REORGANISATION OF THE GILD-SYSTEM.
[Sidenote: _Reign of Elizabeth._]
Elizabeth, on her accession, found that immediate reform was imperative in
almost every department of state. The whole trade of the country was in a
condition of agitation. Everything seemed unsettled and insecure.
[Sidenote: _Economic disturbances and industrial activity._]
For the social upheaval which the Reformation had brought about came in
the train of a long period of economic disorder. The changes in the mode
of cultivation had thrown the mass of the country population out of work.
These were driven in large numbers by stress of circumstances into the
towns, which were consequently overstocked with hands. At this juncture
came the breaking down of the social police within the towns by the
weakening of the Gilds, while in the rural districts the dissolution of
the monasteries took away from the poor their main hope of sustenance. The
evils which such a policy of mere destruction must inevitably have brought
upon the nation were averted through the national growth of wealth which
the same period had witnessed. In the country parts the ejection of the
easy-going old abbots had at least favoured the adoption of newer and
improved methods of cultivation, so that a greater number of labourers
came in time to be required on the estate[124]. But far more satisfactory
for absorbing the surplusage of labour was the development which the
period witnessed in manufacture. The woollen trade in the west, the
worsted trade in the east, the iron trade in the south, and unmistakeable
signs of the cloth trade in the north already showed how the foundations
of England's wealth were laid.
The writers of the period abound in notices of the unparalleled growth of
trade and commerce. Harrison laments "that every function and several
vocation striveth with other, which of them should have all the water of
commodity ran into her own cistern[125]." Ample openings for capital broke
through the old prejudices against the taking of interest. "Usury" as it
was called--"a trade brought in by the Jews--is now perfectly practiced
almost by every Christian, and so commonly that he is accompted but for a
fool that doth lend his money for nothing[126]." The English workman too
was growing rich and lazy in the sunlight of prosperous times, so that
"strangers" were frequently preferred to native craftsmen as "more
reasonable in their takings, and less wasters of time by a great deal than
our own[127]."
This was the commencement of the period of Shrewsbury's greatest
prosperity. Edward IV.'s erection of the Court of the President and
Marches of Wales (1478) was a material cause of the advent of peace to the
Borders. Henry VII. could gratify national sentiment by tracing his
descent from Owen Tudor: he gave it a practical turn by placing his son
Arthur at Ludlow as ruler of the principality. The Welshmen had thus begun
to feel that their union with England was a real one before Henry VIII.
finally incorporated the country with the English kingdom.
[Sidenote: _Increase of comfort._]
The cessation of Welsh distractions had greatly favoured the advancement
of Shrewsbury. Its grammar school--founded by Edward VI.--as the entrance
register of Thomas Ashton, its first Headmaster, evidences, attracted
scholars from a very wide area, and helped to bring renown and wealth to
the town. Shrewsbury too was the market to which the Welsh cloth trade
naturally gravitated, though the town had powerful rivals with which to
contend. In the reign of Elizabeth it employed six hundred shearmen in the
woollen industry. Camden, writing in 1586, describes it as "a fine city,
well-inhabited and of good commerce, and by the industry of the Citizens
is very rich." From this period date the substantial homes of the
tradesmen of Tudor times which still survive in not inconsiderable numbers
to give so much picturesqueness to the streets of the town. This was the
era of improvements in domestic architecture. "If ever curious building
did flourish in England," says Harrison[128], "it is in these our years."
Ireland's mansion, which dates from 1570, and the house at the south-east
corner of the Market Square, built by John Lloyd in 1579, are existing
examples of this "curious building." Their elegance, no less than their
stability, betokens the advancement of manners as well as of wealth.
Though these houses are "yet for the most part of strong timber" "brick or
hard stone[129]" were beginning to be largely used. Rowley's mansion
(1618) is said to have been the first house in the town built wholly of
these materials.
Everything combines to mark the reign of Elizabeth as an epoch in the
history of England.
[Sidenote: _Economic policy._]
The foundations of modern society were laid. We seem to come into the
range of modern, as distinct from mediaeval ideas and habits. The principal
points in which modern society differs from mediaeval are distinctly
visible. The problem of poor relief in particular becomes acutely
appreciated. The rise of capital is seen both in the modification of the
Usury laws, spoken of above, and in the enhancing of rents: prices
hitherto dependent on custom and regulation must now be decided by
competition.
Not less remarkable is the permanence which attended Elizabeth's
legislation. Her economic settlement remained practically unchanged until
the development of machinery altered those social conditions for which it
had been adapted.
[Sidenote: _The Statute 5 Eliz. a turning-point in Gild history._]
She made trade regulation national instead of local. The Act of 5
Elizabeth, c. 14, is a turning-point in the history of the Gilds. By it
the whole system of Gilds was re-modelled. Their experience was by no
means thrown away[130]. The information they had been accumulating was now
appropriated by the state, which took over many of the functions they had
hitherto performed.
[Sidenote: _Many of the functions of the Gilds taken over by the state._]
What had long been common law now became statute law. The old minimum of
seven years' apprenticeship was still enjoined as a necessary preliminary
to the exercise of any craft. Such apprentices when bound must be of an
age less than twenty-one years, and could only be bound to householders in
corporate or market towns. The proportion of journeymen to apprentices was
regulated: there were to be three apprentices to one journeyman. The
workman was protected from wilful dismissal. The hours of labour were
defined, and Justices of the Peace or the town magistrates were to assess
wages yearly at the Easter Sessions. All disputes between masters and
servants were to be settled by the same authorities. The statute
incorporated everything that was worth taking in the ordinances of the
Gilds and applied it nationally to the regulation of the country's trade.
[Sidenote: _Trade-regulation becomes national instead of local._]
[Sidenote: _This allows development of new centres_]
The results of such a revolution in industrial regulation were great both
on trade in general and on the Gilds. There was no longer any excuse for
attempting to retard the development of the new centres which were
springing up. The action of the government in the matter of the Welsh
woollen trade to which reference will presently be made shows how its
policy was tending more and more towards allowing industry to take its own
course, instead of attempting to restrict it to one market.
[Sidenote: _and encourages native workmen._]
Another important result of the Act was the protection henceforth shown to
the native in opposition to the alien workman. The aim of the government
is now to regulate, protect, encourage, _native_ industry: the objects of
its desire in the past had been to provide plenty for the consumer and to
increase the strength of the country by extending its capacity for
production. The royal support accorded in consequence to Flemish and
German traders had made them objects of bitter jealousy to the struggling
English merchants[131]. This feeling of antipathy to alien workmen may be
traced from the reign of Richard II. It becomes very marked in that of
Edward IV.[132] The composition of the Mercers of Shrewsbury, dated
1480-81, had forbidden the apprenticeship of anyone "that is of Frenshe,
Flemyshe, Irysh, Douche, Walshe or eny other Nacyones not beyng at Truse
w{t} our Sov'ayne Lorde the Kynge, but onlye mere Englysshe borne."
The new policy inaugurated by the statute of Elizabeth is however not more
national in its scope than in the preference it gives to native over
foreign workmen.
[Sidenote: _Results on Gilds._]
[Sidenote: _Many come to an end._]
[Sidenote: _Many made more comprehensive._]
[Sidenote: _These sometimes come into conflict with royal officers._]
The results on the Gilds were more diverse. Many came to an end. This was
brought about through two causes: firstly, the need for many Gilds ceased
in consequence of the government now taking over their functions;
secondly, in many places the numerous Gilds were organized and amalgamated
into one or two larger and amended corporations[133]. On the other hand
the encouragement now afforded to native workmen caused a great
incorporation of new trades into many old Gilds, which became in
consequence more comprehensive. In a large number of cases these performed
their duties well for a long period. The new composition granted to the
Barbers of Shrewsbury in 1662 places this fact upon record. Occasionally
they came in conflict with the royal officers appointed to scrutinise the
wares, as was the case with the Mercers and the Anager at one period of
the company's existence.
[Sidenote: _Many become state agents._]
Not a few became the authorised agents of the state. Several of the
Shrewsbury Gilds were strengthened and encouraged with this object in
view. New compositions were granted by Elizabeth to the Tailors and
Skinners in 1563 (confirmed in the next year), to the Glovers in 1564 and
to the Shearmen in 1566. The Drapers had also figured in the Statute Book
on two occasions. The Acts 8 Elizabeth, c. 7, and 14 Elizabeth, c. 12, had
both been concerned with the affairs of the Drapers of Shrewsbury in their
capacity of state agents for the regulation of industry[134].
In 1605 the company of Drapers was incorporated by James I. and the Smiths
in 1621. The Tailors received a composition in 1627 and another in 1686.
The Tanners were regulated by a new composition in 1639, the Smiths in
1661, the Barbers in 1662. The records of the Mercers contain entries of
"cessments for renewing the Composition" in several years--1639, 1640,
1644, 1646 etc.
[Sidenote: _Many new Gilds formed._]
In many places of recent growth, or where the old Gilds had been destroyed
without there having been any construction of fresh machinery to take
their place, deliberate grants were made of new trade companies. The
Merchant Adventurers of Exeter were incorporated by Elizabeth expressly
for the purpose of supervising trade and "on account of the inconveniences
arising from the excessive number of artificers and unskilled persons
occupying the art or mystery of merchandising[135]." The charter which was
granted "hominibus mistere Marceriorum" at York in 1581 allowed them to
form themselves into a company under officers chosen with the consent of
the municipal authorities: the evils which necessitated the forming of
the company being expressly stated to be such as had ensued from a lack of
due regulation of trade[136]. At Axbridge every householder, whether
engaged in trade or not, was ordered, in 1614, to enrol himself in one of
the three companies of the town[137].
[Sidenote: _Intimate connection with civic authorities._]
In all these charters care was taken that the new corporations should be
in due subordination to the town authorities[138]. In some places the
Mayor or other officer of the town was _ex officio_ head of the Gild.
Sometimes it was granted to the "Mayor, bailiffs and commonalty and their
successors for ever, that they shall and may from time to time ordain,
create, and establish, a society, gild, or fraternity, of one master and
wardens of every art, mystery and occupation used or occupied, or
hereafter to be used or occupied, within the said city and the suburbs
thereof; and that they with the assistance of the wardens of the said arts
and mysteries may make, constitute, ordain and establish laws,
constitutions and ordinances for the public utility and profit and for the
better rule and regiment of our city of Winchester and of the mysteries of
the citizens and inhabitants of the same[139]." Such power of supervision
was generally allowed to the municipal authorities. The head of the Gild
frequently took his oath of office before the Mayor. The Common Council
of the town had power to make such ordinances as it might think fit for
the good estate, order and rule of the Gildsmen. In certain cases too the
Mayor had power "to call and admitt unto the same Free Guild and
Burgeshipp of the said Town such and soe many able and discreete persons
as ... shall seeme fitt" and also "uppon any iust and lawful grounds and
causes to disffranchise them[140]." Under these conditions the public
authorities of the town would be ready to support the companies. In some
cases they were expressly ordered to do so. At Shrewsbury we shall find
the town Bailiffs assisting the companies in the efforts of the latter to
prevent the encroachments of foreigners.
What all this change and reform amounted to was this. The system of Gilds
was re-organised and strengthened. Part of the functions which the Craft
Gilds had performed were taken over by the state. Part were left to be
still performed by the companies. The companies were in all cases brought
into the closest possible connection with the town and the town
authorities.
As regards the designation of these 16th century trade associations it
appears that they were generally termed societies or companies in public
documents, probably because the name "Gild" might seem to savour somewhat
of the Chantries and mass-priests. But in their own books and lists they
still called themselves Gilds and fraternities.
[Sidenote: _The new companies show permanence of Gild-feeling._]
Though they differed essentially from these, as has been already pointed
out, yet, viewed superficially, they might seem to have retained many of
the features of the old Gilds. In practice they bore no small share of the
burden of public charities. They were also not unmindful of the wants of
their members, though of course these now consisted of masters only.
Elizabeth's charter to the Merchant Adventurers of Bristol ordered them to
distribute yearly among twenty poor men twenty "vestes panneas" and to
assist all of the company who were impoverished by mischance or otherwise.
In their ordinances and compositions they were even more similar in
appearance to the old Gilds. The composition which Elizabeth granted to
the Glovers of Shrewsbury in 1564 is as strict as any mediaeval regulation.
It restricted all masters to a maximum of three apprentices. It confined
each brother to a single shop, and to the selling of the products of his
own work only. It authorised the Wardens to seize corrupt or insufficient
wares, and was altogether a most thorough piece of industrial regulation,
entirely modelled on the lines of the old Gild arrangements.
Other indications of the same spirit were not lacking. In 1621 "by and
with the allowance and agreement of the right worthie" the town
authorities, skins and fells were ordered to be purchased only between
sunrise and sunset. As though the Wardens of the Barbers' company had not
been sufficiently thorough in executing their duties the new composition
which the company received from Charles II. in 1662 made provision for the
appointment of a searcher and defined the duties appertaining to the
office. The composition granted to the Smiths in 1621 forbade the keeping
of two shops by a single tradesman in the town, and disallowed the
employment of foreigners for a longer period than a week without express
permission obtained from the Wardens. The composition of the Tailors,
granted in 1627, forbade the wearing of "any lyvere of any Earle Lorde
Barronett Knight Esquire or Gentleman" while occupying any Gild office;
prohibited unfair competition and the employment of foreigners; and
ordered that "noe pettie Chapman or other p'son or p'sons shall buy any
Skynnes of furre" within the town. In the composition of 1686 the articles
are repeated against indiscriminate admittance of foreigners, and against
the piratical infringement of unfree persons on the province of the
brethren.
The "Regulated Companies" which arose about the same time were a further
development of the same movement, but on a larger scale. In many respects
indeed the Craft Gilds of the 14th and 15th centuries were but little
different from the Regulated Companies of the 17th. Admission was
practically free on payment of a fine, the individual so received into
membership being left to prosecute his trade in his own way, by his own
means, and to his own particular profit.
[Sidenote: _Though altered conditions of trade make their work
difficult._]
But the difficulties attendant on attempts to regulate expanding trade
were daily growing greater and more numerous. "The false making and short
lengths of all sortes of cloths and stuffes" necessitated the appointment
by the Mercers of two men "to oversee and look after" these things in
1638. The Barbers too in 1662 empowered the stewards to search for bad
materials. In 1639 the Glovers' company was brought to something like a
crisis "by the taking of many apprentices." It was thought necessary to
dock each brother of one of the apprentices allowed by the Elizabethan
composition of 1564[141].
The frequency with which it was necessary to renew the compositions, the
reiteration of the same articles,--against employing foreigners, against
unfair competition, against neglect of the legal period of
apprenticeship,--again shows the futility of such restrictions. Actions
against intruders even thus early figure frequently on the records. In
those of the Tailors and Skinners the decision of the company under date
of August 23, 1627, is recorded thus:--"The Wardens and Sitters met and
agreed that the Wardens should fetch process for Intruders and implead
them before the Council in the Marches, and Mr Chelmicke to draw the bill
against them."
The history of the Welsh woollen trade in its connection with Shrewsbury
well exhibits the economic policy of the day, and as it therefore
illustrates several of the points with which we have been concerned it may
be given here at some length.
[Sidenote: _The features of the period seen in history of Welsh woollen
trade of Shrewsbury._]
[Sidenote: _Flourishing in reign of Elizabeth,_]
In the earlier part of the 16th century Oswestry appears to have been the
principal market for the Welsh products. At Shrewsbury however there was
also a large woollen trade, as we learn from the Act 8 Elizabeth, cap. 7,
entitled, "An Act touching the Drapers, Cottoners, and Frizers of
Shrewsbury." This statute recited that there had been time out of mind a
Gild of the art and mystery of Drapers legally incorporated in Shrewsbury,
which had usually set on work above six hundred persons of the art or
science of Shearmen or Frizers. Of late however it had come to pass that
divers persons, not being members of the said company, neither brought up
in the use of the said trade, had "with great disorder, upon a mere
covetous desire and mind, intromitted with and occupied the said trade of
buying Welsh cloth or lining, having no knowledge, experience or skill in
the same." The result is asserted to be that the men of the company are
impoverished and like to be brought to ruin unless speedy remedy be
provided. It is therefore forbidden that anyone inhabiting Shrewsbury
shall "occupy the trade" of buying Welsh woollens, unless he be free of
the company of the Drapers[142].
[Sidenote: _but injured by over-regulation caused by selfish interests._]
Such a stringent regulation of trade met with directly contrary results to
those which had been expected. A statute six years later acknowledges the
failure of the measure, although it attempts to shift the blame from the
shoulders of the Government by representing the measure as one taken at
the request of the Drapers, instead of as a piece of state-craft[143].
The statute of 14 Elizabeth, cap. 12, almost entirely repeals 8 Elizabeth,
cap. 7, "at the humble suit of the inhabitants of the said town and also
of the said artificers, for whose benefit the said Act was supposed to be
provided[144].... For experience hath plainly taught in the said town that
the said Act hath not only not brought the good effect that then was hoped
and surmised, but also hath been and now is like to be the very greatest
cause of the impoverishing and undoing of the poor Artificers and others
at whose suit the said Act was procured, for that there be now, sithence
the making of the said Act, much fewer persons to set them awork than
afore."
The whole incident is extremely interesting. It affords an excellent
illustration of the way in which the Gilds were in some places made state
agents for carrying into effect 5 Elizabeth, cap. 14. It also shows
plainly that state intervention was beginning to be found harmful even by
the men of that day. It evidences, moreover, how large the Welsh trade of
Shrewsbury had already grown.
Oswestry however continued to be the chief emporium, and the Drapers of
Shrewsbury repaired thither every Monday for a long period after the date
of the statutes we have been considering.
[Sidenote: _The Drapers' Company represents the interests of Shrewsbury_]
The company of the Drapers was the most considerable and influential of
the trade associations of Shrewsbury. It numbered among its brethren the
great majority of the chief burgesses of the town. Its relations with the
municipal corporation were, as would be expected, very intimate. It was
the custom of the Drapers to attend divine worship in the church of St
Alkmund before setting out for the Oswestry market. In 1614 an order was
made for the payment of six and eightpence to the clerk of the church for
ringing the morning bell to prayers on Monday mornings at six o'clock, not
by the company as we should expect, but by the corporation[145].
[Sidenote: _in opposition to Oswestry, Chester,_]
There arose considerable competition for the lucrative market which the
expansion of Welsh industry was every day rendering more profitable. The
inhabitants of Chester made a vigorous attempt to obtain the erection in
their city of "a staple for the cottons and friezes of North Wales."
Shrewsbury was however enabled to prevent the completion of the
scheme[146].
[Sidenote: _London; especially the last._]
The attempt of London to obtain a share in the trade seemed fraught with
so much danger that the two rivals, Shrewsbury and Oswestry, made common
cause against the intruder. The complaint was a general one that the
merchants of London and their factors forestalled and engrossed
productions before they came to market. These obnoxious practices seem to
have been carried to a particularly distasteful length on the borders of
Wales. The transactions of a London dealer named Thomas Davies in 1619
appear to have brought matters to a crisis.
There had been complaints about the same man, with others, previously. He
had, by craft, obtained admission to the freedom of Oswestry, by which
means he could the better purchase the Welsh cloths. These he then carried
to London where he sold them "privately"[147]--that is, not in the proper
and public market. The Drapers of the two towns petitioned that the matter
might be settled before the Council[148]. Being foiled in his attempt to
plead his freedom of Oswestry[148] Davies appealed to the Lord Mayor and
Corporation of the Metropolis to support his claims to trade throughout
England in right of his citizenship of London[149]. The order of the
Council depriving the Londoners of what they called their "ancient
privilege" evoked strenuous opposition in the Metropolis, and petitions
numerously signed[150] were sent in asserting that the Drapers of
Shrewsbury and Oswestry had obtained the order by misrepresentation[151].
It does not appear that these petitions were successful, as Thomas Davies
in his examination before the Council a little later, expressed his
willingness to resign his London freedom and to confine his dealings to
Oswestry. The fear of creating a precedent which would be largely
followed, and with probable detriment to the trade of Shrewsbury and
Oswestry, restrained the Council from allowing him to do this[152].
Not that the trade of Shrewsbury, at any rate, was likely to decrease
through any apathy on the part of its company of Drapers. They were on the
contrary singularly active at this time. And there was every need for them
to be vigilant. For, with the object of stimulating the industry of the
Principality by allowing a more extensive market, and probably also as a
result of the recent proceedings between the Drapers of Shrewsbury and
Oswestry and the citizens of London, a Proclamation was issued allowing
free trade in Welsh cloths. The novelty pleased neither the Welshmen[153]
nor the merchants of the borders. To the latter the chief consequence
seemed to be that the French company, which had the monopoly of exporting
such goods to France, was enabled to purchase direct from the
manufacturers in Wales instead of through the Drapers. The case was
undoubtedly a hard one for the latter, who could not export. Consequently
their grievance was a real one, and, as they showed in their petition to
the Council, ruin stared them in the face unless they too might be allowed
to export and so dispose of the large stock which was thrown on their
hands[154].
But at the same time they were successfully endeavouring to draw the Welsh
trade from Oswestry entirely to Shrewsbury[155].
They had prepared for the attempt by obtaining a new charter from
Elizabeth's successor in 1605. That they had lost no time in putting their
privileges to practical use is seen from their answer, four years later,
to a mandate issued to them by Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, who held
the overlordship of Oswestry, to desist from their efforts to undermine
the trade of his town. Their answer is entitled "The Copy of a Letter sent
by the Company to the Earle of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlen of his Majesties
Househoulde, the 24 June 1609," and begins
"Right Honerabell,
"Your letter bearing date the second of this June by the hands of Mr
Kinaston wee have receaved: wherein ytt appeareth yo{r} Lordship was
informed that wee the Societie of Drapers wentt abowte by underarte
and menesses to withdrawe your markett of Walshe Clothe from your
towne of Oswester."
[Sidenote: _All competitors worsted._]
Though they proceed to exculpate themselves from the charge, it is evident
their intention was to pursue in the future the same policy which they had
hitherto practised. In 1618 Suffolk fell and Oswestry was deprived of his
support, so that in 1621 the Shrewsbury Drapers felt justified in
resolving "That they will not buy Cloth at Oswestry or elsewhere than
Salop," in spite of the opposition of the clothiers of North Wales[156],
who, whether from convenience or old association, appeared to prefer
Oswestry as the locale of their market. However the Drapers' company,
assisted by the town[157], was sufficiently powerful to turn the
Proclamation allowing free trade in Welsh cloths to their own good, and
the market was drawn to Shrewsbury in spite of orders by the Council that
it should be re-established at Oswestry. The company did not hesitate to
declare to the Council itself that they were prepared, if necessary, to
disregard its orders. By 1633 the market at Oswestry had practically died
out. It was held at Shrewsbury on Wednesdays, and afterwards on Fridays.
In 1649 the date was altered to Thursday.
[Sidenote: _Expansion of trade, and interlopers, destroy Shrewsbury's
monopoly._]
To the Market House flocked the Welsh farmers, their bales of cloth being
borne to the town on the backs of hardy ponies. The merchandise was
exposed for sale in the large room upstairs. The Drapers assembled
beneath, and proceeded to make their purchases in order of seniority,
according to ancient usage. The custom which the Welshmen brought to the
town easily accounts for the keenness of the competition to secure the
market. For a long time the trade flourished. Gradually however the action
of "foreigners" in buying from the Welsh manufacturers at their homes[158]
broke down the monopoly which Shrewsbury had so long enjoyed. At the end
of the 18th century the sales had shrunk to miserable proportions. In
1803 the room over the market was relinquished by the Drapers, and though
a certain amount of Welsh trade was still carried on, it withdrew
gradually from the town until it finally left Shrewsbury altogether. The
Drapers might have realised that the time for restricting trade to the
freemen of their company was past.