461-1483)
Ludlow 1461 King
Grantham 1462
Stamford 1462
Doncaster 1467
Wenlock 1468
_Richard III._ (1483-1485)
Pontefract
NOTE 2.
LIST OF TRADES, HANDICRAFTS AND PROFESSIONS COMPRISED IN THE LISTS OF
MEMBERS OF THE SHREWSBURY MERCHANT GILD.
apotecarius, specer, spicer--apothecary
aurifaber--goldsmith
baker, bakere, pistor, pictor--baker
barber, tonsor, tyncer--barber
bercarius, tannator, tanner--tanner
botman--corn-dealer
brewer--brewer
carnifex--butcher
carpentarius, faber--carpenter
carrere--carrier
cementarius--? plasterer
cissor, tailur, taylor, tayleur, parmentarius, parminter,
parmonter--tailor
clericus--clerk
cocus--cook
colier, coleyer--collier[49]
comber--? wool-comber
corvisarius, gorwicer, cordewaner, sutor--shoemaker
coupere, hoppere (?)--cooper
deyer--dyer
forber--sword-cutler
ganter, cirotecarius, glover--glover
garnusur--garnisher
grom--groom
gunir, gynur
harpour--harper
haukerus, hawkerus, hawker--hawker
justice--judge
leche--leech
loxmith, locker, lok--locksmith
mason--mason
mercer--mercer, merchant or retailer of small wares
molendarius--miller
palmer--
pannarius--draper, clothier
petler, ? pelterer--seller of skins
piscator--fisherman
potter--potter
prest, presbyter--priest
sadeler--saddler
scriptor--transcriber
sherer, shearman--clothworker
tabernarius, taverner--tavern-keeper
teynterer--
walker or waller--? builder
webbe--weaver
wodemon--woodman
wolbyer--wool-buyer
CHAPTER III.
THE CRAFT GILDS.
[Sidenote: _The Merchant Gild and the craftsmen._]
We have seen how the Merchant Gild consisted of all the traders whose
business lay in the town. Such an association, though nominally open to
all whether landowners or not who could afford to pay the requisite fees,
was in essence oligarchical, and this feature became in course of time its
most apparent characteristic. We saw, also, how there grew up a large
class extraneous to the privileged Merchant Gild. This body of outsiders
became continually larger and more important. The Welsh ravages in the
exposed country would induce numbers to seek the friendly shelter of the
town, which by this continuous infusion of fresh blood, found its trade
become more and more flourishing, and consequently its attractions to
"foreigners" more and more powerful. Each branch of industry was also
incessantly receiving large accessions of strength in the shape of
fugitive villains from the country-side, who, by residence during a year
and a day were released from fear of a reclaim to serfdom. These new
settlers, some of whom the advance of time found making considerable
strides towards prosperity, seeing themselves shut out from the Town Gild
both by the exclusive spirit of that body and by the fact that they
themselves were not owners of land within the town[50], but (even in the
case of the wealthiest of them) only renters of their shops, were
naturally drawn, by the spirit of the times, towards amalgamation[51].
[Sidenote: _Tendencies to union among the latter: Religious,_]
It was natural that men working at the same trade,--living probably in the
same neighbourhood[52], and during intervals of rest exchanging gossip
from adjacent door-steps,--meeting one another in all the actions of daily
life and with thoughts and language running in similar grooves,--should
also desire to be not separated in worship. Likewise, in time of trouble,
when death brought gloom to the house of a fellow-workman, or when through
accident or misfortune he failed to appear at his accustomed place in yard
or workshop, it was by the ordinary promptings of nature that his brother
craftsmen came to offer their sympathy and help. And so we find the men of
the various trades forming themselves into fraternities, in order to pour
united supplications for Divine assistance and to offer thanks in common
for Divine favour[53]. The Tailors and Shoemakers had their chantries in
St Chad's Church, where the Weavers also had their especial altar,
maintaining in addition a light before the shrine of St Winifred in the
Abbey of the Holy Cross. The Drapers of the town early became drawn
together in a religious brotherhood, the chapel of which in the collegiate
church of Our Lady was the object of frequent and solicitous care when the
fraternity of the Holy Trinity was definitively changed into the
Worshipful Company of the Drapers. In the church of St Juliana the altar
of the Shearmen stood in the north aisle, where a chaplain said their
special mass for a yearly stipend of £4[54].
It was the pride of the Gilds to expend the best efforts of their wealth
and skill on the embellishment and maintenance of their chapel upon which
they were able to look as their own. Their worldly possessions at no one
time reached a figure high enough for them to provide a large endowment
for church or chantry, but the thankofferings of the years sufficed for
all current expenses. The fixed stipend was small, but the fabric, raised
and adorned as funds allowed, was commodious and beautiful[55].
It was to this ever-present desire to consecrate some portion of the
yearly profits of trade to the honour of Him who had given the increase,
that the annual pageant owed its pomp. The Corpus Christi procession was
an occasion of especial prominence at Shrewsbury, where the Gild charters
and records are full of minute regulations for its order.
[Sidenote: _Social,_]
The associations of fellow workmen for the purposes of religion also took
the form of clubs for mutual benefit and assistance. The Drapers were
maintaining their school and schoolmaster in 1492[56]; their almshouses
were only rivalled by those of the Mercers. The maintenance of poor and
decayed members was always one of the most prominent of the objects of
association. Attendance at the last offices by the grave of a deceased
brother, and remembrance of him in prayer, were likewise universal duties
of brethren. Edward VI.'s confiscation of Gild property broke down in all
the towns a great system of poor-relief which had hitherto freed the
government of that most difficult problem. Nor did the Gilds wait until a
brother was completely crushed before they came to his assistance.
Fluctuations of trade then as now sometimes brought occasions of temporary
embarrassment. But "the false and abominable contract of Usury ... which
the more subtily to deceive the people they call 'exchange' or
'chevisance,' whereas it might more truly be called 'mescheaunce,'" ...
was rightly looked upon as unworthy of fellow-workers for the common good,
"seeing that it ruins the honour and soul of the agent, and sweeps away
the goods and property of him who appears to be accommodated, and destroys
all manner of right and lawful traffick[57]." The common chest of the Gild
was therefore at the service of the brethren[58], not, as in the days of
degeneracy, to aid the capitalist in grinding down his workmen, but to
keep the craftsman from the clutches of the usurer.
[Sidenote: _Commercial._]
Out of these religious fraternities and social clubs developed what we may
more correctly term Craft Gilds; or to speak more strictly we should
perhaps rather say that many of these societies began to add to their
social and religious objects an additional one, namely trade
regulation[59]. They would be encouraged in this direction by the action
of the Merchant Gild, or its successor the municipal authority, which, as
the expansion of trade necessitated specialisation, was glad to depute its
powers to such associations[60].
[Sidenote: _Early Craft Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Effect of their growth on Merchant Gild._]
The earliest mention of Craft Gilds is in the reign of Henry I., when
notice is found of the Weavers of London, Oxford, Winchester, Lincoln and
Huntingdon, the Cordwainers of Oxford and the Fullers of Winchester[61].
They became more common and more influential as the development of
industry was fostered by the central government. This was especially the
policy of Edward I. and Edward III. By the end of the 14th century the
Craft Gilds become numerous. As they took over the duties and functions of
the Merchant Gild the existence of the latter was rendered to a
considerable extent superfluous, and the merging of the Gilda Mercatoria
into the Communa became not only inevitable but convenient and natural.
During the 14th and 15th centuries, when the Craft Gilds attained their
highest power, the decay of the Merchant Gilds became very marked.
[Sidenote: _The later "Merchant Gild."_]
In some places where this happened the name of the Merchant Gild wholly
disappeared. In others where the expression continued in use the
institution changed its character and became simply a religious
fraternity. In a few instances the select corporation alone inherited the
name: in some the whole body of freemen did so. Again, there are examples
of a survival of the expression as applied to the whole body of tradesmen,
that is the whole of the members of the various Gilds[62]. A Patent of
Queen Elizabeth, dated 1586, thus alludes to the aggregate of unions under
the collective name of "the Gild of Burgesses of Shrewsbury." In the same
way we read of "the several companies belonging to the guild merchant of
Reading," "the Guild of Merchants in Andever, which Guild is divided into
three several Fellowships," etc. Just as the Merchant Gild differentiated
itself into Craft Gilds, the Craft Gilds afterwards again in the aggregate
took the name and style of the Merchant Gild.
[Sidenote: _Identity of interests of Corporation and Gilds seen in Police
regulations;_]
If such additional proof were needed this action on their part might be
adduced in support of the assertion, which cannot be too strongly
emphasised or too often repeated, that in England there was no conflict
between the Merchant Gild and the Craft Gilds. Though these latter
associations had grown up in vindication, as it might seem, of the
principle of free amalgamation in opposition to oligarchical
exclusiveness, and although it was evident that as they increased the
Merchant Gild must decline, yet there was at no time any idea of
antagonism between the two kinds of authority within the town. On the
contrary internal police was very materially assisted by the Gilds[63].
They carried on the good work which the Merchant Gild had inaugurated. Not
only were dissensions among combrethren to be brought before the Wardens
and Stewards instead of forming the occasion of unseemly brawls and
disturbances, but one of the objects for which the associations existed is
expressly stated to be "for the weale, rest and tranquilitie of the same
towne, and for good rule to be kept there[64]." With this object in view
the composition of the Tailors and Skinners (1478) contains several
articles which show how materially the officers of the Gild assisted the
bailiffs of the town[65].
[Sidenote: _evidenced by supervision of municipal authorities,_]
The Gild officers, though freely elected by the combrethren took their
oaths of office before the bailiffs of the town, who also secured, if
necessary, the enforcement of the ordinances of the Gilds[66]. The town
authorities exercised, too, a general supervision: it seems to have been
the rule for the compositions to be annually (or periodically) inspected;
and for new regulations to be subject to municipal approval[67].
[Sidenote: _(therefore supported by them;) shown by Charters,_]
One consequence of this authorisation by the town officials was that the
latter ceased to take cognisance of trade affairs except indirectly
through the Gilds; another was that the Gilds were supported by the town
authorities. In order to carry out the rules of the Gilds it was
imperative that all men of a trade should belong to the particular Gild of
that craft. For there might come men carrying on trade in the town
unwilling to submit to the rules framed for ensuring good work and
protecting the interests of the craft. These it would be impossible to
check until the Gild had been recognised and authorised by the crown or
the corporation, and so had obtained power to enforce its ordinances in a
legitimate way. It was in this manner that the necessity arose for
obtaining a charter[68]. The Fraternities, which in their earlier stages
had existed as voluntary associations, now received authoritative
recognition, by virtue of charters obtained from the king by the aid of
the corporation. The composition of the Tailors and Skinners (1478) shows
the company and the corporation in the closest connection; that of the
Mercers, granted by Edward Prince of Wales, Son of Edward IV., in 1480-81,
is countersigned by the bailiffs.
The necessity for this authoritative recognition is clearly seen in the
continually recurring ordinance calling upon all men of the craft to join
the Gild. If the Gild had not been supported by royal and municipal
authority it would have been impossible for it to have carried out its
aims; as it was the task was sufficiently difficult.
[Sidenote: _and Oaths._]
The unity of interests of the Gilds and the corporation is further shown
by the words of the oaths. The wardens' oath of the company of Glovers ran
as follows.
"You shalbe true to our Sov'aigne lord King ... his heirs and
successors and obedient to the Bailiffs of this town for the time
being and their successors. And you shall well and truly execute and
p'forme your office of Wardens of Glovers, Poynt-makers, pursers,
ffelmongers, Lethersellers and pa'hment-makers for this yeare
according to the true extent and meaning of your composition and of
all and singular articles and agreements therein expressed and
declared to the uttermost of your power. So helpe you God."
The oaths of the other officers, and of the Freemen, contained like
promises[69].
[Sidenote: _Composition of Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Masters._]
[Sidenote: _Apprentices._]
[Sidenote: _Journeymen._]
[Sidenote: _Women._]
In the composition of the Trade Gilds there was no attempt to erect a
monopoly. All workers of the Craft except such as could make separate
terms with the corporation[70] were not only permitted to join the Gild,
but were compelled to do so. The members included Apprentices and
Journeymen as well as Masters[71]. Women too were not debarred from
joining[72], though they, like the Apprentices and Journeymen[73], took no
part in the business of administration[74]. The charter of the Drapers[75]
speaks of both brethren and sistren, and the list of members as given on
the occasions of "cessments" shows women-members, both wives of
combrethren, independent tradeswomen, and widows of deceased brothers.
[Sidenote: _Officers._]
In the election of their officers the English Gilds differed materially
from similar associations on the continent. In England the choice appears
to have been always unrestricted[76]. Refusal to accept office when
elected exposed the reluctant brother to a money fine. The oaths of the
officers, as we have seen, contained declarations of loyalty to the crown
and municipal authority, and in this way we may account for the absence of
_Masters_ among the officials of the Shrewsbury Gilds. The place of the
Master seems to have been filled, in some sort at least, by the bailiffs
of the town. At any rate none of the many Gilds of Shrewsbury ever had a
Master at the head of their officers.
The _Wardens_ were uniformly two in number, freely elected by all the
brethren from such as were "the most worthiest and discreetest and which
will and best can[77]." That it was not altogether a needless precaution
to order that the elected wardens should be members of the Gild appears
from the later abuses which arose, wardens being sometimes chosen from
without the number of the combrethren[78]. The functions of these, the
principal officers, were generally to carry into effect the objects of the
Gild. To do this they possessed the right of search for inadequate
materials or unsuitable tools, and a general supervision over workmen to
secure competency. The composing of quarrels among combrethren was a
prominent part of their duties.
[Sidenote: _Assistants._]
The Board of Assistants which exercised so harmful an influence over the
companies in later days is found at Shrewsbury at an early date[79]. The
composition of the Tailors and Skinners, 1478 A.D., speaks of the "Fower
men ordeigned to the said Wardens to be assistant in counsel in good
counsel giving." They reappear in 1563 as the Four Assistants "for
advising them [the Wardens] in the Government of the Gild[80]." In this
particular as in so many others the Gilds of Shrewsbury seem to have been
distinguished by a greater desire to widen the area of the governing body
than was the case with the great companies of London and elsewhere. For
the language of some bye-laws of the corporation passed in 18 Edward IV.,
seems to imply that the "Four Men" were common to all the companies. In
the Gilds of most provincial towns such Assistants no doubt shared in the
government from early years.
The _Stewards_ were two in number. At a later date they were nominated by
the Wardens[81], though in earlier times probably elective. Their
particular duties nowhere very clearly appear. They seem to have assisted
the Wardens and Four Men in hearing and examining of "all manner of
matters, causes and controv'sies which shall happen amongst the
brethren[82]."
The _Beadle_ summoned members to meetings and officiated in whatever of
formality was observed in them. He would keep the door of the Hall, and
see that none but brethren were admitted within the privileged chamber.
His was the duty of providing that due order and regularity was observed
in the proceedings, and, if necessary, of carrying into effect the
decisions of the assembly against refractory members. In the annual
Procession we can well imagine that the Beadles of the respective
companies would bear themselves with no common pride. Their duties also
included the summoning of members to weddings and funerals of brethren.
The Mercers' composition of 1424 carefully details the duties of the
_Searcher_. He, as also the Beadle, was usually nominated by the Wardens,
Four Men and Stewards jointly, and, as his name implied, was charged with
bringing to the notice of the Gild anything contrary to its rules or
prejudicial to its interests.
A _Clerk_ is also mentioned, who drew up indentures of apprenticeship and
kept the Gild registers. At a later period the office of _Treasurer_ was
introduced and became of considerable importance.
[Sidenote: _Meetings._]
The election of officers was the principle item of business at the great
annual meeting of the Gild. This was held on the festival of the Saint in
whose name the Gild was dedicated. It was preceded by Mass in the Parish
Church whither the brethren and sistren went in procession wearing their
distinctive hoods and liveries, and bearing lights in their hands. To add
to the dignity of the occasion a play or mystery was sometimes performed,
but more usually such representations were reserved for the great common
feast of Corpus Christi.
[Sidenote: _Business at meetings._]
[Sidenote: _Penalties._]
At the meeting, which from its most general name of "mornspeche" appears
to have followed soon after Mass, great solemnity was observed. The
double-locked box[83] was opened by the two Wardens[84] amidst a
reverential silence, and the composition or charter preserved in it
rehearsed to the assembled brethren. Business was then proceeded
with:--election of officers, admittance of new brethren, authorisation of
indentures. Then if necessary regulations were passed for the government
of the Gild and ordinances made for the due protection of trade, such as
summonses to Intruders to enter the union. The ordinary penalties which
the companies might inflict were fines of money or of wax, (in which king
and corporation shared and which they were consequently willing to
enforce,) and, in extreme cases total expulsion from the Gild, which of
course meant exclusion from trade within the town.
[Sidenote: _Halls._]
After the "mornspeche" came the mutual feast. The brethren had begun the
day by union for worship, they ended it with union for social and
convivial festivity. In later times the business portion of the meeting
was transacted in the Hall of the Gild and the brethren afterwards
adjourned to some convenient tavern. Several of the Halls were standing
until quite recent times. Such were those of the Mercers, Tailors, and
Weavers[85]. That of the Shearmen is now used as an Auction Mart, but the
Drapers' Hall still retains its former dignity.
[Sidenote: _Necessity of historical attitude_]
It will be necessary to attempt some estimation of the extent and value
of the influence which the Gilds exercised on contemporary life and
thought. In doing this, and indeed in dealing with the whole subject of
trade regulation in the Middle Ages, it is necessary to bear continually
in mind that not only were the conditions of trade then very materially
different from those under which we now live, but that Economic Theory was
still more at variance with modern views. It is necessary therefore to
take a historical attitude, and to try to appreciate both the difference
of social conditions, and the difference of objects in view. These objects
may be considered firstly as individual and perhaps selfish; and,
secondly, as general and for the common good.
[Sidenote: _in estimating importance of Gilds; Commercial,_]
1. If we consider the charters from the first point of view we see that
the trade regulations were dictated by the desire to secure to all the
brethren their means of livelihood: "no broder" was to "induce or tyce any
other Mastres Accostom," or to employ the servants of another combrother,
or otherwise to act in a spirit of unbrotherly and dishonourable
competition. The charters are full of such regulations. No member might
obtrude wares before passers in the open street, or erect booths "for to
have better sale than eny of the combrethren[86]."
2. Similarly also if we view the compositions in light of what we have
described as the second of their objects. The excellent motive of mediæval
regulation of industry was to secure the prosperity of trade by ensuring
skilled workmanship and proper materials. In consequence it was forbidden
for workmen whose capacity was unknown to work in the town until their
efficiency had been proved. The Barbers' composition of 1432 ordered that
"no man' p'sone sette up nother holde no shoppe in Privite ny apperte ny
shave as a Maistre withinne the saide Tow' ny Franchise in to the Tyme
that ev'y such p'sone have the Wille and Assent of the Stywardes and
Maistres of the saide Crafte." It was the desire to ensure the public
being well served that prompted the articles in the composition of the
Mercers (1480-1) which ordered the Searcher "to make serche uppon all the
occupyers of the saide Craftes ... that non of theym occupie eny false
Balaunce Weight or Mesures belongeing to the sayde Craftes or eny of
theym, wherebie the Kyngs People in eny wyse myght be hurt or dysseyved."
It was also part of the same officer's duties to "oversee that any thyng
app'tenyng to the saide Craftes or eny of theym to be boght and solde in
the saide Towne and Frauncheses be able suffyceant and lawfull and that
noe dyssayte nor gyle to the Kyngs liege people therbye be had." No
indentures were to be drawn for less than "seven years at the least," so
that adequate training should be secured.
We thus perceive how the Craft Gilds differed, on the one hand from the
Frith Gilds of more ancient times, and on the other from the Commercial
Companies of later days. The former were associations in which every
member was responsible for the actions of each of his fellows; in the
Craft Gilds each member bound himself to abide by the regulations of the
rest. The essence of the later Commercial Companies is union for mere
pecuniary gain; the Gilds set in the forefront of the objects of their
association the material benefit of the community and the religious and
moral good of the individual. The resemblance between Trades Unions and
the Mediæval Gilds is not entirely fanciful; but no two documents can be
more widely different than the Prospectus of a Limited Liability Company
and a Gild Charter of the Middle Ages.
[Sidenote: _Social,_]
The Gild system may be considered from various points of view. Regarded in
its social aspect its importance can hardly be exaggerated. It has been
pointed out how the work of the Gilds prevented the difficulty of poor
relief becoming acute, and also how valuable their influence was in the
maintenance of order, through the respect they evinced for the established
law. The immense weight they must have had on the side of morality, by the
importance they attached to the moral character of their members must not
be overlooked. "The rules of the Gilds which have come down to us, quaint
and homely as they sound, breathe a spirit as elevated as it is simple,
and although we must probably make the usual allowance for the difference
between men's acts and their words, we cannot but believe that the
generations which formed such grand conceptions and which so persistently
strove to realise them, had a better side than posterity has
discovered[87]."
The extent, too, to which they operated in linking class to class was
very great. There was no impassable barrier between commerce and birth. In
the lists of apprentices which have been preserved to us the entries of
names belonging to county families are frequent. It was the ordinary
custom for the younger sons to be put to business in the town. The social
value of such a habit must have been great. Within the craft, too, the
distinctions were only caused by differences in the degrees of wealth. By
industry and perseverance the meanest apprentice might look forward to
attainment of the highest honours his Gild could bestow, and even, by
success in trade, to nobility. As in Athelstan's time the merchant who
fared thrice beyond the sea at his own cost became of thegn-right
worthy[88], so it was all through the Middle Ages: even in the 17th
century Harrison says "our merchants do often change estate with
gentlemen, as gentlemen do with them, by a mutual conversion of the one
into the other[89]."
[Sidenote: _Constitutional._]
The education obtained by the framing of their own ordinances was also no
slight gain to the townsmen. They provided for their peculiar needs in
their own peculiar way, not always we may say in the best way, but in that
which they, who knew the special requirements of the case, considered the
best. Each who took part in drawing up those regulations would feel that a
certain share of responsibility rested with him to see that they were
kept. The constitutional importance also of this training, in imparting an
appreciation of the responsibilities and duties which devolve on those
who frame regulations was not unimportant.
The services which the Gilds rendered to the cause of liberty by the
feeling of strong cohesion which they produced among the townsmen would be
less difficult to estimate if the burgesses had played a more distinctive
part in the work of Parliament[90]. It is easier to point out how, if they
may have interfered to some extent with family life on the one hand, they
on the other increased the tendency to narrowness and localism which was
otherwise sufficiently strong throughout the Middle Ages, and indeed
through considerably later times. Everything was antagonistic to the
widening of the townsman's sympathies. He found his trade, his ambition,
almost his whole life, satisfied within the walls of the borough in which
he dwelt; and the Craft Gilds crystallised, as it were, this tendency
towards insularity.
[Sidenote: _Special interest of their history at present time._]
It may be noticed how a special interest attaches at the present time to
the history of the Gilds and to the study of their influence and
development.
The condition of the working classes must always be a point of vital
importance to the welfare of the state. It is peculiarly so to-day.
Anything therefore which can assist us to understand how the present
degradation of the craftsman has been brought about, and which may help
towards his amelioration, will be valuable and of practical usefulness.
Five hundred years ago the working man differed very widely from his
modern representative; how widely may be gathered from a single
illustration. The architects of the Churches and other buildings which the
Middle Ages have bequeathed to us in such large numbers and of such
exquisite beauty are, in the vast majority of cases, unknown to-day even
by name. They were not less unknown to contemporaries. For they were men
of like nature with their fellows: _ancestors of our modern artisans_. How
great a change has grown up in the generations which have intervened.
Five centuries ago the workman was intelligent and skilled, he is now
untrained and degraded: he was then able and accustomed to take a proper
pride in his work, he is now careless and indifferent: he used to be
provident and thrifty, now he is usually reckless and wasteful.
It is not too much to say that a great reason of this vast difference is
to be found in the influence which the Gilds exercised. In their character
as Benefit Clubs they taught their members to be thrifty: by insisting on
a careful and systematic training during seven years of apprenticeship
they made them skilled and capable workmen, and as such able to take an
interest in, and to derive pleasure from their work. It has been pointed
out that the Gilds prevented extreme poverty from ever becoming at all
normal. Uncertainty of employment and demoralising fluctuations of wages
are among the most crying evils of our modern social _régime_. The Craft
Gilds did much to secure regularity of work and to steady the price of
labour.
Thus it is evident how great and peculiar an interest attaches to the
whole subject of the Gilds at the present day. It is a subject which does
not merely offer attractions to the antiquary or provide valuable
materials for the student of constitutional and municipal development. It
has a far wider and more human significance. A study of the extent and
nature of the influence which the Gilds exercised on the condition and
skill of the working man in the past will help to solve the problem of his
improvement in the present and in the future.
NOTE I.
INDENTURE OF APPRENTICESHIP FROM THE MERCERS' COMPANY'S RECORDS. A.D.
1414.
Hæc indentura testatur etc. inter Johannem Hyndlee de Northampton,
Brasyer, et Gulielmum filium Thomæ Spragge de Salopia, quod predictus
Gulielmus posuit semetipsum apprenticium dicto Johanni Hyndlee, usque ad
finem octo annorum, ad artem vocatam _brasyer's craft_, quâ dictus
Johannes utitur, medio tempore humiliter erudiendum. Infra quem quidem
terminum præfatus Gulielmus concilia dicti Johannis Hyndlee magistri sui
celanda celabit. Dampnum eidem Johanni nullo modo faciet nec fieri
videbit, quin illud cito impediet aut dictum magistrum suum statim inde
premuniet. A servicio suo seipsum illicite non absentabit. Bona et catalla
dicti Johannis absque ejus licentiâ nulli accomodabit. Tabernam, scortum,
talos, aleas, et joca similia non frequentabit, in dispendium magistri
sui. Fornicationem nec adulterium cum aliqua muliere de domo et familia
dicti Johannis nullo modo committet, neque uxorem ducet, absque licentia
magistri sui. Præcepta et mandata licita et racionabilia magistri sui
ubique pro fideli posse ipsius Gulielmi, diligenter adimplebit et eisdem
mandatis libenter obediet. Et si prædictus Gulielmus de aliqua convencione
sua vel articulo præscripto defecerit, tunc idem Gulielmus juxta modum et
quantitatem delicti sui magistro suo satisfaciet emendam aut terminum
apprenticiatus sui duplicabit. Et præfatus Johannes et assignati sui
apprenticium suum in arte prædicta meliori modo quo idem Johannes sciverit
ac poterit tractabunt docebunt et informabunt, seu ipsum informari facient
sufficienter, debito modo castigando, et non aliter. Præterea dictus
Johannes concedit ad docendum et informandum dictum Gulielmum in arte
vocata _Peuterer's Craft_ adeo bene sicut sciverit seu poterit ultra
convencionem suam præmissam. Et idem Johannes nullam partem artium
prædictarum ab apprenticio suo concelabit. Invenient insuper Johannes et
assignati sui dicto Gulielmo omnia sibi necessaria, viz. victum suum et
vestitum, lineum, laneum, lectum, hospicium, calceamenta et cætera sibi
competencia annuatim sufficienter, prout ætas et status ipsius Gulielmi
exigerint. In cujus rei testimonium etc. 1414.
NOTE II.
OATH TO BE TAKEN BY THE FREEMEN OF THE MERCERS' COMPANY.
In the Company's records this oath occurs immediately after a curious
calendar, written in 15th century hand, and before a list of "Brethren
received and incorporated in the time of Rici Attynchin and John Cutlere
wardens" in 3 Henry VI., (1424-5).
FIDELITAS.
I shall trewe man be to God o'r Lady Seynt Marie Seynt Mychell
th'archangell patrone of the Gylde and to the Fraternite of the Mercers
Yremongers and Goldsmythes & Cappers w'in the Towne and Fraunches of
Shrowesbury I shall also Trewe man be to the king our liege lorde and to
his heyres kyngys and his lawes and mynystars of the same Truly obs've and
obey And ov' this I shall be obedyent to my wardens and their sumpneys
obey and kepe I shall be trewe and ffeythfull to the Combrethern of the
Gylde aforeseyd and ther co'ncell kepe All lawdable and lefull actes and
composic'ons made or to be made w{t}in the Seide Gylde truly obeye p'forme
and kepe aft' my reason and power I shall be contributare bere yelde and
paye all man' ordynare charges cestes and contribucons aftur my power as
any other master occupyer or combrother of the seid Gylde shall happen to
doe and bere: Soe helpe me God and halidame and by the Boke.
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE GILDS OF SHREWSBURY.
[Sidenote: _Existed before they held charters._]
In the foregoing chapter it has been shown how the Craft Gilds were called
into being. They possessed at first no charters[91] because none were
needed. It was only when friction arose that there came any necessity for
royal authority to step forward with its support and sanction[92].
[Sidenote: _Scanty notice at first._]
And as they at first possessed no charters, so they have left few or no
records of their earliest life. So long as they worked in thorough accord
with the spirit of the age and completely fulfilled its requirements they
left scanty traces. It is only when the period of degeneracy commences
that we begin to have anything like adequate materials for their detailed
history.
[Sidenote: _Fourteenth century; difficulties for Gilds to face._]
The 14th century was fruitful in illustrations of the difficulties which
beset the work of the Gilds.
The development of trade alone had proceeded far enough to render their
task already complicated: their difficulties were increased abnormally by
the exceptional conditions of labour brought about by the Black Death. The
Peasant Revolt compelled Parliament to take cognisance of industrial
difficulties. In 1388, at its meeting at Cambridge, it was largely
occupied with trade questions[93], and ordered the issue of writs to the
sheriff of each county in England, commanding returns of all details as to
the foundation, objects, and condition of both religious fraternities and
Craft Gilds. These returns show that most of the Gilds obtained their
charters during the 13th and the early years of the 14th centuries[94].
[Sidenote: _Development of industry._]
It does not appear that any legislation followed upon this parliamentary
action, but provisions now begin to appear for the settlement of disputes
between masters and workmen, and also between brethren of the Gild. So far
the different classes of workmen had worked together in harmony upon the
whole, but it could not fail that a severance or at least a marked
diversity of interests should arise. Most important, as demonstrating
that it was the change in external circumstances, and not so much the
internal degeneracy of the Gilds themselves, which was causing the
friction, are the evidences which show that a great division of labour was
in progress[95]. In the 13th century the tailor and the cloth-merchant
sever their former connection: the businesses of the tanner and of the
butcher become distinct branches of trade[96]. Similarly the tanner and
the shoemaker were made separate callings[97]. The same movement is still
more clearly seen in the disputes which arose between allied Gilds as to
the particular work which each was charged with supervising[98]. It was
the creation of opposing interests, of which such were the outward signs,
that introduced the seed of decay into the Gild system.
[Sidenote: _Fifteenth century: avowal of abuses,_]
How rapidly the degeneracy proceeded may be gathered from a petition of
the Commons early in the 15th century (1437), which evoked an Act (15 Hen.
VI., cap. 6) definitely recognising the existence of abuses. After
reciting how the
"masters, wardens, and people of Gilds, fraternities, and other
companies corporate, dwelling in divers parts of the realm, oftentimes
by colour of rule and governance to them granted and confirmed by
charters and letters patent ... made among themselves many unlawful
and little reasonable ordinances ... for their own singular profit
and to the common hurt and damage of the people,"
the statute proceeded to order that the Gilds should not in the future
"make or use any ordinance in disparity or diminution of the
franchises of the king or others, or against the common profit of the
people, nor allow any other ordinance if it is not first approved as
good and reasonable by the Justices of the Peace or the chief
Magistrates aforesaid and before them enrolled and to be by them
revoked and repealed afterwards if they shall be found and proved to
be little loyal and unreasonable."
[Sidenote: _but approval of the system._]
[Sidenote: _Policy of Reform._]
But it is abundantly clear that the complaints are against the abuses of
the system and not against the system itself. Dissatisfaction is expressed
at the "little reasonable ordinances" of the Gilds but not against the
companies themselves. The policy therefore of Henry VI. and Edward IV. was
to reform the Gilds by amending their ordinances, or, if necessary, giving
them charters of incorporation which should set forth definitely their
objects, and state both the extent and the limitation of their powers. It
is from this period that we date most of the existing records of the
Shrewsbury companies. The barbers are said to have been chartered by
Edward I. in 1304[99]; their earliest extant composition[100] is dated
1432 (10 Hen. VI.). The Shoemakers' composition of 1387 recited a charter
of Edward III.[101] A Vintners' company is said to have been erected in
Shrewsbury by Henry IV. in 1412[101].
But it is with the accession of Henry VI. that the great number of present
charters and compositions begins. The date of the Fishmongers' company is
1423[101], and the entries of the Mercers commence in the next year[101].
The Barbers' composition of 1432 has been already mentioned. Then follow
the Weavers (1448-9), the Fletchers (1449), the Carpenters (1449-50) in
close proximity[101]. The Tailors and Skinners (1461) were recognised in
the last year of Henry VI.[101], and eighteen years subsequently received
a new composition from Edward IV. (1478), who had in the first year of his
reign united the Fraternity of the Blessed Trinity with the company of the
Drapers[102]. The companies of the Millers, Bakers, Cooks, Butchers and
Shearmen certainly existed before 1478, as they are mentioned as taking
part in the Corpus Christi Procession at that date. In that year the
Tanners and Glovers were incorporated[103], as also were the
Saddlers[103]. The royal recognition of the Mercers[101] in the next year
completed the list of Shrewsbury companies erected before the 16th
century.
[Sidenote: _Later Religious Gilds._]
It will be convenient here to draw attention to a different kind of Gild
which was founded in Shrewsbury towards the close of this period: the
religious Gild of S. Winifred.
The ancient Monks' Gilds which had spread so early over England, found as
was to be expected later imitators in large numbers. The oldest accounts
of these Gilds also, like those of the Monks' Gilds, are found in
England[104]. Religious or Social they are usually called. They all
evinced a strong religious character, but in addition had a care for the
old and needy. If a Gild-brother suffer loss through theft "let all the
Gildship avenge their comrade," says the Cambridge statute. They also took
cognisance of public welfare. If a Gild-brother do wrong "let all bear it:
if one misdo, let all bear alike." If a man be slain in fair quarrel with
a Gild-brother the _wite_ is to be borne by all, but the wilful or
treacherous murderer is "to bear his own deed."
These Gilds rapidly spread over all Europe, and existed probably in every
town. They doubtless formed the model to which the later associations
looked, and, except in details, differed little from the Craft Gilds. They
were frequently connected with trade, even in some instances consisting
entirely of followers of specific crafts[105], and loans were made out of
the common chest to help members in misfortune[106]. We have scant
information of early religious Gilds in Shrewsbury, though there can be
but little doubt they flourished there as elsewhere. Later, in the 15th
century, one was founded by the Abbot of the Holy Cross, which presents
several unusual and interesting features.
Thomas Mynde was elected Abbot on January 8th, 1460, but it was not till
1486 that he took measures to found the Fraternity of S. Winifred, though
probably the scheme had been previously shaping itself through the long
period of unsettlement which the Civil Wars had caused. The present Gild
differed from the earlier foundations in being deliberately created by
royal charter. The reason was that without such security it could not
receive grants of land, and Abbot Mynde was desirous to bequeath to it his
private possessions rather than to leave them to his Monastery,--a curious
commentary perhaps on the low estimation into which the religious houses
had fallen.
The royal charter was not obtained without some trouble. The License
itself says it was granted "by [reason of] the sincere devotion which we
have and bear towards S. Winefrida Virgin and Martyr;" but Abbot Mynde
assures us that this laudable zeal required the practical stimulus of "a
large sum of money" before it would take effect in action.
The terms of the charter allowed both brethren and sisters to join the
fellowship, the number being unregulated. The oath to support the Gild was
taken by each member on admittance, kneeling before the altar in the Abbey
of the Holy Cross. Power was given for the election of a Master, whose
duties were the regulation of the Gild and the supervision of its
property. The fraternity had its common seal, and the ordinary powers and
privileges of corporations. It was especially exempted from the Mortmain
Acts, and was allowed to acquire property to the yearly value of £10. The
objects to which this was to be devoted were the finding of two Chaplains,
or at least one, whose duties were the saying of a daily Mass at the Altar
of S. Winifred in the Abbey, and the celebration of a Requiem Mass on the
decease of a brother or sister of the Fraternity. At such Masses it was
especially provided that the prayers for the departed soul should be _in
English_.
The Gild was joined in considerable numbers by the principal folk of the
town, but there is little information[107] respecting its history, which
may be at once anticipated here. At the confiscation of the Chantry and
Gild property the fraternity of S. Winifred was not able to plead the
excuse of usefulness for trade purposes, and it fell unnoticed in the ruin
of the great Abbey with which it was connected. Its life had been a short
one, but coming as it did at a time when religious fervour was weak and
morality lax, it no doubt served a useful purpose and deserved a better
fate than almost total oblivion.
[Sidenote: _Charters granted to Craft Gilds._]
Returning after this digression to the Craft Gilds it will be interesting
and profitable to make an examination and comparison of two of their
charters, one selected from the earlier and one from the later portion of
the period. The charter[108] of the Barbers' Gild, granted by Henry VI. in
1432, may be placed beside the composition[109] which Edward IV. gave to
the Mercers in 1480.
[Sidenote: _Religious articles._]
A point which strikes us forcibly on the most superficial examination of
the charters, is the prominence given, in one as in the other, to the
Corpus Christi procession. It is a striking illustration of the extent to
which mediæval materialism had permeated society, and how deeply rooted
was that "tendency to see everything in the concrete, to turn the parable
into a fact, the doctrine into its most literal application[110]," which
scholastic philosophy had nurtured. The procession indeed would almost
appear, from the charters, to be the principal object for which the Gilds
exist. A considerable share of the fines is expressly devoted to the
"Increce of the Lyght that is boren yerely in the heye and worthie ffest
of Corpus Xti Day." The Mercers' composition regulates the order of the
procession and the weight of the candle which the company provides in it.
No member is to be out of his place on the festival without permission,
and the combrethren are especially prohibited from going to "the Coventrie
Fayre" at this season under penalty of a fine of twelve pence. The fact of
being enabled to take part in the procession is manifestly looked upon as
one of the great privileges and duties of the companies.
The Mercers' Gild also provided for a priest to say a daily Mass at the
altar of S. Michael in the Church of S. Chad; and thirteen poor Bedesmen
were retained at a penny per week to pray for the King and Queen and
Councillors, and for the brethren of the Gild "both quyke and dedd."
[Sidenote: _Trade articles._]
The trade regulations of the two compositions are naturally cast in the
same mould. In both appears the prohibition of foreign labour (the Mercers
say "except in fayre tyme"), and of under-selling by combrethren as well
as unfair competition generally. The later regulations go further and
provide for the carrying out of the ordinances of the composition by the
appointment of a searcher to secure the use of good materials and to
prevent "dissayte and gyle," the use of false weights, &c. They also
forbid the taking of aliens as apprentices[111].
All indentures are to be for seven years at the least, and none are to be
taken as apprentices without being properly bound by indentures approved
by the wardens and recorded by the clerk. There is also the article which
now becomes common, against divulging the secrets of the craft, and an
interesting one against "eny confederacye or embracerye wherebie any
p'judices hurt or hynd'ance myght growe."
[Sidenote: _Articles of reform._]
In the later charter, too, it is evident that there had arisen no small
need for reform. In the forefront it is stated that the previous "Fines
assessyd uppon ev'y App'ntice at their entries to be maysters Combrethyrn
and Settursuppe of the said Craftes or any of them," "and in like wyse
gret Fynes uppon eny Forreyn that shoulde entre into the same" are
"thought overchargeable" and so are to be "dymynished and refowrmed." If
members refuse to pay them, as thus amended, they may be levied by
distress. Of how great a falling-off from the original spirit of
brotherhood do these two short articles speak.
[Sidenote: _Police._]
Both the documents provide for the trial of dissensions among brethren, in
preference to going before the ordinary tribunals, though by permission
cases might be taken before the bailiffs of the town.
[Sidenote: _Liveries._]
In a similar spirit of pacification the Mercers' composition forbids the
wearing of liveries "saving the lyverray of gownes or hodes of the said
Gylde to be ordeyned and worne," and that of the municipal
corporation[112]. This was in accordance with the Act 13 Henry IV. cap. 3.
The abuse of liveries had evoked from Parliament an attempt to put a total
stop to the custom[113] (13 Rich. II.). Such endeavours were futile. This
was at last recognised, and in 13 Henry IV. the use of liveries of cloth
was prohibited, but with the important proviso, "Gilds and fraternities
and crafts in the cities and boroughs within the kingdom which are founded
and ordained to good intent and purpose alone being excepted." In 1468
Edward IV. confirmed previous legislation on the subject[114].
[Sidenote: _Sixteenth century._]
In spite of reforms by improved compositions and legislative measures the
degeneracy of the Gilds proceeded apace. The statute 19 Hen. VII. cap. 7
repeats the complaint of 15 Hen. VI. cap. 6, and re-enacts the same
restrictions. "Divers and many ordinances have been made by many and
divers private bodies corporate within cities, towns, and boroughs
contrary to the King's prerogative, his laws, and the common weal of his
subjects:" in future therefore the Gilds are prohibited from making any
new by-laws or ordinances concerning the prices of wares and other things
"in disheritance or diminution of the prerogative of the King, nor of
other, nor against the common profit of the people, but that the same Acts
or Ordinances be examined and approved by the Chancellor, Treasurer of
England, or Chief Justices." The repetition of the same articles shows how
little effective they had been in checking the abuses against which they
were directed.
[Sidenote: _Policy of reform pursued._]
Nevertheless Henry VII. and Henry VIII. persevered in the work of
regulating, reforming and strengthening the Gilds. The statute of
1530[115] once more diminished entrance fees, which had been inordinately
and illegally raised; but another of 1536[116] repeating the same
prohibition shows the utter futility of such measures in the condition of
trade which had been brought about.
A more serious abuse appears in the latter statute, namely the attempt of
the masters to exact from their apprentices an oath promising to refrain
from prosecuting trade on their own account without consent of their late
master. Such abuses exhibit the Gilds in a state of wholesale
demoralisation.
[Sidenote: _Reformation._]
This was not unnatural under the circumstances, for the course of the
Reformation had tended to turn public opinion against the Gilds. Moreover
it now gave them a severe shock on one side, at any rate, of their
functions.
[Sidenote: _Confiscation of Chantries and robbery of Gilds._]
The confiscation of monastic lands had shown how easy it was for a needy
government to seize upon corporate property to its own use, and the
example was not long without being followed. The statute 37 Hen. VIII.
cap. 4 gave the whole property of all Colleges, Hospitals, Fraternities
and Gilds to the king. Before this wholesale desolation could be effected
Henry died, but Somerset obtained a renewal[117] of the grant to Edward
VI.
The words of the Act are absolute in making over to the king all the lands
and other possessions of Chantries, Colleges, Hospitals, Gilds and bodies
of a similar nature, both religious and secular. No distinction is made as
to aim or object, utility or abuse. According to the terms of the statute,
we should expect every Gild and corporate body in the country to come to
an end with the years 1547-8. Nevertheless though the Chantries were
seized the Craft Gilds in general remained. The reason for this apparent
divergence between the provisions of the statute and the facts of the case
is given by Burnet.
Two parties opposed the passing of the Act. Cranmer and the best of the
Reformers were grieved to see the material supports of the Church one
after another torn away to prop up the failing fortunes of needy and
rapacious courtiers. They desired to preserve the lands of the Chantries
till the king came of age, when they hoped they might be devoted to the
suitable object of augmenting the livings which had been in such numbers
impoverished by the Reformation changes. On the other hand were the
burgesses. These had no mind to see their own property confiscated, and
their benefit societies and clubs suddenly broken up. We may appreciate
the feelings of the nation respecting the proposed measure by considering
what would be the effect of a statute taking over the properties of all
benefit clubs, Trades Unions, Lodges of Oddfellows and Foresters, and
similar associations, to-day.
Cranmer and his supporters failed to overthrow the measure in the Lords,
but when it came to the lower house it was at once evident that a
considerable amount of careful statesmanship and astute policy would be
requisite if the statute was to pass. Apparently no opposition was
expected, as the bill was already engrossed, or perhaps it was hoped that
it might be smuggled through amidst the hurry of the closing session. But
the government discovered that they had gone to the length of the nation's
patience. The Commons saw in its true enormity the conspiracy of the rich
and powerful against the weak and poor, and this once perceived a check
was given, tardy but not quite too late, to the long and disastrous
course of spoliation and confiscation.
The opposition to the bill was obstinate, especially as regarded that
portion which dealt with the Gilds. Led by the members for Lynn and
Coventry the house showed unmistakeably that it was at length determined
to submit no longer. In fact the feeling was evidently so strong that the
government perceived the absolute necessity of drawing back. The mode in
which this was done is explained in the following extract, which, though
written from the court point of view, shows up the whole incident as a
choice specimen of the statesmanship of the period.
"Whereas in the last Parliament holden at Westminster in November the
first year of the King's Majesty's reign, among other articles contained
in the Act for colleges and chantry lands, etc., to be given unto his
Highness, it was also insisted that the lands pertaining to all guilds and
brotherhoods within this realm should pass unto his Majesty by way of like
gift: At which time divers there being of the Lower House did not only
reason and arraign against that article made for the guildable lands, but
also incensed many others to hold with them, amongst the which none were
stiffer, nor more busily went about to impugn the said Article than the
burgesses for the town of Lynn in the county of Norfolk and the burgesses
of the city of Coventry in the county of Warwick.... In respect of which
their allegations and great labours made herein unto the House such of his
Highness's Council as were of the same House there present, thought it
very likely that not only that Article for the guildable lands should be
clashed, but also that the whole body of the Act might either sustain
peril or hindrance, being already engrossed, and the time of the
Parliament's prolongation hard at hand, unless by some good policy the
principal speakers against the passing of that article might be stayed.
Whereupon they did participate the matter with the Lord Protector's grace
and other of the Lords of his Highness's Council: who pondering on the one
part how the guildable lands throughout this realm amounted to no small
yearly value, which by the article aforesaid were to be accrued to his
Majesty's possessions of the Crown; and on the other part weighing in a
multitude of free voices what moment the labours of a few settlers had
been of heretofore in like cases, thought it better to stay and content
them of Lynn and Coventry by granting to them to have and enjoy their
guild lands etc. as they did before, than through their means, on whose
importance, labour, and suggestions the great part of the Lower House
rested, to have the article defaced, and so his Majesty to forego the
whole lands throughout the realm. And for these respects, and also for
avoiding of the promise which the said burgesses would have added for the
guilds to that article, which might have ministered occasion to others to
have laboured for the like, they resolved that certain of his Highness's
Councillors, being of the Lower House, should persuade with the said
burgesses of Lynn and Coventry to desist from further speaking or
labouring against the said article, upon promise to them that if they
meddled no further against it, his Majesty once having the guildable
lands granted unto him by the Act ... should make them over a new grant of
the lands pertaining then unto their guilds etc. to be had and used to
them as before: which thing the Councillors did execute, as was desired,
and thereby stayed the speakers against it, so as the Act passed with the
clause for the guildable lands accordingly[119]."
[Sidenote: _Importance of the Opposition._]
This remarkable document, which Canon Dixon printed for the first time, is
of surpassing interest, not only to the historian of the Craft Gilds but
also to the student of constitutional history. The unscrupulous recourse
of the government to jobbery and corruption is not more revolting than the
evidence of the increasing constitutional power of the Commons is
interesting. It is evident from the account that when the country was with
the house of Commons the voice of the latter could not be disregarded.
The upshot was that an understanding was entered into, to the effect that
the Gild lands were to be only surrendered _pro formâ_, and that they
should not in fact be confiscated. In most cases this arrangement was
adhered to, and when the great crisis was past it was seen that the Gilds
had lost their Chapels and Chantries with the fittings of these, but that
their other possessions remained to them.
[Sidenote: _Need of caution._]
It has been pointed out how the increasing constitutional power of the
Commons could make itself felt when the opinion of the nation was at its
back. That it undoubtedly was so at the present juncture cannot be
doubted. The method which was adopted for carrying out the provisions of
the Act demonstrates fully how violently the country had been excited by
the measure and by the danger to which the Gild lands had been exposed.
The usual way of putting such an Act into execution would have been to
send down commissioners to take particulars of the Gilds and Chantries and
of their possessions. But royal commissioners had come to be looked upon,
not without ample reason, as merely the formal heralds of state robbery.
If therefore such commissioners were now sent out to manage the
dissolution of the Chantries and Hospitals it was feared that disturbance
would arise beyond the power of the government to manage. The more politic
plan was therefore adopted of enlisting the people themselves in the cause
as much as might be.
[Sidenote: _Injunctions._]
Injunctions[120] were issued "to the Parson, Vicar, Curat, Chaunter,
Priests, Churchwardens, and two of the most honest Persons of the Parish
of ________ being no Founders, Patrons, Donors, Lessees, nor Farmers of
the Promotions of Corporations hereafter recited."
These, or four of them, were to make a return as to the number of
"Chantries, Hospitals, Colleges, Free Chapels, Fraternities, Brotherhoods,
Guilds and Salaries, or Wages of Stipendiary Priests" in their parish,
together with all particulars as to the revenues, ordinances, objects,
abuses, names and titles of the same. Full lists were to be drawn up of
the lands and possessions of the Chantries, Colleges, and Gilds, and
enquiry was instituted respecting any recent dissolutions or alienations
which might have been made in prospect of the recent Act.
The contingency alluded to in the last article has sufficed to provide
some writers with an excuse for the measure destroying the Chantries. No
doubt the shock which the action of Henry VIII. in reference to the
monasteries had given to all forms of corporate property had led many of
the Gilds to attempt the realization of their property. All such
transactions were to be null and void.
[Sidenote: _Gilds too powerful and popular to be wholly destroyed._]
Accordingly the commissioners went down to each town and hamlet and took
full particulars of all matters concerning the Gilds and Chantries. "All
such as have enye vestments or other goods of the Co{y} [of Mercers are
ordered] to bring them in," in order to be sold, with the rest of the
Chantry fittings, "to the most p'fitt." The fate of the other kinds of
property held by the Gilds, such that is as could not be definitely made
out to have been intended for the support of obits and the maintenance of
lights, seems to have depended considerably on fortuitous circumstances.
In each individual case the Gild had to secure for itself the best terms
it could. Sometimes its property was obtained by the town, either by grant
or by purchase[121]. At Shrewsbury the almshouses of the Drapers and
Mercers survived[122], and the vicar of S. Almond's Church in the same
town still receives the yearly sum which the Shearmen settled on the
chaplain they maintained in that church.
[Sidenote: _Perversion of the confiscated revenues._]
[Sidenote: _Disastrous effects on Gilds, and on Craftsmen._]
As for the object which the Act itself alleged to have been the motive for
the destruction of the Chantries, namely the desire on the part of the
government to devote the revenues to the foundation and improvement of
grammar schools, it was forgotten as soon as parliament had separated.
Strype[123] is obliged to confess that the Act was "grossly abused, as the
Act in the former King's reign for dissolving religious houses was. For
though the public good was pretended thereby (and intended too, I hope),
yet private men, in truth, had most of the benefit, and the King and
Commonwealth, the state of learning, and the condition of the poor, left
as they were before, or worse. Of this, great complaints were made by
honest men: and some of the best and most conscientious preachers reproved
it in the greatest auditories, as at Paul's Cross, and before the King
himself. Thomas Lever, a Fellow, and afterwards Master of St John's
College in Cambridge, in a sermon before the King, in the year 1550 showed
'how those that pretended, that (beside the abolishing of superstition)
with the lands of abbeys, colleges, and chantries, the King should be
enriched, learning maintained, poverty relieved, and the Commonwealth
eased, purposely had enriched themselves.... And bringing in grammar
schools, which these dissolved chantries were to serve for the founding
of, he told the King plainly ... many grammar schools, and much charitable
provision for the poor, be taken, sold and made away; to the great slander
of you and your laws, to the utter discomfort of the poor, to the grievous
offence of the people, to the most miserable drowning of youth in
ignorance.... The King bore the slander, the poor felt the lack. But who
had the profit of such things, he could not tell. But he knew well, and
all the world saw, that the Act made by the King's Majesty and his Lords
and Commons of his Parliament, for maintenance of learning and relief of
the poor, had served some as a fit instrument to rob learning, and to
spoil the poor.'" The measure was indeed an act of spoliation devoid
either of excuse in its cause or benefit in its results. The suppression
of the Monasteries could doubtless be amply excused, but no real
justification is possible for this attempted wholesale seizure of
institutions founded and maintained for the benefit of the poor, for the
relief of suffering, and for the regulation of industry and police. As
regards the last--the regulation of industry and police--the attempt was
to a certain extent foiled, but in other respects it succeeded only too
well. Even on the Gilds which escaped its effects were disastrous. Their
spiritual aspect was taken away; their prestige and authority very
materially lessened. For they completely changed their nature. Instead of
being brotherhoods of workmen,--masters, journeymen, and
apprentices,--striving together for the common good, they now became
simply leagues of employers, companies of capitalists. The new powers
which the masters obtained were used to still further oppress the
craftsman, who was sufficiently degraded already through a variety of
causes. He was too poor and powerless to be able to take any part in the
new companies, and continued to sink deeper and deeper into degradation
and misery. And this, too, in spite of the great and rapid development of
trade which came simultaneously with this weakening blow at the authority
and stability of the Gilds. Shrewsbury participated in this expansion of
industry, and in the latter portion of the sixteenth century was
peculiarly prosperous. There was no migration of its trade to the freer
air of the neighbouring villages. The town was successful in retaining its
monopoly.
But these two causes, (i) the weakening of the Gilds and their change of
character, and (ii) the vast development of trade which the age was
witnessing, combined to render the companies which survived the
Reformation quite unable to perform the work which the mediæval Gilds had
done. Yet then above all was a controlling and a guiding power essential.
Elizabeth in consequence found that one of her first measures must be in
remedy of this condition of affairs.
CHAPTER V.
REORGANISATION OF THE GILD-SYSTEM.
[Sidenote: _Reign of Elizabeth._]
Elizabeth, on her accession, found that immediate reform was imperative in
almost every department of state. The whole trade of the country was in a
condition of agitation. Everything seemed unsettled and insecure.
[Sidenote: _Economic disturbances and industrial activity._]
For the social upheaval which the Reformation had brought about came in
the train of a long period of economic disorder. The changes in the mode
of cultivation had thrown the mass of the country population out of work.
These were driven in large numbers by stress of circumstances into the
towns, which were consequently overstocked with hands. At this juncture
came the breaking down of the social police within the towns by the
weakening of the Gilds, while in the rural districts the dissolution of
the monasteries took away from the poor their main hope of sustenance. The
evils which such a policy of mere destruction must inevitably have brought
upon the nation were averted through the national growth of wealth which
the same period had witnessed. In the country parts the ejection of the
easy-going old abbots had at least favoured the adoption of newer and
improved methods of cultivation, so that a greater number of labourers
came in time to be required on the estate[124]. But far more satisfactory
for absorbing the surplusage of labour was the development which the
period witnessed in manufacture. The woollen trade in the west, the
worsted trade in the east, the iron trade in the south, and unmistakeable
signs of the cloth trade in the north already showed how the foundations
of England's wealth were laid.
The writers of the period abound in notices of the unparalleled growth of
trade and commerce. Harrison laments "that every function and several
vocation striveth with other, which of them should have all the water of
commodity ran into her own cistern[125]." Ample openings for capital broke
through the old prejudices against the taking of interest. "Usury" as it
was called--"a trade brought in by the Jews--is now perfectly practiced
almost by every Christian, and so commonly that he is accompted but for a
fool that doth lend his money for nothing[126]." The English workman too
was growing rich and lazy in the sunlight of prosperous times, so that
"strangers" were frequently preferred to native craftsmen as "more
reasonable in their takings, and less wasters of time by a great deal than
our own[127]."
This was the commencement of the period of Shrewsbury's greatest
prosperity. Edward IV.'s erection of the Court of the President and
Marches of Wales (1478) was a material cause of the advent of peace to the
Borders. Henry VII. could gratify national sentiment by tracing his
descent from Owen Tudor: he gave it a practical turn by placing his son
Arthur at Ludlow as ruler of the principality. The Welshmen had thus begun
to feel that their union with England was a real one before Henry VIII.
finally incorporated the country with the English kingdom.
[Sidenote: _Increase of comfort._]
The cessation of Welsh distractions had greatly favoured the advancement
of Shrewsbury. Its grammar school--founded by Edward VI.--as the entrance
register of Thomas Ashton, its first Headmaster, evidences, attracted
scholars from a very wide area, and helped to bring renown and wealth to
the town. Shrewsbury too was the market to which the Welsh cloth trade
naturally gravitated, though the town had powerful rivals with which to
contend. In the reign of Elizabeth it employed six hundred shearmen in the
woollen industry. Camden, writing in 1586, describes it as "a fine city,
well-inhabited and of good commerce, and by the industry of the Citizens
is very rich." From this period date the substantial homes of the
tradesmen of Tudor times which still survive in not inconsiderable numbers
to give so much picturesqueness to the streets of the town. This was the
era of improvements in domestic architecture. "If ever curious building
did flourish in England," says Harrison[128], "it is in these our years."
Ireland's mansion, which dates from 1570, and the house at the south-east
corner of the Market Square, built by John Lloyd in 1579, are existing
examples of this "curious building." Their elegance, no less than their
stability, betokens the advancement of manners as well as of wealth.
Though these houses are "yet for the most part of strong timber" "brick or
hard stone[129]" were beginning to be largely used. Rowley's mansion
(1618) is said to have been the first house in the town built wholly of
these materials.
Everything combines to mark the reign of Elizabeth as an epoch in the
history of England.
[Sidenote: _Economic policy._]
The foundations of modern society were laid. We seem to come into the
range of modern, as distinct from mediæval ideas and habits. The principal
points in which modern society differs from mediæval are distinctly
visible. The problem of poor relief in particular becomes acutely
appreciated. The rise of capital is seen both in the modification of the
Usury laws, spoken of above, and in the enhancing of rents: prices
hitherto dependent on custom and regulation must now be decided by
competition.
Not less remarkable is the permanence which attended Elizabeth's
legislation. Her economic settlement remained practically unchanged until
the development of machinery altered those social conditions for which it
had been adapted.
[Sidenote: _The Statute 5 Eliz. a turning-point in Gild history._]
She made trade regulation national instead of local. The Act of 5
Elizabeth, c. 14, is a turning-point in the history of the Gilds. By it
the whole system of Gilds was re-modelled. Their experience was by no
means thrown away[130]. The information they had been accumulating was now
appropriated by the state, which took over many of the functions they had
hitherto performed.
[Sidenote: _Many of the functions of the Gilds taken over by the state._]
What had long been common law now became statute law. The old minimum of
seven years' apprenticeship was still enjoined as a necessary preliminary
to the exercise of any craft. Such apprentices when bound must be of an
age less than twenty-one years, and could only be bound to householders in
corporate or market towns. The proportion of journeymen to apprentices was
regulated: there were to be three apprentices to one journeyman. The
workman was protected from wilful dismissal. The hours of labour were
defined, and Justices of the Peace or the town magistrates were to assess
wages yearly at the Easter Sessions. All disputes between masters and
servants were to be settled by the same authorities. The statute
incorporated everything that was worth taking in the ordinances of the
Gilds and applied it nationally to the regulation of the country's trade.
[Sidenote: _Trade-regulation becomes national instead of local._]
[Sidenote: _This allows development of new centres_]
The results of such a revolution in industrial regulation were great both
on trade in general and on the Gilds. There was no longer any excuse for
attempting to retard the development of the new centres which were
springing up. The action of the government in the matter of the Welsh
woollen trade to which reference will presently be made shows how its
policy was tending more and more towards allowing industry to take its own
course, instead of attempting to restrict it to one market.
[Sidenote: _and encourages native workmen._]
Another important result of the Act was the protection henceforth shown to
the native in opposition to the alien workman. The aim of the government
is now to regulate, protect, encourage, _native_ industry: the objects of
its desire in the past had been to provide plenty for the consumer and to
increase the strength of the country by extending its capacity for
production. The royal support accorded in consequence to Flemish and
German traders had made them objects of bitter jealousy to the struggling
English merchants[131]. This feeling of antipathy to alien workmen may be
traced from the reign of Richard II. It becomes very marked in that of
Edward IV.[132] The composition of the Mercers of Shrewsbury, dated
1480-81, had forbidden the apprenticeship of anyone "that is of Frenshe,
Flemyshe, Irysh, Douche, Walshe or eny other Nacyones not beyng at Truse
w{t} our Sov'ayne Lorde the Kynge, but onlye mere Englysshe borne."
The new policy inaugurated by the statute of Elizabeth is however not more
national in its scope than in the preference it gives to native over
foreign workmen.
[Sidenote: _Results on Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Many come to an end._]
[Sidenote: _Many made more comprehensive._]
[Sidenote: _These sometimes come into conflict with royal officers._]
The results on the Gilds were more diverse. Many came to an end. This was
brought about through two causes: firstly, the need for many Gilds ceased
in consequence of the government now taking over their functions;
secondly, in many places the numerous Gilds were organized and amalgamated
into one or two larger and amended corporations[133]. On the other hand
the encouragement now afforded to native workmen caused a great
incorporation of new trades into many old Gilds, which became in
consequence more comprehensive. In a large number of cases these performed
their duties well for a long period. The new composition granted to the
Barbers of Shrewsbury in 1662 places this fact upon record. Occasionally
they came in conflict with the royal officers appointed to scrutinise the
wares, as was the case with the Mercers and the Anager at one period of
the company's existence.
[Sidenote: _Many become state agents._]
Not a few became the authorised agents of the state. Several of the
Shrewsbury Gilds were strengthened and encouraged with this object in
view. New compositions were granted by Elizabeth to the Tailors and
Skinners in 1563 (confirmed in the next year), to the Glovers in 1564 and
to the Shearmen in 1566. The Drapers had also figured in the Statute Book
on two occasions. The Acts 8 Elizabeth, c. 7, and 14 Elizabeth, c. 12, had
both been concerned with the affairs of the Drapers of Shrewsbury in their
capacity of state agents for the regulation of industry[134].
In 1605 the company of Drapers was incorporated by James I. and the Smiths
in 1621. The Tailors received a composition in 1627 and another in 1686.
The Tanners were regulated by a new composition in 1639, the Smiths in
1661, the Barbers in 1662. The records of the Mercers contain entries of
"cessments for renewing the Composition" in several years--1639, 1640,
1644, 1646 etc.
[Sidenote: _Many new Gilds formed._]
In many places of recent growth, or where the old Gilds had been destroyed
without there having been any construction of fresh machinery to take
their place, deliberate grants were made of new trade companies. The
Merchant Adventurers of Exeter were incorporated by Elizabeth expressly
for the purpose of supervising trade and "on account of the inconveniences
arising from the excessive number of artificers and unskilled persons
occupying the art or mystery of merchandising[135]." The charter which was
granted "hominibus mistere Marceriorum" at York in 1581 allowed them to
form themselves into a company under officers chosen with the consent of
the municipal authorities: the evils which necessitated the forming of
the company being expressly stated to be such as had ensued from a lack of
due regulation of trade[136]. At Axbridge every householder, whether
engaged in trade or not, was ordered, in 1614, to enrol himself in one of
the three companies of the town[137].
[Sidenote: _Intimate connection with civic authorities._]
In all these charters care was taken that the new corporations should be
in due subordination to the town authorities[138]. In some places the
Mayor or other officer of the town was _ex officio_ head of the Gild.
Sometimes it was granted to the "Mayor, bailiffs and commonalty and their
successors for ever, that they shall and may from time to time ordain,
create, and establish, a society, gild, or fraternity, of one master and
wardens of every art, mystery and occupation used or occupied, or
hereafter to be used or occupied, within the said city and the suburbs
thereof; and that they with the assistance of the wardens of the said arts
and mysteries may make, constitute, ordain and establish laws,
constitutions and ordinances for the public utility and profit and for the
better rule and regiment of our city of Winchester and of the mysteries of
the citizens and inhabitants of the same[139]." Such power of supervision
was generally allowed to the municipal authorities. The head of the Gild
frequently took his oath of office before the Mayor. The Common Council
of the town had power to make such ordinances as it might think fit for
the good estate, order and rule of the Gildsmen. In certain cases too the
Mayor had power "to call and admitt unto the same Free Guild and
Burgeshipp of the said Town such and soe many able and discreete persons
as ... shall seeme fitt" and also "uppon any iust and lawful grounds and
causes to disffranchise them[140]." Under these conditions the public
authorities of the town would be ready to support the companies. In some
cases they were expressly ordered to do so. At Shrewsbury we shall find
the town Bailiffs assisting the companies in the efforts of the latter to
prevent the encroachments of foreigners.
What all this change and reform amounted to was this. The system of Gilds
was re-organised and strengthened. Part of the functions which the Craft
Gilds had performed were taken over by the state. Part were left to be
still performed by the companies. The companies were in all cases brought
into the closest possible connection with the town and the town
authorities.
As regards the designation of these 16th century trade associations it
appears that they were generally termed societies or companies in public
documents, probably because the name "Gild" might seem to savour somewhat
of the Chantries and mass-priests. But in their own books and lists they
still called themselves Gilds and fraternities.
[Sidenote: _The new companies show permanence of Gild-feeling._]
Though they differed essentially from these, as has been already pointed
out, yet, viewed superficially, they might seem to have retained many of
the features of the old Gilds. In practice they bore no small share of the
burden of public charities. They were also not unmindful of the wants of
their members, though of course these now consisted of masters only.
Elizabeth's charter to the Merchant Adventurers of Bristol ordered them to
distribute yearly among twenty poor men twenty "vestes panneas" and to
assist all of the company who were impoverished by mischance or otherwise.
In their ordinances and compositions they were even more similar in
appearance to the old Gilds. The composition which Elizabeth granted to
the Glovers of Shrewsbury in 1564 is as strict as any mediæval regulation.
It restricted all masters to a maximum of three apprentices. It confined
each brother to a single shop, and to the selling of the products of his
own work only. It authorised the Wardens to seize corrupt or insufficient
wares, and was altogether a most thorough piece of industrial regulation,
entirely modelled on the lines of the old Gild arrangements.
Other indications of the same spirit were not lacking. In 1621 "by and
with the allowance and agreement of the right worthie" the town
authorities, skins and fells were ordered to be purchased only between
sunrise and sunset. As though the Wardens of the Barbers' company had not
been sufficiently thorough in executing their duties the new composition
which the company received from Charles II. in 1662 made provision for the
appointment of a searcher and defined the duties appertaining to the
office. The composition granted to the Smiths in 1621 forbade the keeping
of two shops by a single tradesman in the town, and disallowed the
employment of foreigners for a longer period than a week without express
permission obtained from the Wardens. The composition of the Tailors,
granted in 1627, forbade the wearing of "any lyvere of any Earle Lorde
Barronett Knight Esquire or Gentleman" while occupying any Gild office;
prohibited unfair competition and the employment of foreigners; and
ordered that "noe pettie Chapman or other p'son or p'sons shall buy any
Skynnes of furre" within the town. In the composition of 1686 the articles
are repeated against indiscriminate admittance of foreigners, and against
the piratical infringement of unfree persons on the province of the
brethren.
The "Regulated Companies" which arose about the same time were a further
development of the same movement, but on a larger scale. In many respects
indeed the Craft Gilds of the 14th and 15th centuries were but little
different from the Regulated Companies of the 17th. Admission was
practically free on payment of a fine, the individual so received into
membership being left to prosecute his trade in his own way, by his own
means, and to his own particular profit.
[Sidenote: _Though altered conditions of trade make their work
difficult._]
But the difficulties attendant on attempts to regulate expanding trade
were daily growing greater and more numerous. "The false making and short
lengths of all sortes of cloths and stuffes" necessitated the appointment
by the Mercers of two men "to oversee and look after" these things in
1638. The Barbers too in 1662 empowered the stewards to search for bad
materials. In 1639 the Glovers' company was brought to something like a
crisis "by the taking of many apprentices." It was thought necessary to
dock each brother of one of the apprentices allowed by the Elizabethan
composition of 1564[141].
The frequency with which it was necessary to renew the compositions, the
reiteration of the same articles,--against employing foreigners, against
unfair competition, against neglect of the legal period of
apprenticeship,--again shows the futility of such restrictions. Actions
against intruders even thus early figure frequently on the records. In
those of the Tailors and Skinners the decision of the company under date
of August 23, 1627, is recorded thus:--"The Wardens and Sitters met and
agreed that the Wardens should fetch process for Intruders and implead
them before the Council in the Marches, and Mr Chelmicke to draw the bill
against them."
The history of the Welsh woollen trade in its connection with Shrewsbury
well exhibits the economic policy of the day, and as it therefore
illustrates several of the points with which we have been concerned it may
be given here at some length.
[Sidenote: _The features of the period seen in history of Welsh woollen
trade of Shrewsbury._]
[Sidenote: _Flourishing in reign of Elizabeth,_]
In the earlier part of the 16th century Oswestry appears to have been the
principal market for the Welsh products. At Shrewsbury however there was
also a large woollen trade, as we learn from the Act 8 Elizabeth, cap. 7,
entitled, "An Act touching the Drapers, Cottoners, and Frizers of
Shrewsbury." This statute recited that there had been time out of mind a
Gild of the art and mystery of Drapers legally incorporated in Shrewsbury,
which had usually set on work above six hundred persons of the art or
science of Shearmen or Frizers. Of late however it had come to pass that
divers persons, not being members of the said company, neither brought up
in the use of the said trade, had "with great disorder, upon a mere
covetous desire and mind, intromitted with and occupied the said trade of
buying Welsh cloth or lining, having no knowledge, experience or skill in
the same." The result is asserted to be that the men of the company are
impoverished and like to be brought to ruin unless speedy remedy be
provided. It is therefore forbidden that anyone inhabiting Shrewsbury
shall "occupy the trade" of buying Welsh woollens, unless he be free of
the company of the Drapers[142].
[Sidenote: _but injured by over-regulation caused by selfish interests._]
Such a stringent regulation of trade met with directly contrary results to
those which had been expected. A statute six years later acknowledges the
failure of the measure, although it attempts to shift the blame from the
shoulders of the Government by representing the measure as one taken at
the request of the Drapers, instead of as a piece of state-craft[143].
The statute of 14 Elizabeth, cap. 12, almost entirely repeals 8 Elizabeth,
cap. 7, "at the humble suit of the inhabitants of the said town and also
of the said artificers, for whose benefit the said Act was supposed to be
provided[144].... For experience hath plainly taught in the said town that
the said Act hath not only not brought the good effect that then was hoped
and surmised, but also hath been and now is like to be the very greatest
cause of the impoverishing and undoing of the poor Artificers and others
at whose suit the said Act was procured, for that there be now, sithence
the making of the said Act, much fewer persons to set them awork than
afore."
The whole incident is extremely interesting. It affords an excellent
illustration of the way in which the Gilds were in some places made state
agents for carrying into effect 5 Elizabeth, cap. 14. It also shows
plainly that state intervention was beginning to be found harmful even by
the men of that day. It evidences, moreover, how large the Welsh trade of
Shrewsbury had already grown.
Oswestry however continued to be the chief emporium, and the Drapers of
Shrewsbury repaired thither every Monday for a long period after the date
of the statutes we have been considering.
[Sidenote: _The Drapers' Company represents the interests of Shrewsbury_]
The company of the Drapers was the most considerable and influential of
the trade associations of Shrewsbury. It numbered among its brethren the
great majority of the chief burgesses of the town. Its relations with the
municipal corporation were, as would be expected, very intimate. It was
the custom of the Drapers to attend divine worship in the church of St
Alkmund before setting out for the Oswestry market. In 1614 an order was
made for the payment of six and eightpence to the clerk of the church for
ringing the morning bell to prayers on Monday mornings at six o'clock, not
by the company as we should expect, but by the corporation[145].
[Sidenote: _in opposition to Oswestry, Chester,_]
There arose considerable competition for the lucrative market which the
expansion of Welsh industry was every day rendering more profitable. The
inhabitants of Chester made a vigorous attempt to obtain the erection in
their city of "a staple for the cottons and friezes of North Wales."
Shrewsbury was however enabled to prevent the completion of the
scheme[146].
[Sidenote: _London; especially the last._]
The attempt of London to obtain a share in the trade seemed fraught with
so much danger that the two rivals, Shrewsbury and Oswestry, made common
cause against the intruder. The complaint was a general one that the
merchants of London and their factors forestalled and engrossed
productions before they came to market. These obnoxious practices seem to
have been carried to a particularly distasteful length on the borders of
Wales. The transactions of a London dealer named Thomas Davies in 1619
appear to have brought matters to a crisis.
There had been complaints about the same man, with others, previously. He
had, by craft, obtained admission to the freedom of Oswestry, by which
means he could the better purchase the Welsh cloths. These he then carried
to London where he sold them "privately"[147]--that is, not in the proper
and public market. The Drapers of the two towns petitioned that the matter
might be settled before the Council[148]. Being foiled in his attempt to
plead his freedom of Oswestry[148] Davies appealed to the Lord Mayor and
Corporation of the Metropolis to support his claims to trade throughout
England in right of his citizenship of London[149]. The order of the
Council depriving the Londoners of what they called their "ancient
privilege" evoked strenuous opposition in the Metropolis, and petitions
numerously signed[150] were sent in asserting that the Drapers of
Shrewsbury and Oswestry had obtained the order by misrepresentation[151].
It does not appear that these petitions were successful, as Thomas Davies
in his examination before the Council a little later, expressed his
willingness to resign his London freedom and to confine his dealings to
Oswestry. The fear of creating a precedent which would be largely
followed, and with probable detriment to the trade of Shrewsbury and
Oswestry, restrained the Council from allowing him to do this[152].
Not that the trade of Shrewsbury, at any rate, was likely to decrease
through any apathy on the part of its company of Drapers. They were on the
contrary singularly active at this time. And there was every need for them
to be vigilant. For, with the object of stimulating the industry of the
Principality by allowing a more extensive market, and probably also as a
result of the recent proceedings between the Drapers of Shrewsbury and
Oswestry and the citizens of London, a Proclamation was issued allowing
free trade in Welsh cloths. The novelty pleased neither the Welshmen[153]
nor the merchants of the borders. To the latter the chief consequence
seemed to be that the French company, which had the monopoly of exporting
such goods to France, was enabled to purchase direct from the
manufacturers in Wales instead of through the Drapers. The case was
undoubtedly a hard one for the latter, who could not export. Consequently
their grievance was a real one, and, as they showed in their petition to
the Council, ruin stared them in the face unless they too might be allowed
to export and so dispose of the large stock which was thrown on their
hands[154].
But at the same time they were successfully endeavouring to draw the Welsh
trade from Oswestry entirely to Shrewsbury[155].
They had prepared for the attempt by obtaining a new charter from
Elizabeth's successor in 1605. That they had lost no time in putting their
privileges to practical use is seen from their answer, four years later,
to a mandate issued to them by Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, who held
the overlordship of Oswestry, to desist from their efforts to undermine
the trade of his town. Their answer is entitled "The Copy of a Letter sent
by the Company to the Earle of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlen of his Majesties
Househoulde, the 24 June 1609," and begins
"Right Honerabell,
"Your letter bearing date the second of this June by the hands of Mr
Kinaston wee have receaved: wherein ytt appeareth yo{r} Lordship was
informed that wee the Societie of Drapers wentt abowte by underarte
and menesses to withdrawe your markett of Walshe Clothe from your
towne of Oswester."
[Sidenote: _All competitors worsted._]
Though they proceed to exculpate themselves from the charge, it is evident
their intention was to pursue in the future the same policy which they had
hitherto practised. In 1618 Suffolk fell and Oswestry was deprived of his
support, so that in 1621 the Shrewsbury Drapers felt justified in
resolving "That they will not buy Cloth at Oswestry or elsewhere than
Salop," in spite of the opposition of the clothiers of North Wales[156],
who, whether from convenience or old association, appeared to prefer
Oswestry as the locale of their market. However the Drapers' company,
assisted by the town[157], was sufficiently powerful to turn the
Proclamation allowing free trade in Welsh cloths to their own good, and
the market was drawn to Shrewsbury in spite of orders by the Council that
it should be re-established at Oswestry. The company did not hesitate to
declare to the Council itself that they were prepared, if necessary, to
disregard its orders. By 1633 the market at Oswestry had practically died
out. It was held at Shrewsbury on Wednesdays, and afterwards on Fridays.
In 1649 the date was altered to Thursday.
[Sidenote: _Expansion of trade, and interlopers, destroy Shrewsbury's
monopoly._]
To the Market House flocked the Welsh farmers, their bales of cloth being
borne to the town on the backs of hardy ponies. The merchandise was
exposed for sale in the large room upstairs. The Drapers assembled
beneath, and proceeded to make their purchases in order of seniority,
according to ancient usage. The custom which the Welshmen brought to the
town easily accounts for the keenness of the competition to secure the
market. For a long time the trade flourished. Gradually however the action
of "foreigners" in buying from the Welsh manufacturers at their homes[158]
broke down the monopoly which Shrewsbury had so long enjoyed. At the end
of the 18th century the sales had shrunk to miserable proportions. In
1803 the room over the market was relinquished by the Drapers, and though
a certain amount of Welsh trade was still carried on, it withdrew
gradually from the town until it finally left Shrewsbury altogether. The
Drapers might have realised that the time for restricting trade to the
freemen of their company was past.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEGENERACY OF THE COMPANIES.
[Sidenote: _Outside competition_]
The competition of "interlopers" ruined the Welsh trade of Shrewsbury. It
was not, as we have seen, from any lack of vigilance on the part of the
companies. Stimulated by their new compositions they became extremely
active. As early as 1622 the actions against "foreigners" begin. Soon
afterwards they become of frequent occurrence until at length the books of
the companies are almost mere records of a daily struggle for existence.
[Sidenote: _inevitable under the altered conditions of trade._]
[Sidenote: _But the companies themselves are unsatisfactory._]
[Sidenote: _Friction with the town authorities;_]
This was of course inevitable under the altered conditions of trade. But
the companies exhibited in themselves all the radical defects which must
pertain to such a system when it has outgrown its necessity. We have seen
how free the earlier companies were from friction with the municipal
authorities. In the 17th century this is changed. The propriety of setting
up a May-pole had formerly been almost the only ground of conflict between
the bailiffs and the craftsmen. But in 1639 we find that the Tanners were
thought to be overstepping their powers; the corporation appointed a
committee to examine their composition. Some seventeen years later,
extreme measures had to be taken with regard to the same company. It was
the custom for the charters to be inspected by the corporation
periodically. In 1656 the Tanners refused to comply with the request to
produce their composition for the mayor's perusal, with the result that
the company was prosecuted by the corporation[159].
The town had been willing to support the Drapers in their measures to draw
the Welsh trade to Shrewsbury, but it did not approve of the line of
action they tried subsequently to take, namely, to limit all the trade to
their own members. In 1653 regulations were framed to prevent the company
"forestalling or engrossing the Welsh Flannels, Cloaths etc.[160]" A more
serious abuse transpired in connection with the Feltmakers' company in
1667. They refused to make one who had been lawfully apprenticed to the
trade in Shrewsbury free of their company. On this occasion the mayor and
aldermen exercised their right of supervision by ordering the Wardens to
admit the man, "and the Mayor is desired to give him the oath of a Freeman
of the said Company[161]." The importance of the mayor being thus
empowered by the municipal authorities to administer the oath of
admittance to one of the Gilds is very great, and shows how real was the
subordination of the latter to the town when the corporation chose to
exert its rights.
An order of the corporation[162] directing that burgesses only are to be
elected Wardens of the companies points to another abuse, the existence of
which is proved by other evidence, viz., the admittance of non-residents
in the town to membership in the companies on payment of a sufficiently
large entrance fee. Yet the extent to which corruption could go was seen
forty years later when the corporation stultified itself by passing an
order[163] allowing the Haberdashers to elect persons, though they might
not be burgesses, as Wardens of their company.
The general impression which such transactions leave is that extreme
laxity prevailed in all departments. The town woke up for a moment in 1702
when the prospect perhaps of a harvest of unpaid fines induced them to
make an effort to recover all such[164]. It is to be regretted that
nothing remains to show to what extent the abuse had prevailed, nor how
far the present effort was successful. The annual fine of the Bakers'
company was £3. 6_s._ 8_d._ which they appear to have generally paid with
considerable reluctance[165]. The supply of provision to the town seems to
have given much trouble in the early years of the eighteenth century.
Permission was given, in 1730, to the country butchers to sell in the town
unless the town butchers could furnish meat in sufficient quantity.
Similar permission was accorded to the country bakers, if the Bakers'
company in the town would not pay their yearly fine. This they were
unwilling, or unable, to do, and the country bakers were in consequence
called in[166].
[Sidenote: _with one another,_]
The picture given by such incidents is not more significant of the
degeneracy of the Gilds than is that which the friction of the companies
one with another presents. The Mercers and the Drapers had frequently made
mutual complaints of intrusion: the Mercers and the Glovers also appear as
great rivals in later years. In 1679 and at several subsequent dates there
were actions at law between the two companies. In 1727 the records of the
Glovers show that similar actions were again in process. In 1721 the
company unanimously agreed to withstand the Tailors in the matter of widow
Steen, whom they pledge themselves to support; "and that shee may goe on
with makeing Brichess peruided shee dos not line them with flonen or
Buckrom or cennet onlye Lether."
[Sidenote: _and with their own members._]
Nor is the evidence of intestine friction within the Gilds themselves less
significant of decay. So early as 1636 the Mercers were fain to confess
that the spirit of mutual assistance had disappeared, in the order which
they passed to the effect that any combrother refusing to pay his
assessment was to be distrained upon by authority of the Wardens. There
are several records of such distraints. In 1700 they find it necessary to
pass an ordinance against freemen taking the sons of intruders as
apprentices. The records of the other companies are, similarly, full of
like evidences of demoralisation. The companies are declared to be
impoverished by the taking of inordinate numbers of apprentices. The same
sort of abuse is found in a complaint which appears in the Glovers' books
in 1656: "the company is much impoverished by the taking in of foreigners
freemen such as have not served" their due apprenticeship. "The disorderly
manner of electing Wardens" about which the Glovers have to "take account"
in 1668 points to a great deterioration in the manner of holding Gild
meetings from that which has been sketched in a previous chapter[167].
Worse than all is the confession that the Gild brothers have sunk so low
as to connive at intruders "for fraudulent lucre and gain[168]." The
Saddlers have the same sort of complaint in 1740. Some brethren are
infringing on the trades of others: resolutions are passed against such
conduct. Their books show that the resolutions were soon forgotten[169].
The other Gilds experienced similar difficulties. In 1745 the Barbers
levied a fine of ten shillings on brethren who should so far forget
themselves as to instruct "men or women servants to dress hair."
The problem of regulating trade would have been difficult enough under
the most favourable circumstances. With the Gilds in the condition which
we have been considering it was an impossibility. There was indeed a
feature in the modern companies which at the outset deprived the attempt
to utilise them beneficially for trade-purposes of all chance of success.
[Sidenote: _The Gilds have changed to capitalist companies._]
The old Gilds, which had lived through the shocks of the Reformation, and
the Elizabethan changes, had quite altered their character. The new ones
which had arisen differed widely from the old fraternities. Instead of
being brotherhoods of craftsmen desirous of advancing the public weal,
they were now mere societies of capitalists, intent only on private and
personal advantage. As a writer of 1680 observes "most of our ancient
Corporations and Guilds [have] become oppressive Oligarchies[170]." There
is a constant endeavour to restrict the companies to favoured individuals.
Every "foreigner" is subjected to a heavy fine, which grows larger in
amount as the companies feel the trade slipping from their hands in spite
of their desperate endeavours to restrict it. The new compositions
continually point to this abuse by bringing back the fines to their
original sum, or rather reducing them to an amount less inordinate than
that which they have irregularly reached. The admission stamp of the
Saddlers was 4/- in 1784. It reached 8/2 in 1799. In 1831 it was 20/2. The
Mercers' fine was fixed at £40. 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1789, "besides fees." In
1823 it had sunk to £20. The Mercers were of course one of the richest of
the companies, yet the sum was a large one to pay for the privilege of
opening a shop in a provincial town.
Other means to restrict themselves were also attempted. Increase in the
number of apprentices was viewed with disfavour. There are frequent
complaints of the "impoverishment" of the companies through the
indiscriminate admittance of "foreigners." All the evidence shows how
entirely they have degenerated into mere societies of capitalists. Their
records almost decline into bald columns of pounds, shillings and pence.
For it was to this completeness of degradation that the social body had
sunk. The merest selfishness was lauded as a patriotic virtue. Private
gain was recommended as a public benefit. Social disintegration and
industrial anarchy ruled supreme, and when commercial success had come to
be looked upon as the one avenue to honour and advancement, it was not to
be expected that the companies would escape the general infection. They
formed simply one among many means by which the individual was enabled to
fill his own pockets at the cost of a suffering and squalid populace.
This change in their character, which became more marked as time went by,
naturally was not unattended by a change in their government. All
authority became engrossed by the richer members. The Four Assistants with
the Wardens and Stewards formed a close aristocratic board. Brentano,
speaking it would appear more particularly of the London companies,
says[171] the king nominated the first members of this court and
afterwards as vacancies occurred they were filled by co-optation. This was
not exactly the case with the Shrewsbury companies. There the annual
meeting[172] retained a considerable power in the election of officers to
the last. In some cases the Assistants or Four Men were elected freely by
the assembled combrethren, in others two only were thus elected, the two
retiring Wardens completing the number. The Tailors' composition of 1563
provided that the two Wardens should be elected by the whole Gild: the
Four Assistants were then nominated by these Wardens "for advising them in
the Government of the Gild." The Wardens and Assistants then proceeded to
nominate the two Stewards.
[Sidenote: _The companies and the close corporations._]
They were thus as exclusive and aristocratic as the town corporations had
become. The degeneracy of the latter had been largely intensified by the
degeneracy of the former. For the principal members of the companies were
the principal members of the town corporation, which had silently, since
the fourteenth century, been usurping the ancient powers of the general
body of the burgesses. It was the companies which mainly profited by it.
They profited indirectly, by the influence which they exercised through
individual members on the town council, which had obtained part of the
functions of the Leet. They profited directly as they themselves acquired
definitely other of the powers of the Court Leet. They became the chief
or the sole medium for the acquisition of municipal freedom, and were
distinct town organs for the regulation of trade and industry.
[Sidenote: _The journeymen no longer in the companies._]
It is by reason of the widely-reaching influence of their degeneracy that
their later history is of importance. For as regards the poorer members of
society their history is useless. The workman disappears from their books.
That he no longer was looked upon as the brother member of the masters is
quite evident.
"Our workmen do work hard, but we live at ease,
We go when we will, and we come when we please[173]."
[Sidenote: _They begin to form benefit societies, animated by much of the
old Gild-spirit._]
The most general means which the poor adopted to help themselves was the
formation of Friendly Societies. These arose in great numbers during the
18th century. The companies were not slow in helping to swell public
subscriptions and in assisting to pauperise the labouring class. To the
necessity of rendering real help to their unfortunate workmen they were
however entirely oblivious. This side of the work performed by the old
Gilds had been almost wholly overlooked by the post-reformation companies,
though it had been one of the most important of their predecessors'
functions. It was found that society could not get along without something
of the kind, and as the higher companies would not perform the work, the
lower craftsmen found it necessary to do it themselves. Here was a
distinct severance of interest between employers and workmen, yet it does
not seem unlikely that it was the old Gilds themselves which formed the
models for the new societies. At any rate the analogies between the Gilds
and the Benefit Societies, in the earlier phases of the latter, and
looking at the social and religious side of the former, are very
striking[174]. The simple rules of trade association show as much concern
for the morals of members as did the charters of the Gilds: they had their
annual feast, provided by subscription: they usually went in their
procession to the parish church on the day of the feast. They were perhaps
the earliest signs of that necessary return to something like the old Gild
system which the later Trades Unions have done so much to bring about. The
companies watched them grow up without a twinge of conscience, though it
was their own neglect of duty which made such associations an absolute
necessity. Being the only forms of combination which were left unmolested
by the government they were extensively formed, and this was well, for the
need of them was very great.
[Sidenote: _Difficulties of reform; members would not, state would not,
the town authorities would not._]
In spite of unmistakeable signs of inevitable changes the companies
refused to take warning. Their reform was indeed difficult, and, as it
proved, impossible. The workmen as we have seen could not, the masters
would not, take steps in this direction. The state derived too good an
income from them to be anxious for a change. The admission stamps,
constantly increasing in amount, were a profitable source of revenue. The
notices of "cessments for renewing the composition" are frequent. There
were also continual contributions of men and money for the "exigencies of
the State[175]." In 1798 the Mercers voted £100 annually to the government
"during the continuance of the war." The town also seemed to profit by
them. They were obliged, some of them at all events, to exhibit their
compositions annually or periodically to the mayor and pay a customary
fine on doing so. They continued to be of some service to the community in
the inefficient condition of the public police. Their social utility to
the town was also in their favour. In 1608 the corporation provided
materials in case of fire, when each of the companies was required to
maintain its proper proportion of hooks and buckets. Entries relating to
the "spout or water engine" are frequent in their records. In aid of
procuring public benefits the companies were not backward. Their chests
were readily opened to assist towards improvements in the town, such as
widening of streets, erection of bridges and the like.
To the last also they preserved something of their charitable character,
though its exercise was as open to criticism as other forms of poor relief
during the eighteenth century. Nevertheless if the membership lists of the
Drapers and the Mercers could be made public they would be found to
contain the majority of the public benefactors of Shrewsbury during this
period. Public charities, such as the Infirmary and the Lancaster School
received annual subscriptions until the companies came to an end. The
necessity of continuing the annuities to the inmates of S. Chad's
almshouses formed a chief argument against the dissolution of the Mercers'
company. "The Worshipful Company of Drapers" still subscribes to schools
and charities year by year.
[Sidenote: _Contemporaneous opinion of the companies._]
In these circumstances we cannot wonder that the old companies found many
champions. The following letter is valuable as affording a view of the
contemporaneous opinion held of the Gilds by a man of ordinary common
sense and average education. It appeared in the _Salopian Journal_ of
August 27, 1823. It was evoked by a decision of the Judges of Assize in
favour of the Mercers' company in an important case to which reference
will be made in a later page. It was addressed to the editor of the
newspaper and commenced--
"SIR,
As the Company commonly called 'the United Company of Mercers,
Grocers, Ironmongers, and Goldsmiths' in this town have established
the validity of their ancient customs by a suit at law of which there
is no account of their having done so since the time when the King's
Court for the Marches of Wales was held at Ludlow; at which time and
place the Council then, who held the pleas, determined also a like
suit in their favour: and as there is much argument for and against
the existence and usage of this incorporate body; permit me to lay
before the public an outline of both, that the subject at least might
be better understood than we often hear it repeated. It is contended
against, as exercising an arbitrary monopoly of trade, to the
detriment and oppression of the subjects of the realm; and which is
moreover injurious to the town itself, by depriving the Trade thereof
of that competition which brings down the Articles of manufacture to a
fair marketable value for the supply of its inhabitants. These are the
charges against them, which if indeed they could be substantiated
would be sufficient to show that their existence was an evil. But let
us look at the facts on the other side of the question, and see
whether there is any reality in these serious charges. In the first
place the Companies hold it requisite, in order to be free of their
body, that all but the sons of Freemen shall serve a regular
apprenticeship to one of the Corporation. Now in this they have been
sanctioned and dictated to by the ancient law of the land ... that
youths might be properly taught their respective arts, and that the
community might not be imposed upon by pretenders to that which they
were not properly acquainted with.
On Foreigners or such as have not served a regular apprenticeship they
impose a fine of £20, before they will admit them as freemen, and
certainly in doing this they do not over-rate a seven years'
servitude, when the one is made equivalent to the other.
Let us now see to the application of the money. A fund is made of it,
somewhat similar to 'Benefit Societies.' No part of it is applied to
private purposes; for even the Company's annual feast, about which
there is so much said, is not always at the expense of the fund, but
[is] borne individually; and the utility of such a feast to promote
harmony and goodwill, is acknowledged by all Societies[176]. But
further, these funds are confined to the relief of decayed and
deserving members of the Companies[177], and to every charitable and
public emergency wherein the general interest or welfare of the town
is concerned; and their annual disbursements, for centuries past, have
been regularly serviceable to the community at large as well as to
individual cases of distress. This the account of their expenditure
will show. Now, then this monopoly, as it is called, extends no
further than to exact an apprenticeship of seven years, or to a fine
of £20; the former sanctioned by law and the latter a sum of no
comparative amount to a respectable person, desirous of establishing a
respectable trade, especially if there be any truth in the argument,
that goods are sold by this corporate body for more money than they
would be, if no such corporation existed. Neither can the fine be
called excessive, because it is added to a stock which he from whom it
is exacted directs in common to be applied to the common good; and
which he may himself, as many others have done in cases of distress,
receive back again with large additions.
But the increased population of Birmingham and Manchester is brought
forward as a proof of towns flourishing where trade is what is called
_free_. Let us look a little into this argument. Are not the wares
vended in these places proverbially _bad_? Do not all manner of
imposters from these places deluge the country with their spurious
goods, and impose them upon the unwary part of the public? Are these
towns to be compared with London, Liverpool, Bristol, for
respectability of their trade, for the goodness and cheapness of their
articles, when the quality is taken into account? Yet the trade of
these latter towns is regulated by corporations.
I contend therefore that the Corporation in question is _beneficial_
to this town and county, inasmuch as it tends to protect it from the
inundations of empirics and imposters, while it holds out no hindrance
to the fair and honest dealer who has a mind to compete with its
respectable tradesmen and settle amongst them. I am not in trade
myself; but hope I shall always see my native town preserved from that
sort of population which it has never yet been disgraced with.
I have the honour to be, Mr Editor,
In technical language,
A COMBROTHER OF THE GUILD.
SHREWSBURY, Aug. 22, 1823."
CHAPTER VII.
SHREWSBURY SHOW.
[Sidenote: _Characteristic features of the Middle Ages._]
A strange glamour hangs around the Middle Ages. We know so little of man's
actual life in those years,--and what little we do know seems to partake
so largely of the mysterious and the picturesque--all, his modes of life
and manners of thought are so far removed from our own,--that mediæval
history would easily resolve itself into an enchanting pageant bright with
its colour and bewildering with its contradictions. It is perhaps in the
strange contrasts which are presented to us that its chief wonder is
found. In those years we find lust and rapine, and sacrilege and tyranny,
side by side with the fairest forms of chivalry[178], the most devoted
readiness to champion the cause of religion, the firmest attachment to the
forms of law[179]. We see only the prominent lights and the great shadows
of the picture, but all that should go to make it human and comprehensible
to us is hidden under the dust of centuries.
We have noticed the existence of something of this contradictory spirit in
the view we have had of the early Gilds[180]. The elevated ideal which
they set before their members must of course have been far above the level
which was ever actually reached. We may smile at their vain attempts after
the impossible, yet we cannot but allow that their perseverance betokens
the widespread acceptance of a nobler conception of human life than is
common in our own too merely practical age. To the men of those days there
seemed no great incongruity in the lofty ideals of the Gild-compositions
and the lower standard which the brethren actually attained. It added but
another to the many striking contrasts which environed their daily life.
[Sidenote: _Fondness for pageantry._]
[Sidenote: _Its social importance._]
That life was one passed largely in dulness and perhaps comparative
squalor. But the occasions of colour and merriment were not few. Each
season had its festivities, social and religious, when rich and poor met
on something like equal ground in the rude merry-making. This feature in
ordinary life was not without its social importance, and if only for this
reason no account of the Gilds would be complete which failed to take
notice of their processions and, in so doing, of the general life and
habits of the brethren at the different epochs of Gild history. We have
now nothing to take the place of those occasions of mutual enjoyment and
mirth, when "ceremony doff'd his pride" without censure, when the bashful
apprentice might perhaps tread a measure with his master's daughter, and
when the condescending mistress of the house might even allow herself to
be led out for a dance by one or other of her goodman's journeymen.
"A Christmas gambol oft would cheer
A poor man's heart through half the year[181]."
[Sidenote: _The Corpus Christi procession._]
We have already seen how important an influence religious feelings had in
the actions of the Gilds. Among the yearly festivals the feast of Corpus
Christi soon became one of the most splendid for pomp and pageantry, and
to it the Gilds were naturally attracted. Some indeed existed with the
primary object of ensuring the glory of this particular feast. Most
important of these was the Corpus Christi Gild at York[182]. The Gild of
the Holy Trinity, also at York, concerned itself with the annual
production of a religious play illustrating the Lord's Prayer. The Gilds
of S. Helen (which represented the Invention of the Cross), of S. Mary,
and of Corpus Christi, at Beverley[183], were other famous fraternities
with similar objects. At Stamford was one which maintained a secular
play[184]. In most towns in England it became the custom for the Gilds,
each with its banners and insignia, to accompany the Corpus Christi
procession: in some places the event seems to have become especially
picturesque. At Coventry[185] and also at Shrewsbury, the procession has
lasted in some sort down to our own day[186]. At the former city Lady
Godiva has even lately ridden, though at fitful and uncertain intervals:
at the latter town, although the procession has now become a thing of the
past, it is little more than a decade since "Shrewsbury Show" was to be
seen annually, on the Monday following the feast of Corpus Christi,
passing along under the eaves of the timbered houses of the old border
town.
[Sidenote: _The pageants of the Gilds._]
The prominence which the charters of the Shrewsbury Gilds gave to the
procession has been sufficiently pointed out already. Every care was taken
to secure its fitting glory and splendour. Among the goods of the
companies which the inventories name are "Baners," "Baners for ye
Mynstrellys werying," "skukions for my'strells," "torches," "coots of
sense," "stondarts of mayle," "other pec's of mayle," besides many swords
and halberts, and the like. These various properties decked out the
pageant which each Gild contributed to the common procession. It was
exhibited by means of a wooden scaffold on wheels, differing probably but
little in appearance from the drays or trollies which were utilised in
later years. Dugdale in his _Antiquities of Warwickshire_ relates that
"before the suppression of the Monasteries this city[187] was very famous
for the pageants that were played therein upon Corpus Christi Day; which,
occasioning very great confluence of people thither from far and near,
was of no small benefit thereto: which pageants being acted with mighty
state and reverence by the friars of this house had theaters for the
several scenes, very large and high, placed upon wheels, and drawn to all
the eminent parts of the city for the better advantage of the spectators."
At Shrewsbury there appears never to have been an elaborate miracle play
presented by the crafts[188]. Most likely the Show early took that form
which it exhibited in the later times of which we have more definite
record. The Gilds of the town walked in the procession, each member
bearing, in mediæval days, a light "in honour of the Blessed Sacrament,"
the officers wearing their liveries and carrying the banners and other
insignia, and thus escorting a tableau more or less appropriate to the
craft. No small expense and even taste appears to have been expended on
these representations, though their precise suitability it is in some
cases difficult to appreciate. Before Reformation times the tableaux were
generally of a biblical or ecclesiastical nature: after the 16th century
they were usually mythological or historical. Thus the Tailors were
presided over by Adam and Eve "the first of their craft," or by Queen
Elizabeth in ruffles of right royal magnitude. The Shearmen or
Clothworkers had a personation of bishop Blasius, with a black mitre of
wool and doubtless also the wool-comb with which he had been tortured at
his martyrdom. The place of the saint was subsequently usurped by the
king--Edward IV., who was remembered as having especially cultivated the
good offices of the wool-merchants. The Skinners and Glovers were ruled by
the king of Morocco, whose "Cote" was an expensive item in their accounts;
they had also an elaborate mechanical stag accompanied by huntsmen
sounding bugle blasts. The Smiths were appropriately represented by
Vulcan, or a knight in black armour "supported by two attendants who
occasionally fired off blunderbusses." The Painters were accustomed to
find their best representative of later years in a cheery-looking Rubens
brandishing palette and brush, while the Bricklayers, for some occult
reason, considered themselves adequately represented by bluff king Hal.
The twin saints Crispin and Crispianus patronised the Shoemakers, and S.
Katharine (at a spinning wheel) the Barbers. Venus and Ceres presided over
the Bakers.
[Sidenote: _The Reformation._]
[Sidenote: _Mary._]
At the Reformation the Corpus Christi procession became shorn of its
splendour even before it altogether ceased under Edward VI. With Mary's
attempt to revive the old order efforts were made to restore the Show in
its pristine grandeur, though Edward VI.'s pillaging of the Gilds had
rendered the furnishing of the lights and vestments a matter of serious
difficulty. At Shrewsbury the municipal authorities endeavoured to keep up
the mystery plays by means of contributions from the various companies.
[Sidenote: _Elizabeth._]
The accession of Elizabeth was not likely to do any harm to the plays and
pageants, though the outward reason for their performance might be
changed. Elizabeth fully perceived the political and social usefulness of
such festivities: her provincial progresses were a succession of brilliant
shows and interludes which served a useful purpose in diverting the
nation's attention from the graver dangers which threatened England during
the queen's eventful reign. Elizabeth was also naturally fond of gaiety
and wit, and the tone of the people from the highest to the lowest was
dramatic. The Court had its "master of the revels," the Universities and
Inns of Court had their regular plays. Interludes were provided for the
queen's entertainment as she moved from town to town both at the houses of
the higher gentry and by the common people. They were indeed the ordinary
means by which honour was paid to any very distinguished visitor.
The Shrewsbury playwright was Thomas Ashton the first master of the
grammar school. His theatre was the open ground without the walls, the
Quarrell or Quarry. The season of the year at which these performances of
Thomas Ashton took place was Whitsuntide, at which time Chester was also
engaged in its more famous productions. It is to be regretted that no
records[189] remain of these Shrewsbury plays, or a valuable addition
might be made to the scanty collections of such antiquities which have
been made public. These academic entertainments did not supplant the old
annual procession (the date of which was transferred to the Monday
following the feast of Corpus Christi) which continued apparently until
the power of the Puritans became too strong to admit of its longer
existence. Already that influence was at work, and Elizabeth had many
detractors among those of the stricter persuasion. The character of their
sternness, as well as the nature of their dissatisfaction at the gaiety
which Elizabeth fostered, is well exemplified at Shrewsbury in the
incident of the Shearmen's tree. The event is also noteworthy as being the
only occasion until later days on which anything like friction occurred
between the companies and the municipal corporation[190].
[Sidenote: _The Shearmen's tree._]
The woollen trade, as we have seen[191], gave occupation to a very large
number of Shearmen. These belonged to the more unskilled class of
labourers, the work they performed being simply that of preparing the wool
for the later stages of manufacture. They were precisely the class to fail
to appreciate the religious changes, and such as would be likely to resort
to the physical force argument on any occasion. It was also to such men
that the revelry of Christmastide, Maytime, and the like were most
precious. Their life was a hard and colourless one, and they would for
this reason cling desperately to the old occasions of merriment. The
festival which appears to have been particularly odious to the Puritans
was that of May Day, when, Stow[192] tells us, it was the custom for the
citizens "of all estates" to have their "Mayings," and to "fetch in
Maypoles, with divers warlike shows, with good archers, morris dancers,
and other devices for pastime all the day long; and toward the evening
they had stage plays, and bonfires in the streets." To the youth of the
town it was a sufficiently harmless summer holiday. To the precise it was
plainly and purely a heathen survival. At Shrewsbury they were early in
active antagonism to it. In 1583 there occurred "soom contrav'sie about
the settinge upp of maye poales and bonfyers mackinge and erection of
treese before the sherman's haule and other places[193]," though
apparently without immediate effect, for two years later appears another
entry "Pd. for cutting down the tree, and the journeymen to spend
xv{d}.[194]"
But it was not long before the Puritans prevailed. The May Day
merry-making was stopped and even the Gild festival prohibited. "This
yeare [1590-1] and the 6 day of June beinge Soondaye and the festivall day
of the Co{y} of the Shearmen of Salop aboute the settinge upp of a greene
tree by serte yonge men of the saide Co{y} before their hall doore as of
many years before have been acostomid but preachid against by the publicke
precher there and commawndid by the baylyffs that non sutche shoulde be
usid, and for the disobedience therein theye were put in prison and a
privey sessions called and there also indicted and still remayne untill
the next towne sessions for further triall[195]." The letter of the law
however was in their favour. At the sessions the judges decided that the
tree should be erected and "usyd as heretofore have be' so it be don
syvely and in lovynge order w{th}out contencion[196]." But the soreness
remained and the Shearmen were very turbulent for a long period. A curious
entry in 1596 betokens a continuance of the friction: "P{d} oure fyne for
not rerynge of Cappes to Mr Bayliffe 3/4[197]." For Puritan influence had
waxed stronger, and at length it was "agreed that there shall not be
hereafter any interludes or playes within this town or liberties uppon
anye Soundays or in the night tyme. Neyther shall there be any playinge at
footballe, or at hiltes or wastrells, or beare baytinge, within the walles
of this towne[198]."
[Sidenote: _Commonwealth._]
[Sidenote: _The Restoration._]
During the civil wars and under the rule of the Commonwealth the
inhabitants of the town were too heavily burdened with taxes for the
maintenance of soldiers and for the repairs of the walls (for which the
companies were severally assessed) to have much wealth to expend on
revelry and merry-making, even had Puritan sourness admitted any such. But
the reaction consequent on the Restoration brought back the glory to
Shrewsbury. The agriculture of the district had now quite recovered from
the long-distant Welsh ravages: the internal trade of the town was also
very considerable. Shrewsbury was therefore a place of no small
importance. It played the part of a local metropolis in which the
fashions of the capital were mimicked by the wealthy tradesfolk, their
wives and daughters, and the country gentry and their families. For
neither class could often go to London. Travelling was a serious affair
not lightly to be undertaken. Consequently, just as the country gentleman
now spends a portion of the year in London, so his ancestor in the
seventeenth century made the adjacent county town his residence at certain
seasons. Besides "he was often attracted thither by business and pleasure,
by assizes, quarter sessions, elections, musters of militia, festivals and
races.... There were the markets at which the corn, the cattle, the wool,
and the hops of the surrounding country were exposed for sale.... There
were the shops at which the best families of the neighbourhood bought
grocery and millinery[199]." In Shrewsbury did the provincial beaux and
belles promenade by the side of the Severn and in the abbey gardens. These
latter were especially attractive. They were laid out "with gravell walks
set full of all sorts of greens--orange and Lemmon trees.... Out of this
went another garden much larger with severall fine grass walks kept
exactly cut and roled for company to walk in: every Wednesday most of y{e}
town y{e} Ladies and Gentlemen walk there as in St James's Parke, and
there are abundance of people of quality lives in Shrewsbury[200]."
Farquahar in his sprightly comedy _The Recruiting Officer_ describes the
lively doings of the same "people of quality," and also of the more
stolid burghers. "I have drawn," he says, "the Justice and the Clown in
their _Puris Naturalibus_; the one an apprehensive, sturdy, brave
blockhead; and the other a worthy, honest, generous gentleman, hearty in
his country's cause and of as good an understanding as I could give him,
which I must confess is far short of his own." Farquahar seems to have
obtained a particularly good impression of the worthy Salopians. He
dedicates his comedy to "All Friends round the Wrekin." "I was stranger to
everything in Salop but its Character of Loyalty, the Number of its
Inhabitants, the Alacrity of the Gentry in Recruiting the Army, with their
generous and hospitable Reception of Strangers. This Character I found so
amply verify'd in every Particular that you made Recruiting, which is the
greatest Fatigue upon Earth to other, to be the greatest Pleasure in the
World to me[201]." Shrewsbury was one of the gayest of those many
provincial capitals "out of which the great wen of London has sucked all
the life[202]."
[Sidenote: _Shrewsbury Show in 17th century._]
Farquhar may have seen the old Show, which the Restoration had naturally
brought back, wend its noisy way to Kingsland. The procession itself was
easily rehabilitated, but the arbours on Kingsland, where the day was
spent in merrymaking, called for much attention. Great activity was
evinced in their repair, for they had fallen into sad decay during the
hard rule of the Puritans. Some of the companies adorned their arbours
with gateways, arms and mottoes, "dyalls," and the like. Most of the
gateways were of wood, but in 1679 the Shoemakers company erected a
handsome stone portal, which a few years subsequently they adorned with
figures of their patron saints, Crispin and Crispianus. As though the
events of a century previous were still fresh in men's minds, the legend
was painted underneath,
"We are but images of stonne
Do us no harme--we can do nonne."
About this time it is evident the Show was in a very prosperous condition.
Puritanism had not taken any real hold on the country, and the Church was
restored, and old ways of thinking and acting brought back, without any
disturbance or opposition[203]. Even in the companies the religious
element which was so strong in the earlier Gilds was not entirely wanting:
the day's proceedings included a sermon in the Church[204]. In the morning
the Wardens and members met in the open space before the castle, whence
they passed in a merry procession through the gaily decked streets to
Kingsland. There each Gild had its arbour surrounded by trees and supplied
with tables and benches. The mayor and corporation used to attend, and
were accustomed to visit each arbour in succession. The remainder of the
day passed in festivity and merriment, and the craftsmen with their
friends returned home in the evening "much invigorated with the essence
of barley-corn," as a writer of fifty years ago expresses it.
[Sidenote: _Degeneracy._]
But the degeneracy of the revived Show was very apparent. The dropping off
of the sermons deprived the companies of the last trace of that strong
religious element which had characterised their mediæval ancestors. A
private letter of 1811 says, "Shrewsbury Show was on the 19th [of June]
but I did not go to it. That, like other things, is getting much worse."
The Drapers and Mercers had never gone to Kingsland, and gradually the
other companies began to withdraw from the Show. The formal procession
became confined practically to apprentices[205], while the masters
contented themselves with a dinner at one of the inns of the town[206].
Everything was significant of the approaching end of the pageant.
[Sidenote: _Reform agitation tends to check degeneracy, but Reform Acts
fatal to the Show._]
When the Reform agitation threatened to deprive the companies of their
trading privileges at no distant period, and later, when it had succeeded
in doing so, attempts seem to have been made to bring into prominence
their social aspect[207], and the procession was again reinvigorated. The
pomp which signalised George the Fourth's coronation may also have given a
stimulus to pageantry. The arbours were repaired and rebuilt, and the year
1849 witnessed a grand revival of the procession. Attempts in this
direction were now not infrequent, but were necessarily spasmodic. Yet the
time-honoured Show was found to be possessed of wonderful vitality. When
the Municipal Corporations Act destroyed the exclusive privileges of
trading which the companies possessed they clung to their annual feast and
to the yearly procession, for which they retained the arbours at some
expense and self-denial. Gradually however as the successive freemen died
the arbours reverted one by one to the corporation of the town; the other
Gild property, which was not already divided, was shared among surviving
members, or fell through debt or similar causes into other hands.
Kingsland itself was to revert to the town at the decease of the last of
the members of the companies, according to an arrangement concluded in
1862.
Even still the old Show was hard to kill. In spite of much that was
saddening, and much degradation, the procession lingered on till some
twelve or fourteen years ago, when it died a natural death. So another
link with the past was broken, and another spot of colour wiped away from
these duller days of uniformity and routine.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE END OF THE COMPANIES.
[Sidenote: _Failure of efforts to restrict trade._]
The system of elaborate organisation by which men had regulated trade in
the past had given way to an equally complete system of individualism.
Confused philosophical reasoning, combined with the decay of old means of
regulation, had produced this anti-social state of things. Individual
competition, in uncontrolled energy, reigned supreme amid almost
incredible suffering and squalor. Everything which might tend to check the
progress of the devastation was looked upon with suspicion and swept
swiftly out of the way. All the old restraints were wanting, and
self-interest alone formed the mainspring of action. To this fetish
everything was sacrificed--men's bodies and men's principles. Commercial
dealings took the most questionable forms: adulteration of products went
on unchecked by any qualms of honesty. The companies had long ago ceased
to make any attempts in the direction of industrial regulation. The whole
efforts of their members were concentrated on the vain endeavour to
restrict trade to the chartered towns.
Yet even the apologist for the companies, quoted at the end of the sixth
chapter, was obliged to allow that in this they had failed. The result of
the action of the "oppressive oligarchies" was the "excluding or
discouraging the English Subjects from Trading in our greatest and best
situated towns, where the markets are[208]." Shrewsbury saw the free towns
around growing up to importance and outstripping her in the race for
prosperity. Birmingham, not far distant, was already famous. Another free
town which rose rapidly was Manchester, where most of the new industries
did not come under the Apprenticeship Act, and were consequently free and
unshackled. Such formidable rivals drew away trade from the old privileged
boroughs. The companies were quite unable to retain their monopolies.
But more than this. Even the measure of commercial prosperity which
Shrewsbury possessed--it was not small--cannot be in any appreciable
degree ascribed to the companies. A writer of 1825[209] who considers the
trade of the town at that date by no means "inconsiderable[210]"
attributes the fact to anything rather than the "Chartered
Companies[211]." "Here are two very large linen factories, besides several
manufactories for starch, soap, flannels, cotton goods, an extensive iron
and brass foundry, two ale and porter breweries, a spirit distillery,
etc.[212]" "Its fabrication of threads, linen cloths etc. etc. stands
unrivalled; whilst the more common articles of domestic life are executed
in a stile of neatness, certainly equal, if not superior, to those of any
other place of similar size[213]." The various causes which he looks upon
as conducing to this prosperity he sets forth with considerable detail:
"its contiguity to the Principality, the facility which it possesses for
the importation and exportation of goods, by means of its noble river and
canals, and its situation as the capital of an extensive and populous
county, combine to give it many advantages over a variety of places
equally insular[214]." That the companies had any hand in ministering to
this prosperity, or even served any useful purpose, seems never to have so
much as occurred to him.
[Sidenote: _Struggle against intruders_]
Yet they were putting their charters to the utmost use. They used every
means in their power to hold the trade. They obtained the assistance of
the municipal officers in seeking out and expelling intruders, even
hawkers and pedlars. Actions at law became rapidly more frequent, until at
last the life of the companies becomes one long effort to compel intruders
to take up their freedom by paying the necessary fines. The Barbers even
went so far as to prosecute men and women-servants for presuming to dress
their masters' and mistresses' hair.
Though these measures were unsuccessful in attaining their object they
were not without most important results.
[Sidenote: _impoverishes the companies,_]
In the first place the companies saw their stock become rapidly
impoverished, and themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. So early as 1692
the Mercers were obliged to raise £50 by means of mortgage, and in the
next year they were twice forced to sell some of their property. The
Grocers had, half a century previously[215], noted with sorrow how "the
Stock of the Company yearly decreaseth." The Barbers so early as 1744
resolve to spend no more money at Show time "except the third part of the
Weavers' Bill." The Saddlers' stock in the three per cents. has to be sold
to defray the charges of actions against intruders in 1810, and about the
same time the Bakers' arbour was seized "on account of sustained charges
against the company in an action for supposed infringement of their
rights." Even the wealthy company of the Drapers had been compelled to
relinquish their annual holiday, at which open house was kept for town and
neighbourhood, in 1781.
[Sidenote: _and calls down public odium on them._]
But worse perhaps than this was the public odium they brought upon
themselves. That this was so was acknowledged in formal meeting at the
close of their public life, yet it had existed long before and grew daily
stronger.
[Sidenote: _Other signs of decay._]
[Sidenote: _Internal disorder._]
[Sidenote: _Accounts carelessly kept._]
[Sidenote: _Trade leaves them._]
These two causes would have been alone sufficient to bring about the
downfall of the companies. But there were other signs of decay in plenty.
Internal disorder was adding to the degradation into which the once
honourable associations were falling. Even in 1668 the Glovers are
compelled to take into account "the disorderly manner of making wardens."
So late as 1832 the Saddlers inflict a fine on their steward for attending
meetings in a state of intoxication. The books are much less carefully
kept. The Glovers' company came to an untimely end in 1810 through
maladministration and carelessness in dealing with the yearly balance
sheet[216]. In 1822 so great a company as the Mercers' is found appointing
a committee to search for the charter, which is ultimately found in the
hands of a private individual whose magnanimity in surrendering what did
not belong to him is highly praised by a formal resolution[217]. We have
seen already how trade had fallen off. In 1770 a member of the Saddlers'
company paid five guineas "to be for ever excused from serving the office
of Steward or Warden." Private interest alone formed the motive of action
in commercial dealings. The individual knew nothing of obligations due to
society.
[Sidenote: _General demoralisation._]
Society was indeed in a state of rottenness. Outwardly there was plentiful
decorum; really there was sufficient sham with its usual concomitant,
laxity of morals, in a very marked degree[218]. It could hardly be
expected that this should be otherwise in the general disregard which
prevailed of all finer instincts: questionable commercial dealings and
adulteration of products, on the one hand, were naturally accompanied by
brutality and squalor on the other. Commercial success was the only
criterion, and as the companies could not stand the test of this
touchstone of merit they were doomed.
[Sidenote: _Efforts to delay the end._]
The Gilds of workmen in building trades had been seriously affected, if
not destroyed, long before by the Statute 2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 15,
which allowed "any Freemason, roughmason, carpenter, bricklayer,
plasterer," etc. "borne in this realme or made Denizon, to work in any of
the saide Crafts in anye cittie Boroughe or Towne Corporate ... albeit the
saide p'son or p'sons ... doe not inhabyte or dwell in the cittee Borough
or Towne Corporate ... nor be free of the same." But in all other trades
the law had upheld the companies, and associations strong as these were in
antiquity were not to be destroyed without a struggle. In the early years
of the nineteenth century they began to think about internal reformation,
which, had it been accomplished with singleness of purpose, might perhaps
have secured their further usefulness and life. The expenses connected
with the annual feasts were regulated[219]. We have seen in the foregoing
chapter how the senior members began to withdraw from the dissoluteness
of the Show. The actions against intruders, which had long become chronic,
were pushed on with new vigour. In the hopes apparently of deciding the
question once for all the Mercers' company instituted a great suit against
a Mr Hart in the year 1823 which was looked upon by all parties as a test
case. Two years previously a committee had been appointed to search for
the charter and other documents which might be serviceable to the company
in the great struggle they were apparently then meditating. The opinion of
counsel was taken, and it being favourable to the company a full meeting
unanimously resolved to act upon it. The first thing to be done was to
retrench the expenses. It was decided that no dinner could be held that
year (1823), and the annual subscriptions to the Infirmary, the Lancaster
School, and other charitable objects were suspended. The costs of the
actions were to be borne by all the combrethren "rateably and in
proportion agreeable to the ancient custom and usage of the Company." But
several resignations and withdrawals took place, which show that there was
some doubt, if not as to the exact legality, at any rate as to the
expediency of the step which was being taken. But the great majority were
resolved to press the matter to the issue. Actions against several
intruders were consolidated, and that against Mr Hart came on for trial.
Important counsel were engaged, and everything was done on both sides to
discover the actual state of the law. The result was a verdict entirely in
favour of the company. But the assessment of damages at a farthing (while
the expenses incurred by the company were between six and seven hundred
pounds) showed how strongly public opinion ran in a direction contrary to
the mere letter of the law[220].
The defendants however in the present case submitted at once, and the
company soon recovered its former financial prosperity. Its subscriptions
were again paid after a brief interval. But it is noticeable that actions
against intruders went on precisely as before. The effect of this great
verdict, which was hailed with public dinners and illuminations, was
absolutely _nil_.
It however stimulated the efforts of the companies in the direction of
reform. In consequence of the action the Mercers resolved that the
enrolment of apprentices (which they confessed had been "criminally
neglected") should be better carried out in future, and that a _bona fide_
indenture for seven years should be required in all cases before any claim
to the freedom of the company could be admitted. As a tangible result a
new book of apprenticeship was commenced, which continued to be carefully
and neatly kept to the end. Its first entry is dated August 1, 1823,
though there are several records of earlier indentures. Its last is July
2, 1835. A new book for recording the petitions of foreigners to be
admitted was also provided. These were comparatively few in number. They
extend from July 31, 1823, to June 2, 1834.
[Sidenote: _The Municipal Corporations Act._]
Such was the condition of the companies when the Municipal Corporations
Act[221] was passed. No detailed description of this measure, albeit it
was "second in importance to the Reform Act alone[222]," is needed here.
As far as the companies were concerned its provisions were simple. It took
away from them wholly and entirely all their exclusive privileges of
trading.
"Whereas in divers cities, towns, and boroughs a certain custom hath
prevailed, and certain bye-laws have been made, that no person, not being
free of a city, town, or borough, or of certain guilds, mysteries, or
trading companies within the same or some or one of them, shall keep any
shop or place for putting to show or sale any or certain wares or
merchandize by way of retail or otherwise, or use any or certain trades,
occupations, mysteries, or handicrafts for hire, gain, or sale within the
same: Be it enacted that, notwithstanding any such custom or bye-law,
every person in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful
wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every lawful trade,
occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire, gain, sale or otherwise,
within any borough." In these words, which might seem the echo of Magna
Carta[223] through the centuries, liberty of trading was made a fact
throughout England.
[Sidenote: _End of the companies._]
It is interesting that we have recorded for us the way in which this
sweeping change was received by those most concerned. The Mercers had
foreseen (July 31, 1835) that it would be advisable to drop all pending
actions against foreigners until the result of the Act then before
Parliament should be decided. After it had become law the company met, for
the last time under the old conditions, on March 25, 1836, to consider
their position and to take steps for the future. It was apparently a
stormy meeting. An influential minority proposed to divide the property
among the members there and then, and so have done with the company. It
was however carried "That the chief rents ... be not disposed of, but
reserved to meet the payments to be made to the Alms people of St. Chad's
Almshouses[224], and for other purposes." The fire engine, the company's
weights and measures etc., were sold. The other companies acted in a
similar manner. The Saddlers divided at once the funds which remained in
the treasurer's hands, and which amounted to £1. 7_s._ 0_d._ for each
member[225]. Their arbour was however retained, and the rent from it
expended on the annual feast on Show Monday. This arrangement was to
continue so long as any of the freemen should be living: on the decease of
the last survivor the arbour was to devolve to the town council. Lastly,
all books, and whatever else remained to the company, were to be deposited
with the wardens for the time being.
[Sidenote: _Partial continuation of the companies._]
For attempts were made, even in the desperate pass to which the companies
seemed to be brought, to prolong the end. A few patriotic members kept up
the shadows of the old fraternities. The ancient custom of electing
officers was maintained; the Mercers' records bring the lists complete
down to 1876. The arbours were repaired, mostly at the cost of private
individuals, and at spasmodic intervals, while the Show still continued to
afford opportunities for dissolute revelry to the lowest of the town and
neighbourhood. The companies themselves fell back into their original
condition of voluntary associations of individuals united for purposes
partly benevolent but mainly social, and of which the state took no
cognisance. "No one can give much attention to the subject without coming
to the conclusion that feasting was one of the essential and most valued
features of the companies in their early days[226]:" it became so again in
their later. As they had existed long before external circumstances
brought them into prominence, so they continued long after they had ceased
to influence public affairs, and so they lingered on even after the nation
had plainly signified that their existence was not only superfluous but
injurious. For their endeavours to restrict trade had been, so far as they
had been successful, detrimental to the prosperity of the town, while they
had allowed the duty of succouring needy workmen to slip entirely from
their hands.
The Friendly Societies which had long taken up this very important part of
the functions which the mediæval Gilds had performed rose meanwhile into
public favour. Their excellent work was so apparent that an Act of
Parliament was passed for their encouragement in 1793, and it was even
urged that they should be made compulsory.
[Sidenote: _Their property gives them life._]
The companies had to all intents and purposes long forgotten their duty in
this respect, and they could not take it up again now, though had this
course been possible they might have commended themselves to public
favour. There was only one means which kept them alive. The secret of
their vitality was their possession of property[227], and as that melted
away the companies were found dropping out of existence. For being
deprived of their real essence they had nothing to recommend them. Even
the Show degenerated into a public scandal, and the companies, like their
annual pageant, at length died, one by one, unnoticed and
unregretted[228].
[Sidenote: _Return to organisation._]
Yet there was arising, even at the time when the old companies were being
destroyed, a movement in favour of some return to organisation and
regulation. Organisation indeed seems to have been a characteristic of
the English people at all stages of their history. The Saxons had their
Frith Gilds and their Monks' Gilds; the English of the Middle Ages had
their Merchant, Religious, Social, and Craft Gilds; in the sixteenth
century they had their Trade Societies, the direct and in many cases the
little-altered successors of the Craft Gilds. Then came the larger
Regulated Companies, which also had some features in common with the
mediæval Gilds, more with the sixteenth century societies. The main
differences between the earlier associations and those of a later date lay
in the avowed motive of confederacy and in the nature of the influence
they exercised. The ostensible motive of the Gilds was the general
welfare: in the case of the companies it was individual gain. The
influence of the Gilds may be called a healthy social and moral
influence[229]; that of the post-reformation companies in the towns was in
the main directed to selfish and political ends[230].
New organisations, adapted to altered conditions of life and new modes of
thought, resembling and yet differing from the Gilds, were now to arise
and take the place of the companies as these had taken the place of the
mediæval fraternities. The growth of these however will be beyond the
scope of the present essay.
It was doubtless necessary that the companies should be pulled down from
the lofty heights which they once had occupied. It was requisite that all
relics of the detailed system of trade-organisation which the Middle Ages
had handed down to us should be broken up, to make room for a _régime_
more conformable to modern conditions of industry. The anarchic reign of
individualism through which trade passed at the beginning of this century
was an unavoidable step in economic development.
But it was a step attended with infinite loss and inestimable suffering,
and it is well that proofs are not wanting of the approaching end of
unrestrained competition and anti-social individualism. Signs of change
are not wanting. Experience is continually demonstrating that organisation
can accomplish vastly more than individual enterprise; that combination is
immeasurably more powerful than competition. It is indeed the tracing out
of this reaction in favour of combination for common ends, which lends to
the economic history of the last hundred years its chief, perhaps its
only, human interest.
[Sidenote: _Socialists and other forms of organisation._]
The reaction has manifested itself in various ways. The _Socialists_ have
always made State-organisation of labour one of the strongest planks of
their platform[231]. At the same time Englishmen have looked with peculiar
jealousy on any attempts by the state to extend its sphere of action.
Nevertheless a steady development has been witnessed in this direction;
the various Civil Services show a uniform increase with the numbers and
requirements of the nation. The Board of Trade, the Local Government
Board, the Charity and Ecclesiastical Commissioners, are further
indications of the same tendency towards organisation.
[Sidenote: _Trades Unions;_]
The Gilds cannot, as we have seen, be censured for low aims; moreover
their endeavours to reach the level they set themselves were constant and
sincere. And the latter half of the nineteenth century has seen a
repetition of somewhat similar attempts.
[Sidenote: _their achievements._]
[Sidenote: _Improvement in status of labour._]
The Trades Union movement[232] is one pregnant with promise for the
future[233]. Though the Unions were formed in the first instances for the
purpose of resistance to the masters, it may be hoped that as the need for
this grows weaker the analogy which their promoters love to institute
between them and the old Craft Gilds may become more and more real. They
have already done much to raise the condition of labour, and as Friendly
Societies they are of the highest value to the workmen[234]. There are
signs too that we may even obtain organisations which, with due allowance
for altered conditions, may accomplish much of the other good work which
Gilds performed for mediæval industry.
[Sidenote: _Attempts at regulation of trade._]
The Unions already aim at ensuring stability of employment through
deliberate regulation of trade. By this means they hope to strike a
death-blow at that root-evil of our present industrial system,
irregularity of employment and uncertainty of wages.
[Sidenote: _Further necessary approximation to Gilds._]
But they yet fall short of the Gilds in two important particulars, and
until these deficiencies are made good Trades Unions can only be
considered as insufficient means to a highly desirable end.
[Sidenote: _Appreciation of the common interests of masters and men,_]
In the first place there must be no association of men against masters, or
masters against men, but union of men with masters for the common good of
the craft. Fifty years ago it was pointed out[235] that "the recent
destruction of the old Gilds was a purely negative policy, which required
to be followed up by a reconstruction on similar, but modified,
lines[236]." But of course nothing was attempted, though it is for their
care in seeing that the public was well served that the Gilds are chiefly
praised to-day.
[Sidenote: _and of the necessity of ensuring a higher standard of work._]
In the second direction much less advance has been made[237]. Yet it
cannot be expected that a high standard of wages is to be maintained
unless a high standard of workmanship is also ensured. Improvement in pay
can only with justice accompany improvement in skill and application.
Something of the sentiment and tradition of good work which so strongly
characterised the Middle Ages must be brought back. As yet it is wofully
lacking. Up to the present the Trades Unions have made no real attempt to
grapple with this evil, though its removal is a necessary preliminary to
anything like completeness in our industrial reformation. Until they can
show their ability to direct trade in this respect in a manner more
beneficial to the community than competing capitalists have done during
the past, the student will find their analogy to the mediæval Gilds
incomplete (and that in a point where the latter might be followed with
benefit), and the public will consider their usefulness to society
unsatisfactory.
APPENDIX I
NON-GILDATED TRADESMEN[238].
The ordinary authorities on Economic history say little or nothing of the
non-gildated tradesmen in the towns, though these formed an important
portion of the commercial community. To understand fully the conditions
under which trade was carried on in mediæval England the existence of such
unfree merchants must be taken into account and their importance
appreciated.
Within the commercial class the enforcement of the Gild regulations
doubtless depended very largely on circumstances and individual
temperament. Moreover their reiteration evidences their futility in
attaining the objects they had in view. There must have been much greater
freedom and elasticity of thought and action during the Middle Ages than
is generally recognised.
It must be remembered too that there were important exceptions to the
regulations of the Gilds. The king's servants, when exercising the royal
privileges of purveyance and pre-emption, were naturally unrestricted. In
Fair-time--and the Fairs were a very important feature in mediæval
life--there was unrestrained freedom of trade. But more important than
these was another. It was quite possible for ungildated tradesmen to
purchase temporary or partial exemption from the local restrictions.
It will be observed that the royal charters which authorise the Gilds and
grant exclusive privileges of trading differ somewhat in later years from
those of the earliest date. In the earliest grants the words simply allude
to the Gild only. Henry II.'s Charter to Lincoln is "Sciatis me
concessisse civibus meis Lincolniæ ... gildam suam mercatoriam." There is
no hint of any tradesmen external to the Gild. But early in the thirteenth
century it becomes evident that such stringent exclusiveness could not be
enforced. The charter which Henry III. granted to Shrewsbury in 1227
confirmed the Gild in the following terms:--"Concessimus etiam eisdem
Burgensibus et heredibus eorum quod habeant Gildam Mercatoriam cum Hansa
et aliis consuetudinibus et libertatibus ad Gildam illam pertinentibus, et
quod nullus qui non sit in Gilda ilia mercandisam aliquam faciat in
predicto Burgo _nisi de voluntate eorundem Burgensium_." At about the same
time the Earl of Chester and Huntingdon gave a charter to Chester
forbidding trade in the town "nisi ipsi cives mei Cestrie et eorum heredes
_vel per eorum gratum_." The phrase "nisi de voluntate eorundem Burgensium
(or Civium)" now became usual in the charters. In those granted by Edward
I. to the towns which he founded in Wales, and which may be looked upon in
some measure as model town constitutions, the provision appears in each.
Thus it may be said that by the end of the thirteenth century it had
become customary for the town authorities to grant exemptions from the
Gild restrictions by their own authority. They practically gave over to
the Gilds the supervision of trade, but at the same time retained in their
own hands the power of admitting traders without obliging them to join the
mercantile fraternities.
This power of granting exemptions from the restrictions of the Gilds seems
to have been exercised in various towns in different degrees. In some it
extended no further than the permitting "foreigners" to come to casual
markets on payment of a toll upon each occasion. In others however it was
more largely and generally used, merchants being allowed to be resident
and to trade continually and regularly by payment of an annual fine.
In the latter case the effect was to create two distinct classes of
traders within the town. The burgesses may be divided into two classes,
those of them who were gildsmen and those who were not. We now see that
the tradesmen dwelling in the towns may similarly be divided into two
classes, (i) those who were free of the town or of one of the Gilds (or
free both of the town and one of its Gilds), and (ii) those who were
neither burgesses nor gildsmen. Thus another has been added to the classes
into which the inhabitants of towns are usually divided. Mention of these
_unfree_ tradesmen is found in the records of many towns in England and
Wales: in Norwich, Winchester, Lincoln, Leicester, Andover, Yarmouth,
Canterbury, Henley-on-Thames, Malmesbury, Bury S. Edmunds, Totnes, Wigan,
Chester, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Clun, Brecknock, Neath, Bishops' Castle,
and others.
The designation of these unfree tradesmen varies. At Andover they were
known as _custumarii_ (in opposition to the _hansarii_--the full members
of the Gild). At Canterbury a similar body appears under the name of
_intrants_. In Scotland and the north of England they were called
_stallingers_. The most usual name for them is however _censer_,
_chencer_, _tenser_, and variations of these.
_Censer_ is apparently the name applied to one who pays a _cense_ or
_cess_. In Domesday mention is made of _censarius_--"Ibi sunt nunc 14
censarii habentes septem carucatas"--and the _censarius_ is described as
"qui terram ad censum annuum tenet." The connection of the word is here
purely territorial. It becomes more personal later in the history as is
seen in the "Compotus Civitatis Wyntoniæ" of the third year of Edward I.,
which contains the following entry:--"Et de xliiij_s._ ij_d._ _ob._ de
hominibus habitacionibus in civitate Wynton' qui non sunt de libertate,
qui dicuntur Censarii, per idem tempus." Here the _censarii_ are evidently
considered in their capacity not as possible landowners, but solely as
tradesmen. The _census_ has changed from the land rent of Domesday to a
distinctly personal payment.
A somewhat different class from the _censarii_ of Winchester are mentioned
in the statute 27 Henry VIII., cap. 7. From the preamble we can form a
good idea of the lawlessness and confusion which prevailed on the borders
of Wales at that period. It is related that in the Marches, where thick
forests frequently fringe the roads, "certain unreasonable Customs and
Exactions have been of long time unlawfully exacted and used, contrary
both to the law of God and man, to the express wrong and great
impoverishment of divers of the king's true subjects." The most crying of
these evils was that the foresters were accustomed to plunder all passing
along the roads (probably under the plea of taking toll), unless they bore
"a Token delivered to them by the chief Foresters ... or else were yearly
Tributors or Chensers." The statute offers no explanation of these terms,
but it is most likely they applied to persons paying an annual sum, either
to the king or the Lords Marchers, of the nature of Chief Rent, especially
as Cowell, in giving his explanation of the word _chenser_ which will be
noticed later, refers to this Act of Henry VIII. in support of his
definition. If this be so we see that although the signification of the
term had been extended so as to include distinctly personal and commercial
tolls, it had, in some districts, also retained its original connection
with land. This, censor, censer, gensor, chencer, and other variations, is
the most usual form of the word, but occasionally it is found as tenser,
tensor, tensur, and tensure. Tenser and tensor are used at Shrewsbury; at
Worcester the same word appears as tensure or tensar (_English Gilds_, pp.
382, 394).
It is difficult to say whether or no _tenser_ is a confusion of _censer_.
Etymologically the words seem akin, _cense_ being a tax or toll (cess),
and _tensare_ meaning to lay under toll or tribute. In the Iter of 1164
enquiry is directed to be made "de prisis et tenseriis omnium ballivorum
domini regis ... et quare prisæ illæ captæ fuerint, et per quem" etc.
Another derivation of _tenser_ has been given. Owen and Blakeway (Vol. ii.
p. 525) explain it to be a corruption of "tenancier," and apparently
intend to imply that these non-gildated traders were considered as holding
directly of the king. This view receives some confirmation from Cowell's
definition of the "censure" and "censers" of Cornwall. He says (_A Law
Dictionary: or the Interpreter_ etc., ed. 1727) "Censure, or _Custuma
vocata_ censure, (from the Latin _Census_, which Hesychius expounds to be
a kind of personal money, paid for every Poll) is, in divers Manors in
_Cornwall_ and _Devon_, the calling of all Resiants therein above the age
of sixteen, to swear Fealty to the Lord, to pay _ij{d} per Poll, and j{d}
per an._ ever after; as _cert-money_ or _Common Fine_; and these thus
sworn, are called _Censers_." "Chensers," he says again, "are such as pay
Tribute or _cense_, Chief-rent or Quit-rent, for so the French _censier_
signifies." Whether or no we receive Owen and Blakeway's derivation of the
word from _tenancier_, even with the support of Cowell's "censers" of
Cornwall, we may press the latter authority into service in showing that
the signification of _censer_ and _tenser_, however different the two
words might be in origin, became very similar in actual use.
The fines which the tensers or censers paid were imposed in the Court
Leet. On the Court Leet Rolls at Shrewsbury are entered lists of names and
fines headed "Nomina eorum qui merchandizant infra villam Salopie et
Suburbia eiusdem, et non Burgenses, ergo sunt in misericordia." In the
first year of the reign of Henry IV. (A.D. 1399) it was ordered that these
fines should be levied before the feast of S. Katharine (November 25) in
each year. The Court Leet also decided the amount of the fines, but in
later times when the select body of magnates had deprived the popular
courts of so many of their powers and privileges we find that the
apportioning of the tensers' fines had also passed to the close
corporation. In 1519 the corporation fixed the tolls at 6_d._ quarterly.
The statute 35 Henry VIII., cap. 18, gave the control of the unfree
tradesmen in Canterbury to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City. "No
foreigner, not being free of the said City, shall buy or sell any
Merchandize (saving Victual) to another foreigner; nor shall keep any shop
nor use any mystery within the said City or the liberties thereof, without
the License of the Mayor and Aldermen, or the major part of them, in
writing under their Seal." At Winchester in 1650 the rates were revised by
the Mayor and Aldermen. The highest limit was fixed at £5, but the fees
actually paid were generally sums varying from 6_d._ to 3/4 only (Gross,
II. 264).
When such a privilege was exercised by a select body it was certain to
give rise to abuses. Such was found to be the case in early years when the
fines were imposed by an authority other than the general assembly of
burgesses. In the county court held at Lincoln in 1272 it was alleged that
the late Mayor had taken pledges from the burgesses of Grimsby unjustly
under the plea of exacting _gildwite_ (as the fine or toll was sometimes
called). We learn that at Shrewsbury in 1449-50 "this yeare the Burgesses
and Tenssaars ... did varye." What the cause of contention was, or how the
dispute was settled, we do not know, but it could hardly arise over
anything other than the question concerning the tolls to be paid by the
tensers.
In some towns special civic officials were appointed to supervise the
tensers. At Chester the "leave-lookers" were among the most important of
the borough officers. The word _leve_ or _leave_ has very much the same
signification as the word _cense_ or cess. It is the English "levy," and
was the fee or toll for permission to trade. The "leve-lookers" were the
officials who exacted the levy or toll which unfree tradesmen were obliged
to pay. At Chester they were "appointed annually by the Mayor for the
purpose of collecting the duty of 2_s._ 6_d._ claimed by the corporation
to be levied yearly upon all non-freemen who exercise any trade within the
liberties of the City." Their duties are described as having been "to give
Licence and compound with any that came either to buy or sell within
these liberties contrary to our grants;" "if any did dwell within the city
that were not free, if they did ever buy or sell within the liberties,
they did likewise compound with the _Custos_ and _Mercator_ [Custos Gilde
Mercatorie] by the year ... the Leave-lookers do gather two pence
halfpenny upon the pound, of all Wares sold by Forraigners within the
City." (Gross, II. 42.) The same name is found at Wigan, where the duty of
the "gate-waiters or leave-lookers" was to see that all "foreigners" paid
their fines for licence to reside and trade in the town. (Sinclair,
_Wigan_, _passim_.)
It is not easy to define the exact status of the tensers. They were
certainly considered as an inferior body of burgesses, and might comprise
three classes. Firstly, those not willing or not able to enter one of the
gilds; secondly, traders waiting to be admitted burgesses; thirdly
ex-burgesses fallen from the higher state through misfortune.
1. As an inferior class of tradesmen they could only purchase their stock
from townsmen (Gross, II. 177); they were incapable of bearing municipal
office (_Ibid._ II. 190) and they were liable to be called upon "to be
contributorie to alle the comone charges of the Citie, whan it falleth"
(_Ibid._ II. 190). In the general course of trade but little difference
might be perceptible between the tensers and the Gildsmen, but attempts to
fuse or to confuse the two classes were jealously resented whenever they
were discovered. Naturally these attempts to minimise the distinctions
between Gildsmen and non-gildsmen were generally prompted, in later times,
by political reasons. Only freemen of the town and members of the
companies had the privilege of voting in Parliamentary elections, and
great was the desire to obtain a position on the list of voters. In "An
Account of the Poll for Members of Parliament for the Borough of
Shrewsbury taken June 29 and 30, 1747" etc., information is supplied
concerning certain townsmen who had claimed to be freemen but were
rejected on account of having proved themselves to be otherwise by
payment, in times past, of the tensers' fines. Of John Bromhall, baker, we
read "It was objected to his vote that he was no Burgess, in support of
which it was proved that he had paid Tensership several years, and that
his ffather had paid toll. This Tensership is a ffine or acknowledgement
commonly paid by persons following trade in the town that are no
Burgesses, but it being insisted that it was paid through ignorance or
mistake, his ffather was called and admitted to prove that he had voted at
a former election for this Borough, whereupon the Mayor admitted his vote,
but upon examining a copy of the Poll for the year 1676 it appears that
all the ffamily of this Bromhall were upon a scrutiny rejected as not
Burgesses."
2. They comprised also among their number many tradesmen waiting to be
made burgesses. We learn this distinctly from an ordinance of the
corporation of Leicester passed in the year 1467, to the effect that every
person opening a shop in the town should pay yearly 3/4 _till he enter
into the Chapman Gild_. (Nichols, _County of Leicester_, I. 376.) There
were several causes which would account for the existence of this class.
The towns grew increasingly jealous of extending their privileges, as
these became valuable. The Gildsmen would also desire to learn somewhat of
the character of the new-comer before admitting him to full membership
with themselves; while on the other hand the latter would wish to see
whether the trade of the town were sufficiently prosperous to warrant him
settling in the borough permanently. This cause would specially operate in
the case of the Welsh boroughs which grew up after Edward I.'s conquest of
the principality.
The townsmen however did not approve of the growth of a wealthy class of
traders, sharing almost equal commercial privileges with themselves and at
the same time not liable to the burdens which were the necessary
accompaniment of those privileges. They therefore made it incumbent upon
every tenser who evidently was sufficiently satisfied with the trade of
the town to make the borough his permanent home, and who had attained to a
fair competency, that he should throw in his lot fully and completely with
them. He must become in fact a full burgess. This is carefully explained
in the _Ordinances of the City of Worcester_--regulations concerning the
trade of the town dating from the reign of Edward IV. No. XLVII. says
"Also, that euery Tensure be sett a resonable fyne, aft{r} the discression
of the Aldermen, and that euery tensure that hath ben w{t}yn the cyte a
yere or more dwellynge, and hath sufficiaunt to the valo{r} of XL_s._ or
more, be warned to be made citezen, by resonable tyme to hym lymitted, and
iff he refuse that, that he shalle yerly pay to the comyn cofre XL_d._,
ouer that summe that he shalle yerly pay to the Baillies or any other
officers; and so yerly to contynue tylle he be made citezen" (_English
Gilds_, p. 394).
3. There were, thirdly, those who had fallen from a higher state through
misfortune or other cause. We read of individuals surrendering their
freedom and paying the tenser's fine. "He withdrew and surrendered the
freedom to the Commonalty, and now pays toll" (Gross, II. 240).
As regarded their dealings other than commercial in nature the tendency
was to assimilate the tensers and the townsmen. In a grant made to
Shrewsbury by Henry VI. and confirmed by Parliament in 1445 the same
privileges are extended to the tensers as are possessed by the burgesses
in the matter of exemption from the necessity of finding bail in certain
cases. Similarly at Worcester the "tensures" shared with the citizens the
right to the assistance of the afferors in cases of wrongful or excessive
amercement. (_English Gilds_, 394.)
Nevertheless where commercial privileges were at stake the distinction was
rigidly preserved by every means in the possession of the townsmen. The
tenser's fine was maintained up to the present century, though not without
considerable difficulty. On every hand there were evidences that the
companies had outlived their usefulness. Friction was everywhere injuring
the social machine. Competition and individualism had taken the place of
custom and co-operation. At Winchester there were grievous complaints of
intruders who did "use Arts, Trades, Misteries and manual occupations ...
without making any agreement or composition for soe doing, contrary to the
said antient usage and custome, tending to the utter undoeing of the
freemen ... and decay of the same City." Everywhere the records of the
companies detail little else than summonses to intruders to take up their
freedom and notices of actions at law against them for refusing to do so.
General demoralisation prevailed, and the existence of a class holding
such an equivocal position as that of the unfree tradesmen did not help to
mend matters. The case of John Bromhall which has been mentioned above
illustrates the general looseness which prevailed in all departments of
municipal administration. A ludicrous incident which happened at
Shrewsbury in connection with the tensers in later years is recorded by
Gough in his _Antiquities of Myddle_, published in 1834. "This Richard
Muckleston was of a bold and daring spirit, and could not brook an injury
offered to him. He commenced a suit against the town of Shrewsbury for
exacting an imposition on him which they call tentorshipp, and did
endeavor to make void their charter, but they gave him his burgess-ship to
be quiet."
The companies were preserved from repetitions of this strange indignity by
the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, in consequence of
which there could no longer be any invidious distinction between freemen
and non-freemen, hansarii and custumarii, gildsmen and tensers.
APPENDIX II.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
Abram, W. A.--Memorials of the Preston Guilds.
An Account of the Poll for Members of Parliament for the Borough of
Shrewsbury etc. (1747).
Boeckh, A.--Public Economy of Athens, translated by George Cornewall Lewis
(1842).
Brentano, Lujo--On the history and development of Gilds and Origin of
Trade-Unions.
"Britannia Languens, or a discourse of trade." (1680.)
Bryce, J.--The Holy Roman Empire (1887).
Cowell--A Law Dictionary: or the Interpreter etc. (1727).
Cunningham, W.--The Growth of English Industry and Commerce (1885).
Dugdale, W.--Antiquities of Warwickshire.
Ebner, Dr Adalbert--Die klösterlichen Gebets-Verbrüderungen bis zum
Ausgange des Karolingischen Zeitalters (1891).
Eden, Sir F. M.--The State of the Poor.
Eyton, W.--Antiquities of Shropshire.
Farquhar--The Recruiting Officer.
Foucart--Les Associations réligieuses chez les Grecs.
Foxwell, H. S.--Irregularity of Employment and Fluctuations of Prices
(1886).
Froude, J. A.--History of England from the fall of Wolsey to the death of
Elizabeth (12 vols., 1862-70).
Gneist--Geschichte des Self-Government in England.
Gneist--Das heutige Englische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht.
Gough--The Antiquities of Myddle (1834).
Green, J. R.--A Short History of the English People (1886).
Gross, Charles--The Gild Merchant (1891).
Grote, George--History of Greece (1888).
Hallam, H.--View of Europe during the Middle Ages. 1 vol.
Harrison, W.--A description of England (in "Elizabethan England," Camelot
Series).
Hatch, E.--The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches (Bampton
Lectures, 1881).
Howell, G.--Conflicts of Capital and Labour (1890).
Howell, Thomas--The Stranger in Shrewsbury (1825).
Kemble, J. M.--The Saxons in England.
Longfellow--The Golden Legend.
Macaulay, Lord--History of England from the Accession of James II. (1889).
May, Erskine--Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. (1887).
Merewether and Stephens--History of the Boroughs.
Nichols, J.--The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester
(1795-1815).
Ordericus Vitalis--Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy (Bohn's
Series).
Owen and Blakeway--History of Shrewsbury.
[Owen, Hugh]--Some Account of the Ancient and Present State of Shrewsbury
(1808).
Perry, C. G.--A History of the English Church (Vol. II.) (1878).
Pidgeon's Memorials of Shrewsbury (old Ed.).
Pidgeon's Some Account of the Ancient Gilds, Trading Companies, and the
origin of Shrewsbury Show (1862).
Poynter, E. J.--Ten Lectures on Art (1880).
Quarterly Review, Vol. 159.
Riley, H. T.--Memorials of London ... in the XIII, XIV, and XV Centuries.
Rogers, Thorold--Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1889).
Rogers, Thorold--The Economic Interpretation of History (1888).
Scott, Sir Walter--Marmion.
Sinclair, D.--The History of Wigan.
Smith, Toulmin--English Gilds (E. E. T. S.).
State Papers, Domestic (Elizabeth).
Statutes at Large (6 vols, 1758).
Stow, John--A Survey of London (Carisbrooke Library).
Strype--Ecclesiastical Memorials (1821).
Stubbs, W.--Constitutional History of England (1883).
Stubbs, W.--Select Charters (1884).
Stubbs, W.--Lectures on Mediæval History.
Taylor MS. in Library of Shrewsbury School (Reprinted in S. A. S. Vol.
III.).
Thackeray, W. M.--The Four Georges.
Through England on a Side Saddle in the Time of William and Mary, being
the Diary of Celia Fiennes.
Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological Society (cited as S. A. S.),
Vols. I-XI.
Wordsworth, W.--The Happy Warrior.
INDEX.
Abbey at Shrewsbury, 11, 31, 60
Aberystwith, 26
Adventurers, Merchant, of Exeter, 84, 87
Aliens not to be taken as apprentices, 64, 82
Almshouses, 73, 109, 137
Altrincham, 26
Amalgamation natural in Middle Ages, 31
and at all times, 140
Anager, 83
Andover, 25, 35, 147
Anglo-Saxons, gilds of, 12
municipal organisation of, 13
Apothecary, 28
Apprentices, 39, 40, 46, 47, 52, 64, 66, 81
Arthur, son of Henry VII., 79
Arundel, Earl of, 27
Ashton, Thomas, 79, 119
Assistants, 5, 41
Assize of Arms, 11
Axbridge, 27, 85
Bailiffs, assist gilds, 37
assisted by gilds, 36
supervise gilds, 37, 40
Bakers, 28, 59
Bala, 27
Bamborough, 27
Barbers, 28, 45, 58-9, 62, 83-4, 87, 89, 100, 102, 130
Bargains, common, 14, 15
Barnstaple, 27
Bath, 25
Beadle, duties of, 42
Beaumaris, 27
Bedesmen, 63
Bedford, 25
Benefit Clubs, 106, 110
Berwick on Tweed, 26
Beverley, 24, 115
Birmingham, 111, 129
Bishops' Castle, 147
Black Death, 56
Board of Trade, 141
Bodmin, 25
Borough, distinction between Merchant Gild and, 18, 19
rise and development of, 10
incorporation of, 14
position of Merchant Gild in, 14, 16
select body in, 19, 105
classes of inhabitants, 147
Boroughs, list of, possessing Merchant Gilds, 24-28
Boston, 26
Brasier, 53
Brecknock, 147
Brentano, Dr, 7, 9, 104, 105
Bricks, revival of use of, 80
Bricklayers, 118
Bridgenorth, 26
Bridgewater, 26
Bristol, 25, 87, 111
Bromhall, John, 153, 155
Builder, 29
Builth, 26
Burford, 24
Burgesses, 3
charters granted to, 14
small share in work of Parliament, 49
Burgess-ship, qualifications of, 18, 106
not identical with gildship, 18
villains, women, and ecclesiastics excluded from, 18
Burnet, 67
Bury S. Edmund's, 25, 147
Butchers, 28, 57, 59
Byt-fylling, 13
Caerswys, 26
Cambridge, 25, 56, 60, 74
Camden, 79
Canterbury, 12, 24, 147, 148, 150
Cappers, 53
Cardiff, 27
Cardigan, 26, 69
Carlisle, 25
Carnarvon, 26
Carpenters, 28, 59
Carrier, 28
Castle at Shrewsbury, 12
Censers or Tensers, see Shrewsbury
Chantries, 32, 63, 67, 74, 86, 92
Charity Commissioners, 141
Charles II., 87
Charters did not necessarily create the gilds, 55
to burgesses, 14
Chelmicke, Mr, 89
Chepgauel, 18 n.
Chester, 25, 92, 119, 146, 147, 151
Earl of, 25, 146
Chesterfield, 27
Chichester, 24
Cirencester, 27
Civil Services, 141
Clerk, 28, 43
Cloth Trade, 78-9
cloth-workers, 29, 117
cloth-merchant, 57
Clun, 147
Collier, 28
Commissioners for plundering gilds, 73
Commonwealth, 122
Communa, 14, 16
Companies, commercial, 6, 47, 86, 88, 98 et seq., 140
Compositions, 37-8, 55 n.
Conflicts between Merchant Gild and Craft Gilds, 5, 9, 20, 21
Congleton, 26
Conquest, Norman, 10
Continent, commerce with, 10
merchant gilds of, 5, 9, 20, 21
Conviviality, 13, 44, 111
Conway, 26
Cooks, 28, 59
Coopers, 28
Cordwainers, 35
Corn-dealer, 28
Cornwall, 149
Earl of, 26, 27
Corporations, municipal, 14, 16, 105, 109, 127
_Corps-de-métier_, 8
Corpus Christi, gilds and Feast, 33, 43, 59, 63, 115, 118
Cottoners, 90
County Towns, their former importance, 3, 122-3
Coventry, 26, 115
Craft Gilds, earliest mention of, 34
become numerous, 35
favoured by Merchant Gild, 20, 22, 34, 36
take over work of Merchant Gild, 20, 35
motives for forming, religious, 31-2
social, 33
commercial, 34
police, 36
incorporated, 38, 55
at Shrewsbury, 10
favoured by municipal authorities, 36, 38, 43
composition of, 39
officers, election unrestricted, 40
wardens, 41
assistants, 41
stewards, 42
beadle, 42
searcher, 43, 46, 87
clerk, 43
treasurer, 43
key-keeper, 44
take oath before bailiffs, 37, 40
meetings, 43
importance of, commercial, 45
social, 33, 34, 47-50
constitutional, 48-9
as benefit clubs, 50
specially interesting at present time, 49-51
development of trade introduces abuses, 56-7
policy of reform, 58
demoralisation, 65-7
robbed by government, 67 et seq.
effects of this, 75 et seq.
reorganisation, 81, 84-97
its effects on gilds, 82
intimate connection of later companies with corporation, 85-6, 99,
105, 120-22
they retain many of old gild characteristics, 87-8, 108-9
though altered conditions make their work difficult, 88, 98
and companies themselves are unsatisfactory, 98-102, 105
they change to capitalist companies, 103-5
from which journeymen are excluded, 106
difficulties of reform, 107-8
contemporaneous opinion of, at end of 18th century, 109-12
destruction of, 136-137
return to organisation partly on gild principles, 141-144
Craftsman of middle ages, 49
degraded by Reformation, 75
Cranmer, 68
Criccieth, 26
Crispin and Crispianus, 118, 125
Custumarii, 147
Cyveiliog, Earl of, 26
Davies, Thomas, 92
Denbigh, 27
Derby, 25
Despenser, le, 27
Devizes, 26
Devon, 150
Dixon, Canon, 71
Domesday Book, 11, 148
Doncaster, 28
Dover, 12
Drapers, 29, 32-3, 59, 73, 83-4, 90-7, 99, 101, 108-9, 126, 131
Dugdale, 116
Dunheved or Launceston, 26
Dunwich, 25
Durham, 25
Bp of, 26
Dutch, 82
Dyer, 38
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 141
Edward the Confessor, 12
Edward I., 16, 26, 27, 35, 58
his conquest of Wales, 2, 146, 154
Edward II., 27
Edward III., 27, 35, 59
Edward IV., 28, 38, 42, 58, 59, 62, 65, 79, 82, 117, 154
Edward VI.'s confiscation of gild property, 33, 62, 67, 118
Elizabeth, 35, 76-79, 81, 84, 86, 117, 118
Enclosures, 78
"England the birthplace of Gilds", 9
English Gilds differ from continental, 5, 9, 20, 21
Ethelred, 13
Exchequer, 11
Exeter, 84
Fairs, freedom of trading at, 15, 146
Family sometimes considered the germ of the Gild, 7
Farquhar, 123
Faversham, 81 n.
Feasts of Gilds, 13, 44, 111
Fee Farm or firma burgi, 17, 18, 19, 22
Fellmongers, 39
Feltmakers, 99
Fire-engine supported by gilds, 106, 137
Fishmongers, 29, 59
Flemings, 82
Fletchers, 59
Flint, 26
Fordwich, 25
"Foreigners," Forinseci, 19, 20, 98, 110, 147
Foresters, 68
Four Men, 41-2, 104
France, _corps-de-métier_ in, 8
French, 82
French company, 94
Freemen of companies, 39, 53, 106
Friendly Societies, 68, 116, 139, 142
Frith bot, 13
Frith gilds, 8, 13, 46, 140
Frizers, 90
Fullers, 35
Funerals attended by brethren, 43
Fusion of races shown in Shrewsbury gild records, 16
Gainsborough, 27
Garnisher, 28
George IV., 126
German Merchants, 82
Gildhall, at Dover, 12
becomes town hall, 17-18
Gild Merchant, see Merchant Gild
Gilds, see Companies, Craft Gilds, Frith Gilds, Merchant Gilds, Monks'
Gilds, Religious Gilds, Yeoman Gilds
differences between English and foreign, 5, 9, 20, 21
universality of gild feeling, 7
earliest gild statutes, 9
Glanvill, 17
Gloucester, 25
Earl of, 24
Glovers, 28, 39, 59, 83, 87, 101, 118
Godiva, 116
Goldsmith, 28, 53, 109
Grammar Schools, 74
Grampound, 27
Grantham, 28
Great Yarmouth, see Yarmouth
Greeks, gilds among, 7
Griffith, Earl of Cyveiliog, 26
Grimsby, 151
Grocers, 109, 131
Groom, 28
Guildford, 26
Haberdashers, 100
Halls of Gilds, see Gild Hall, 42, 44
Hansarii, 147
Harlech, 26
Harper, 29
Harrison, 78, 80
Hart, Mr, 134
Hartlepool, 26
Haverfordwest, 25
Hawkers, 29
repressed by companies, 130
Hedon, 27
Helston, 25
Henley-on-Thames, 27, 147
Henry I., 10, 11, 14, 24-34
Henry II., 10, 11, 14, 17, 25, 146
Henry III., 26, 146
Henry IV., 2, 27, 59, 65, 150
Henry V., 27
Henry VI., 28, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 155
Henry VII., 65, 66, 79
Henry VIII., 66, 67, 73, 79, 118, 150
Henry de Lacy, 26
Hereford, 25
Historical attitude essential in studying history of gilds, 44
Hope, 27
Hugh le Despenser, 27
Huntingdon, 35
Incorporation, municipal, 14, 16
Indentures of apprenticeship, 46, 52, 64
Infirmary, 109
Inns of Court, 119
Intrants, 148
Intruders and Interlopers, 89, 98
cf. also Foreigners
Ipswich, 18, 25
Irish not to be taken as apprentices, 82
Iron Trade, 78
Ironmongers, 53, 109
James I., 84, 95
Jews, 78
John, 14, 18, 25
Journeymen, 39, 40, 106
Judge, a member of Merchant Gild, 29
Justices Itinerant, 11
Justices of the peace, 81
S. Katharine, 118, 150
Kenfig, 27
Kinaston, Mr, 95
King's Bench, 11
Kingsland, 125, 127
Kingston-on-Thames, 26
Kirkham, 27
Lampeter, 27
Lancaster, 27
Launceston, 26
Leather-sellers, 39
Leech, 29
Leet assesses Tensers' fines, 150
loses its powers, 105, 150
Leicester, 24, 147, 153
Leve-lookers or leave-lookers, 151, 152
Lever, Thomas, 74
Lewes, 24
Lincoln, 25, 35, 146, 147
Liskeard, 26
Liverpool, 111
Livery, 43, 65
Llanfyllin, 27
Llantrissaint, 27
Lloyd, John, 80
Local Government Board, 141
Local history, value of, 10
Local life, always varied in England, 1
Locksmith, 29
London, 111
its "laws", 13
its Anglo-Saxon Gilds, 12
its Craft Gilds, 35
its rivalry with provincial towns, 92, 124
its modern pre-eminence, 1, 3, 123
Lostwithiel, 26
Ludlow, 28, 79, 109
Lyme Regis, 26
Lynn Regis, 25, 69
Macclesfield, 26
Machinery, introduction of, 4
Magna Carta, 136
Malmesbury, 25, 147
Marches, of Wales, 2, 148
Lords of, 2
Court of, 2, 89
President of, 2
Markets, 13, 15
Marlborough, 25
S. Mary, Chantry in Church of, 53
Mary, 118
Mason, 29
Masters, 40-41, 67, 75-76, 103, 105
May Day, 5, 98, 120
Mayor administers oath of admission, 99
Mellent, Robert, Earl of, 24
Mercers, 33, 44, 53, 59, 62, 63, 64, 73, 82, 83, 84, 88, 101, 103, 108,
126, 131, 135, 137, 138,
of York, 84
Merchant, 14, 29, 38, 48
Merchant Gilds, the chief difference between town and country, 12, 21
originated to preserve peace, 12, 21
compared with Frith Gilds, 13, 46
trade regulations follow, 13
earliest mention, 14
royal authorisation, 14, 21
at Shrewsbury, 10, 14
effects, 16, 22
chronological list of, 24-8
relations with communa, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 34
with Craft Gilds, 20
compared with Trades Unions, 46
functions and privileges of, 14-16, 18-19, 21
duties of gildsmen, 17
comprised majority of householders, 15, 22
all branches of trade, 16, 19, 30
and professions, 18
and women, 18
and ecclesiastics, 18
a rallying point for burgesses, 16, 22
all burgesses are gildsmen, 16
but all gildsmen are not burgesses, 18
efforts towards municipal objects, 20
gild hall becomes town hall, 17
in later years delegates its mercantile functions to Craft Gilds, 20,
22, 30, 34, 36
who sometimes in aggregate receive name of "Merchant Gild", 35
subsequent history, 35
S. Michael, patron of Mercers' Company, 53, 63
Militia, national, 11
Miller, 29, 59
Monasteries, 8, 67, 77
Monks' Gilds, 8 (and n. 2), 59, 140
Monks excluded from burgess-ship, 18
Montgomery, 26
Mornspeche, 43-44
Mortmain Acts, 55 (n. 2), 61
Much Wenlock, see Wenlock
Municipal Corporations Act, 127, 136, 156
Municipalities, see Boroughs
Mynde, Abbot, 61
Neath, 27, 147
Nevin, 27
Newborough, 27
Newcastle-on-Tyne, 25
Newcastle-under-Lyme, 26
Newport (Salop), 26
Newport, 27
Newton, 27
Norfolk, 69
Norman Conquest, 10
favours trade, 13, 21
Norwich, 147
Nottingham, 25
Oaths, 39, 53
Odd Fellows, 68
see Friendly Societies
Oswestry, 27, 89
rivalry with Shrewsbury, 91-96
Overton, 26
Oxford, 25, 35
Pageants, 4, 33, 42, 63, 113-127
Painters, 118
Palmer, 29
Parchment-makers, 39
Paul's Cross, 74
Peasant Revolt, 56
Pelterer, 29
Pembroke, Earl of, 27
Petersfield, 24
Pewterer, 53
Plasterer, 28
Plymouth, 28
Pointmaker, 39
Police regulations aided by gilds, 65, 108
Pontefract, 28
Poor maintained by Craft Gilds, 33, 47, 80
Portsmouth, 26
Potter, 29
Pre-emption, gildmen's right of, 15
royal right of, 145
Preston, 25
Priest, 29
Privileges of gildsmen, 15, 17, 63, 64, 65
Processions, see Pageants
Puritans, 120, 125
Pursers, 39
Pwllheli, 27
Reading, 26, 35
_Recruiting Officer_, 123-4
Reformation, its shock to industry, 3, 6, 77
to gilds, 67
Reform movement fatal to companies, 6, 127
and Show, 127
Religion and trade, 5, 107, 125
Religious Gilds, 60
of Holy Trinity, 59
of S. Winifred, 31, 59-62
frequently connected with trade, 60
Residence not requisite for membership of Merchant Gild, 18
Restoration, 122, 125
Rhuddlan, 27
Richard I., 14, 16, 25
Richard II., 27, 65, 82
Richard III., 28
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, 26
Robert de Belesme, 11
Rochester, 26
Roger de Montgomery, 11, 12
Romans, gilds of, 7
Rowley's Mansion, 80
Rubens, 118
Ruyton, 27
Saddlers, 29, 59, 131
Saffron Walden, 27
Salisbury, 25
_Salopian Journal_, 109
Scarborough, 26
Schools maintained by Gilds, 33
Lancaster, 109
Searcher's duties, 43
Severn, 123
Shearmen, 5, 32, 59, 79, 83, 90, 103, 117, 120-2
Shoemakers, 28, 32, 57, 58
Shrewsbury, its strong individuality, 1
its geographical position, 2
early growth, 2, 3
in Domesday, 11
depressed by Conquest, 11
taken by Henry II., 11
later prosperity, 3
streets and houses, 4
its abbey, 11, 31, 60
castle, 12
peculiarities of its gild history, 5, 40-42
its gild-records, 10, 16
gilds, 4, 36, 58-9
gild hall, 17
gild-chantries, 32, 63, 74, 92
religious gilds, 31, 59-62
Merchant Gild confirmed, 14, 25, 146
incorporation of Craft Gilds, 58-9
early history of, 55-76
Reformation changes, 77-97
obtains monopoly of Welsh cloth trade, 3, 91-7
rivalry with Coventry, 63
in 16th century, 76, 79
with Oswestry in the 17th century, 89-96
with Chester, 92
with London, 92, 124
typical of the 17th century, 4, 122-5
influence of machinery upon, 4
later degeneracy of its companies, 98-112, 129-139
Shrewsbury Show, 113-127, 137
Tensers of, (Appendix 155) and other towns, 147
etymology, 149-150
their fines, 150
status, 152-154
privileges, 147, 155
relations with burgesses, 155
later history, 155
Skinners, 36, 38, 41, 59, 83, 89, 118
Skins, seller of, 29
Smiths, 84, 88, 118
Social Gilds, see Religious Gilds
Socialists, 141
Social life changed by newer conditions, 1, 123
Somerset, 67
Southampton, 25
Stafford, Earl of, 27
Stallingers, 148
Stamford, 28, 115
Steen, Widow, 101
Stephen, 24
Stewards, duties of, 42
Stow, 120
Strype, 74
Suffolk, Earl of, 95
Sunderland, 26
Sword Cutler, 28
Tailors, 28, 32, 36, 38, 41, 44, 57, 59, 83, 84, 88, 89, 101, 117
Tanners, 28, 57, 59, 98-9
Tavern-keeper, 29
Tensers, see Shrewsbury
Teynterer, 29
Thegn-right obtained by three voyages, 48
Thurstan, Abp of York, 24
Tolls paid by ungildated merchants, 146-156
Totnes, 18 (n. 6), 25, 147
Town bargains, common, 15
Townhall, 17-18
Towns, growth of, in twelfth century, 10, 21
differed little from country, 12, 21
trade their _raison-d'être_, 13
town gild, 13, 31
struggle of classes in continental, 9
but not in English, 9
growth of select body, 19, 105
Trade favoured by Conquest, 10, 13, 35
expansion of, 20
localisation of, 31
Trade Unions, 47, 68, 141-144
Treasurer of gild, 43
Tudor, Owen, 79
Universities, 119
Usury, 33, 78, 80
Villain enfranchised by joining Merchant Gild, 16, 22, 30
Vintners, 59
Vulcan, 118
Wake, John, 27
Wales, 2, 30, 146, 154
incorporated with England, 79
cloth trade of, 3, 89-97, 99
Prince of, 27, 38, 79
Wallingford, 25
Walsall, 28
Wardens' Oath, 39
Warenne, Reginald de, 24
Warwick, 69
Warwickshire, 116
Weavers, 29, 32, 34, 44, 59, 131
Weddings, 43
Welshpool, 26
Wenlock, 28
Weymouth, 28
Wigan, 147
leve-lookers or gate-waiters at, 152
William I., 10
Wilton, 24
Winchester, 16, 25, 35, 85, 147, 148, 155
Windsor, 26
S. Winifred, 31, 59, 61
Witan, 13
Wite, 60
Women, members of gilds, 39, 40
but not burgesses, 18
Woodman, 29
Woodstock, 28
Wool-comber, 28
wool-buyer, 29
woollen-trade, 78
Worcester, 26, 147, 149, 154, 155
Working men, of middle ages, 49
degraded by Reformation, 75
and by subsequent policy, 106
hopes for their future, 142-144
Worsted Trade, 78
Wrekin, 124
Wycombe, 27
Yarmouth, 25, 147
Yeomen gilds, 5
York, 24, 84, 115
Abp Thurstan of, 24
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I speak of the old edition. I have not had the advantage of using the
newer work.
[2] That the land did not contain a population adequate for its
cultivation is evident from a Statute of 1350 which allows the people of
the Marches of Wales (and Scotland) to go about in search of work at
harvest-time, as they had been accustomed to do aforetime. (_Rot. Parl._
II. 234.) _Work and Wages_, pp. 131-2.
[3] Cf. Thackeray, _The Four Georges_, p. 320, "decayed provincial
capitals, out of which the great wen of London has sucked all the life."
[4] Macaulay. _History of Eng._, Vol. I. pp. 165-6. Infra, Chap. VII.
[5] Cf. infra, Chap. VII.
[6] Brentano, 44, 52, 54, 58. Green, _Short Hist._, 193. G. Howell,
_Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, 22-25, 29, 31.
[7] Cunningham, _Growth of Industry_, 212. Brentano, 90, 95.
[8] Cf. infra, Chap. V.
[9] Cf. especially Chap. VII.
[10] _The Hist. and Development of Gilds._ Cf. especially Note 1.
[11] _Ibid._ 8. "The objects of the [Greek: eranoi] were of the most
varied description; ... associations of this kind were very common in the
democratic states of Greece, and to this class the numberless political
and religious societies, corporations, unions for commerce and shipping,
belonged." Boeckh, _Public Economy of Athens_, p. 243.
[12] Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, Vol. VI. p. 247, n. 1, where several
interesting parallels with the Mediæval Gilds will be found. (Cf. also
infra, p. 34, note 2.)
[13] E. Hatch, Bampton Lectures, Lect. II. notes.
[14] Cunningham, p. 124.
[15] Cf. _Die klösterlichen Gebets Verbrüderungen bis zum Ausgange des
Karolingischen Zeitalters_, von Dr Adalbert Ebner. Similar spiritual
confederations are found in Italy in the second quarter of the eighth
century, and in the ninth they become common in southern Europe. Alcuin
speaks of them by the terms _pacta caritatis_, _fraternitas_,
_familiaritas_. The monks of the allied houses were termed _familiares_.
Dr Brentano (p. 20) says that at later times "conventions like that
between the Fraternity of London Saddlers and the neighbouring Canons of
St Martin-le-Grand, by which the saddlers were admitted into brotherhood
and partnership of masses, orisons, and other good deeds with the canons,
were common."
[16] Brentano, pages 1, 2. They are printed in Kemble's _The Saxons in
England_, Vol. I. Appendix D.
[17] Brentano, 49.
[18] Gneist, _Self Government_, Vol. I. p. 110; _Verwaltungsrecht_, Vol.
I. p. 139.
[19] Stubbs, III. 576, 578.
[20] _Work and Wages_, p. 126.
[21] Stubbs, I. 452.
[22] Stubbs, I. 449: _Select Charters_, 63, cap. 27, 28: 67, cap. iii.,
viii., 1., etc.
[23] _Select Charters_, 66, 12: 72, 6.
[24] Stubbs, I. 450.
[25] _Select Charters_, 67, iii., viii., 1.
[26] _Ibid._ 72, ii. cap. 6.
[27] Cunningham, 129, Stubbs, I. 452, Brentano, 42.
[28] Gross, I. 5; II. 28, 37. See note 1 to this Chapter.
[29] Cf. note 1 to this Chapter.
[30] _Ibid._
[31] _Select Charters_, 167 etc.; Stubbs, I. 452, and n. 1; Eyton's
_Shropshire_, XI. 134.
[32] _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159.
[33] Gross, I. 135, 136 and notes; II. 133, 149.
[34] _Ibid._ I. 42.
[35] Cf. note 2 to this Chapter.
[36] _Select Charters_, 265.
[37] _Select Charters_, 162, "Communam scilicet gildam."
[38] Gross, I. 83 and note 1.
[39] Stubbs, I. 451.
[40] _Select Charters_ (Helston), 314.
[41] Gross, I. 54. The Rolls of the Shrewsbury Merchant Gild contain a
large number of names of "foreigners." For instance in 1209 there were
apparently 56 foreigners; in 1252 these had increased to 234.
[42] Printed in Gross, II. 114-123.
[43] _Select Charters_, 166 (Charter of Henry II. to Lincoln).
[44] Gross, II. 235, and cf. note 2 to this Chapter.
[45] Cf. the "Chepgauel" at Totnes. Gross, II. 236.
[46] Gross, I. 57.
[47] Owen and Blakeway, I. 169-174. Erskine May, _Const. Hist._ III.
276-77.
[48] This close relationship of, and actual difference between, the two
bodies is very distinctly seen at Bristol in the reign of Edward IV., when
it was the custom for the Mayor and Council of the town to choose the
chief officers of the Merchant Gild, and to pass ordinances for its
regulation. Gross, II. 25.
[49] On the early use of coal, cf. _Work and Wages_, p. 124.
[50] The Statutes of Labourers first gave a recognised position to the
"men who neither held land, nor were free burgesses," but who had a
dwelling, and paid the rates of some town. Cf. Cunningham, 193-4. Supra,
p. 19.
[51] _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159; _Economic Interpretation_, p. 298.
[52] Cf. "Butchers' Row" at Shrewsbury, where also the High Street was
formerly called Bakers' Row (Pidgeon's _Handbook_, old Ed. p. 37). The
Street which was afterwards known as Single Butcher Row had been earlier
called "Shoemakers' Row" (Phillips, p. 200).
[53] Cf. the Monks' Gilds alluded to above, p. 8 and n. 2.
[54] "Which is now the only fragment left to the incumbent of the Church's
income before the Reformation." S. A. S. x. 223.
[55] Longfellow expresses this well in _The Golden Legend_:
"The Architect
Built his great heart into these sculptured stones,
And with him toiled his children, _and their lives
Were builded, with his own, into the walls,
As offerings unto God_."
[56] At Worcester a Gild School educated 100 scholars. The substitute
which the Government provided at the Reformation was for less than half
that number. Toulmin Smith's Collection, p. 203 and note.
[57] Ordinances of the City of London, framed in 1363.
[58] The Greeks had private Societies called [Greek: thiasoi] and [Greek:
orgeônes] which also presented this feature. Cf. Foucart, _Les
Associations réligieuses chez les Grecs_.
[59] Brentano, 54. Cunningham, 203, n. 2.
[60] Cf. supra, p. 20. In writing thus I have not forgotten that an
opposite view is taken by Dr Brentano, Mr J. R. Green, Mr Geo. Howell, and
in fact most of the writers who have touched on the subject.
[61] Gross, I. 114.
[62] Hartlepool, 1673. "It is ordered at a general guild ... that
whosoever ... shall presume to come in and within the liberty of this
corporation, to trade or occupye ... to the prejudice of the free trades
and companyes within the corporation" etc. Gross, II. 106-7.
[63] Cunningham, 209, n. 1.
[64] Tailors' Composition, of 1478.
[65] The Bailiffs are to apprehend on the third day any person coming to
the town "suspitiouslie w{th}oute anie lawfull errand or occasion," and to
detain him in prison "till he have found suertie of his good bearing or
els to avoide the towne." "And if anie man be comitted to their warde by
the wardens w{th} the fower men ordeigned to the said wardens to be
assistaunt in counsell in good counsell giving of anie crafte w{th}in the
said Towne and Frauncheses that then that person that is so comitted to
warde ... be not deliv'ed out of warde by the Bailiffs w{th}out assent and
agreement of the said wardens and fower men." "Item ... that no manne of
their Crafte journeyman or other be attendant nor at the calling of anie
gentleman, nor to noe other person otherwise than the lawe will but onlie
to the wardens of their Crafte for the good rule of the same and assisting
of the Bailiffs for keeping of the peace and for good rule of the Towne."
Mercers' Composition, 1480-81. The searcher is "to make serche and espye
all suche p'sones as frawdelentlye abbrygg, w{t}draw or cownceyle the
payments of theyre dewties" (such as Toll, Murage, etc.).
No livery is to be worn except that of the Gild or Corporation. When the
town bell rings the alarum members of the Gild are to go to the help of
the Bailiffs only.
[66] Tailors' Composition, of 1478. Cf. _Eng. Gilds_, pp. 286, 385, 407,
420, etc.
[67] There are examples of the town drawing up trading ordinances to which
the Gildsmen conformed. Cf. The Usages of Winchester and the Ordinances of
Worcester in _Eng. Gilds_, pp. 349, 370. Cf. also pp. 334-337.
[68] Also before they could hold land in mortmain it would be necessary to
obtain a charter.
[69] The Oath of the Freemen of the Mercers' Company is given as a note to
this Chapter.
[70] Cf. Appendix.
[71] "The position of master and journeyman was not that of capitalist and
labourer, so much as that of two fellow-workers, one of whom, from his
superior status, was responsible to the town for the conduct of both."
Cunningham, 211. As showing the position of an apprentice in the 15th
century a Shrewsbury Indenture is given as a note to this Chapter.
[72] Cunningham, 211, n. 1. Brentano, 40, 68.
[73] "The Stock in Trade required to set up in business was not great and
an apprentice when his term of service was over, became a master almost as
a matter of course. Journeymen were scarce, or at any rate not plentiful
enough to have much influence on Trade.... Thus Capital and Labour were
united." _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159, p. 53.
[74] Brentano, 40.
[75] Merewether and Stephens.
[76] For interference with Free Election on the Continent cf. Brentano.
[77] Tailors' Composition, 1563.
[78] Cf. infra, Chap. VI.
[79] Cf. the four Auditors to superintend the accounts of the London
Grocers (1348) and the six members who were chosen "to aid the Wardens in
the discharge of their duties" (1397), of whom Mr George Howell says:
"_Other than these, no notice of the existence of a committee or of
assistants, in England, appears earlier than the sixteenth Century_."
_Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, p. 40. Brentano, p. 62. Cf. the four
Assistants in the Merchant Gild of Ipswich, Gross, I. 24.
[80] The "Four Men of Counsel" of the Mercers were, by the Composition of
1480-81, chosen by the Wardens.
[81] Mercers' Composition, 1480-81. Tailors' and Skinners', 1563.
[82] Tailors' Composition, 1563.
[83] Several of these are in the Town Museum at Shrewsbury.
[84] A "Key-keeper" appears later in the lists of officers.
[85] Their situation is given in _Some account of the Ancient and Present
state of Shrewsbury_, published in 1808.
[86] Barbers' Composition (1483 A.D.).
[87] _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159, p. 44.
[88] _Select Charters_, p. 65.
[89] _Elizabethan England_, p. 9.
[90] Stubbs, _Constitutional History_, Vol. III., p. 607.
[91] The writs issued in 1388 order returns of the "Charters and Letters
Patent _si quas habent_": cf. Toulmin Smith, pp. 128, 130. The
"Compositions" spoken of below were renewals and confirmations of
previously enjoyed privileges. They usually assert that the Gild has been
in existence "a tempore quo non extat memoria."
[92] Charters were also necessary before lands could be acquired in
mortmain.
[93] Stubbs, ii. p. 504 and note 1.
[94] Toulmin Smith. Introduction, p. xxiv. It is from these returns that
Mr Toulmin Smith has compiled his collection of ordinances of "English
Gilds," which however comprise but a small portion of the whole, and throw
little or no light on the working of the Graft Gilds. The documents have
not yet been calendared, but they do not appear to contain anything
relating to Shrewsbury.
[95] Cunningham, p. 210, 211.
[96] Green, _Short History_, p. 192.
[97] Cunningham, p. 214.
[98] Brentano, 75: Riley, _Memorials_, 539, 565, 568, 570, 571, &c.
[99] Pidgeon's _Gilds of Shrewsbury_; _S. A. S._, Vol. V. p. 265.
[100] _S. A. S._, Vol. V. p. 266.
[101] Pidgeon's _Gilds_.
[102] Merewether and Stephens. Pidgeon's _Gilds_.
[103] Pidgeon's _Gilds_; _S. A. S._ Vol. x. p. 33.
[104] Those of Abbotsbury, Cambridge and Exeter. Cf. supra, p. 9.
[105] Toulmin Smith, pp. 29, 42, &c.
[106] _Ibid._, 7, 8, 11, &c.
[107] The little that is known about it is given in Owen and Blakeway's
_History of Shrewsbury_, II. 122.
[108] It is printed in _S. A. S._, Vol. V.
[109] _S. A. S._, Vol. VIII.
[110] Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, p. 95.
[111] "None that is of Frenshe, Flemmyshe, Irysh, Dowche, Walshe, or any
other Nacyones borne not beyng at Truse w{t} our Sov'ayne Lorde the kynge,
but onlye mere Englysshe borne."
[112] Such Articles against the wearing of Liveries were common in the
Gild Statutes. Cf. Toulmin Smith, _passim_.
[113] Except by the Nobility to their personal dependents. Cf. Stubbs,
III. 552.
[114] 8 Edw. IV. c. 2.
[115] 22 Hen. VIII. c. 4. The Entrance Fees for Apprentices had been
raised in some cases to 30/- and 40/-. They are now reduced to 2/6
Entrance Fee, and 3/4 Fee on taking up freedom.
[116] 28 Hen. VIII. c. 5.
[117] 1 Edw. VI. cap. 14.
[118] _Hist. of Reformation_, II. 72.
[119] May, 1548; Council Book MS. in the Privy Council Office. Cf. Dixon,
_Hist. of Church of Eng._ Vol. II. page 462, note.
[120] Burnet, _Hist. of Reformation_, IV. 281.
[121] Cf. Gross, I. 162, II. 14, 170, 279.
[122] The Statute 14 Eliz. c. 14 was enacted "For the assurance of gifts,
grants etc. made and to be made to and for the relief of the poor in the
Hospitals etc."
[123] _Memorials_, Vol. II. Part I. page 100.
[124] Against this were to be set the "enclosing" and "non-residence"
grievances.
[125] _Elizabethan England_, p. 11.
[126] _Ibid._, p. 121.
[127] _Ibid._, p. 117.
[128] _Elizabethan England_, p. 117.
[129] _Ibid._
[130] The good work of the Gilds is expressly acknowledged in many
charters of the time, e.g. the charter granted to Faversham (1616) recites
that long experience had shown that the dividing of the government of
towns into several companies had worked great good, and was the means of
avoiding many inconveniences and preposterous disorders, in respect that
the government of every artificer and tradesman being committed to men of
gravity, best experienced in the same faculty and mystery, the particular
grievances and deceits in every trade might be examined, reformed and
ordered. Gross, II. 89.
[131] Cunningham, p. 181.
[132] Cf. especially, 3 Edw. IV. c. 4; 22 Edward IV. c.
[133] Gross, II. 1, 2, 55, 89, 186-7, 208, 250.
[134] Cf. infra, pp. 90-91. The repealing statute (14 Eliz. c. 12) avowed
that not only had the former Act been "supposed for the benefit of the
said town" but had also been intended for the "advancing of the
Corporation of Drapers, Cottoners and Friezers of the said town."
[135] Gross, II. 87.
[136] Gross, II. 281. Cf. also pp. 12, 87, 199, 234, 247-8, 250, 281, 355,
360.
[137] _Ibid._, 12.
[138] _Ibid._, 56, 90, 91, 176, 186, 193, 199, 234, 247, 251, 264, 364,
385.
[139] Merewether and Stephens, 1408.
[140] Cromwell's Charter to Swansea. Gross, II. 234.
[141] Cf. the ordinance which appears in the Tailors' records, A.D. 1711,
April 11. "No combrother shall at any one time have more than two
apprentices, one having served 3-1/2 years before the other apprentice be
bound, and no apprentice above 17 years taken, and he must be unmarried."
[142] It was also directed against the paying of the Shearmen in kind.
[143] Cf. also 18 Eliz. cap. 15 (Goldsmiths): 8 Eliz. cap. 11
(Haberdashers).
[144] In 1570-1 when Sir Henry Sidney, Lord President of Wales, passed
through Shrewsbury.
[145] Shrewsbury Corporation Records.
[146] State Papers, Domestic, 1566? (p. 285).
[147] State Papers, Domestic, 1619, Oct. ?
[148] _Ibid._, 1620, Jan. ?
[149] _Ibid._, 1620, Jan. ? (There are several petitions against other
intruders also, by the countenance of the City of London, "who wish to
engross all markets.")
[150] _Ibid._, 1620, Jan. ?
[151] _Ibid._, 1620, Jan. 28.
[152] _Ibid._, 1620, Feb. 21.
[153] State Papers, Domestic, 1622. Several petitions from North Wales
against the Proclamation.
[154] _Ibid._, 1621. Petition of Drapers of Shrewsbury.
[155] _Ibid._, 1621, May 21. Petition of Clothiers of North Wales: the
Drapers of Shrewsbury are trying to draw all trade to Shrewsbury, which
will be their ruin.
[156] State Papers, Domestic; Oswestry Corporation Records, printed in _S.
A. S._ Vol. III.
[157] In 1622 the Bailiffs had requested a loan from the Mercers towards
the establishing of a market for Welsh cloth in Shrewsbury.
[158] The traders of Liverpool seem to have been the first to do this, so
far as the Welsh trade of Shrewsbury was concerned. Cf. Owen's
_Shrewsbury_.
[159] Orders of Corporation (collected by Godolphin Edwardes, Mayor in
1729). _S. A. S._ Vol XI.
[160] _Ibid._
[161] _Ibid._
[162] Orders of Corporation (1689).
[163] _Ibid._ (1729).
[164] _Ibid._
[165] "1619. That the Corporation endeavour to compel the wardens of the
Bakers' Company to pay their old annuity of £4. 6_s._ 8_d._ (sic) to the
Corporation." Orders of Corporation printed in Phillips' _History of
Shrewsbury_, p. 170.
[166] Orders of Corporation printed in Phillips' _History of Shrewsbury_.
[167] Cf. supra, p. 44.
[168] Glovers' records, 1681.
[169] 1782. Two members were called upon to show cause why they practise a
profession contrary to that they have sworn to follow.
[170] _Britannia Languens_, p. 355.
[171] p. 88.
[172] Consisting however of masters only.
[173] Macaulay, _History of England_, Vol I. p. 204, n.
[174] Cf. Howell, _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, pp. 16, 62, 79, 103,
109, 472.
[175] Resolution of Saddlers in 1798, voting £50.
[176] This sentiment finds expression even in some of the compositions.
[177] That is, masters only, not workmen.
[178] _The Happy Warrior_ of Wordsworth gives us probably a very true idea
of the mediæval conception of the perfect knight.
[179] Cf. Stubbs' _Lectures on Constitutional History_.
[180] Cf. supra, p. 47.
[181] Scott's _Marmion_.
[182] Brentano, p. 21.
[183] _Ibid._ p. 21.
[184] Toulmin Smith, p. 192.
[185] It is a curious coincidence that these two towns which earlier
evinced such jealousy towards one another's procession (cf. supra, p. 63)
should have maintained it longest.
[186] The festivities of the Preston Gild were held at intervals of twenty
years. The last took place in 1882 (cf. Abram, _Memorials_), but many
features place the Preston pageants in a different class from that to
which those of Shrewsbury and Coventry belong.
[187] i.e. Coventry.
[188] Though there is no doubt that the Quarry was used for the
performance of plays by other actors. Cf. infra, p. 119.
[189] Phillips (p. 201) gives the titles of two of these plays: "Julian
the Apostate" (at which Elizabeth intended to be present, but was
misinformed as to the date: when she arrived at Coventry tidings reached
her that it was already performed) in 1565, and "The Passion of Christ" in
1567.
[190] Cf. supra, pp. 5, 36, 85, 92, 98-9.
[191] Cf. supra, p. 90.
[192] Stow's _Survey_, p. 124.
[193] Shearmen's records.
[194] _Ibid._
[195] Taylor MS.
[196] Shearmen's records.
[197] _Ibid._
[198] (1594.) Owen and Blakeway, Vol. I. p. 396.
[199] Macaulay, _History of England_, Vol. I. p. 164.
[200] _Through England on a Side Saddle in the time of William and Mary,
being the Diary of Celia Fiennes._
[201] From the dedication to _The Recruiting Officer_.
[202] Thackeray, _The Four Georges_, p. 320.
[203] Perry, _Church History_, Vol. II. p. 512.
[204] Glovers' records, 1781. "Item, 1/- for carrying the Flag to Church
on Show Day."
[205] Saddlers' records, 1810. "Treasurer to pay 2 guineas to the
apprentices to go to Kingsland on Show Monday, and that they may have the
use of the Cloth, Flag and Streamers belonging to the Company."
[206] Saddlers' records, 1812. "That £10 be allowed to dine the company
instead of going to Kingsland."
[207] Cf. infra, p. 138.
[208] _Britannia Languens_, p. 355.
[209] _The Stranger in Shrewsbury._
[210] _Ibid._ p. 24.
[211] _Ibid._ On p. 28 they are described as being 16 in number. They
appear to have varied considerably in number at different periods.
[212] _The Stranger in Shrewsbury_, p. 24.
[213] _Ibid._ p. 97.
[214] _Ibid._ p. 97.
[215] In 1637.
[216] Though a few patriotic members kept the arbours etc. in repair a few
years longer.
[217] "1822. Thomas Frances Dukes made a Combrother free of all expense,
for his handsome conduct in giving up the Charter." (Mercers' Records.)
[218] Cf. _The Stranger in Shrewsbury_, p. 28.
[219] The Mercers decide that their dinner shall not cost above £25.
[220] A similar case was tried at Ludlow in 1831 when the Hammer-men
obtained a verdict in their favour and a farthing damages.
[221] 5 and 6 Will. IV. c. 76.
[222] _Constitutional History of England_, Erskine May, Vol. III. p. 285.
[223] Section 41. Omnes mercatores habeant salvum et securum exire de
Anglia, et venire in Angliam, et morari et ire per Angliam, tam per terram
quam per aquam, ad emendum et venendum, sine omnibus malis toltis.
[224] These were finally pulled down in 1859.
[225] The Mercers followed this example in 1878.
[226] _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159, p. 50.
[227] _Quarterly Review_, Vol. 159, p. 56. The Drapers' company at
Shrewsbury still survives to manage S. Mary's Almshouses.
[228] In 1835 there appear to have been companies in at least the
following other towns in England, Alnwick, Bristol, Carlisle, Chester,
Coventry, Durham, Gateshead, Haverfordwest, Kendal, Kingston-on-Thames,
Lichfield, London, Ludlow, Morpeth, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oxford, Preston,
Richmond, Ruthin, Sheffield, Southampton, Wells, and York.
[229] Cf. supra, pp. 47-51.
[230] Cf. supra, pp. 105-106.
[231] Howell, _Conflicts of Capital_ etc., p. 494.
[232] The story of the rise of Trades Unions has been told with much
detail by Mr G. Howell in his _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, and by Dr
Brentano in the last portion of his Essay on Gilds.
[233] It is to be hoped that the development of the "New Unionism" will
not frustrate this hope.
[234] Mr John Burns has recently been urging on Trades Unions the
advisability of surrendering this feature, so that the funds may the more
completely be devoted to militant purposes.
[235] By Henry Lytton Bulwer, M.P., in a letter to the Handloom weavers
when they petitioned for the creation of gilds of trade.
[236] Foxwell, _Irregularity of Employment_, p. 72.
[237] "There is of late a partial revival of good workmanship in many
trades ... but it will require years of toil to recover our lost ground in
the markets of the world." G. Howell, _Conflicts of Capital_ etc., p. 225.
Prof. Foxwell points out that "the master cutlers of Sheffield have done
something in [the] direction lately of exposing and punishing
falsification" etc., _Irregularity of Employment_ etc., p. 80 and note. Mr
E. J. Poynter notices that "the firm of which Mr William Morris is the
head, of which indeed he is the sole member, started the idea, now well
understood, that the only possible means of producing work which shall be
satisfactory from every side is to return to the principles on which all
works of art and art-manufacture were executed, not only in the Middle
Ages, but at all epochs up to the beginning of this century." _Ten
Lectures on Art_, p. 274.
[238] This paper was written for the Shropshire Archæological and Natural
History Society, and was printed in substance in their _Transactions_, 2nd
Series, Vol. III., Part ii., p. 253.
Transcriber's Notes:
Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.
Superscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.
The original text includes Greek characters. For this text version these
letters have been replaced with transliterations.
Footnote 118 appears on page 67 of the text, but there is no corresponding
marker on the page.
The original text includes an intentional blank space. This is represented
by ________ in this text version.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Influence and Development of
English Gilds, by Francis Aiden Hibbert
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INFLUENCE AND ***
***** This file should be named 39030-8.txt or 39030-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/0/3/39030/
Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google Print
project.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
