THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY
The control of industry is a subject for the treatment of which there
are materials sufficient for more than one large volume. I do not,
however, regret that I can devote comparatively small space to the
subject, as its principles are simple and admit of broad treatment.
There is, moreover, in the case of the student who is not a specialist,
a danger of obscuring the outlines with a multiplicity of detail.
And there is also the danger of selecting some puzzling and obscure
incident or enactment, due to local causes of which we are ignorant,
and using it as a basis for ingenious generalisations. Broadly
speaking, the Control of Industry may be said to be either External,
by parliamentary or municipal legislation, or Internal, by means of
craft gilds. These two sections again admit of subdivision according
as their objects are the protection of the consumer, the employer or
the workman. Nor can we entirely ignore legislation for purposes of
revenue—subsidies, customs, and _octroi_ dues.
Of industrial legislation by the King's Council, the predecessor of
Parliament, we find very little trace. The royal charters of the
twelfth century confirming or licensing craft gilds may be more justly
regarded as revenue enactments, their object being rather to secure a
certain annual return from the craft to which the royal protection was
granted than to exercise any control over the craft. The proclamation
in the early thirteenth century of the Assize of Cloth and of the
Assize of Bread and Ale may be considered to mark the beginning of a
national control of industry, though in each case existing regulations
were formally adopted rather than new rules imposed. The growth of the
towns and the rise of a wealthy merchant class during the reign of
Henry III. brought about the birth of Parliament, and naturally led to
a certain amount of trade legislation. But with trade—the distribution
of finished products by persons other than the producers—we are not
concerned. Edward III., thanks perhaps to his queen Philippa, from the
cloth land of Hainault, realised the possibilities of the English cloth
manufacture, and endeavoured to foster it by a series of statutes to
which reference has been made above. During his reign, in 1349, the
Black Death, that great landmark in medieval history, by reducing the
numbers of the craftsmen increased the market value of the survivors,
who at once demanded and obtained higher wages. Parliament retorted by
passing the Statute of Labourers,[714] according to which no smith,
carpenter, mason, tiler, shipwright, leather-worker, tailor, or other
artificer was to take higher wages than he had received three years
earlier, before the pestilence. Though this was legislation in favour
of the employer, it was not exactly a case of favouring the wealthy,
for by imposing a penalty on the giver of excessive wages as well as
upon the receiver, an attempt was made to prevent the small employer
being deprived of his workmen by richer rivals. The Act was, so far
as we can judge, inspired partly by fear that the capitalist might
control the sources of labour, and partly by fear that those sources
might get beyond control. Whatever its origin, the statute failed in
its expressed intention, and wages remained, as Thorold Rogers has
shown,[715] permanently higher. This was not due to any laxity in
applying the Act; for many years after it was passed justices were
appointed in every part of England to enforce it,[716] but the records
of their proceedings, as for instance in Somerset in 1360,[717] where
many hundreds of offenders are named, show that the workmen had no
hesitation in demanding, and found no difficulty in getting wages
higher than the law allowed. Wholesale imprisonment as a remedy for
scarcity of labour was scarcely satisfactory, and the small fines which
were inflicted proved no deterrent.
As the position of the artificer had improved after the Black Death,
so the crafts in general were assuming a greater importance in public
estimation, and from about 1380 onwards the regulation of industries
occupies an increasing amount of space on the Statute Rolls. With
their growing influence, most of the crafts began to make their voices
heard crying out for protection, which was usually given them with
a liberal hand. But, although the pernicious effects of protective
measures (deterioration of quality and rise of price) were to a large
extent checked by the control kept over quality and prices by the
national and municipal authorities, the consumer was sometimes roused
to action. One of the best instances of the struggle between public and
private interests is to be found in the case of the Yarmouth herring
fishery. Edward III. had granted to Yarmouth the monopoly of the sale
of herrings on the east coast during the season of the fishery. As a
consequence the price of herrings had risen enormously, and the king
was driven to cancel the privilege: the men of Yarmouth at once began
to pull the strings, and in 1378 recovered their monopoly, with the
same result as before. Once more the consumer made his voice heard, and
in 1382 the Yarmouth charter was revoked, only to be restored in 1385
on the ground that without protection of this kind Yarmouth would be
ruined.
If a large number of parliamentary enactments were protective of the
producer, as for instance the prohibition in 1463 of the import of a
vast variety of goods, from silk ribbands to dripping-pans, and from
razors to tennis balls, including such incompatibles as playing cards
and sacring bells,[718] yet still more were protective of the consumer.
For one thing, of course, a single Act prohibiting certain imports
might protect a dozen classes of manufactures, while the denunciation
of one particular species of fraud would probably lead ingenious
swindlers to invent a succession of others, each requiring a separate
Act for its suppression. Sentimental admirers of the past are apt
to imagine that the medieval workman loved a piece of good work for
its own sake and never scamped a job. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The medieval craftsman was not called a man of craft for
nothing! He had no more conscience than a plumber, and his knowledge
of ways that are dark and tricks that are vain was extensive and
peculiar. The subtle craft of the London bakers, who, while making up
their customer's dough, stole a large portion of the dough under their
customers' eyes by means of a little trap-door in the kneading-board
and a boy sitting under the counter,[719] was exceptional only in its
ingenuity. Cloth was stretched and strained to the utmost and cunningly
folded to hide defects, a length of bad cloth would be joined on to a
length of superior quality, or a whole cheap cloth substituted for
the good cloth which the customers had purchased; inferior leather was
faked up to look like the best, and sold at night to the unwary; pots
and kettles were made of bad metal which melted when put on the fire;
and everything that could be weighed or measured was sold by false
measure.
Prior to the middle of the sixteenth century parliamentary attention
was mainly concentrated on the cloth trade, and the preambles to the
various statutes show that those in authority, including the more
responsible manufacturers, realised that honesty is the best policy in
the end. In 1390 it was pointed out that the frauds of the west country
clothiers had not only endangered the reputations, and even the lives,
of merchants who brought them for export, but had brought dishonour on
the English name abroad.[720] Two years later it was the reputation
of Guildford cloths that had been damaged by sharp practices.[721]
The worsteds of Norfolk had early come into favour on the Continent,
but in 1410 the Flemish merchants became exasperated at their bad
quality,[722] and thirty years later the foreign demand for worsteds
had been almost killed,[723] while in 1464 English cloth in general
was in grave disrepute, not only abroad, but even in its native land,
foreign cloth being largely imported.[724] To give them their due, the
gilds recognised the importance to their own interests of maintaining
a high standard of workmanship, and co-operated loyally with the
municipal authorities to that end.
Although we have classed the control of industries by municipal by-laws
as 'external,' and control by gild regulations as 'internal,' no
hard and fast line can really be drawn between the two. In England,
in contrast to the experience of many Continental states, the two
authorities worked together with very little friction, the craft
gilds recognising the paramount position of the merchant gild or town
council, and the latter, in turn, protecting the interest of the
gilds and using their organisation to control the various crafts. The
question of the origin of gilds is interesting rather than important,
and has given rise to much discussion. It is known that the Roman
crafts were organised into _collegia_, but while it is quite possible
that some of the trade gilds in Constantinople, and even in Italy and
Spain, might be able to trace their pedigrees back to Roman times,
it is more than improbable that there was any connection between the
Roman _collegia_ and the English craft gilds of the twelfth century.
The gilds of which we find mention in Anglo-Saxon records were clearly
fraternities of purely social and religious import. These gilds,
friendly societies for the support of religious observances benefiting
the souls of all the members, and for the mutual relief of such members
as had met with misfortune, survived the Conquest and increased
greatly, till by the end of the fourteenth century there could have
been hardly a village without at least one gild. It is natural to
suppose that in towns, where the choice of gilds was considerable,
there would be a tendency for members of the same trade to join the
same gild. The strength gained by such union under the common bond
of an oath to obey the same statutes and the same officers, and the
advantage of the Church's protection must soon have become obvious, and
as in 1378 we find the weavers of London forming a fraternity whose
ordinances are entirely of a religious nature and contain no reference
to the occupation of the members,[725] so we may well believe that many
of the early gilds, while apparently purely religious, were in fact
trade unions. Whatever may have been the methods in which craft gilds
came into existence, we find them increasing in numbers and influence
from the middle of the twelfth century onwards. Meanwhile, however,
the capitalists and wealthy traders by means of 'merchant gilds' and
similar bodies had so firmly established an oligarchic control over
the towns and boroughs that they were able to keep the craft gilds
in a subordinate position. Everywhere the town authorities, whether
they were mayor and council, or gild merchant, or governors, could
impose regulations upon the crafts, while such rules as the crafts
drew up for their own management were legal only if accepted by the
town council. The case of Coventry was typical, where, in 1421, the
mayor and councillors summoned the wardens of the crafts with their
ordinances. 'And the poyntes that byn lawfull good and honest for the
Cite be alowyd hem and all other thrown asid and had for none.'[726] In
the same way at Norwich in 1449, the mayor drew up a complete set of
ordinances for the crafts.[727] But although keeping a firm hand on the
gilds, and taking measures to protect the interests of the consumers
and of the town in general, the civic authorities left the gilds in
control of the internal affairs of their crafts. So that the craftsman
in his relations to another of the same trade was a gild brother, but
in his relations to all other men he was a townsman.
From the consumer's point of view the regulation of prices was perhaps
the most important problem. The price of raw material was too dependent
upon supply and demand to admit of much regulation, though in 1355
Parliament interfered to bring down the price of iron,[728] forbidding
its export, and ordering the Justices of Labourers (_i.e._ those
appointed to enforce the Statute of Labourers) to punish all who sold
it too high. The local authorities, civic and manorial, took constant
measures to prevent the artificial enhancement of what we may call raw
food stuffs, corn, fish, and meat, the 'regrator and forestaller,'
that is to say, the middleman, who intercepted supplies before they
reached the market and forced prices up for his own sole benefit,
being universally regarded as a miscreant.[729] The economists of that
period had not grasped the fact that the cleverness shown in buying
an article cheap and selling the same thing, without any further
expenditure of labour, dear, if done on a sufficiently large scale,
justifies the bestowal of the honour of knighthood or a peerage. In the
case of manufactured food stuffs, such as bread and ale, the price was
automatically fixed by the price of the raw material, and in general
prices of manufactures were regulated by the cost of the materials.
Even in the case of such artistic work as the making of waxen images,
it was considered scandalous that the makers should charge as much as
2s. the pound for images when wax was only 6d. the pound, and in 1432
the waxchandlers were ordered not to charge for workmanship more than
3d. the pound over the current price of wax.[730] The principle that
the craftsman should be content with a reasonable profit, and not turn
the casual needs of his neighbours to his own benefit is constantly
brought out in local regulations, as, for instance, in London in 1362,
when in consequence of the damage wrought by a great storm tiles were
in great demand, and the tilers were ordered to go on making tiles and
selling them at the usual prices.[731]
The question of prices, which were thus so largely composed of a
varying sum for material, and a fixed sum for workmanship, is very
intimately connected with the question of wages.[732] The medieval
economist seems to have accepted the Ruskinian theory that all
men engaged in a particular branch of trade should be paid equal
wages—with the corollary that the better workman would obtain the more
employment—as opposed to the modern practice of payment according to
skill, which results in the greater employment of the bad workman
because he is cheap.[733] There were, of course, grades in each
profession, as master or foreman, workman, and assistant or common
labourer, but within each grade the rate of payment was fixed—at least
within the jurisdiction of any gild or town authority[734]—unless the
work was of quite exceptional nature, as, for instance, the making
of carved stalls for the royal chapel at Westminster in 1357, where
the rates of pay were almost double those of ordinary workmen.[735]
Wages were at all times paid on the two systems of piece-work and time,
and the hours, which varied in the different trades, and at different
places and periods, were as a rule long.[736] For the building trade at
Beverley in the fifteenth century work began in summer (from Easter to
15th August) at 4 A.M., and continued till 7 P.M.; at 6 A.M. there was
a quarter of an hour's interval for refreshment, at 8 half an hour for
breakfast, at 11 an hour and a half to dine and sleep, and at 3 half
an hour for further refreshment. During the winter months they worked
from dawn till dusk, with half an hour for breakfast at 9 o'clock, an
hour for dinner at noon, and a quarter of an hour's interval at 3.
These hours agree fairly well with those laid down by Parliament in
1496,[737] which were, from mid-March to mid-September, start at 5 and
stop work between 7 and 8, with half an hour for breakfast and an hour
and a half for dinner and sleep (the siesta was only to be taken from
beginning of May to end of July, during the rest of the time there was
to be an hour for dinner and half an hour for lunch—'nonemete'). The
blacksmiths of London worked, at the end of the fourteenth century,
from dawn till 9 P.M., except during November, December, and January,
when their hours were from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M.[738] In the case of the
Cappers' gild at Coventry the journeymen's hours were in 1496 from 6
A.M. to 6 P.M.;[739] but in 1520 they had been increased, being from
6 A.M. to 7 P.M. in winter, and from 5 A.M. to 7 P.M. in summer.[740]
Wages, of course, when paid by the day, varied in winter and summer,
if we may use these terms for the short and long days. In London the
determining dates were Easter and Michaelmas,[741] at Bristol Ash
Wednesday and St. Calixtus (14th October),[742] and in the case of the
workmen at Westminster the Purification (2nd February) and All Saints
(1st November), giving an exceptionally short winter period.[743]
Against the long hours we have to set the comparative frequency of
holidays. On Sundays and all the greater festivals, as well as a
variable number of local festivals, such as the dedication day of the
Church, no work was done, and on Saturdays and the days preceding
festivals work as a rule ceased at four o'clock or earlier. This early
closing was enforced at Norwich[744] in 1490, on the representation of
the shoemakers that many of their journeymen were 'greatly disposed to
riot and idelnes, whereby may succede grete poverte, so that dyuers
days wekely when them luste to leve ther bodyly labour till a grete
parte of the weke be almost so expended and wasted ... also contrary to
the lawe of god and good guydyng temporall they labour quikly toward
the Sondaye and festyuall dayes on the Saterdayes and vigils fro iiij
of the clock at after none to the depnes and derknes of the nyght
foloweng. And not onely that synfull disposicion but moche warse so
offendyng in the morownynges of such festes and omyttyng the heryng of
the dyvyne servyce.' In the case of the founders in London,[745] while
no ordinary metal work, such as turning, filing, or engraving, might be
done after noon had rung, an exception had to be made in the case of a
casting which was actually in progress; such work might be completed
after time, as otherwise the metal would have to be remelted, even if
it were not spoilt by the interruption. So far as Sundays and feasts
were concerned no work was permitted except in the case of farriers,
who were expected to shoe the horses of strangers passing through the
town.[746] A good many shops were open on the Sunday morning until
seven o'clock, especially shoemakers,[747] who in Bristol were allowed
at any time of the day to serve 'eny knyght or Squyer or eny other
straunger goyng on her passage or journee, merchant or maryner comyng
fro the see,' or, during the six Sundays of harvest, any one else who
required boots.[748] Markets during the early part of the thirteenth
century were often held on Sundays, but most of these were soon shifted
on to week days; and fairs were usually associated with a saint's day,
but a fair was an amusement at which the ordinary craftsman was an
interested spectator, though the chapmen and merchants were kept busy
enough. The London rule that Saturdays and vigils counted for wages
as complete days, but that no payment was to be made for the Sundays
and feast days[749] was generally observed, but in the case of workmen
engaged in building operations at Westminster and the Tower the custom
was that wages should be paid for alternate feast days, but not for any
Sundays.[750]
Rules against working at night or after dark are constantly found in
all classes of industries, 'by reason that no man can work so neatly
by night as by day.'[751] There was the additional reason that in many
trades night work was a source of annoyance to neighbours. This was
certainly the case with the blacksmiths,[752] and was probably the
cause of the enactment by the Council in 1398, that no leather worker
should work by night with hammer and shears, knife or file, at making
points or lanyers (laces or thongs).[753] Worst of all these offenders
were the spurriers,[754] for 'many of the said trade are wandering
about all day without working at all at their trade; and then when
they have become drunk and frantic, they take to their work, to the
annoyance of the sick and all their neighbourhood.... And then they
blow up their fires so vigorously that their forges begin all at once
to blaze, to the great peril of themselves and of all the neighbourhood
round.' Nuisances of this nature the authorities put down by stringent
by-laws, in the same way that they banished offensive occupations, such
as the flaying of carcases, the dressing of skins, and the burning of
bricks, outside the walls.[755]
A third reason for the prohibition of night work was that candlelight
not only made good work more difficult, but made bad work more easy.
Not only was it easy to pass off faked leather and other deceitful
goods by the uncertain, artificial light, which was one of the causes
that moved the Council to try to put down 'evechepyngs,'[756] or
evening markets, in London, but it also enabled fraudulent workmen
to avoid the eye of the vigilant searcher or inspector.[757] All
such evasion and secrecy was rightly regarded as suspicious, and
at Bristol, to take a single instance, weavers had to work at looms
visible from the public street, and not in cellars or upstair
rooms,[758] the better class of furs had also to be worked in
public,[759] and ale might not be sold in private.[760] The medieval
system of search or inspection was very thorough, in theory and, so far
as we can judge, in practice also. The search of weights and measures,
provisions, cloth, and tanned leather usually belonged to the mayor or
equivalent borough officer, or in country districts to the manorial
lord, but usually with other manufactures, and very often in the case
of cloth and leather, the mayor deputed the duty of search to members
of the craft gilds elected and sworn for that purpose. They could
inspect the wares either in the workshops, or when exposed for sale,
and seize any badly made articles. The forfeited goods were either
burnt or given to the poor,[761] and the offending craftsman fined, set
in the pillory, or, if an old offender, banished from the town.[762]
To facilitate tracing the responsibility for bad work, weavers,
fullers, hatters, metal workers, tile-makers, and other craftsmen,
including bakers, were ordered to put their private trademarks on their
wares.[763]
The process of search must have been much simplified by the custom
so prevalent in medieval towns of segregating or localising the
trades,[764] so that all the goldsmiths dwelt in one quarter, the
shoemakers in another, the clothiers in a third, and so forth. How far
this was compulsory, and how far a mere matter of custom it is hard
to say, but for those who in addition to or instead of shops sold by
barrows or chapmen, definite districts were usually assigned. So the
London shoemakers might only send out their goods to be hawked between
Sopers Lane and the Conduit, and then only in the morning,[765] and
at Bristol smiths were not to send ironware through the town for sale
in secret places, but either to sell 'in here howse opynlych' or else
at their assigned place by the High Cross, where also all strangers
coming with 'eny penyworthes yclepid smyth ware' were to stand.[766]
The principle of segregation was carried out still more strictly, as
we might expect, in the markets. A list of the stalls in the provision
market at Norwich in 1397[767] shows forty butchers' stalls together,
followed by forty-five fishmongers and twenty-eight stalls in the
poulterers' market, of which nine were used for fresh fish; then there
were fifteen shops belonging to the corporation in the wool-market,
and the great building of the 'Worthsted Celd,' to which all worsteds
sent in from the country had to be brought.[768] Other trades were
localised in the same way, and the two divisions of leather-workers,
the cordwainers and the workers of the inferior 'bazan' or sheep's
leather, were bidden each to keep to their own set of stalls to prevent
confusion and fraud.[769]
As the trades were kept each to its own district, so was the craftsman
restricted to his own trade. By a law issued in 1364 artificers were
obliged to keep to one 'mystery' or craft,[770] an exception being
made in favour of women acting as brewers, bakers, carders, spinners,
and workers of wool and linen and silk,—the versatility of woman, the
'eternal amateur,' being thus recognised some five centuries and a
half before Mr. Chesterton rediscovered it. Later statutes forbade
shoemakers, tanners, and curriers to infringe on each other's province.
It is true that at Bristol[771] we find a puzzling regulation that
if a man who had not been apprenticed to tanning practises the craft
to which he was apprenticed and also uses the craft of tanning, he
shall not pay anything to the tanner's craft but to his own craft and
his 'maistier servaunt de tanneres-crafte' shall discharge the dues,
etc. of a master of the craft. But probably this belongs to the later
fifteenth century after the rise of capitalist employers; if not, it
is certainly exceptional, the general tendency being to keep trades,
and more especially the allied trades, separate, in order presumably
to avoid the growth of 'combines' and monopolies. For this reason
fishmongers and fishermen were forbidden to enter into partnership in
London,[772] because the dealers, knowing the needs of the city, would
be able to manipulate supplies and keep up prices. The case against
allowing all the branches of one trade to come under single control is
vividly set out in the case of the Coventry iron workers in 1435:[773]—
'Be hit known to you that but yif certen ordenaunses of Craftes withein
this Cite, and in speciall the craft of wirdrawerz, be takon good hede
to, hit is like myche of the kynges pepull and in speciall poor chapmen
and Clothemakers in tyme comeng shallon be gretely hyndered; and as
hit may be supposed the principall cause is like to be amonges hem
that han all the Craft in her own hondes, That is to say, smythiers,
brakemen,[774] gurdelmen and cardwirdrawers; for he that hathe all
these Craftes may, offendyng his consience, do myche harme. First in
the smethyng, yif he be necligent and mysrule his Iron that he wirkithe
be onkynd hetes or elles in oder maner, the whiche when hit is so
spilt is not to make no maner chapmannes ware of, Neverthelater for
his own eese he will com to his Brakemon and sey to hym:—"Here is a
ston of rough-iron the whiche must be tendurly cherysshet." And then
the Brakemon most nedes do his maisters comaundement and dothe all
that is in hym; and then when the Brakemon hathe don his occupacion,
that that the mayster supposithe wilnot in no wyse be holpen atte
gurdell, then hit shall be solde for hoke wire. And when hit is made
in hokes and shulde serve the Fisher to take fisshe, when comythe hit
to distresse, then for febulness hit all-to brekithe and thus is the
Fissher foule disseyved to hys grete harme. And then that wire that
the mayster supposithe will be cherisshed atte gurdell, he shall com
to his girdelmon and sey to him as he seid to the brakemon:—"Lo, here
is a stryng or ij that hathe ben mysgoverned atte herthe; my brakemon
hathe don his dener, I prey the do now thyne." And so he dothe as his
maister biddethe hyme. And then he gothe to his cardwirdrawer and
seithe the same to hym, and he dothe as his maister biddithe hym.
And then when the Cardmaker hathe bought this wire thus dissayvabely
wrought he may not know hit tille hit com to the crokyng,[775] and then
hit crachithe and farithe foule; so the cardmaker is right hevy therof
but neverthelater he sethe because hit is cutte he must nedes helpe
hymself in eschuing his losse, he makithe cardes therof as well as he
may. And when the cardes ben solde to the clothemaker and shuldon be
ocupied, anon the teeth brekon and fallon out, so the clothemaker is
foule disseyved. Wherfore, sirs, atte reverens of God in fortheryng of
the kynges true lege peapull and in eschueng of all disseytes, weithe
this mater wysely and ther as ye see disseyte is like to be, therto
settithe remedy be your wyse discressions. For ye may right welle know
be experience that and the smythier and the brakemen wern togider, and
no mo, and the cardwirdrawers and the middlemen[776] togider, and no
mo, then hit were to suppose that ther shuld not so myche disseyvaball
wire be wrought and sold as ther is; for and the craft were severed
in the maner as hit is seide above, then the cardwirdrawers and the
myddelmen most nedes bye the wire that they shull wirche of the
smythier, and yif the cardwirdrawer were ones or thies disseyved with
ontrewe wire he wolde be warre and then wold he sey unto the smythier
that he bought that wire of:—"Sir, I hadde of you late badde wire. Sir,
amend your honde, or, in feith, I will no more bye of you." And then
the smythier, lest he lost his custumers, wolde make true goode; and
then, withe the grase of Godd, the Craft shulde amend and the kynges
peapull be not disseyved with ontrewe goode.'
The interests of the craftsmen, or producers, were as a whole opposed
to those of the consumers. It is true that they co-operated, as we
have seen, with the local authorities in maintaining the standard of
workmanship, because the craft that did not do so would soon find
itself 'defamed and out of employ,'[777] but it was obviously to
their interest to keep up prices by the limitation of competition
and of output. Their success in restricting competition varied very
greatly in different trades and places. In Lincoln, for instance,
no tiler might come to work in the town without joining the tilers'
gild,[778] while in Worcester, so far was this from being the case,
that the tilers were not even allowed to form a gild at all.[779] As
a whole the gilds had the townsmen behind them in their opposition
to outsiders. The traditional attitude of the Englishman towards a
stranger has always been to 'heave half a brick at him,' and as far
back as 1421 the authorities at Coventry had to order 'that no man
throw ne cast at noo straunge man, ne skorn hym.'[780] The sense of
civic, or even parochial, patriotism was more developed in those times,
and it was generally felt that while artificers ought not to work for
outsiders unless there was no work to be had within the town, on the
other hand, employers ought to give the preference to their fellow
townsmen and not send work out of the town.[781] As to encouraging
strangers to settle within their walls, sentiment varied in different
places. At Beverley in 1467 it was enacted that any person might come
and set up in his craft without any payment for the first year—except
a contribution towards the church light and the yearly pageant
maintained by his craft—but after that he should pay yearly 12d. to
the town and 12d. to his craft until he became a burgess and member of
the gild.[782] But the attitude of Bristol, where no one might weave
unless he became a burgess (and a gild brother) was more typical of
the general feeling.[783] There was, however, at Bristol a rule that
a stranger who had come to the town on a visit, or to wait for a ship
might work at his trade for his support during his stay.[784] This rule
did not hold good, apparently, at Hereford, as a London tailor, whose
master had allowed him during an outbreak of plague to go and stay
with relations in Hereford, was imprisoned by the wardens of the local
tailors' gild because he did some tailoring for the cousin with whom
he was staying, in order to pay for his keep.[785] At Norwich, by the
ordinances of 1449, no 'foreign dweller' might have any apprentices or
even a hired servant unless the latter was absolutely necessary for
his business, and in that case at the end of a year he must either 'buy
himself a freeman,' or, if too poor to buy the franchise, 'live under
tribute to the sheriffs.'[786]
One advantage that the resident manufacturer had over the foreigner
was that his wares entered the local market without the handicap of
paying customs or _octroi_ dues. Long lists of these dues on every
conceivable kind of merchandise, from bears and monkeys to peppercorns,
are to be found in the records of many towns,[787] more especially
seaports. It is true that the burgesses of many towns, and the tenants
of many religious houses were theoretically exempt from paying these
dues, but it is probable that the delay and worry of proving such
exemption was often felt to be a greater loss than payment. So far as
the alien importer was concerned, although there was no such thing
as a protective duty (the import of an article was either prohibited
altogether or unrestrained), he might find himself called upon to pay
a higher, even a double, import duty on all his merchandise. This
policy of discriminating against the alien, combined with the continual
harassing of the unfortunate foreign merchants, induced many alien
settlers to take out letters of naturalisation, and the long lists of
these in the fifteenth century[788] show how numerous and widespread
these aliens were. Coming for the most part from Flanders and the
Low Countries, they settled not only in London and the other great
towns, but in the smaller market towns and villages throughout the
country, exercising their various trades as goldsmiths, clothmakers,
leather-workers, and so forth. In London in particular the foreign
element was very large from an early date and, as a result of the
invitation issued by Edward III. to foreign clothworkers and their
exemption from the control of the native clothiers' gild, we have
the exceptional occurrence of a gild of alien weavers. This gild,
itself divided by the rivalries and quarrels of the Flemings and
Brabanters,[789] was unpopular with the native weavers because, while
competing with them for trade, they did not share in the farm or rent
paid by the native gild to the king, and in general there was a strong
feeling against the aliens in London, which was fanned by the craft
gilds and occasionally culminated in rioting, the murder of some of the
foreigners and the plunder of their shops.
While the gilds were constantly coming into conflict with outside
interests, there was also an internal conflict of interests between
the masters, the hired servants, or journeymen, and the intermediate
class of apprentices. This becomes more noticeable towards the end of
our period. While there was occasional friction between employer and
employed even before the second half of the fourteenth century, it was
during the next two centuries that the rise of the capitalist, coupled
with the descent of the small independent masters into the position of
journeymen, brought about strained relations between the two classes.
In the earlier period in most of the trades there was reasonable
prospect for any craftsman that he would be able to set up as an
independent master, but as time went on the difficulty of attaining
independence increased. The growing attraction of town and craft life
as compared with agriculture swelled the ranks of the craftsmen,
and the gilds, whose management was in the hands of the masters,
endeavoured to limit competition by raising their entrance fees and
more especially by raising their 'upsets,' that is to say the fees
which had to be paid by a craftsman upon setting up as a master. One
of the earliest instances of this restriction of competition occurred
in connection with the weavers' gild of London, concerning whom it was
reported in 1321 that they had during the last thirty years reduced
the number of looms in the city from 380 to 80.[790] In this case the
object was to benefit all the members of the gild at the expense of
the public, and not to protect existing masters from rivals within
the gild, and the method employed was therefore the raising of the fee
for entrance to the gild. This same weavers' gild was so far ahead of
its times that it had instituted the modern trade unions' restriction
of output, no member being allowed to weave a cloth in less than four
days, though such a cloth could easily be woven in three if not in two
days.[791] But this was a most exceptional move, if not absolutely
unique.
How far the desire to restrict output was at the bottom of regulations
forbidding the employment of more than a strictly limited number of
apprentices and journeymen, and how far such prohibitions were inspired
by fear of the monopolisation of labour by capitalists it is difficult
to say. Probably the dread of the capitalist was the chief incentive
for such regulations, which are very numerous; the cobblers of Bristol,
for instance, being restricted to a single 'covenaunt hynd,'[792]
and the cappers of Coventry allowed only two apprentices, neither of
whom might be replaced if he left with his master's leave before the
end of his term of seven years.[793] The same principle of fair play
between employers led to the ordaining of heavy penalties for taking
away another man's servant, or employing any journeyman who had not
fulfilled his engagement with his previous master, and to the strict
prohibition of paying more than the fixed maximum wages. As this last
provision was sometimes got over by the master's wife giving his
servants extra gratuities and gifts, this practice was forbidden at
Bristol in 1408, except that the master might at the end of a year
give 'a courtesy' of 20d. to his chief servant.[794] As the unfair
securing of labour by offering high wages was forbidden, so the use of
the cheap labour of women was as a rule regarded with disfavour. The
fullers of Lincoln were forbidden to work with any woman who was not
the wife or maid of a master,[795] and the 'braelers,' or makers of
braces, of London, in 1355, laid down 'that no one shall be so daring
as to set any woman to work in his trade, other than his wedded wife
or his daughter.'[796] A century later the authorities at Bristol went
even further, for finding that the weavers were 'puttyn, occupien
and hiren ther wyfes, doughtours and maidens, some to weve in ther
owne lombes and some to hire them to wirche with othour persons of
the said crafte,' whereby many 'likkely men to do the Kyng service
in his warris, ... and sufficiently lorned in the seid crafte ...
gothe vagraunt and unoccupied,' absolutely forbade the practice in
future, making an exception only in the case of wives already so
employed.[797] Of child labour we hear very little, one of the few
notices being an order on their behalf made, suitably enough, by
Richard Whittington in 1398, that whereas some 'hurers' (makers of fur
caps) send their apprentices and journeymen and children of tender age
down to the Thames and other exposed places, amid horrible tempests,
frosts, and snows, to scour caps, to the very great scandal of the
city, this practice is to cease at once.[798]
Apprenticeship was from quite early times the chief, and eventually
became the only, path to mastership. The ordinances of the London
leather-dressers,[799] made in 1347, and those of the pewterers,[800]
made the next year, give as alternative qualifications for reception
into the craft the completion of a period of apprenticeship, or
the production of good testimony that the applicant is a competent
workman. A similar certificate of ability was required of the dyers at
Bristol,[801] in 1407, even if they were apprentices, but as a rule the
completion of a term of apprenticeship was a sufficient qualification.
That term might vary considerably, but the custom of London, which held
good in most English boroughs, eventually fixed it at a minimum of
seven years. This would often be exceeded, and we find, for instance,
a boy of fourteen apprenticed to a haberdasher in 1462 for the rather
exceptional term of twelve years; but in this case the master had
undertaken to provide him with two years' schooling, the first year
and a half to learn 'grammer,' and the next half year to learn to
write.[802] In a list of apprentices who took the oath of fealty to
the king and the city at Coventry in 1494, the terms range from five
to nine years, though the majority were for seven years; during the
first years of their terms, they were to receive nominal wages, usually
12d. a year, and for their last year more substantial rewards, varying
from 6s. 8d. to 25s.[803] The oath to obey the city laws serves as a
reminder that the apprentice, not being a full member of the gild, was
under the charge of the city authorities to some extent. Indentures of
apprenticeship had as a rule to be enrolled by the town clerk,[804] and
in London the transfer of an apprentice from one employer to another
was not legal unless confirmed by the city chamberlain.[805] Besides
having his indentures enrolled, and paying a fee to the craft gild,
the apprentices, or rather his friends, had to give a bond for his
good behaviour. The rights of the apprentice, on the other hand, were
probably always guarded by a right of appeal to the wardens of his
craft: this was certainly the case at Coventry in 1520, the masters
of the cappers being obliged to go once a year to all the shops of
their craft and call the apprentices before them, and if any apprentice
complained three times against his master for 'insufficient finding,'
they had power to take him away and put him with another master.[806]
As a master's interest in his apprentice was transferable to another
master, so it was possible for an apprentice to buy up the remainder
of his term after he had served a portion. He could not, however,
be received into his gild as a master until the whole of his term
had expired,[807] and although it would seem that he could set up in
business by himself,[808] probably he might not employ workmen, and
as a rule he no doubt spent the unexpired portion of his term as a
journeyman.
The journeymen, working by the day (_journée_), either with their
masters, or in their own houses, as opposed to the covenant servants,
who were hired by the year,[809] and lived in their employer's house,
constituted the fluid element in the industrial organisation, and were
composed partly of men who had served a full apprenticeship but lacked
funds or enterprise to set up independently, and partly of others
who had either served only a brief apprenticeship, or had picked up
their knowledge of the craft in other ways.[810] Although more or
less free to work for what employers they would, practically all gild
regulations contained a stringent order against the employment of
any journeyman who had broken his contract or left his late master
without good reason.[811] In the matter of home work rules varied;
the journeymen of the wiredrawers and allied crafts at Coventry in
1435 were allowed to work at home and might not be compelled to come
to their masters' houses,[812] but in London, in 1271, the shoemakers
were not allowed to give out work, as the journeymen were found to go
off with the goods.[813] The vagaries of this class, indeed, caused
much heart-searching to their masters. Instead of being content with
their holidays, and accepting their twelve hours' working day, they
had a pernicious habit of going off on the spree for two or three
days, and amusing themselves by playing bowls, 'levyng ther besynes at
home that they shuld lyve by';[814] and the Coventry employers, with
that touching regard for widows and orphans (or in this case wives
and children) which has always distinguished the English capitalists,
forbade them to frequent inns on workdays, 'as it is daylye seen that
they whiche be of the pooreste sorte doo sytte all daye in the alehouse
drynkynge and playnge at the cardes and tables and spende all that
they can gett prodigally upon themselfes to the highe displeasure of
God and theyre owne ympovershynge, whereas if it were spente at home
in theyre owne houses theyre wiffes and childerne shulde have parte
therof.'[815] Not having any voice in the craft gilds the journeymen
were continually forming 'yeomen gilds,' 'bacheleries,' and other
combinations, which the masters' gilds usually endeavoured to suppress.
In 1387 the London journeymen cordwainers formed a fraternity[816]
and endeavoured to secure it by obtaining papal protection; nine
years later the mayor and aldermen put down a fraternity formed by
the yeomen of the saddlers, at the same time ordering the masters to
treat their men well in future,[817] and in 1415 the wardens of the
tailors complained that their journeymen had combined, living together
in companies in particular houses, where they held assemblies, and
adopting a livery, whereupon the council, in view of the danger to the
peace of the city from such an uncontrolled and irresponsible body,
forbade the combination and ordered the journeymen to live under the
governance of the wardens of the craft.[818] The fraternity of the
yeomen tailors, however, was not so easily suppressed, and is found
two years later petitioning for leave to hold its yearly assembly at
St. John's, Clerkenwell.[819] In the same way at Coventry, when the
journeymen tailors' gild of St. Anne was suppressed in 1420, they
simply changed their patron and reappeared as the gild of St. George,
against which measures were taken in 1425.[820] The charges against the
yeomen saddlers in 1396 were, that they had so forced wages up that
whereas the masters could formerly obtain a workman for from 40s. to 5
marks yearly and his board they had now to pay 10 or 12 marks or even
£10, and that also business was dislocated by the bedel coming round
and summoning the journeymen to attend a service for the soul of a
deceased brother. The clashing of religious observances with business
led to an order at Coventry in 1528 that the journeymen dyers should
make no assemblies at weddings, brotherhoods, or burials, nor make any
'caves' (_i.e._ combinations), but use themselves as servants, and as
no craft.[821] This was practically an enforcement of an order issued
ten years earlier, that no journeymen should form 'caves' without
the licence of the mayor and the master of their craft.[822] Such
a licence would not as a rule be granted, unless the masters were
unusually broadminded, or the journeymen exceptionally strong. There
was, however, at Coventry a recognised fraternity of journeymen weavers
in 1424; their wardens paid 12d. to the chief master for every brother
admitted; each brother gave 4d. towards the cost of the craft pageant,
and the chief master contributed towards the journeymen's altar lamp,
while both masters and servants held their feasts together.[823]
At Bristol also there was a gild of journeymen connected with the
shoemakers' craft, sharing with the craft gild in the expenses of
church lights and feasts.[824]
The success of the London saddlers in forcing wages up is a remarkable
tribute to the power of union; and we find that during the fourteenth
century the strike was well known, and when a master would not agree
with his workmen the other workmen of the craft would come out and
cease work until the dispute was settled.[825] This practice was, of
course, forbidden, but we may doubt with what success. At the same time
the masters were pretty well unanimous in forbidding the employment of
a craftsman whose dispute with his master had not been settled. So far
as the offence of detaining wages due was concerned, penalties were
often laid down in gild ordinances,[826] while in the case of other
disputes the matter would be settled by the council or court of the
craft.[827] The existence of a craft gild practically implied a court
before which disputes between members of the craft or between craftsmen
and customers were tried.[828] Such courts were at first directly under
the borough authorities, the mayor or his deputies presiding over the
weekly courts of the weavers in London in 1300,[829] and although they
seem to have attained a greater degree of independence there seems
usually to have been a right of appeal to the borough court.[830] It
was probably to avoid this that some of the Coventry masters took to
impleading craftsmen in spiritual courts, on the ground that they had
broken their oaths in not keeping the gild rules.[831]
Too much attention must not be given to the quarrelsome side of
the gilds, for they were essentially friendly societies for mutual
assistance. One of the rules of the London leather-dressers was that
if a member should have more work than he could complete, and the work
was in danger of being lost the other members should help him.[832]
So also, if a mason wished to undertake a contract he got four or six
responsible members of the craft to guarantee his ability, and if he
did not do the work well they had to complete it.[833] Again, if a
farrier undertook the cure of a horse and was afraid that it would
die, he might call in the advice of the wardens of his company, but if
he was too proud to do so and the horse died, he would be responsible
to the owner.[834] The rule of the weavers at Hull, that none should
let his apprentice work for another[835] was not an infringement of
the principle of mutual aid, but was designed to prevent evasion
of the order that none might have more than two apprentices; the
fact that a fine was only exacted in the event of the apprentice so
working for more than thirteen days actually points to the loan of
temporary assistance being allowed. While help was thus given to the
craftsman when in full employ, a still more essential feature of
the gilds was their grant of assistance to members who had fallen
ill or become impoverished through no fault of their own.[836] Nor
did their benevolence end with the poor craftsman's death, for they
made an allowance to his widow and celebrated Masses for the repose
of his soul. The religious element in the organisation of gilds,
though very strong, does not affect us very much in considering
their industrial side, but there is one indirect effect which must be
referred to. The custom of all the gilds and fraternities going in
procession to the chief church of their town on certain feast days,
carrying their banners and symbols, gradually developed during the
fifteenth century until each gild endeavoured to outshine its rivals
in pageantry. Payments towards the pageants were exacted from all
members of the trade even if they were not members of the gild, but
in spite of this the expenses were so great that the smaller gilds
were almost ruined, and consequently we find during the latter half of
the fifteenth century schemes to amalgamate, or at any rate to unite
for the support of a common pageant, many of the smaller mysteries
or crafts. An account of a pageant at Norwich[837] about 1450 is
interesting as showing the numbers of these lesser crafts, and the
way in which they were combined. Twelve pageants were presented: (1)
The Creation of the World, by the mercers, drapers, and haberdashers.
(2) Paradise, by the grocers and raffemen. (3) 'Helle Carte,' by the
glaziers, stainers, scriveners, parchemyners, the carpenters, gravers,
colermakers, and wheelwrights. (4) Abel and Cain, by the shearmen,
fullers, 'thikwollenwevers,' and coverlet makers, the masons and
limeburners. (5) 'Noyse shipp' (Noah's Ark), by the bakers, brewers,
innkeepers, cooks, millers, vintners, and coopers. (6) Abraham and
Isaac, by the tailors, broderers, the reders and tylers. (7) Moses
and Aaron with the children of Israel and Pharaoh and his knights,
by the tanners, curriers, and cordwainers. (8) David and Goliath, by
the smiths. (9) The Birth of Christ, by the dyers, calenders, the
goldsmiths, goldbeaters, saddlers, pewterers, and braziers. (10) The
Baptism of Christ, by the barbers, waxchandlers, surgeons, physicians,
the hardwaremen, the hatters, cappers, skinners, glovers, pinners,
pointmakers, girdlers, pursers, bagmakers, 'sceppers,'[838] the
wiredrawers and cardmakers. (11) The Resurrection, by the butchers,
fishmongers, and watermen. (12) The Holy Ghost, by the worsted weavers.
In some cases the smaller crafts seem to have been absorbed into the
larger, but in the Norwich regulations of 1449,[839] when general
orders were given for the annexation of the smaller crafts to the
larger, the bladesmiths, locksmiths, and lorimers, for instance,
being united to the smiths, it was laid down that such of the annexed
misteries as had seven or more members should elect their own wardens,
and that the mayor should appoint wardens for such as had fewer
than seven members. This, which is interesting as showing how small
some of these misteries were, points to a retention of control, the
amalgamation being mainly concerned, no doubt, with the expenses of
the pageant and the gild feasts. These latter became so elaborate and
costly that many of the unfortunate members chosen as 'feast-makers'
were ruined, and in 1495 orders were given at Norwich that the wardens
alone should be feast-makers, and that they should provide one supper
and one dinner, on the same day, and no more, and that should be at
the common expense of the gild.[840] These orders had to be repeated
in 1531, and it is rather interesting to read that in 1547[841] the
dishes which had to be provided by the cordwainers' feast-makers were
'frumenty, goos, vell, custard, pig, lamb, and tarte. At soper—colde
sute,[842] hot sute, moten, douset,[843] and tarte.'
With the pleasant picture of our craftsman resting from his labours and
regaling himself in true English fashion, we may take leave of him and
his work.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Galloway, _Annals of Coal Mining_, 5.
[2] See Wright's _Uriconium_.
[3] Petrie and Sharp, _Mon. Hist._, i, x.
[4] Printed by the Surtees Society and, more recently, in _V. C. H.
Durham_.
[5] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 293.
[6] _Op. cit._ (Rolls Ser.), 160.
[7] Galloway, _op. cit._, 18.
[8] Riley, _Mems. of London_, p. xvi.
[9] Galloway, _op. cit._, 30.
[10] Assize R., 223, m. 4.
[11] Mat. Paris, _Chron._ (Rolls Ser.), vi. 96.
[12] _V. C. H. Glouc._, ii. 218.
[13] Pat., 40 Hen. III., m. 21.
[14] _V. C. H. Shrops._, i. 449.
[15] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 349.
[16] _Ann. Mon._ (Rolls Ser.), iii. 105.
[17] Pat., 35 Edw. I., m. 5d. Complaints had been made and commissions
of inquiry appointed in 1285 (Pat., 13 Edw. I., m. 18d) and 1288 (Pat.,
16 Edw. I., m. 12).
[18] Galloway, _op. cit._, 23.
[19] Colman, _Hist. of Barwick in Elmet_, 205.
[20] Mins. Accts., bdle. 1040, no. 18.
[21] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxix. 174.
[22] _Proc. Soc. of Ant._, xx. 262.
[23] _V. C. H. Lancs_., ii. 359.
[24] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 350.
[25] Add. Ch., 49516.
[26] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 351.
[27] _Ibid._
[28] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 350.
[29] _Ibid._, 351. Cf. a reference to 'le dampe' in 1316: _Hist. MSS.
Com. Rep., Middleton MSS._, 88. This _Report_ contains a great deal of
value for the early history of coal mining.
[30] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 350.
[31] A 'sowe' is mentioned at Cossall in 1316.—_Hist. MSS. Com. Rep.,
Middleton MSS._, 88.
[32] Galloway, _op. cit._, 53.
[33] _Ibid._, 46.
[34] _Finchale Priory_ (Surt. Soc.), p. cccxci.
[35] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 322.
[36] _V. C. H. War._, ii. 221.
[37] In 1366 in the manor of Bolsover, £4, 11s. was paid in wages to 'a
man looking after the coals and mine at Shutehoode, and keeping tally
against the colliers and diggers of the same coals and stones.'—Foreign
R., 42 Edw. III., m. 13.
[38] Except that the coalminers in the Forest of Dean, thanks to their
intimate association with the iron-miners there, shared in the latter's
privileges.
[39] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 322.
[40] Exch. Dep. by Com., 29 Eliz., East. 4.
[41] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 352.
[42] 'Fines for digging coals in the lord's waste,' in fifteenth
century.—Galloway, _op. cit._ 76; 'Licences to dig in sixteenth
century,' _ibid._, 113.
[43] Exch. Dep. by Com., 21 Eliz., Hil. 8.
[44] See, _e.g._, _V. C. H. War._, ii. 219; _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 350;
De Banco R., 275, m. 163d.
[45] Star Chamber Proc., Hen. VIII., file 22, no. 94.
[46] Star Chamber Proc., Edw. VI., file 6, no. 99.
[47] _Rot. Parl._, i. 228, 229.
[48] See _V. C. H. War._, ii. 219.
[49] The rent was sometimes paid, partly or wholly, in kind; as at
Shippen in 1262 (Colman, _Hist. of Barwick-in-Elmet_, 205).
[50] _V. C. H. Shrops._, ii. 454.
[51] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 350.
[52] Such partnerships were not uncommon; _e.g._ in 1351 W. de
Allesworth demanded 2s. 10½d. from Geoffrey Hardyng, as the seventh
part of 20s. paid to Geoffrey and his partners for coal got at
Nuneaton.—Add. Ch. 49532.
[53] Galloway, _op. cit._, 70.
[54] Add. Ch. 48948.
[55] Galloway (_op. cit._, 113-14) gives a late sixteenth-century
case in Wakefield, where the 'heads, pillars, and other works ... for
bearing up the ground' being cut away, the ground suddenly fell in.
[56] Galloway, _op. cit._, 45.
[57] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 324.
[58] Foreign R., 42 Edw. III., m. E.
[59] Pat., 8 Rich. II.
[60] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 148.
[61] Galloway, _op. cit._, 70, 87.
[62] Customs Accts., 106/1.
[63] _Ibid._, 111/40.
[64] _Ibid._, 171/26.
[65] Kendall, _Iron Ores_, 15; _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 241.
[66] _Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxix. 121-9.
[67] _V. C. H. Somers._, i. 275. There was also a 'collegium fabrorum'
at Chichester (Regnum).—_Suss. Arch. Coll._, vii. 61-3.
[68] Kemble, _Cod. Dipl._, no. 30.
[69] _Chron. Evesham_ (Rolls Ser.), 26. The legend was probably
invented as an explanation of the remains of the (Roman) town found
below the ground here, but the tradition of the smiths had no doubt
some foundation.
[70] Dom. Bk., i. 162.
[71] _Ibid._
[72] _V. C. H. Cumberland_, ii. 340.
[73] _Facsimiles of Charters in B. M._, no. 64.
[74] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 356.
[75] Pipe Rolls, quoted in _V. C. H. Gloucs._, ii. 216.
[76] _V. C. H. Gloucs._, ii. 217.
[77] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 241.
[78] See Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, 7.
[79] _Ibid._, 467, 7 (7).
[80] _Ibid._, 467, 7 (7).
[81] _Roy. and Hist. Letters_ (Rolls Ser.), i. 278.
[82] _Furness Coucher_ (Chetham Soc.), pt. iii., Intro.
[83] _Ibid._
[84] Holinshed, _Chron._, sub anno.
[85] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 357.
[86] Peat was mixed with the charcoal in Lancashire, and doubtless
elsewhere, when available.—_V. C. H. Lancs._, ii. 361.
[87] This process was used by the Romans at Beaufort, near Battle, in
Sussex, amongst other places.—_Suss. Arch. Coll._, xxix. 173
[88] _Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxix. 124.
[89] Even after the introduction of the footblast the 'cinders' or
slag, contained about half the original iron, according to Dud Dudley
(_Metallum Martis_), and were worth resmelting in the improved furnaces
of later times.
[90] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xiv. 513.
[91] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 358.
[92] _Furness Coucher_ (Chetham Soc.), pt. iii., Intro., and pp. 261-6.
[93] See above, p. 7.
[94] The same term is used in connection with burning tiles, and is no
doubt derived from the same root as anneal.
[95] This account of the process of manufacture is compiled from
several sources, the chief being: (1) the accounts of Tudeley Forge,
Tunbridge, for the reign of Edw. III., in the P. R. O.; (2) the
accounts of Bedbourne Forge, Durham, in 1408, _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xiv.
509-29; (3) several Sussex accounts summarised by the present writer in
_V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 244-5.
[96] Nicholls, _Iron Making in the Forest of Dean_, 20.
[97] _Cal. Chart. R._, iii. 95-6.
[98] _V. C. H. Glouc._, ii. 219, n. 5. Cf. the twelfth century grant
to the monks of Louth Park of 'duas fabricas, id est duos focos ...
scilicet unam fabricam blomeriam ... unam operariam.'—_V. C. H. Derby_,
ii. 356.
[99] The date of the introduction of hammers driven by water power
is problematic: a 'great waterhamor' was working in Ashdown Forest,
Sussex, in 1496.—Misc. Bks. Exch. T. R., 8, f. 49.
[100] The unworked bloom was called a 'loop,' which appears to be
derived from the French _loup_, a wolf, the German equivalent, _Stück_,
being applied to such a mass of iron.—Swank, _Iron in All Ages_, 80.
[101] A furnace once lit might be kept in blast sometimes for as long
as forty weeks, in the seventeenth century, but the periods usual in
earlier times were no doubt much shorter.
[102] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xiv. 529.
[103] _Furness Coucher_, pt. iii., Intro. The word used is 'band,' but
it is apparently equivalent to 'bloom.'
[104] Exch. K. R. Accts., 485, no. 11.
[105] _Ibid._, 466, no. 20.
[106] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, ii. 202.
[107] Exch. K. R. Accts., 546, no. 16.
[108] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 246.
[109] Exch. K. R. Accts., 483, no. 19.
[110] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 245.
[111] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xiv. 509-29.
[112] Exch. K. R. Accts., 485, no. 11.
[113] Mins. Accts., 890, no. 25.
[114] Latinised in one place as '_anteriores flatores_.'
[115] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, xiii. 128.
[116] At some iron mills near Teddesley in Staffordshire in 1583 the
filler and fyner were identical, and there was a hammerman and a
founder.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 546, no. 16.
[117] Nicholls, _Ironmaking in the Forest of Dean_; _V. C. H. Gloucs._,
ii. 219-23.
[118] This was farmed in 1280 for £23, so that the amount exported
annually must have been well over 10,000 loads.
[119] The surface material which has to be removed before the ore is
reached.
[120] _Arch. Cambr_. (S. 3), iii. 418.
[121] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 247
[122] Exch. Dep. by Com., 22 Eliz., Trin. 4.
[123] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 129-42. For a list of Roman pigs
found in England, see _ibid._, liv. 272.
[124] _Ibid._
[125] Birch, _Cart. Sax._, i. 579.
[126] _V. C. H. Glouc._, ii. 237.
[127] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 323.
[128] Pipe Rolls of Hen. II.
[129] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 348.
[130] _V. C. H. Somers._, ii. 363.
[131] Pat., 20 Hen. III., m. 13.
[132] _V. C. H. Cumberland_, ii. 339.
[133] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 326.
[134] _V. C. H. Somers._, ii. 367-9.
[135] _V. C. H. Cumb._, ii. 340.
[136] Pat., 15 Edw. IV., pt. i., m. 22.
[137] Assize R., 143, m. 1. The Scottish king's dominial rights over
Alston, apart from the mines, seem to have been well established.
William the Lion granted land at Alston as 'in Tyndale,' to William
de Vipont, and later to his son Ivo de Vipont, the latter grant being
confirmed by King John in 1210. Finally, after the whole matter had
been carefully examined, Edward I. gave the manor of Alston in 1282 to
Nicholas de Vipont to hold of the King of Scotland, reserving, however,
the liberty of the mines.—Assize Rolls, 143, m. 1; 132, m. 34; Chanc.
Misc. 53, file 1, nos. 20, 22.
[138] _V. C. H. Cumb._, ii. 340.
[139] Assize R., 143, m. 1.
[140] Assize R., 132, m. 34; 143, m. 1.
[141] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 339.
[142] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 19.
[143] _e.g._ at Eyam and Litton.—_V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 338.
[144] Until the nineteenth century the would-be miner had to set up a
model stow, fastened with wooden pins and not with nails.
[145] _i.e._ forwards and backwards along the line of the vein.
[146] It is not quite clear whether he threw from the old pit, in which
case he would naturally throw a very short distance, or from his own
pit, in which case he might so throw as to cover much of the vein which
would have belonged to the elder pitchers.
[147] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 328.
[148] The Derbyshire standard dish made in 1512 and still preserved at
Wirksworth contains about sixty lbs. of ore.
[149] Assize R., 132, m. 34.
[150] _Ibid._
[151] Memo. R., K. R., Mich., 2 Edw. II., no. 55.
[152] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 332.
[153] Memo. R., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.
[154] The load, or lade (_lada_), contained nine dishes (_disci_,
_scutella_).
[155] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 19.
[156] _Ibid._, 261, no. 25.
[157] Memo. R., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.
[158] In 1302 there were four mines: the South Mine, the Middle Mine,
the Mine of Fershull, and the Old Mine.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.
[159] The smiths were paid 12d.-18d. a week.—_Ibid._
[160] Exch. K. R. Accts., 261, no. 25.
[161] Anct. Corresp., xlviii. 81.
[162] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 16.
[163] Anct. Corresp., xlviii, 81.
[164] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.
[165] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[166] _V. C. H. Durham_, ii. 349.
[167] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[168] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 6.
[169] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[170] _V. C. H. Somers._, ii. 373.
[171] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.
[172] _Archæologia_, lvij, 113-124.
[173] _e.g._ 'In 6510 turbis tannitis emptis ad inde faciendos cineres
pro plumbo affinando.'—Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 4.
[174] Memo., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.
[175] Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 7.
[176] _Ibid._, no. 19.
[177] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[178] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 324.
[179] It is possible that 'cut' is the Celtic word '_cwt_', meaning a
piece, and dates back to British times.—_Ibid._
[180] _Ibid._
[181] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[182] Pat., 27 Edw. I., m. 28.
[183] Exch. K. R. Accts., 126, no. 9.
[184] Pat., 35 Edw. I., m. 19.
[185] Mins. Accts., 826, no. 12.
[186] _Ibid._, no. 11.
[187] Exch. K. R. Accts., 265, no. 9.
[188] _Ibid._, no. 10.
[189] Close 24 Edw. I., m. 11d.
[190] Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.
[191] _Ibid._
[192] Anct. Corresp., xlviii. 177.
[193] 'Minera' may also bear the sense of 'ore.'
[194] Close 7 Edw. II., m. 6.
[195] Anct. Pet., 13552.
[196] Pat., 17 Edw. II., p. 2, m. 15.
[197] Assize R., 135, m. 26d.
[198] Pat., 14 Edw. IV., p. 1, m. 7d.
[199] Pat., 15 Edw. IV., p. 1, m. 22.
[200] Pat., 18 Edw. IV., p. 2, m. 30.
[201] Pat., 2 Edw. IV., p. 1, m. 7.
[202] Exch. K. R. Accts., 262, no. 2.
[203] _Acts of Privy Council_, 1542-7, p. 367.
[204] _Jour. of Brit. Arch. Ass._, lxii. 145-60.
[205] _Archæologia_, lix. 281-8.
[206] _V. C. H. Cornw._, i. 523.
[207] _Ibid._
[208] Vol. iii. of _Harvard Economic Studies_. The same writer has
contributed a valuable article on tin-mining to _V. C. H. Cornwall_.
[209] Lewis, _op. cit._, 5.
[210] Lewis, _op. cit._, 11.
[211] A case of a London goldsmith making engines and instruments
to drain a deep tin mine near Truro occurs in first quarter of the
sixteenth century—Early Chanc. Proc., 481, no. 46.
[212] Memo. R., L. T. R., 9 Eliz., Mich., 3.
[213] Either the channel by which the blast was admitted, or else the
channel conveying water to the wheel.
[214] The ore was sometimes roasted before smelting.
[215] _V. C. H. Cornw._, i. 539.
[216] Lewis, _op. cit._, 133-4.
[217] W. de Wrotham, when appointed warden of the stannaries in 1198,
ordered all masters of ships in Cornwall and Devon to swear not to take
unstamped tin out of the country.—Lewis, _op. cit._, 337.
[218] Lewis, _op. cit._, 190.
[219] _Op. cit._, 187.
[220] _V. C. H. Cornw._, i. 523.
[221] Lewis, _op. cit._, 34.
[222] For output, see Lewis, _op. cit._, App. J.
[223] Lewis, _op. cit._, App. K.
[224] _Ibid._, Apps. L-T.
[225] _Chron. of Battle Abbey_, 11.
[226] _V. C. H. Northants._, ii. 293-5.
[227] _Ibid._, 295.
[228] _Fabric R. of York_ (Surtees Soc.), _passim_.
[229] _e.g._ at the Tower in 1324 'one boatload of Aylesford stone
called rag, 6s.'—Exch. K. R. Accts., 469, no. 7. And in 1362 '8
boatloads of stone called ragg, with carriage from Maidstone, £10, 13s.
4d.'—_Ibid._, 472, no. 9.
[230] _Ibid._, 502, no. 10.
[231] See the Westminster building accounts, _passim_.
[232] _Arch. Cant._, ii. 112.
[233] '20 tontightes de peers de Beer.'—Exch. K. R. Accts., 472, no. 8.
[234] Exch. K. R. Accts., 491, no. 13.
[235] For some fourteenth and fifteenth century references to the
Haslebury quarries, see _The Tropenell Cartulary_ (Wilts. Arch. Soc.),
ii. 148-50.
[236] _V. C. H. Dorset_, ii. 333.
[237] _Ibid._, 339.
[238] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 230.
[239] Exch. K. R. Accts., 305, no. 12.
[240] _Ibid._, 502, no. 3.
[241] _Arch. Cant._, ii. 112.
[242] The 'pondus dolii,' anglicised in other entries as 'tuntight,'
seems to have been about 40 cubic feet.
[243] Presumably from the Yorkshire quarry referred to above; it came
_via_ London.—_Ibid._, 121.
[244] Apparently about 440 tons.—_Ibid._
[245] Pipe R., 16 Edw. III.
[246] The term 'damlade,' of uncertain meaning, seems to be peculiar to
Yorkshire. See _Fabric R. of York_.
[247] Pipe R., 7 Edw. III.
[248] Misc. Bks., Tr. of R., 4, f. 142.
[249] Exch. K. R. Accts., 476, no. 5.
[250] _Ibid._, 461, no. 11.
[251] Exch. K. R. Accts., no. 12.
[252] _V. C. H. Northants._, ii. 296-7.
[253] A similar method of splitting was employed in the case of the
slates of Stonesfield, in Oxfordshire.—_V. C. H. Oxon._, ii. 267.
[254] _Ibid._; _V. C. H. Northants._, ii. 296.
[255] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 230.
[256] Exch. K. R. Accts., 476, no. 5.
[257] _Ibid._, 494, no. 4.
[258] Pipe R., 7 Edw. III.
[259] Exch. K. R. Accts., 502, no. 3.
[260] _Fabric R. of York_, 19.
[261] A fifteenth-century account for Launceston mentions the purchase
of 'An iron tool for breaking stones in the quarry, called a polax,
weighing 16½ lbs., and two new wedges weighing 10 lbs.'—Exch. K. R.
Accts., 461, no. 13.
[262] For a fuller history of the Purbeck marble quarries, see _V. C.
H. Dorset_, ii. 331-8, from which the details given below are taken
when other references are not given.
[263] See articles on 'Medieval Figure Sculpture in England,'
_Architectural Review_, 1903.
[264] Liberate R., K. R., 37 Hen. III., m. 13.
[265] Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 6 (2).
[266] _Ibid._, 469, no. 8.
[267] _Ibid._, no. 12.
[268] _Arch. Journ._, x. 116.
[269] _Arch. Journ._, lxi. 221-40.
[270] See _e.g._ the Flawford and Breadsall figures, _ibid._; and the
catalogue of Alabaster carvings exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries
in 1910.
[271] Pipe R., 41 Edw. III.
[272] _Arch. Journ._, lxiv. 32.
[273] _Ibid._, lxi. 229.
[274] The numerous cases of the export of alabaster carvings from Poole
make it probable that the Purbeck carvers, when the demand for their
marble fell off, worked the alabaster which exists in the district.—_V.
C. H. Dorset_, ii.
[275] Some of these no doubt were sold at the time of the
Reformation.—_Arch. Journ._, lxi. 239.
[276] _Ibid._, 237-8.
[277] _Ibid._, 230.
[278] _Arch. Journ._, lxi. 234-5.
[279] For an account of these, see Mr. Hope's article in _Archæologia_,
xli.
[280] _Arch. Journ._, lxiv. 239.
[281] _Ibid._, x. 120.
[282] _Fabric R. of York_, 74, 78, 84, 90, 106.
[283] _Fabric R. of York_, 15.
[284] Exch. K. R. Accts., 504, no. 4.
[285] _Hundred R._, ii. 56.
[286] Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 4.
[287] Customs Accts., 124/30.
[288] Probably chalk may be taken at about 4d. the quarter.
[289] _Brit. Arch. Ass. Journal_, lx.
[290] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 231.
[291] Chaffers, _Gilda Aurifabrorum_, 19.
[292] _Ibid._, 23-5.
[293] A long chronological list of English goldsmiths is given by
Chaffers, _op. cit._
[294] _Beverley Chapter Act Book_ (Surtees Soc.), ii., p. lxv.
[295] _Cal. of City of London Letter Books_, A., p. 180.
[296] Riley, _Mems. of London_, 350.
[297] Foreign R., 4 Hen. V., m. A.
[298] _Camden Soc._, xxxvii. 42.
[299] Chaffers, _Gilda Aurifabrorum_, 38.
[300] _Ibid._, 8, 9.
[301] Foreign R., 3 Hen. IV., m. E.
[302] _Church Bells of England_, by H. B. Walters, published since this
was in print, contains much valuable matter.
[303] _Chron. Battle Abbey_ (ed. Lower), 17.
[304] Cott. MS. Vesp. A., 22, f. 88.
[305] Stahlschmidt, _London Bell-founders_, 72.
[306] _Ibid._, p. 3.
[307] On the other hand, Fagniez (_Docts. relatifs à l'histoire de
l'Industrie_, ii. 67) says that 'sainterius,' the title applied to
Thomas de Claville who recast a bell for Notre Dame in 1397, is 'fait
sur le vieux nom français des cloches _saints_ ... qui se rattache à
_signa_.'
[308] Ex. inf. Mr. C. H. Vellacott, from Assize Roll.
[309] Most of the London founders recorded by Mr. Stahlschmidt as known
or possible bell-founders used the title 'potter.'—_Loc. cit._, 72-74.
[310] Early Chanc. Proc., 24, no. 138.
[311] Particulars are given in Raven, _Bells of England_, on which this
account is based.
[312] To prevent the core, thickness, and cope sticking together, it
seems to have been usual to dust them over with tan.
[313] Raven, _op. cit._, 74.
[314] _V. C. H. Berks._, ii. 418.
[315] Raven, _op. cit._, 57.
[316] Early Chanc. Proc., 68, no. 144.
[317] _Ch. Ward. Accts. St. Mary-at-Hill_ (E. E. T. S.).
[318] Raven, _op. cit._, 47.
[319] _Ibid._, 319.
[320] _Recs. of St. Michael's._ See also _Ch. Wardens Accts._ (Somerset
Rec. Soc.).
[321] _V. C. H. Berks._, ii. 416. Cf. H. B. Walters, _Church Bells of
England_, ch. xii.
[322] Toulmin Smith, _English Gilds_, 295.
[323] Raven, _op. cit._, 69.
[324] _London Bell-founders_, 3.
[325] _Ibid._, 45.
[326] _Issue R. of Exch._, 239.
[327] _Ibid._, 346.
[328] _Glouc. Corporation Recs._
[329] _Sacrist Rolls of Ely_, ii. 114, 138, where details of the outlay
in the purchase of tin and copper, and of clay for the moulds and other
necessaries are given.
[330] Raven, _op. cit._, 149.
[331] _Ibid._, 90.
[332] _Fabric R. of York_ (Surtees Soc.), 9. Details are given.
[333] Raven, _op. cit._, where illustrations of the three panels are
given.
[334] If the bell-shaped object is really the core, the ornamentation
upon it must be ascribed to 'artist's licence,' as the surface of the
core would in reality be quite plain.
[335] Inq. ad qd. damnum, File 108, no. 15.
[336] Exch. K. R. Accts., 462, no. 16. Amongst the items of expenditure
are 'For eggs and ale bought for making the inscription round the bell
3d. For wax and cobbler's wax (_code_) for the same 5½d.' Possibly a
mixture of eggs and ale was used to anoint the metal letter stamps and
prevent their sticking to the clay of the cope.
[337] Early Chanc. Proc., 24, no. 138.
[338] De Banco, 831, m. 414; and Raven, _op. cit._, 164-6, quoting Year
Book 9 Edw. IV., Easter Term, case 13.
[339] _V. C. H. Shrops._, i. 47.
[340] Ryley, _Mem. of London_, 205.
[341] Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., no. 4.
[342] Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., no. 4.
[343] Foreign R., 9 Ric. II., m. A.
[344] Foreign R., 11 Ric. II., m. H.
[345] _Issue R. of Exch._, 346.
[346] Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.
[347] Foreign R., 3 Hen. IV., m. G.
[348] _Ibid._, m. I.
[349] _Issue R. of Exch._, 277.
[350] An illustration of a gun firing an arrow, drawn apparently in
1326, is mentioned in _Proc. Soc. Ant._ (xvi., 225), and at the battle
of St. Albans in 1461 guns were used shooting 'arowes of an elle of
length.'—_Gregory's Chron._ (Camd. Soc.), 213.
[351] Foreign R., 11 Ric. II., m. G.
[352] Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.
[353] _Issue R. of Exch._, 332.
[354] _Ibid._, 307-8.
[355] Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.
[356] In the Scottish expedition of 1496, five out of thirty-two
'faucons of brasse,' and twelve out of one hundred and eighty
'hakbusses of iren' were broken in action.—Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks.,
7, f. 140.
[357] Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 134.
[358] Early Chanc. Proc., 78, no. 81.
[359] _Issue R. of Exch._, 382.
[360] Foreign R., 12 Hen. VI., m. D.
[361] Figured in _Suss. Arch. Coll._, xlvi.
[362] He was paid at the rate of 16d. the hundredweight.—Exch. Tr. of
R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 139.
[363] _Ibid._, f. 34.
[364] Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 158.
[365] Early Chanc. Proc., 222, no. 112.
[366] Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 132.
[367] _Ibid._, f. 81.
[368] _Ibid._, f. 96.
[369] Early Chanc. Proc., 376, no. 32.
[370] Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 136.
[371] _Ibid._, f. 149.
[372] Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., vol. vii., _passim_, and _L. and P.
Hen. VIII._, vol. i.
[373] Misc. Bks., vol. i., ff. 32, 78.
[374] _Ibid._, ff. 57, 61.
[375] _Ibid._, vol. iv., ff. 166, 181.
[376] See _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 246-9.
[377] _Arch. Journ._, xxx. 319-24.
[378] See _V. C. H. Northants._, i. 206-12.
[379] _Ibid._
[380] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, xvi. 42.
[381] _Brit. Arch. Ass. Journ._, xxxiii.
[382] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, xvii. 261-70.
[383] _Somers. Arch. Soc._, xiii. (2) 1.
[384] The dark colour of the Castor ware seems to have been caused
by 'smothering' the kiln, by closing the vent, before the baking was
complete.
[385] Misc. Accts. 1147, no. 23.
[386] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, xlv. 128-38.
[387] A Roman glazing kiln was found at Castor.—_V. C. H. Northants._,
i. 210.
[388] Fagniez, _Docs. relatifs à l'histoire de l'industrie_, no. 133.
[389] Dom. Bk., 65, 156, 168^{_b._}
[390] _e.g._ 'Pottersfield' at Horsham, in which parish several finds
of green glazed thirteenth-century vessels have been made.—_V. C. H.
Sussex_, ii. 251.
[391] _e.g._ 'Geoffrey the potter,' who occurs in 1314 at Limpsfield,
where remains of kilns have been found.—_Proc. Soc. Ant._, iii.
[392] Lib. R., 51 Hen. III., m. 10. Simon 'le Pichermakere' of Cornwall
is found in the fourteenth century sending his wares (presumably
pitchers) to Sussex.—Anct. Pet., 10357-8.
[393] _Inq. Nonarum_, 361. Cf. the Hundred Rolls for Bucks.
[394] Mins. Accts., 507, no. 8227.
[395] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 251.
[396] _Ibid._
[397] _Arch. Journ._, lix. 1-16.
[398] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, xv. 5-11.
[399] _Rec. of Norwich_, ii., no. 193.
[400] Riley, _Mem. of London_, 254.
[401] _Ibid._, 309. The monks of Boxley got as much as 10s. the
thousand for some of the tiles from their tilery this year.—Mins.
Accts., 1253, no. 13.
[402] Toulmin Smith, _English Guilds_, 399. At Lincoln, on the other
hand, the tilers had formed a gild in 1346, and no tiler not belonging
to the gild might stay in the town.—_Ibid._, 184.
[403] _V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 456.
[404] _Statutes_, 17 Edw. IV.
[405] Thorold Rogers, _Hist. of Agriculture and Prices_, i. 490.
[406] Mins. Accts., 899, 900.
[407] Possibly from the French, _fétu_ = a straw, from their being
moulded as hollow cylinders.
[408] Turf was evidently used by the Cambridgeshire tilers for
fuel.—_Sacrist Rolls of Ely_, ii. 67, 93, 137.
[409] 'Pro luto tredando ad dictos vj furnos pro tegulis inde
faciendis.' The meaning of _tredando_ is uncertain, but as the process
is always mentioned after the clay had been carried to the kilns,
it may have been the rolling of the clay to the right thickness for
cutting tiles from.
[410] The words used for burning, or baking, the tiles are _eleare_ and
_aneleare_, both connected with our word 'anneal.'
[411] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 251.
[412] In 1373 Peter at Gate leased the pasturage of Nackholt, where the
tileries lay, at the low rent of 15s. on condition that he should serve
as 'the lord's workman for making tiles.'
[413] _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 252.
[414] De Banco, 407, m. 12.
[415] Harl. Ch., 76 D., 32.
[416] _Ibid._, B. 50.
[417] Kelle = kiln: cf. Anct. D., A 4904, for a 'tylekelle' at Woolwich
in 1450.
[418] _Chron. de Melsa_ (Rolls Ser.), iii. 179-80.
[419] _Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS._, 15.
[420] _Ibid._, 62.
[421] _Sacrist R. of Ely_, ii. 67.
[422] 'Flaunderistyle vocata Breke.'—Exch. K. R. Accts., 503, no. 12.
[423] _Ibid._, 472, no. 4.
[424] _Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS._, 62.
[425] _Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS._, 128.
[426] _Ibid._, 47. These by-laws distinguish in one place between
'tilethakkers' and 'tile wallers,' the latter being what we should call
bricklayers.
[427] Exch. K. R. Accts., 494, no. 4.
[428] _Ibid._, 467, no. 6 (6).
[429] Such were, no doubt, the paving tiles, of which 185,000 were
bought from Richard Gregory, in 1357, for Westminster Chapel at 6s. 8d.
the hundred.—_Ibid._, 472, no. 4.
[430] Lethaby, _Westminster Abbey_, 48; _Arch. Journal_, lxix. 36-73.
[431] _V. C. H. Derby_, ii. 375. _Ibid._
[432] _V. C. H. Worces._, ii. 275.
[433] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, xi. 230.
[434] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 295.
[435] John of London, 'glasyere,' and John, son of John Alemayn of
Chiddingfold, were acquitted on a charge of burglary at Turwick in
1342.—Gaol Delivery R., 129, m. 12.
[436] Exch. K. R. Accts., 471, no. 6.
[437] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 296.
[438] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 296.
[439] In 1404 the Sacrist of Durham had in store 'of new coloured glass
2 _scheff_, of white glass and new 76 _scheffe_.'—_Durham Acct. R._
(Surtees Soc.), ii. 397.
[440] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 297; _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 254.
[441] Exch. K. R. Accts., 471, no. 6.
[442] _Durham Acct. R._, ii. 393.
[443] _Fabric R. of York_, 76.
[444] _Ibid._, 83.
[445] _Ibid._, 37.
[446] _Cat. of Pat._, 1446-52, p. 255. The glorious windows now in
King's College Chapel were made between 1515 and 1530 by four English
and two Flemish glaziers, all of whom were resident in London.—Atkinson
and Clark, _Cambridge_, 361.
[447] _Fabric R. of York_, 69.
[448] _Ibid._, 104, 108, 109.
[449] Hartshorne, _Old Engl. Glass_, 129.
[450] Ale is also said in one place to have been used 'pro congelacione
vitri.'
[451] 'Frangentes et conjungentes vitrum super tabulas depictas.'
[452] The colours in some cases were fixed by heating, and it
is presumably to this that an entry in an account of work at
Guildford Castle in 1292 refers: 'In uno furno faciendo pro vytro
comburendo—viijd.'—Exch. K. R. Accts., 492, no. 10.
[453] Pipe R., 2 Hen. II.
[454] _V. C. H. Lincs._, ii. 302.
[455] See charter of Stephen, _Cal. Chart. R._, iii. 378.
[456] Pipe R., 19 Hen. II.
[457] Boldon Book.—_V. C. H. Durham_, i. 338.
[458] Printed by Riley, _Liber Custumarum_ (i. 130-1), and, from an
earlier copy, by Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_ (Selden Soc.).
[459] The weavers were not villeins; had they been so, the leave of
their lords would have been necessary before they could obtain the
freedom of their town.
[460] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 33.
[461] _Ibid._, lxiii.
[462] _e.g._ Ashley, _Economic History_, i. 193: 'No cloth was
manufactured for export; and a great part of the English demand for
cloth'—indeed the whole of the demand for the finer qualities—'was met
by importation.'
[463] Pipe R., 18 Hen. II.
[464] Pipe R., 27 Hen. II., and other years.
[465] Pipe R., 28 Hen. II.
[466] The 'list' is the strip of selvage at the edge of the cloth.
[467] Assize R., 358.
[468] Pat., 2 Hen. III., m. 4, 2.
[469] Pat., 9 Hen. III., m. 5.
[470] Lib. R., 30 Hen. III.: some years earlier cloth to be distributed
at Worcester had been bought at Oxford.—Lib. R., 17 Hen. III.
[471] Lib. R., 35 Hen. III., m. 17.
[472] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 124.
[473] _Cal. of S. P. Venice_, i. 3.
[474] Lib. R., 36 Hen. III., m. 19.
[475] _Arch. Journ._, ix. 70-1.
[476] The manufacture of this cloth must have originated in the village
of Worsted, possibly with some settlement of Flemish weavers, but soon
spread throughout the county.
[477] _Rec. of Norwich_, ii. 406.
[478] _Statutes_, 20 Hen. VI.
[479] _Rot. Parl._ iv. 230, 236.
[480] Customs Accts., 5, no. 7.
[481] _Black Book of Admiralty_ (Rolls Ser.), ii. 197. Blues of
Beverley, scarlets and greens of Lincoln, scarlets and blues of
Stamford, coverlets of Winchester and cloth of Totness occur in
wardrobe accounts of 1236. Pipe R., 19, 20 Henry III.
[482] _Black Book of Admiralty_ (Rolls Ser.), ii. 187, 197.
[483] There was an 'omanseterowe' in the Drapery at Norwich as early as
1288.—_Rec. of Norwich_, ii. 8.
[484] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 4, 40. Narrow 'Osetes' were
also made at Salisbury.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 344, no. 34.
[485] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 125; ii. 549.
[486] At Northampton the cloth trade, which in the time of Henry III.
employed 300 men, had almost died out in 1334.—_Rot. Parl._, ii. 85.
[487] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 424.
[488] As early as 1331 special protection was granted to John Kempe
of Flanders and any other clothworkers who wished to settle in
England.—Pat., 5 Edw. III., p. 2, m. 25.
[489] _Statutes_, 11 Edw. III.
[490] _Rot. Parl._, ii. 449, Close 13 Edw. III., p. 3, m. 11.
[491] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 3.
[492] Langland, _Piers Plowman_.
[493] 'A Concise Poem on ... Shepton Mallet,' by Richd. Watts; printed
in _The Young Man's Looking Glass_, 1641. With this may be compared
Deloney's 'Pleasant History of John Winchcombe (Jack of Newbury),'
written some fifty years earlier.—_V. C. H. Berks._, i. 388-9.
[494]
'Then to another room came they
Where children were, in poor array,
And every one sat picking wool,
The finest from the coarse to pull.'
[495]
'Two hundred men, the truth is so,
Wrought in their looms, all in a row;
By every one a pretty boy
Sat making quills with mickle joy.'
[496] The burler's business was to remove knots, loose ends and other
impurities.
[497] The manufacture of these cloths was licensed in 1390, provided
the quality was not improved.—_Statutes_, 13 Ric. II.
[498] Assize R.
[499] _Liber Custumarum_, ii. 549. Spanish wool is prominent amongst
the imports at Southampton in 1310.—Customs Accts., 136, no. 8, n.
[500] _Statutes_, 4 Edw. IV.
[501] _Statutes_, 7 Edw. IV.
[502] An alkali, known as '_cineres_,' possibly a kind of _barilla_ or
carbonate of soda (_Rec. of City of Norwich_, ii. 209) occurs fairly
often: _e.g._ taxation of Colchester, _Rot. Parl._, i. 244.
[503] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 6.
[504] _e.g._ Customs Accts., 136/4, 136/12.
[505] _Recs. of City of Norwich_, ii. 209.
[506] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 16-22.
[507] Lands. MS., 121, no. 21.
[508] Cf. _Rec. Borough of Northampton_, i. 121: the compiler has
mistaken 'wode' for wood.
[509] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 39.
[510] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 81-90.
[511] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 75.
[512] _Early Chanc. Proc._, 7, no. 23.
[513] Exch. K. R. Accts., 345, no. 16.
[514] Plunket appears to have been a pale blue, half the quantity of
woad sufficing for plunkets that was used for azures, which in turn
took half the amount required for blues.—_V. C. H. Suffolk_, ii. 258.
[515] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 129.
[516] There were no doubt the 'browne blewes' of later records: _e.g._
a Benenden clothier was fined in 1563 for 'a browne blewe, being a
deceiptfull color.'—Memo. K. R., 7 Eliz., Hil., m. 330.
[517] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 125.
[518] Alkermes, an insect resembling cochineal.
[519] _Statutes_, 24 Hen. VIII.; cf. 4 Edw. IV.
[520] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 8, 9.
[521] _Rec. of City of Norwich_, ii. 119.
[522] _Statutes_, 4 Edw. IV.; 3 Hen. VIII.
[523] _V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 255.
[524] _V. C. H. Worcs._, ii. 286.
[525] _V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 383-4.
[526] The use of woof in place of warp was strictly forbidden.—_Liber
Custumarum_, i. 125; _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 2. At Worcester
in 1497 any one bringing yarn to be spun into cloth was to bring the
warp and the woof separate.—_V. C. H. Worcs._, ii. 285.
[527] _Rec. of City of Norwich_, ii. 378.
[528] _Rot. Parl._, iii. 618.
[529] _Arch. Journal_, ix. 70: cf. Assize R., 787, m. 86.
[530] _V. C. H. Notts._, ii. 345.
[531] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 4.
[532] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 134.
[533] _Arch. Journ._, ix. 71.
[534] The suspension of worsted weaving for a month from 15 August was
enforced in 1511 to avoid a shortage of agricultural labour during
harvest.—_Rec. of City of Norwich_, ii. 376.
[535] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 423.
[536] _Ibid._ Candlewick Street (now Cannon Street) was the centre
of manufacture of a coarse cheap cloth used for horse trappings, and
also bought in large quantities for the King's almoner from 1330 to
1380.—Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., L. T. R., 2-4.
[537] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 40, 123.
[538] _Statutes_, 8 Hen. VI.
[539] _V. C. H. Shrops._, i. 428.
[540] _Statutes_, 3 and 5 Henry VIII.
[541] Toulmin Smith, _Engl. Gilds_, 179. The gild was founded in 1297,
but this regulation was probably of later date.
[542] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 127.
[543] _Liber Custumarum_, i. 128-9.
[544] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 13.
[545] _Ibid._, 79.
[546] _V. C. H. Notts_., ii. 346.
[547] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 279.
[548] _e.g._ at Nottingham; _V. C. H. Notts._, ii. 346.
[549] _V. C. H. Warw._, ii. 252.
[550] _Ibid._
[551] _Statutes_, 15 Ric. II.
[552] _e.g._ _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 344; _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 257.
[553] Exch. Dep. by Com., 41 Eliz., East. 1.
[554] _Rot. Parl._, i. 243.
[555] _Statutes_, 4 Edw. IV.
[556] _V. C. H. Suffolk_, ii. 262.
[557] Exch. K. R. Accts., bdles. 339-345.
[558] Marcus le Fair of Winchester was the only clothier not a Londoner
from whom cloth was bought for the royal household in 1408.—Exch. K. R.
Accts., 405, no. 22.
[559] _V. C. H. Berks._, i. 388.
[560] _V. C. H. Suffolk_, ii. 256.
[561] _Hist. MSS. Com._, Rep. viii. 93.
[562] Vlnage, or aulnage, from aulne = an ell.
[563] _Statutes_, 2 Edw. III.
[564] The penalty of forfeiture was withdrawn in 1354 as injurious to
trade, deficient cloths being marked with their actual size.—_Ibid._,
27 Edw. III.
[565] _Statutes_, 7, 8, 10 Hen. IV.
[566] _Statutes_, 11 Hen. VI.
[567] _Rec. of City of Norwich_, ii. 407.
[568] _Rot. Parl._, i. 292.
[569] _Statutes_, 13 Ric. II.; 11 Hen. IV.
[570] _Rot. Parl._, iii. 637.
[571] _Statutes_, 20 Hen. VI.
[572] _Statutes_, 4 Edw. IV.
[573] _Statutes_, 18 Hen. VI.
[574] Exch. Dep. by Com., 41 Eliz.
[575] _Statutes_, 5 Edw. VI., 1 Mary, etc.
[576] See Memoranda Rolls, K. R., _passim_.
[577] Memo. R., K. R., Hil. 7 Eliz., m. 329. As an earlier instance,
sixteen drapers in Coventry, thirteen in York, and seven in Lincoln,
besides others elsewhere, were fined in the first quarter of 1390 for
cloths of ray, not of assize.—_Ibid._, Hil. 13 Ric. II.
[578] Exch. Dep. by Com., 30 Eliz., Hil., 8.
[579] _Statutes_, 14-15 Hen. VIII.
[580] Early Chanc. Proc., 141, no. 4.
[581] _Statutes_, 5 Hen. VIII.
[582] _Rot. Parl._, i. 292.
[583] The same material was used in 1323 for the pillows of the king's
new beds.—Enr. Ward. Accts., 3, m. 2.
[584] _Ibid._, m. 10.
[585] _Ibid._, 2, m. 11.
[586] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xvi. 289.
[587] _Rot. Parl._, ii. 347.
[588] _Statutes_, 4 Edw. IV.
[589] _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 343.
[590] _Ibid._, 343.
[591] Exch. K. R. Accts., 344, no. 10. The output from Berks. for the
same period was 1747 kerseys, of which Steventon accounted for 574 and
East and West Hendred for 520.—_Ibid._, 343, no. 24.
[592] Early Chanc. Proc., 140, no. 54.
[593] _Statutes_, 14-15 Hen. VIII.
[594] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 361.
[595] Enr. Ward. Accts., 4, m. 3.
[596] _V. C. H. Worcs._, ii. 284.
[597] _V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 384.
[598] _Hist. MSS. Com._, Rep. viii. 93.
[599] _Rot. Parl._, ii. 278.
[600] Exch. K. R. Accts., 405, no. 22.
[601] _Rot. Parl._, ii. 372.
[602] Enr. Ward. Accts., 5.
[603] Memo. R., K. R., 21 Eliz., East., m. 106.
[604] _Rep. Dep. Keeper of Recs._, xxxviii. 444; suit _re_ draperies at
Norwich, 1601.
[605] Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 46.
[606] The suggestion that this law caused the trade to be established
in Norwich (_Recs. of Norwich_, II. xii.) can hardly be correct, as
there was no forest in Norfolk.
[607] For instances of the infringement of these and other regulations,
see _V. C. H. Surrey_, ii. 331-5; _V. C. H. Sussex_, ii. 259.
[608] Lansd. MS., 74, 55.
[609] _V. C. H. Oxon._, ii. 254.
[610] _V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 459.
[611] _V. C. H. Shrops._, i. 433.
[612] _Rot. Parl._, i. 243-65.
[613] Cott. MS. Vitell., C. vi., f. 239.
[614] Lansd. MS., 74, f. 52.
[615] Add. Chart. 30687.
[616] _e.g._ at Colchester in 1425.—_V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 459; and
at Richmond in 1280.—Assize R., 1064, m. 32. In London the tanners
were held partly responsible for blocking the course of the Fleet in
1306.—_Rot. Parl._, i. 200.
[617] Customs Accts., _passim_; _e.g._ those quoted in _V. C. H.
Dorset_, ii. 327.
[618] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 114.
[619] The use of train oil instead of tallow was forbidden.
[620] _V. C. H. Northants._, ii. 311.
[621] Riley, _Mems. of London_, 421.
[622] Lansd. MS., 74, f. 48.
[623] Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.
[624] Riley, _Mems. of London_, 364-5.
[625] _Ibid._, 331.
[626] _Ibid._, 546-7.
[627] Lansd. MS., 74, f. 49.
[628] _Ibid._, 60.
[629] _i.e._ myrtle.
[630] Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.
[631] _Ibid._, f. 48.
[632] _Ibid._, f. 58.
[633] At Colchester in 1425 the charge for tawing a horse hide was
14d., a buckskin 8d., doe 5d., and calf 2d.—_V. C. H. Essex_, ii. 459.
[634] Right Buffe were made from 'Elke Skynnes or Iland hides brought
out of Muscovia or from by Est'; the counterfeits were of horse, ox,
and stag skins.—Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.
[635] The price given for Spanish skins is probably an error; possibly
the values of the 'right' and 'counterfeit' are reversed.
[636] In 1347 the London white tawyers charged 6s. 8d. for working a
'dyker [a packet of ten] of Scottes stagges or Irysshe,' and 10s. for
the 'dyker of Spanysshe stagges.'—Riley, _Mems. of London_, 234.
[637] Corveiser was a still more common name for a shoemaker.
[638] Riley, _Mems. of London_, 572-3.
[639] _Liber Albus_, ii. 441-5.
[640] Riley, _Mems. of London_, 136.
[641] _Ibid._, 391.
[642] _Little Red Book of Bristol_, ii. 108.