THE DEGENERACY OF THE COMPANIES.
[Sidenote: _Outside competition_]
The competition of "interlopers" ruined the Welsh trade of Shrewsbury. It
was not, as we have seen, from any lack of vigilance on the part of the
companies. Stimulated by their new compositions they became extremely
active. As early as 1622 the actions against "foreigners" begin. Soon
afterwards they become of frequent occurrence until at length the books of
the companies are almost mere records of a daily struggle for existence.
[Sidenote: _inevitable under the altered conditions of trade._]
[Sidenote: _But the companies themselves are unsatisfactory._]
[Sidenote: _Friction with the town authorities;_]
This was of course inevitable under the altered conditions of trade. But
the companies exhibited in themselves all the radical defects which must
pertain to such a system when it has outgrown its necessity. We have seen
how free the earlier companies were from friction with the municipal
authorities. In the 17th century this is changed. The propriety of setting
up a May-pole had formerly been almost the only ground of conflict between
the bailiffs and the craftsmen. But in 1639 we find that the Tanners were
thought to be overstepping their powers; the corporation appointed a
committee to examine their composition. Some seventeen years later,
extreme measures had to be taken with regard to the same company. It was
the custom for the charters to be inspected by the corporation
periodically. In 1656 the Tanners refused to comply with the request to
produce their composition for the mayor's perusal, with the result that
the company was prosecuted by the corporation[159].
The town had been willing to support the Drapers in their measures to draw
the Welsh trade to Shrewsbury, but it did not approve of the line of
action they tried subsequently to take, namely, to limit all the trade to
their own members. In 1653 regulations were framed to prevent the company
"forestalling or engrossing the Welsh Flannels, Cloaths etc.[160]" A more
serious abuse transpired in connection with the Feltmakers' company in
1667. They refused to make one who had been lawfully apprenticed to the
trade in Shrewsbury free of their company. On this occasion the mayor and
aldermen exercised their right of supervision by ordering the Wardens to
admit the man, "and the Mayor is desired to give him the oath of a Freeman
of the said Company[161]." The importance of the mayor being thus
empowered by the municipal authorities to administer the oath of
admittance to one of the Gilds is very great, and shows how real was the
subordination of the latter to the town when the corporation chose to
exert its rights.
An order of the corporation[162] directing that burgesses only are to be
elected Wardens of the companies points to another abuse, the existence of
which is proved by other evidence, viz., the admittance of non-residents
in the town to membership in the companies on payment of a sufficiently
large entrance fee. Yet the extent to which corruption could go was seen
forty years later when the corporation stultified itself by passing an
order[163] allowing the Haberdashers to elect persons, though they might
not be burgesses, as Wardens of their company.
The general impression which such transactions leave is that extreme
laxity prevailed in all departments. The town woke up for a moment in 1702
when the prospect perhaps of a harvest of unpaid fines induced them to
make an effort to recover all such[164]. It is to be regretted that
nothing remains to show to what extent the abuse had prevailed, nor how
far the present effort was successful. The annual fine of the Bakers'
company was L3. 6_s._ 8_d._ which they appear to have generally paid with
considerable reluctance[165]. The supply of provision to the town seems to
have given much trouble in the early years of the eighteenth century.
Permission was given, in 1730, to the country butchers to sell in the town
unless the town butchers could furnish meat in sufficient quantity.
Similar permission was accorded to the country bakers, if the Bakers'
company in the town would not pay their yearly fine. This they were
unwilling, or unable, to do, and the country bakers were in consequence
called in[166].
[Sidenote: _with one another,_]
The picture given by such incidents is not more significant of the
degeneracy of the Gilds than is that which the friction of the companies
one with another presents. The Mercers and the Drapers had frequently made
mutual complaints of intrusion: the Mercers and the Glovers also appear as
great rivals in later years. In 1679 and at several subsequent dates there
were actions at law between the two companies. In 1727 the records of the
Glovers show that similar actions were again in process. In 1721 the
company unanimously agreed to withstand the Tailors in the matter of widow
Steen, whom they pledge themselves to support; "and that shee may goe on
with makeing Brichess peruided shee dos not line them with flonen or
Buckrom or cennet onlye Lether."
[Sidenote: _and with their own members._]
Nor is the evidence of intestine friction within the Gilds themselves less
significant of decay. So early as 1636 the Mercers were fain to confess
that the spirit of mutual assistance had disappeared, in the order which
they passed to the effect that any combrother refusing to pay his
assessment was to be distrained upon by authority of the Wardens. There
are several records of such distraints. In 1700 they find it necessary to
pass an ordinance against freemen taking the sons of intruders as
apprentices. The records of the other companies are, similarly, full of
like evidences of demoralisation. The companies are declared to be
impoverished by the taking of inordinate numbers of apprentices. The same
sort of abuse is found in a complaint which appears in the Glovers' books
in 1656: "the company is much impoverished by the taking in of foreigners
freemen such as have not served" their due apprenticeship. "The disorderly
manner of electing Wardens" about which the Glovers have to "take account"
in 1668 points to a great deterioration in the manner of holding Gild
meetings from that which has been sketched in a previous chapter[167].
Worse than all is the confession that the Gild brothers have sunk so low
as to connive at intruders "for fraudulent lucre and gain[168]." The
Saddlers have the same sort of complaint in 1740. Some brethren are
infringing on the trades of others: resolutions are passed against such
conduct. Their books show that the resolutions were soon forgotten[169].
The other Gilds experienced similar difficulties. In 1745 the Barbers
levied a fine of ten shillings on brethren who should so far forget
themselves as to instruct "men or women servants to dress hair."
The problem of regulating trade would have been difficult enough under
the most favourable circumstances. With the Gilds in the condition which
we have been considering it was an impossibility. There was indeed a
feature in the modern companies which at the outset deprived the attempt
to utilise them beneficially for trade-purposes of all chance of success.
[Sidenote: _The Gilds have changed to capitalist companies._]
The old Gilds, which had lived through the shocks of the Reformation, and
the Elizabethan changes, had quite altered their character. The new ones
which had arisen differed widely from the old fraternities. Instead of
being brotherhoods of craftsmen desirous of advancing the public weal,
they were now mere societies of capitalists, intent only on private and
personal advantage. As a writer of 1680 observes "most of our ancient
Corporations and Guilds [have] become oppressive Oligarchies[170]." There
is a constant endeavour to restrict the companies to favoured individuals.
Every "foreigner" is subjected to a heavy fine, which grows larger in
amount as the companies feel the trade slipping from their hands in spite
of their desperate endeavours to restrict it. The new compositions
continually point to this abuse by bringing back the fines to their
original sum, or rather reducing them to an amount less inordinate than
that which they have irregularly reached. The admission stamp of the
Saddlers was 4/- in 1784. It reached 8/2 in 1799. In 1831 it was 20/2. The
Mercers' fine was fixed at L40. 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1789, "besides fees." In
1823 it had sunk to L20. The Mercers were of course one of the richest of
the companies, yet the sum was a large one to pay for the privilege of
opening a shop in a provincial town.
Other means to restrict themselves were also attempted. Increase in the
number of apprentices was viewed with disfavour. There are frequent
complaints of the "impoverishment" of the companies through the
indiscriminate admittance of "foreigners." All the evidence shows how
entirely they have degenerated into mere societies of capitalists. Their
records almost decline into bald columns of pounds, shillings and pence.
For it was to this completeness of degradation that the social body had
sunk. The merest selfishness was lauded as a patriotic virtue. Private
gain was recommended as a public benefit. Social disintegration and
industrial anarchy ruled supreme, and when commercial success had come to
be looked upon as the one avenue to honour and advancement, it was not to
be expected that the companies would escape the general infection. They
formed simply one among many means by which the individual was enabled to
fill his own pockets at the cost of a suffering and squalid populace.
This change in their character, which became more marked as time went by,
naturally was not unattended by a change in their government. All
authority became engrossed by the richer members. The Four Assistants with
the Wardens and Stewards formed a close aristocratic board. Brentano,
speaking it would appear more particularly of the London companies,
says[171] the king nominated the first members of this court and
afterwards as vacancies occurred they were filled by co-optation. This was
not exactly the case with the Shrewsbury companies. There the annual
meeting[172] retained a considerable power in the election of officers to
the last. In some cases the Assistants or Four Men were elected freely by
the assembled combrethren, in others two only were thus elected, the two
retiring Wardens completing the number. The Tailors' composition of 1563
provided that the two Wardens should be elected by the whole Gild: the
Four Assistants were then nominated by these Wardens "for advising them in
the Government of the Gild." The Wardens and Assistants then proceeded to
nominate the two Stewards.
[Sidenote: _The companies and the close corporations._]
They were thus as exclusive and aristocratic as the town corporations had
become. The degeneracy of the latter had been largely intensified by the
degeneracy of the former. For the principal members of the companies were
the principal members of the town corporation, which had silently, since
the fourteenth century, been usurping the ancient powers of the general
body of the burgesses. It was the companies which mainly profited by it.
They profited indirectly, by the influence which they exercised through
individual members on the town council, which had obtained part of the
functions of the Leet. They profited directly as they themselves acquired
definitely other of the powers of the Court Leet. They became the chief
or the sole medium for the acquisition of municipal freedom, and were
distinct town organs for the regulation of trade and industry.
[Sidenote: _The journeymen no longer in the companies._]
It is by reason of the widely-reaching influence of their degeneracy that
their later history is of importance. For as regards the poorer members of
society their history is useless. The workman disappears from their books.
That he no longer was looked upon as the brother member of the masters is
quite evident.
"Our workmen do work hard, but we live at ease,
We go when we will, and we come when we please[173]."
[Sidenote: _They begin to form benefit societies, animated by much of the
old Gild-spirit._]
The most general means which the poor adopted to help themselves was the
formation of Friendly Societies. These arose in great numbers during the
18th century. The companies were not slow in helping to swell public
subscriptions and in assisting to pauperise the labouring class. To the
necessity of rendering real help to their unfortunate workmen they were
however entirely oblivious. This side of the work performed by the old
Gilds had been almost wholly overlooked by the post-reformation companies,
though it had been one of the most important of their predecessors'
functions. It was found that society could not get along without something
of the kind, and as the higher companies would not perform the work, the
lower craftsmen found it necessary to do it themselves. Here was a
distinct severance of interest between employers and workmen, yet it does
not seem unlikely that it was the old Gilds themselves which formed the
models for the new societies. At any rate the analogies between the Gilds
and the Benefit Societies, in the earlier phases of the latter, and
looking at the social and religious side of the former, are very
striking[174]. The simple rules of trade association show as much concern
for the morals of members as did the charters of the Gilds: they had their
annual feast, provided by subscription: they usually went in their
procession to the parish church on the day of the feast. They were perhaps
the earliest signs of that necessary return to something like the old Gild
system which the later Trades Unions have done so much to bring about. The
companies watched them grow up without a twinge of conscience, though it
was their own neglect of duty which made such associations an absolute
necessity. Being the only forms of combination which were left unmolested
by the government they were extensively formed, and this was well, for the
need of them was very great.
[Sidenote: _Difficulties of reform; members would not, state would not,
the town authorities would not._]
In spite of unmistakeable signs of inevitable changes the companies
refused to take warning. Their reform was indeed difficult, and, as it
proved, impossible. The workmen as we have seen could not, the masters
would not, take steps in this direction. The state derived too good an
income from them to be anxious for a change. The admission stamps,
constantly increasing in amount, were a profitable source of revenue. The
notices of "cessments for renewing the composition" are frequent. There
were also continual contributions of men and money for the "exigencies of
the State[175]." In 1798 the Mercers voted L100 annually to the government
"during the continuance of the war." The town also seemed to profit by
them. They were obliged, some of them at all events, to exhibit their
compositions annually or periodically to the mayor and pay a customary
fine on doing so. They continued to be of some service to the community in
the inefficient condition of the public police. Their social utility to
the town was also in their favour. In 1608 the corporation provided
materials in case of fire, when each of the companies was required to
maintain its proper proportion of hooks and buckets. Entries relating to
the "spout or water engine" are frequent in their records. In aid of
procuring public benefits the companies were not backward. Their chests
were readily opened to assist towards improvements in the town, such as
widening of streets, erection of bridges and the like.
To the last also they preserved something of their charitable character,
though its exercise was as open to criticism as other forms of poor relief
during the eighteenth century. Nevertheless if the membership lists of the
Drapers and the Mercers could be made public they would be found to
contain the majority of the public benefactors of Shrewsbury during this
period. Public charities, such as the Infirmary and the Lancaster School
received annual subscriptions until the companies came to an end. The
necessity of continuing the annuities to the inmates of S. Chad's
almshouses formed a chief argument against the dissolution of the Mercers'
company. "The Worshipful Company of Drapers" still subscribes to schools
and charities year by year.
[Sidenote: _Contemporaneous opinion of the companies._]
In these circumstances we cannot wonder that the old companies found many
champions. The following letter is valuable as affording a view of the
contemporaneous opinion held of the Gilds by a man of ordinary common
sense and average education. It appeared in the _Salopian Journal_ of
August 27, 1823. It was evoked by a decision of the Judges of Assize in
favour of the Mercers' company in an important case to which reference
will be made in a later page. It was addressed to the editor of the
newspaper and commenced--
"SIR,
As the Company commonly called 'the United Company of Mercers,
Grocers, Ironmongers, and Goldsmiths' in this town have established
the validity of their ancient customs by a suit at law of which there
is no account of their having done so since the time when the King's
Court for the Marches of Wales was held at Ludlow; at which time and
place the Council then, who held the pleas, determined also a like
suit in their favour: and as there is much argument for and against
the existence and usage of this incorporate body; permit me to lay
before the public an outline of both, that the subject at least might
be better understood than we often hear it repeated. It is contended
against, as exercising an arbitrary monopoly of trade, to the
detriment and oppression of the subjects of the realm; and which is
moreover injurious to the town itself, by depriving the Trade thereof
of that competition which brings down the Articles of manufacture to a
fair marketable value for the supply of its inhabitants. These are the
charges against them, which if indeed they could be substantiated
would be sufficient to show that their existence was an evil. But let
us look at the facts on the other side of the question, and see
whether there is any reality in these serious charges. In the first
place the Companies hold it requisite, in order to be free of their
body, that all but the sons of Freemen shall serve a regular
apprenticeship to one of the Corporation. Now in this they have been
sanctioned and dictated to by the ancient law of the land ... that
youths might be properly taught their respective arts, and that the
community might not be imposed upon by pretenders to that which they
were not properly acquainted with.
On Foreigners or such as have not served a regular apprenticeship they
impose a fine of L20, before they will admit them as freemen, and
certainly in doing this they do not over-rate a seven years'
servitude, when the one is made equivalent to the other.
Let us now see to the application of the money. A fund is made of it,
somewhat similar to 'Benefit Societies.' No part of it is applied to
private purposes; for even the Company's annual feast, about which
there is so much said, is not always at the expense of the fund, but
[is] borne individually; and the utility of such a feast to promote
harmony and goodwill, is acknowledged by all Societies[176]. But
further, these funds are confined to the relief of decayed and
deserving members of the Companies[177], and to every charitable and
public emergency wherein the general interest or welfare of the town
is concerned; and their annual disbursements, for centuries past, have
been regularly serviceable to the community at large as well as to
individual cases of distress. This the account of their expenditure
will show. Now, then this monopoly, as it is called, extends no
further than to exact an apprenticeship of seven years, or to a fine
of L20; the former sanctioned by law and the latter a sum of no
comparative amount to a respectable person, desirous of establishing a
respectable trade, especially if there be any truth in the argument,
that goods are sold by this corporate body for more money than they
would be, if no such corporation existed. Neither can the fine be
called excessive, because it is added to a stock which he from whom it
is exacted directs in common to be applied to the common good; and
which he may himself, as many others have done in cases of distress,
receive back again with large additions.
But the increased population of Birmingham and Manchester is brought
forward as a proof of towns flourishing where trade is what is called
_free_. Let us look a little into this argument. Are not the wares
vended in these places proverbially _bad_? Do not all manner of
imposters from these places deluge the country with their spurious
goods, and impose them upon the unwary part of the public? Are these
towns to be compared with London, Liverpool, Bristol, for
respectability of their trade, for the goodness and cheapness of their
articles, when the quality is taken into account? Yet the trade of
these latter towns is regulated by corporations.
I contend therefore that the Corporation in question is _beneficial_
to this town and county, inasmuch as it tends to protect it from the
inundations of empirics and imposters, while it holds out no hindrance
to the fair and honest dealer who has a mind to compete with its
respectable tradesmen and settle amongst them. I am not in trade
myself; but hope I shall always see my native town preserved from that
sort of population which it has never yet been disgraced with.
I have the honour to be, Mr Editor,
In technical language,
A COMBROTHER OF THE GUILD.
SHREWSBURY, Aug. 22, 1823."