THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE GILDS OF SHREWSBURY.
[Sidenote: _Existed before they held charters._]
In the foregoing chapter it has been shown how the Craft Gilds were called
into being. They possessed at first no charters[91] because none were
needed. It was only when friction arose that there came any necessity for
royal authority to step forward with its support and sanction[92].
[Sidenote: _Scanty notice at first._]
And as they at first possessed no charters, so they have left few or no
records of their earliest life. So long as they worked in thorough accord
with the spirit of the age and completely fulfilled its requirements they
left scanty traces. It is only when the period of degeneracy commences
that we begin to have anything like adequate materials for their detailed
history.
[Sidenote: _Fourteenth century; difficulties for Gilds to face._]
The 14th century was fruitful in illustrations of the difficulties which
beset the work of the Gilds.
The development of trade alone had proceeded far enough to render their
task already complicated: their difficulties were increased abnormally by
the exceptional conditions of labour brought about by the Black Death. The
Peasant Revolt compelled Parliament to take cognisance of industrial
difficulties. In 1388, at its meeting at Cambridge, it was largely
occupied with trade questions[93], and ordered the issue of writs to the
sheriff of each county in England, commanding returns of all details as to
the foundation, objects, and condition of both religious fraternities and
Craft Gilds. These returns show that most of the Gilds obtained their
charters during the 13th and the early years of the 14th centuries[94].
[Sidenote: _Development of industry._]
It does not appear that any legislation followed upon this parliamentary
action, but provisions now begin to appear for the settlement of disputes
between masters and workmen, and also between brethren of the Gild. So far
the different classes of workmen had worked together in harmony upon the
whole, but it could not fail that a severance or at least a marked
diversity of interests should arise. Most important, as demonstrating
that it was the change in external circumstances, and not so much the
internal degeneracy of the Gilds themselves, which was causing the
friction, are the evidences which show that a great division of labour was
in progress[95]. In the 13th century the tailor and the cloth-merchant
sever their former connection: the businesses of the tanner and of the
butcher become distinct branches of trade[96]. Similarly the tanner and
the shoemaker were made separate callings[97]. The same movement is still
more clearly seen in the disputes which arose between allied Gilds as to
the particular work which each was charged with supervising[98]. It was
the creation of opposing interests, of which such were the outward signs,
that introduced the seed of decay into the Gild system.
[Sidenote: _Fifteenth century: avowal of abuses,_]
How rapidly the degeneracy proceeded may be gathered from a petition of
the Commons early in the 15th century (1437), which evoked an Act (15 Hen.
VI., cap. 6) definitely recognising the existence of abuses. After
reciting how the
"masters, wardens, and people of Gilds, fraternities, and other
companies corporate, dwelling in divers parts of the realm, oftentimes
by colour of rule and governance to them granted and confirmed by
charters and letters patent ... made among themselves many unlawful
and little reasonable ordinances ... for their own singular profit
and to the common hurt and damage of the people,"
the statute proceeded to order that the Gilds should not in the future
"make or use any ordinance in disparity or diminution of the
franchises of the king or others, or against the common profit of the
people, nor allow any other ordinance if it is not first approved as
good and reasonable by the Justices of the Peace or the chief
Magistrates aforesaid and before them enrolled and to be by them
revoked and repealed afterwards if they shall be found and proved to
be little loyal and unreasonable."
[Sidenote: _but approval of the system._]
[Sidenote: _Policy of Reform._]
But it is abundantly clear that the complaints are against the abuses of
the system and not against the system itself. Dissatisfaction is expressed
at the "little reasonable ordinances" of the Gilds but not against the
companies themselves. The policy therefore of Henry VI. and Edward IV. was
to reform the Gilds by amending their ordinances, or, if necessary, giving
them charters of incorporation which should set forth definitely their
objects, and state both the extent and the limitation of their powers. It
is from this period that we date most of the existing records of the
Shrewsbury companies. The barbers are said to have been chartered by
Edward I. in 1304[99]; their earliest extant composition[100] is dated
1432 (10 Hen. VI.). The Shoemakers' composition of 1387 recited a charter
of Edward III.[101] A Vintners' company is said to have been erected in
Shrewsbury by Henry IV. in 1412[101].
But it is with the accession of Henry VI. that the great number of present
charters and compositions begins. The date of the Fishmongers' company is
1423[101], and the entries of the Mercers commence in the next year[101].
The Barbers' composition of 1432 has been already mentioned. Then follow
the Weavers (1448-9), the Fletchers (1449), the Carpenters (1449-50) in
close proximity[101]. The Tailors and Skinners (1461) were recognised in
the last year of Henry VI.[101], and eighteen years subsequently received
a new composition from Edward IV. (1478), who had in the first year of his
reign united the Fraternity of the Blessed Trinity with the company of the
Drapers[102]. The companies of the Millers, Bakers, Cooks, Butchers and
Shearmen certainly existed before 1478, as they are mentioned as taking
part in the Corpus Christi Procession at that date. In that year the
Tanners and Glovers were incorporated[103], as also were the
Saddlers[103]. The royal recognition of the Mercers[101] in the next year
completed the list of Shrewsbury companies erected before the 16th
century.
[Sidenote: _Later Religious Gilds._]
It will be convenient here to draw attention to a different kind of Gild
which was founded in Shrewsbury towards the close of this period: the
religious Gild of S. Winifred.
The ancient Monks' Gilds which had spread so early over England, found as
was to be expected later imitators in large numbers. The oldest accounts
of these Gilds also, like those of the Monks' Gilds, are found in
England[104]. Religious or Social they are usually called. They all
evinced a strong religious character, but in addition had a care for the
old and needy. If a Gild-brother suffer loss through theft "let all the
Gildship avenge their comrade," says the Cambridge statute. They also took
cognisance of public welfare. If a Gild-brother do wrong "let all bear it:
if one misdo, let all bear alike." If a man be slain in fair quarrel with
a Gild-brother the _wite_ is to be borne by all, but the wilful or
treacherous murderer is "to bear his own deed."
These Gilds rapidly spread over all Europe, and existed probably in every
town. They doubtless formed the model to which the later associations
looked, and, except in details, differed little from the Craft Gilds. They
were frequently connected with trade, even in some instances consisting
entirely of followers of specific crafts[105], and loans were made out of
the common chest to help members in misfortune[106]. We have scant
information of early religious Gilds in Shrewsbury, though there can be
but little doubt they flourished there as elsewhere. Later, in the 15th
century, one was founded by the Abbot of the Holy Cross, which presents
several unusual and interesting features.
Thomas Mynde was elected Abbot on January 8th, 1460, but it was not till
1486 that he took measures to found the Fraternity of S. Winifred, though
probably the scheme had been previously shaping itself through the long
period of unsettlement which the Civil Wars had caused. The present Gild
differed from the earlier foundations in being deliberately created by
royal charter. The reason was that without such security it could not
receive grants of land, and Abbot Mynde was desirous to bequeath to it his
private possessions rather than to leave them to his Monastery,--a curious
commentary perhaps on the low estimation into which the religious houses
had fallen.
The royal charter was not obtained without some trouble. The License
itself says it was granted "by [reason of] the sincere devotion which we
have and bear towards S. Winefrida Virgin and Martyr;" but Abbot Mynde
assures us that this laudable zeal required the practical stimulus of "a
large sum of money" before it would take effect in action.
The terms of the charter allowed both brethren and sisters to join the
fellowship, the number being unregulated. The oath to support the Gild was
taken by each member on admittance, kneeling before the altar in the Abbey
of the Holy Cross. Power was given for the election of a Master, whose
duties were the regulation of the Gild and the supervision of its
property. The fraternity had its common seal, and the ordinary powers and
privileges of corporations. It was especially exempted from the Mortmain
Acts, and was allowed to acquire property to the yearly value of L10. The
objects to which this was to be devoted were the finding of two Chaplains,
or at least one, whose duties were the saying of a daily Mass at the Altar
of S. Winifred in the Abbey, and the celebration of a Requiem Mass on the
decease of a brother or sister of the Fraternity. At such Masses it was
especially provided that the prayers for the departed soul should be _in
English_.
The Gild was joined in considerable numbers by the principal folk of the
town, but there is little information[107] respecting its history, which
may be at once anticipated here. At the confiscation of the Chantry and
Gild property the fraternity of S. Winifred was not able to plead the
excuse of usefulness for trade purposes, and it fell unnoticed in the ruin
of the great Abbey with which it was connected. Its life had been a short
one, but coming as it did at a time when religious fervour was weak and
morality lax, it no doubt served a useful purpose and deserved a better
fate than almost total oblivion.
[Sidenote: _Charters granted to Craft Gilds._]
Returning after this digression to the Craft Gilds it will be interesting
and profitable to make an examination and comparison of two of their
charters, one selected from the earlier and one from the later portion of
the period. The charter[108] of the Barbers' Gild, granted by Henry VI. in
1432, may be placed beside the composition[109] which Edward IV. gave to
the Mercers in 1480.
[Sidenote: _Religious articles._]
A point which strikes us forcibly on the most superficial examination of
the charters, is the prominence given, in one as in the other, to the
Corpus Christi procession. It is a striking illustration of the extent to
which mediaeval materialism had permeated society, and how deeply rooted
was that "tendency to see everything in the concrete, to turn the parable
into a fact, the doctrine into its most literal application[110]," which
scholastic philosophy had nurtured. The procession indeed would almost
appear, from the charters, to be the principal object for which the Gilds
exist. A considerable share of the fines is expressly devoted to the
"Increce of the Lyght that is boren yerely in the heye and worthie ffest
of Corpus Xti Day." The Mercers' composition regulates the order of the
procession and the weight of the candle which the company provides in it.
No member is to be out of his place on the festival without permission,
and the combrethren are especially prohibited from going to "the Coventrie
Fayre" at this season under penalty of a fine of twelve pence. The fact of
being enabled to take part in the procession is manifestly looked upon as
one of the great privileges and duties of the companies.
The Mercers' Gild also provided for a priest to say a daily Mass at the
altar of S. Michael in the Church of S. Chad; and thirteen poor Bedesmen
were retained at a penny per week to pray for the King and Queen and
Councillors, and for the brethren of the Gild "both quyke and dedd."
[Sidenote: _Trade articles._]
The trade regulations of the two compositions are naturally cast in the
same mould. In both appears the prohibition of foreign labour (the Mercers
say "except in fayre tyme"), and of under-selling by combrethren as well
as unfair competition generally. The later regulations go further and
provide for the carrying out of the ordinances of the composition by the
appointment of a searcher to secure the use of good materials and to
prevent "dissayte and gyle," the use of false weights, &c. They also
forbid the taking of aliens as apprentices[111].
All indentures are to be for seven years at the least, and none are to be
taken as apprentices without being properly bound by indentures approved
by the wardens and recorded by the clerk. There is also the article which
now becomes common, against divulging the secrets of the craft, and an
interesting one against "eny confederacye or embracerye wherebie any
p'judices hurt or hynd'ance myght growe."
[Sidenote: _Articles of reform._]
In the later charter, too, it is evident that there had arisen no small
need for reform. In the forefront it is stated that the previous "Fines
assessyd uppon ev'y App'ntice at their entries to be maysters Combrethyrn
and Settursuppe of the said Craftes or any of them," "and in like wyse
gret Fynes uppon eny Forreyn that shoulde entre into the same" are
"thought overchargeable" and so are to be "dymynished and refowrmed." If
members refuse to pay them, as thus amended, they may be levied by
distress. Of how great a falling-off from the original spirit of
brotherhood do these two short articles speak.
[Sidenote: _Police._]
Both the documents provide for the trial of dissensions among brethren, in
preference to going before the ordinary tribunals, though by permission
cases might be taken before the bailiffs of the town.
[Sidenote: _Liveries._]
In a similar spirit of pacification the Mercers' composition forbids the
wearing of liveries "saving the lyverray of gownes or hodes of the said
Gylde to be ordeyned and worne," and that of the municipal
corporation[112]. This was in accordance with the Act 13 Henry IV. cap. 3.
The abuse of liveries had evoked from Parliament an attempt to put a total
stop to the custom[113] (13 Rich. II.). Such endeavours were futile. This
was at last recognised, and in 13 Henry IV. the use of liveries of cloth
was prohibited, but with the important proviso, "Gilds and fraternities
and crafts in the cities and boroughs within the kingdom which are founded
and ordained to good intent and purpose alone being excepted." In 1468
Edward IV. confirmed previous legislation on the subject[114].
[Sidenote: _Sixteenth century._]
In spite of reforms by improved compositions and legislative measures the
degeneracy of the Gilds proceeded apace. The statute 19 Hen. VII. cap. 7
repeats the complaint of 15 Hen. VI. cap. 6, and re-enacts the same
restrictions. "Divers and many ordinances have been made by many and
divers private bodies corporate within cities, towns, and boroughs
contrary to the King's prerogative, his laws, and the common weal of his
subjects:" in future therefore the Gilds are prohibited from making any
new by-laws or ordinances concerning the prices of wares and other things
"in disheritance or diminution of the prerogative of the King, nor of
other, nor against the common profit of the people, but that the same Acts
or Ordinances be examined and approved by the Chancellor, Treasurer of
England, or Chief Justices." The repetition of the same articles shows how
little effective they had been in checking the abuses against which they
were directed.
[Sidenote: _Policy of reform pursued._]
Nevertheless Henry VII. and Henry VIII. persevered in the work of
regulating, reforming and strengthening the Gilds. The statute of
1530[115] once more diminished entrance fees, which had been inordinately
and illegally raised; but another of 1536[116] repeating the same
prohibition shows the utter futility of such measures in the condition of
trade which had been brought about.
A more serious abuse appears in the latter statute, namely the attempt of
the masters to exact from their apprentices an oath promising to refrain
from prosecuting trade on their own account without consent of their late
master. Such abuses exhibit the Gilds in a state of wholesale
demoralisation.
[Sidenote: _Reformation._]
This was not unnatural under the circumstances, for the course of the
Reformation had tended to turn public opinion against the Gilds. Moreover
it now gave them a severe shock on one side, at any rate, of their
functions.
[Sidenote: _Confiscation of Chantries and robbery of Gilds._]
The confiscation of monastic lands had shown how easy it was for a needy
government to seize upon corporate property to its own use, and the
example was not long without being followed. The statute 37 Hen. VIII.
cap. 4 gave the whole property of all Colleges, Hospitals, Fraternities
and Gilds to the king. Before this wholesale desolation could be effected
Henry died, but Somerset obtained a renewal[117] of the grant to Edward
VI.
The words of the Act are absolute in making over to the king all the lands
and other possessions of Chantries, Colleges, Hospitals, Gilds and bodies
of a similar nature, both religious and secular. No distinction is made as
to aim or object, utility or abuse. According to the terms of the statute,
we should expect every Gild and corporate body in the country to come to
an end with the years 1547-8. Nevertheless though the Chantries were
seized the Craft Gilds in general remained. The reason for this apparent
divergence between the provisions of the statute and the facts of the case
is given by Burnet.
Two parties opposed the passing of the Act. Cranmer and the best of the
Reformers were grieved to see the material supports of the Church one
after another torn away to prop up the failing fortunes of needy and
rapacious courtiers. They desired to preserve the lands of the Chantries
till the king came of age, when they hoped they might be devoted to the
suitable object of augmenting the livings which had been in such numbers
impoverished by the Reformation changes. On the other hand were the
burgesses. These had no mind to see their own property confiscated, and
their benefit societies and clubs suddenly broken up. We may appreciate
the feelings of the nation respecting the proposed measure by considering
what would be the effect of a statute taking over the properties of all
benefit clubs, Trades Unions, Lodges of Oddfellows and Foresters, and
similar associations, to-day.
Cranmer and his supporters failed to overthrow the measure in the Lords,
but when it came to the lower house it was at once evident that a
considerable amount of careful statesmanship and astute policy would be
requisite if the statute was to pass. Apparently no opposition was
expected, as the bill was already engrossed, or perhaps it was hoped that
it might be smuggled through amidst the hurry of the closing session. But
the government discovered that they had gone to the length of the nation's
patience. The Commons saw in its true enormity the conspiracy of the rich
and powerful against the weak and poor, and this once perceived a check
was given, tardy but not quite too late, to the long and disastrous
course of spoliation and confiscation.
The opposition to the bill was obstinate, especially as regarded that
portion which dealt with the Gilds. Led by the members for Lynn and
Coventry the house showed unmistakeably that it was at length determined
to submit no longer. In fact the feeling was evidently so strong that the
government perceived the absolute necessity of drawing back. The mode in
which this was done is explained in the following extract, which, though
written from the court point of view, shows up the whole incident as a
choice specimen of the statesmanship of the period.
"Whereas in the last Parliament holden at Westminster in November the
first year of the King's Majesty's reign, among other articles contained
in the Act for colleges and chantry lands, etc., to be given unto his
Highness, it was also insisted that the lands pertaining to all guilds and
brotherhoods within this realm should pass unto his Majesty by way of like
gift: At which time divers there being of the Lower House did not only
reason and arraign against that article made for the guildable lands, but
also incensed many others to hold with them, amongst the which none were
stiffer, nor more busily went about to impugn the said Article than the
burgesses for the town of Lynn in the county of Norfolk and the burgesses
of the city of Coventry in the county of Warwick.... In respect of which
their allegations and great labours made herein unto the House such of his
Highness's Council as were of the same House there present, thought it
very likely that not only that Article for the guildable lands should be
clashed, but also that the whole body of the Act might either sustain
peril or hindrance, being already engrossed, and the time of the
Parliament's prolongation hard at hand, unless by some good policy the
principal speakers against the passing of that article might be stayed.
Whereupon they did participate the matter with the Lord Protector's grace
and other of the Lords of his Highness's Council: who pondering on the one
part how the guildable lands throughout this realm amounted to no small
yearly value, which by the article aforesaid were to be accrued to his
Majesty's possessions of the Crown; and on the other part weighing in a
multitude of free voices what moment the labours of a few settlers had
been of heretofore in like cases, thought it better to stay and content
them of Lynn and Coventry by granting to them to have and enjoy their
guild lands etc. as they did before, than through their means, on whose
importance, labour, and suggestions the great part of the Lower House
rested, to have the article defaced, and so his Majesty to forego the
whole lands throughout the realm. And for these respects, and also for
avoiding of the promise which the said burgesses would have added for the
guilds to that article, which might have ministered occasion to others to
have laboured for the like, they resolved that certain of his Highness's
Councillors, being of the Lower House, should persuade with the said
burgesses of Lynn and Coventry to desist from further speaking or
labouring against the said article, upon promise to them that if they
meddled no further against it, his Majesty once having the guildable
lands granted unto him by the Act ... should make them over a new grant of
the lands pertaining then unto their guilds etc. to be had and used to
them as before: which thing the Councillors did execute, as was desired,
and thereby stayed the speakers against it, so as the Act passed with the
clause for the guildable lands accordingly[119]."
[Sidenote: _Importance of the Opposition._]
This remarkable document, which Canon Dixon printed for the first time, is
of surpassing interest, not only to the historian of the Craft Gilds but
also to the student of constitutional history. The unscrupulous recourse
of the government to jobbery and corruption is not more revolting than the
evidence of the increasing constitutional power of the Commons is
interesting. It is evident from the account that when the country was with
the house of Commons the voice of the latter could not be disregarded.
The upshot was that an understanding was entered into, to the effect that
the Gild lands were to be only surrendered _pro forma_, and that they
should not in fact be confiscated. In most cases this arrangement was
adhered to, and when the great crisis was past it was seen that the Gilds
had lost their Chapels and Chantries with the fittings of these, but that
their other possessions remained to them.
[Sidenote: _Need of caution._]
It has been pointed out how the increasing constitutional power of the
Commons could make itself felt when the opinion of the nation was at its
back. That it undoubtedly was so at the present juncture cannot be
doubted. The method which was adopted for carrying out the provisions of
the Act demonstrates fully how violently the country had been excited by
the measure and by the danger to which the Gild lands had been exposed.
The usual way of putting such an Act into execution would have been to
send down commissioners to take particulars of the Gilds and Chantries and
of their possessions. But royal commissioners had come to be looked upon,
not without ample reason, as merely the formal heralds of state robbery.
If therefore such commissioners were now sent out to manage the
dissolution of the Chantries and Hospitals it was feared that disturbance
would arise beyond the power of the government to manage. The more politic
plan was therefore adopted of enlisting the people themselves in the cause
as much as might be.
[Sidenote: _Injunctions._]
Injunctions[120] were issued "to the Parson, Vicar, Curat, Chaunter,
Priests, Churchwardens, and two of the most honest Persons of the Parish
of ________ being no Founders, Patrons, Donors, Lessees, nor Farmers of
the Promotions of Corporations hereafter recited."
These, or four of them, were to make a return as to the number of
"Chantries, Hospitals, Colleges, Free Chapels, Fraternities, Brotherhoods,
Guilds and Salaries, or Wages of Stipendiary Priests" in their parish,
together with all particulars as to the revenues, ordinances, objects,
abuses, names and titles of the same. Full lists were to be drawn up of
the lands and possessions of the Chantries, Colleges, and Gilds, and
enquiry was instituted respecting any recent dissolutions or alienations
which might have been made in prospect of the recent Act.
The contingency alluded to in the last article has sufficed to provide
some writers with an excuse for the measure destroying the Chantries. No
doubt the shock which the action of Henry VIII. in reference to the
monasteries had given to all forms of corporate property had led many of
the Gilds to attempt the realization of their property. All such
transactions were to be null and void.
[Sidenote: _Gilds too powerful and popular to be wholly destroyed._]
Accordingly the commissioners went down to each town and hamlet and took
full particulars of all matters concerning the Gilds and Chantries. "All
such as have enye vestments or other goods of the Co{y} [of Mercers are
ordered] to bring them in," in order to be sold, with the rest of the
Chantry fittings, "to the most p'fitt." The fate of the other kinds of
property held by the Gilds, such that is as could not be definitely made
out to have been intended for the support of obits and the maintenance of
lights, seems to have depended considerably on fortuitous circumstances.
In each individual case the Gild had to secure for itself the best terms
it could. Sometimes its property was obtained by the town, either by grant
or by purchase[121]. At Shrewsbury the almshouses of the Drapers and
Mercers survived[122], and the vicar of S. Almond's Church in the same
town still receives the yearly sum which the Shearmen settled on the
chaplain they maintained in that church.
[Sidenote: _Perversion of the confiscated revenues._]
[Sidenote: _Disastrous effects on Gilds, and on Craftsmen._]
As for the object which the Act itself alleged to have been the motive for
the destruction of the Chantries, namely the desire on the part of the
government to devote the revenues to the foundation and improvement of
grammar schools, it was forgotten as soon as parliament had separated.
Strype[123] is obliged to confess that the Act was "grossly abused, as the
Act in the former King's reign for dissolving religious houses was. For
though the public good was pretended thereby (and intended too, I hope),
yet private men, in truth, had most of the benefit, and the King and
Commonwealth, the state of learning, and the condition of the poor, left
as they were before, or worse. Of this, great complaints were made by
honest men: and some of the best and most conscientious preachers reproved
it in the greatest auditories, as at Paul's Cross, and before the King
himself. Thomas Lever, a Fellow, and afterwards Master of St John's
College in Cambridge, in a sermon before the King, in the year 1550 showed
'how those that pretended, that (beside the abolishing of superstition)
with the lands of abbeys, colleges, and chantries, the King should be
enriched, learning maintained, poverty relieved, and the Commonwealth
eased, purposely had enriched themselves.... And bringing in grammar
schools, which these dissolved chantries were to serve for the founding
of, he told the King plainly ... many grammar schools, and much charitable
provision for the poor, be taken, sold and made away; to the great slander
of you and your laws, to the utter discomfort of the poor, to the grievous
offence of the people, to the most miserable drowning of youth in
ignorance.... The King bore the slander, the poor felt the lack. But who
had the profit of such things, he could not tell. But he knew well, and
all the world saw, that the Act made by the King's Majesty and his Lords
and Commons of his Parliament, for maintenance of learning and relief of
the poor, had served some as a fit instrument to rob learning, and to
spoil the poor.'" The measure was indeed an act of spoliation devoid
either of excuse in its cause or benefit in its results. The suppression
of the Monasteries could doubtless be amply excused, but no real
justification is possible for this attempted wholesale seizure of
institutions founded and maintained for the benefit of the poor, for the
relief of suffering, and for the regulation of industry and police. As
regards the last--the regulation of industry and police--the attempt was
to a certain extent foiled, but in other respects it succeeded only too
well. Even on the Gilds which escaped its effects were disastrous. Their
spiritual aspect was taken away; their prestige and authority very
materially lessened. For they completely changed their nature. Instead of
being brotherhoods of workmen,--masters, journeymen, and
apprentices,--striving together for the common good, they now became
simply leagues of employers, companies of capitalists. The new powers
which the masters obtained were used to still further oppress the
craftsman, who was sufficiently degraded already through a variety of
causes. He was too poor and powerless to be able to take any part in the
new companies, and continued to sink deeper and deeper into degradation
and misery. And this, too, in spite of the great and rapid development of
trade which came simultaneously with this weakening blow at the authority
and stability of the Gilds. Shrewsbury participated in this expansion of
industry, and in the latter portion of the sixteenth century was
peculiarly prosperous. There was no migration of its trade to the freer
air of the neighbouring villages. The town was successful in retaining its
monopoly.
But these two causes, (i) the weakening of the Gilds and their change of
character, and (ii) the vast development of trade which the age was
witnessing, combined to render the companies which survived the
Reformation quite unable to perform the work which the mediaeval Gilds had
done. Yet then above all was a controlling and a guiding power essential.
Elizabeth in consequence found that one of her first measures must be in
remedy of this condition of affairs.