_The Companies of the Crafts_
The men of Coventry, a city which, in later mediæval times, stood
fourth among the wealthy towns of England,[451] gained a livelihood
by the buying and selling of wool and the making of cloth.[452] As
early as 1398 the traffic in the frieze of Coventry[453] extended
beyond the modest limits of the city itself. In that year two hundred
pounds' worth, the export of one merchant, lay in the port of distant
Stralsund, on the Baltic Coast,[454] and in London and other places the
cloth was in great request during the fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries.
The men of mediæval Coventry naturally attached great importance to
the maintenance and extension of the cloth trade in view of the wealth
it brought. Special buildings were set apart for the staple traffic of
the city. The Drapery and the Wool-hall, both in Bayley Lane, under the
shadow of S. Michael's Church, were the recognised selling places for
the raw and finished material; and a small illicit market went on in
the porch of the church itself.[455] Hard by stood the Searching-house,
a place devoted to the examination of all the cloth made by the city
workpeople. Two weavers and two fullers, specially appointed for the
purpose, overlooked the handiwork of their fellow-craftsmen; while
six drapers were appointed to superintend these weavers and fullers,
so as to guard against any exhibition of partiality or slackness in
the execution of the task. If the material were sufficiently fulled
and well woven, the city seal was attached to it in token of its
genuine quality; but the searchers were straitly charged to warrant
no piece that fell short of the standard excellence, and bad wares
were returned to the owner to make therewith as good a bargain as he
could.[456]
[Illustration: TRINITY LANE]
An order of leet passed in 1518 gives very precise directions for the
searching process.
[Illustration: ARMS OF CITY OF COVENTRY]
"Hit is to be had in mynde that for a trueth of Clothmakyng to be had
in this cite as foloeth, if it myght be folowed, and the execucion of
the same to be don schortly, or els the cite wolbe so fer past that
it wolbe past remedie to be recouered to eny welth or prosperite, hit
is thought hit were good to have ij wevers & ij walkers sworn to make
true serche of the wevers doyng & also of the walkers & to present the
trueth; and also to be chosen vj drapers to be maisters, & ouerseers
of the doyng of the serchers, that if some of them cannot a lesour to
be at the serchyng at the dayes of the serchers, yet some of these vj
maisters schall euer be ther. And by cause it were to great a besynes
for the serchers to go to every mannes howse, hit is enacted at this
lete to haue a howse of the gilde,[457] or of some other mannes nyghe
the drapery doore, to be ordeyned well with perches to drawe ouer the
clothes when they be thykked, and also weightes & ballaunce to wey the
cloth, and when it cometh frome the walkers, the walkers to bryng it to
the serchyng house, and to serche it, & to se it ouer a perche, and if
it be good cloth as it owght to be in brede & lengh, that the cite may
have a preise by hit & no sklaunder, then to sett upon hit the Olyvaunt
in lede,[458] and of the bak of the seall the lengh of the cloth, by
the which men shall perceyve and see it is true Coventre cloth, ffor
of suerte ther is in London & other places that sell false & untrewe
made cloth, & name hit Couentre cloth, the which is a gret slaunder to
the cite than it deserveth by a gret partie. And if there be eny man
that hath eny cloth brought to the serchyng house, what degre so ever
he be of, if it be not able for the worschip of the cite to be let
passe, let hym pay for the serche & lett hym do his best with hit, but
set not the Olyvaunt upon it.
"And this serche to be made also this fourme,[459] that is to sey ij
days in the weke, Tewesday & Saturday, and ij of the serchers to be
ther from viij of the clok to a xi, and frome on to iiij of the clok;
and a sealer to be ordeyned & sworne to stryke the cloth and seale hit,
and wrete hit, and fynde leed, & to have a peny for his labour; and the
sealles to be put in a cofre with ij keys, the master of the vj drapers
to have the on, and the serchers the other, and for the serche of every
cloth to the serchers to have j d. and it is to be thought every good
man schal be gladde of that payment."
The person who consistently reaped the greatest benefit from this
activity was the draper, the merchant of cloth. Within the city his
fellowship ranked next to that of the mercers, or merchants proper, who
traded in wool as members of the Staple of Calais, or trafficked in
wine and wax, which they brought in barges from Bristol.[460] None but
the well-to-do could enter into the ranks of the drapers' craft.[461]
Some of its more fortunate brethren were able to purchase estates and
take rank among the county gentry. Thus John Bristowe, draper, sometime
mayor and justice of the peace in Coventry, became possessed of land
at Whitley; and his son William spoke of his "manor" in those parts,
and frequently described himself as a "gentleman." And John, grandson
of Julian Nethermill, a city dignitary of the same craft, held lands
in Exhall, and had his arms blazoned among those of the great county
folk.[462] Many members of this fellowship have left a name showing
the great power for good or ill that they possessed within the city.
There was John Bristowe, mayor in the early fifteenth century, who, as
the oldest inhabitants declared, "after he had boron office within the
cite of Couentre thynkyng that the common people of the seid cite durst
nor wolde contrarie his doyng, claymed unlawfully" to have certain
rights over the common pasture. John Haddon, another draper-mayor,
has left a better reputation; it was he who came to the rescue of the
poverty-stricken clothiers of the city in 1518,[463] and by a timely
loan enabled them to continue work. While John Bond, who, as his
epitaph declares, gave "divers lands and tenements for the maintenance
of ten poore men, as long as the world shall endure," is yet remembered
as the founder of the Bablake hospital.
The near connection between these great cloth merchants and the
corporation is one of the most striking features of municipal life in
Coventry during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The marks of the
drapers' influence in civic affairs are continually before our eyes. It
was in a draper's mayoralty that ordinances were first made respecting
the searching of cloth.[464] And when the system of overlooking was
perfected in 1518, a few years later, it was to six men of this craft,
that the task of superintending the searchers' investigations was
assigned. Just as, about a hundred years before that time, when an
unsuccessful attempt was made by the town rulers to exercise complete
control over the dyers' craft, it was suggested that two drapers as
well as two dyers, in either case nominees of the corporation, should
keep watch over the dyers' movements, and "present" them for any "fault
or confederacy" at the court of the mayor.[465]
Measures framed by this body in the interest of any particular craft
or class were doubtless found oppressive by those who had no lot or
part in their enactment. Thus while the yea or nay of the fullers had
little weight in municipal councils, the wealth of the drapers gave
them a control over the local trade to an extent which we can hardly
realise. The reason of this supremacy is not far to seek. The mercers
and drapers in their character of wealthy men usually occupied the
principal official posts in the city.[466] No one, unless he were
possessed of a certain amount of wealth, could rise to a high place in
the corporation. Men were ranked according to the amount of property
in their possession, and to speak of a citizen as "of the degree of a
mayor" or "bailiff," conveyed as definite an idea as the assertion that
"So-and-so has a fortune of £20,000 or £30,000," would convey to our
minds at the present date.
This body of wealthy merchants, in whose hands was vested all control
over the city trade, could and did make and unmake regulations of
the deepest significance to the various crafts. By an ordinance of
the city leet they could completely alter the conditions regulating
the work of salesmen or artificers, as they had an absolute control
over all workers, since by the craft system all who practised the
same calling were compelled to obey the same regulations. Nominally
the regulations were drawn up by the crafts. In reality, as certain
members of the corporation overlooked them, amending and annulling at
their pleasure, this power of the crafts was held at the will of the
municipal rulers.[467] And the corporation did not let their power lie
idle. In the interests of the general public they forced the crafts to
embody in their rules the ordinances framed by the court leet. Thus the
cloth-workers were compelled to bring the cloth they had woven to be
measured and examined by the searcher,[468] the fullers to adopt the
custom of using a special mark whereby the work of every individual
craftsman could be recognised and known,[469] the dyers to abstain from
using a certain French dye of inferior consistency,[470] and, much
against the wills of this community, to admit another member into their
craft.[471] It was not only as regards the working of their cloth,
but in all other matters the crafts had to bow before the will of the
corporation. Appeals to courts spiritual to punish for oath-breach
any who disobeyed the ordinances of the fellowship were looked coldly
on by the municipal rulers, and the practice suppressed. In 1518 the
mysteries were compelled to make the mayor the arbiter of all cases
of dispute between offenders and the wardens of their respective
fellowships. If anyone committed a fault against the fellowship, he
must be asked to pay a "reasonable" penalty, and "if he deny and will
not pay ... according to the ordinance ... within three or four days,
let the master ask it of him again ... and if he deny it eftsoons and
will not pay it, let the master of the craft and three or four honest
men of the craft come to master mayor and show unto him the dealing of
that person." Whereupon the mayor and justices, should he refuse to
pay double the original sum to the craft, were bound to commit him to
ward until he promised obedience. The offender on his release was to
make submission to the master entreating him to be "good master" to him
during his year of office, and "his good lover" in time to come.[472]
We may follow in detail the dealings of the corporation with several
of the crafts. The fullers seem to have combined with the tailors
to form the guild of the Nativity some time in the reign of Richard
II., but were prevented from acting under the terms of their charter.
In the eighteenth year of the reign of Henry VI. the royal licence
was renewed.[473] But the guild was a singularly ineffective body,
holding little if any property, and soon after, possibly at municipal
instigation, the two crafts who formed it were separated, though the
tailors obtained a third renewal of their licence in the twenty-eighth
year of Henry VIII. The dyers appear to have been more stubborn.
Early in the reign of Henry V. they combined together to increase
the price of dyeing of cloth by one-half, and to have the flower of
the woad for their own use.[474] In 1475 they attempted, perhaps, to
renew their old combinations of sixty years back; and five years later
Laurence Saunders, a member of their calling, became the leader of the
opposition which prevailed during the close of the century within the
city.[475] In 1496 all the thunders of the leet ordinances launched
against those who, of their "froward wills," refused to contribute to
the furnishing of the pageants played on Corpus Christi day, failed to
make the dyers join with the other crafts in paying their share.[476]
When the municipality desired to thrust a new member into their craft,
the dyers forbade the journeymen to work for him, and it was only by
circumventing their tactics that the town rulers could compel the
admission of the new candidate into their ranks.
Not only the workers in cloth, but all the fraternities were forced
to bow to the corporation's will. In 1436 the attention of the leet
was drawn to certain malpractices which had arisen among the workers
in iron. A bill, drawn up no doubt by some member of the ruling class
and presented by him to the court, shows the full extent of the evil
and suggests certain measures of reform. Certain workers in iron, we
are told, by employing labourers of the four allied crafts of smiths,
brakemen, girdlers, and card-wiredrawers, had acquired entire control
over the trade, and were able to pass off ill-wrought iron upon their
customers. It was suggested that labourers of but two occupations
should be employed by one master instead of those of four occupations
as had been the custom hitherto.
"Be hit known to you," the bill runs, "but yif certen ordenaunses
of craftes withe in this cite ... be takon good hede to, hit is
like myche of the kynges pepull, and in speciall poor chapmen and
clothemakers, in tyme comeng shullen 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 sey, smythiers, brakemen,
gurdelmen, and card-wire drawers, for he that hathe all thes craftes
may, offendying his conscience, do myche harme." A negligent smith,
the bill continues, might heat the iron by "onkynd hetes," so that
it became unfit for future use. "Never the later 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.'" When the brakeman has done
his task, the metal comes to be sold for making fish hooks. "And when
hit is made in hokes and shulde serve the ffissher to take fisshe,
when hit comythe to distresse then for febulnes hit all-to brekithe,
and thus is the ffisher foule disseyved and to him grete harme." And
if the iron be used for making girdles, the master passes it to the
girdleman with these words: "'Lo, here is a stryng or ij (two) that
hathe ben misgouerned atte herthe, my brakemon hathe don his dever;
I prey the, do now thyne.' And so he dothe as his maister biddethe
hym." Or it may be passed on to the cardmaker, who finds that it
"crachithe and farithe foule; so the cardmaker is right hevy therof,
but neverthelater he sethe be cause hit is cutte he must nedes helpe
hym self in eschueing his losse, [so] he makithe cardes[477] ther of
as well as he may, and when the cardes ben solde to the clothemaker
and shuldon be ocupied, anon the tethe brekon and fallon out, so the
clothemaker is foule disseyved. Wherefore, sirs," is the conclusion of
the bill, "atte reverens of God in fortheryng of the kynges true lege
peapull, and in eschueng of all disseytes, weithe (weigh) this mater
wysely, and ther as ye see disseyte is like to be, therto settithe
remedy be your wyse discressions." For, as the petitioner suggested, if
the two crafts of smiths and brakemen, and these only, were united on
the one hand, and the two crafts of girdlers and card-wiredrawers, and
these only, on the other, "then hit were to suppose that ther shuld not
so myche disseyvabull wire be wrought and sold as ther is." For if the
crafts were severed in this manner, it was argued, then the girdlers
and cardmakers would buy their wire from the smiths, and look well to
their bargain. "And if the card-wiredrawer," the petitioner proceeds,
"were ones or thies disseyved withe ontrewe wire, he wolde be warre,
and then wold he sey vnto the smythier, that he bought that wire of:
'Sir, I hadde of you late badde wire, sir, amend your honde, or in
feithe I will no more bye of you.' And then the smythier, lest he lost
his custemers, wold make true goode; and then withe the grase of godd
(God) the craft shuld amend and the kinges peapull not disseyved with
eontrewe goode."[478]
The mayor, we learn, on this important occasion sent round to all the
worthy men of the leet to take their advice upon the matter. Either
the corporation sought an occasion of humbling the workers in iron,
or the common sense expressed in this bill was irresistible; for the
leet fell in with the arrangement of severing the crafts. A number of
master smiths agreed to employ only journeymen of this occupation and
brakemen, while the cardmakers on the other hand undertook to find
occupation for girdlers and cardmakers only. Furthermore, the leet
decreed that their two last-named crafts should by "no colour ne sotell
imagynacion 'sell or buy' no cardwyre ne mystermannes wyre, the whiche
may be hynderying or grevying to the kinges lege pepull 'under pain of
£20.'"
The craftspeople, however, occasionally resented municipal
interference, and endeavoured by all means within their power to get
the control of the industry in which they were engaged into their own
hands. Any temporary weakness or disorganisation on the part of the
corporation was taken advantage of by these fraternities. It was in
1456, when the finances of the city were in some disorder, owing to the
expense of entertaining the Court and the active support given by the
city to the Lancastrian cause, that the craftspeople took occasion to
sue in spiritual courts offenders who had broken the rules observed by
members of fellowships.
"Discord daily falleth in this city among the people of divers
crafts"--such are the words of an order of leet passed in
1457--"because that divers masters of crafts sue in spiritual courts
divers people of their crafts, affirming they have broken their oaths
made in breaking divers their rules and ordinances, which rules
ofttimes be unreasonable, and the punishment of the said masters over
excess, which, if it continue, by likelihood would cause much people to
void out of the city." The masters were thenceforth forbidden to bring
"any manner suit, cause or quarrel in any court spiritual against any
person of their craft," until "the mayor for the time being have heard
the matter and variance ... and have licensed the suit to be had."[479]
But though defeated in this scheme, the crafts doubtless did not
give up the battle. The dyers' attempt in 1475 to form confederacies
happened in a time of great division within the town respecting the
enclosure of the common pasture. And the same disputes agitated the
community twenty-one years later, when a member of the party of
discontented craftsmen nailed up inflammatory verses on the church
door, taunting the corporation with injustice and inveighing against
the rules they had made for the buying of wool and selling of cloth.
[Illustration: NEW STREET]
And indeed it may have been well that persons high in authority curbed
the self-seeking spirit of the crafts. These bodies, formed early in
the thirteenth century for mutual help and preservation, had since
degenerated into close corporations eager to exclude competition at
any price.[480] Fettered as they were by ordinances fixing price,
hours of labour and the like, there was so little free play allowed
the craftsman in the management of his business, that the difficulty
of acquiring wealth must have been great. Each company of craftsmen
practically monopolised all the traffic or business connected with
their special calling in the district in which they lived, and were
bound to take good heed that the numbers of those who formed their
body should not be greatly increased, lest the individual profits
should be reduced. They were resolved at all hazards to guard against
competition. The trade of the town might support ten tanners for
instance, but the admission of an eleventh or twelfth into the craft
might endanger the older members' prosperity. Thus, in 1424, the
weaver showed a distinct dislike to allowing their members to take
any number of apprentices,[481] who were potential masters of the
craft; and the cappers who in the fifteenth century had risen to be a
very important body, allowed each master to take but two apprentices
only, and when one departed before his serving-time of seven years was
accomplished, the master was forbidden to take another in his place,
without licence from the keepers of the craft, until the allotted
time should be past.[482] The corporation, however, wished to break
down this exclusiveness, and in 1524 declared that any member of
what craft soever might receive what number of apprentices he would
"notwithstanding any ordinance to the contrary."[483] Some twenty
years later, finding perhaps that this sweeping measure aroused too
much opposition, the leet tried to thrust a modified form of it on the
cappers.[484] Twice within a few months [1544-5] they decreed that any
master of the fellowship might take an extra apprentice when one of
them had served five and a half of the allotted seven years and they
repeated the order after a few years' space.[485]
The craftspeople had another method for keeping would-be members out
of their ranks. They demanded on admission such fines as could only
be paid by the well-to-do. And it was owing to their jealousy that
precautions were taken to ensure the payment of these admission fines.
Trouble came about, we are told, because new members departed from the
town just when the fine was due, a year after setting up their shop.
They were henceforth to be compelled to pay half their fine at setting
up, and to put in two sufficient sureties that the second half should
be paid at the end of the first year.[486]
It was part of the policy of the town rulers to recognise the
apprentice's possible future citizenship, and withdraw him somewhat
from his master's authority. The lad was therefore forced by the
ordinance of 1494[487] to take the oath "to the franchises," and bring
his twelve pennies to the steward for the town use when his term of
service began. We see from the list of those who took the oath in
1495 that the apprentice lived in his master's house, serving him
usually--though not invariably--for seven years' space. He earned a
nominal sum, perhaps a shilling, or even 4d., the first six years, and
a larger one, perhaps 10s. or 13s. 4d., during the seventh. Thus the
son of John Preston, of Stafford, "gentleman," who was apprenticed to a
grocer, earned 12d. a year, the wages of his last year of service--the
ninth--being unfixed; while another lad, learning the same trade,
received 13s. 4d. as his last year's earnings. The son of a Durham
"husbandman" took from his master, a hat-maker, 4d. a year for six
years, and 6s. 8d. during the seventh. The crafts seem to have made it
their business to see that the boys were properly cared for. If any
one of them complained that his master did not give him sufficient
"finding," _i.e._ food and raiment, the offender was to receive
first an "admonition," and on the repetition of the offence to pay a
reasonable fine; if matters did not mend, the lad was to be removed
and placed elsewhere.[488] The master exercised a superintendence over
the apprentice's moral well-being. In an early indenture of the time
of Richard II. the lad promises to haunt neither taverns nor houses of
ill-fame, nor hold illicit intercourse with any of the women of the
household.[489]
No doubt the number of apprentices was limited partly in order to
prevent any one master from engrossing more than what was deemed his
fair share of trade and profits. The craftspeople were very sensitive
on this point. Thus, in 1424, quarrels arose between a certain John
Grinder on the one side and his fellow-members of his craft of weavers
on the other. The fact that Grinder wove linen as well as cloth, and
had two sets of looms for the purpose,[490] had aroused the jealousy
of the other weavers of the city. It may be remarked that this weaver
was a man wise in his generation. He gained his cause and made his
fortune, and filled the post of bailiff some time before 1449, being
apparently the only man of his calling during the second quarter of
the fifteenth century who ever occupied a high municipal office. Many
precautions were taken to prevent undue rivalry between brethren of
the same fellowship. It was usual among the artisan crafts for the
member to report the closing of a bargain to the master or keeper of
his fraternity.[491] And no other member of the calling could come
between the contracting parties until the work was finished.[492] But
among the more powerful craftsmen means were often taken to defraud
their brethren of the poorer sort. By collusion between butchers and
tanners the latter were able to buy raw hides "in grete," or wholesale,
with the intention, no doubt, of reselling them at a profit to others
of the craft, a practice the corporation forbade under a penalty of
forty shillings, to be taken from buyer and seller alike.[493] When
any excessive profit was to be made, the public, then as now, was fair
game. In Coventry, as elsewhere, ale-wives gave short measure, and used
an unsealed cup. The clothmakers stretched out broadcloth to the "high
displeasure of God and deceit of the wearers" to a length the material
could ill bear. Of all these matters the corporation took cognizance,
inflicting fines, punishing by the pillory, or in extreme cases by loss
of the freedom of the city.
[Illustration: BUTCHER ROW]
There was one point, however, on which all employers were agreed,
and that was on the advisability of checking unions and combinations
among their workmen for the purpose of obtaining better wages. The
journeymen's, or, as they were called, "yeomen's" guilds, which seem to
have been fairly universal at the close of the fourteenth and during
the fifteenth century, appear in Coventry with great frequency and
persistence. Three several times the corporation obtained patents
against the formation of guilds other than those already existing in
the city.[494] The patent for the suppression of the first of these
combinations that comes before our notice, the fraternity of S. Anne,
is addressed to the mayor and bailiffs, in 1406, and relates how it had
come to the ears of the government that a certain number of youths,
serving men of the tailors and other artificers working by the day
called journeymen, gathered together in the priory, or the houses of
the friars, and formed a fraternity called the fraternity of S. Anne,
to the end that each might maintain the other in their quarrels. This
action was likely, in the opinion of those in authority, to breed
dissensions in the city, do great harm to the societies founded of
old time, namely, the Trinity and Corpus Christi guilds, and hence
bring final destruction upon the townsfolk. The meetings were declared
unlawful, and all who persisted in assembling to hold them after the
patent had been openly proclaimed were to be arrested, and their names
certified to the King, who would have them punished according to their
deserts.[495] But, in spite of this warning, the journeymen did not
give up the conflict, for the fraternity had again to be crushed in the
first year of Henry V.,[496] only to reappear in 1425 under the title
of the guild of S. George.
Connected with this last movement was the discontent which affected the
journeymen weavers in the year 1424. Indeed it is possible that the
whole company of journeymen within the city were at that time making
demand for higher pay. The weavers had a bond of union in a common
fund which they apparently appropriated to the furnishing of altar or
processional lights, a pretext possibly like that of the journeymen
saddlers in London in the time of Richard II., who, under "colour of
sanctity" and religious meetings, "sought only to raise wages greatly
in excess."[497] The movement among the Coventry weavers assumed all
the forms of a modern strike. The men not only refused to serve at
the usual wages, but hindered others from filling their place. The
corporation took the matter in hand, and the question was finally
settled by arbitration. The men were forbidden to hinder any of their
fellows from working for their masters as they had done aforetime, and
a regular rate of wages was established, whereby the journeymen took a
third of the sum paid to their employers for the weaving of each piece
of cloth, while the masters were ordered to exact threepence and no
more from their workmen as a fine for each "contumacy," being, however,
forbidden, under colour of this rule, to oppress their servants.[498]
Nearly a hundred years later we find that the fraternities of
journeymen were still in existence, albeit jealously watched by the
masters of the crafts. In 1518 all initiative was taken from them.
"No journeymen of what occupation or craft soever," runs the order of
leet, shall "make or use any _cave_ or bylaw, or assembly, or meetings
at any place by their summoner without license of the mayor and the
master of their[499] occupation" upon pain of 20s. at the first fault;
at the second the offender's "body to prison," there to remain until
the master and six honest persons of his occupation would speak for
him.[500] At the same time the workers' fraternities were ordered to
bring in the rules already made for the mayor's inspection. But the
attempts on their part to form closer unions in order to facilitate
concerted action still continued, and in 1527 we find the dyers'
serving men assembling together for the apparently pacific purpose of
attending marriages, betrothals, and burials, as if "they had been a
craft or fellowship." These meetings served most likely as a cloak to
more serious proceedings, and they were forbidden by the leet.[501] Nor
was the movement entirely confined to the workers of the crafts; it
spread among those outside the guild organization. In 1518 the daubers
and rough masons were forbidden to form a fellowship of themselves, but
were henceforth to be common labourers, "and to take such wages as are
limited by statute."[502]
In other matters we may see the discontented attitude of the workfolk.
Thus the journeymen cappers objected to the lengthening of the hours
of their working day, which in 1496 had been fixed to last from six
till six, but which by 1520 was further increased by two hours in the
summer-time, thus lasting from five in the morning to seven in the
evening.[503] Six years later it was enacted that, unless they kept
these hours, it was permitted to any master to "abridge their wages
according to their time of absence." Any rivalry in trade between
masters and men was crushed whenever the masters' power availed to
do so. Thus in 1496 the journeymen cappers carried on a contraband
trade, and scorning to be content with the permission to "scour and
fresh old bonnets" for that purpose, made new caps for sale; nor
did the imposition of a fine of twenty pence at every default avail
to check their activity. Therefore according to the rules of 1520,
members of the craft were forbidden to give any work to those who
knitted the journeymen's caps, or to the spinners who span for them,
thus indirectly checking this illicit competition. In other ways the
journeyman was made to feel the weight of the master's hand. Among the
carpenters none could be set to work unless he had served for seven
years as apprentice to the handicraft;[504] and a journeyman capper
was compelled to certify the cause of leaving his late master to the
satisfaction of the masters of the craft.[505]
These are some points connected with the life of mediæval craftsmen.
Although so much has been written on the economical, social, and
religious aspects of the subject, we are still very ignorant as to the
actual workings of the craft system. Modern industry seems to have
entirely passed through, and, as it were, forgotten this immature phase
of its existence. The companies in Coventry which were able to survive
the shock of the suppression of the guilds and chantries under Edward
VI., and have lasted to our own day--the mercers, drapers, cappers,
fullers, clothiers, and worsted weavers--possess none of the powers or
organization of their predecessors, and are mere survivals of a bygone
time, "the shadows of a great name."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 451: Rogers, _Six Cent._, 116.]
[Footnote 452: In early times there was a special place in the market
assigned to the sale of cloth. See _undated_ deed Corp. MS. C. 40.]
[Footnote 453: _Rot. Parl._, iii. 437.]
[Footnote 454: _Literæ Cantuarienses_ (Rolls Series, 85), iii. 81.]
[Footnote 455: See above, p. 202.]
[Footnote 456: _Leet Book_, 657.]
[Footnote 457: _i.e._ the Trinity guild.]
[Footnote 458: The elephant, _i.e._ the city seal, which bears the
device of an elephant and castle.]
[Footnote 459: This system did not by any means insure good
workmanship. It was noted in the middle of the century that when the
make of cloth deteriorated, the clothmaking towns still set the seal
upon the material, "and so abased the credit of their predecessors to
their singuler luker" (Lamond, _Common Weal_, 77).]
[Footnote 460: _Rot. Parl._, v. 569. There is a petition concerning the
hindrance of the navigation of the river Severn; Coventry, among other
towns, is spoken of as being injured thereby.]
[Footnote 461: The mercers' and drapers' apprentices were compelled to
pay the admission fines on the sealing of their indentures, whereas
in other fraternities these were not demanded until the period of
apprenticeship was past (_Leet Book_, 655).]
[Footnote 462: _Warw. Antiq. Mag._, pt. vi. 110.]
[Footnote 463: _Leet Book_, 658.]
[Footnote 464: _Leet Book_, 639.]
[Footnote 465: _Rot. Parl._, iv. 75. I am indebted for the explanation
of the significance of this petition to parliament against the dyers to
Mrs J.R. Green.]
[Footnote 466: The terms "degree of a mayor--of a bailiff" were used in
assessing fines. In the year 1449 a list of the craftsfolk of the city
enables us to find out to what calling the members of the corporation
belonged (_Leet Book_, 246 _sqq._)]
[Footnote 467: _Leet Book._ The mayor, recorder, and bailiffs were to
take eight or twelve of the general council of the city, and to summon
before them the wardens of the crafts with their ordinances, and these
"poyntes that byn lawfull, good and honest for the cite be alowyd hem
and all other throw[n]asid [_sic_], and had for none." And this order
was in substance repeated many times.]
[Footnote 468: _Leet Book_, 657.]
[Footnote 469: This rule was embodied in the fullers' rules. See _Book
of the Fullers_ (in possession of the fullers' company at Coventry), f.
6.]
[Footnote 470: _Leet Book_, 698.]
[Footnote 471: _Ib._, 697-8.]
[Footnote 472: _Leet Book_, 654. A part of the proceeds of the craft
fines frequently went to the repair of the town wall in the early
fifteenth century. Among the cappers fines for breach of regulations
went "half to the mayor and half to the craft" (_ib._, 573.)]
[Footnote 473: Corp. MS. B. 46; B. 63.]
[Footnote 474: The corporation proposed in a petition to parliament
that the twenty-four who elected the mayor should choose two drapers
and two dyers to overlook the craft, and "present" them for any "fault
or confederacy." See above p. 217.]
[Footnote 475: In spite of the provision for overlooking regulations,
says an order of leet for the year 1475, "divers craftsmen of this
city now late have made divers conventicles and ordinances unlawfully
against the common public of this city. And amongst others the
craftsmen of dyers' craft have made an unlawful ordinance, that is
to say that none of them should colour nor dye but under a certain
form amongst themselves ordained upon certain pains ... ordained by
surety of writing and oaths unlawful in that behalf. It is therefore
ordained by this leet ... the said unlawful and hurtful ordinances
made by the said dyers and all other unlawful ... ordinance made in
every other craft ... and the unlawful oaths and writings made for
the same be utterly void, quashed and annulled." None were in future,
the order continues, to be bound by these rules, and masters suing
others of their fellowship for not obeying them were to be fined £10.
The largeness of the sum, and the fact that precautions were taken to
have this order proclaimed once a year, "so that craftsmen might have
knowledge" of the penalties incurred by any breach of the same, prove
that the corporation was thoroughly alarmed and determined to suppress
the movement (_Leet Book_, 418).]
[Footnote 476: _Leet Book_, 558.]
[Footnote 477: _i.e._ combs for combing wool.]
[Footnote 478: _Leet Book_, 181-2.]
[Footnote 479: _Leet Book_, 303. In 1515 the crafts were commanded to
give in their books so that the fines might be moderated at the mayor's
discretion. A refusal to give in the books of regulations was to be
visited by a fine of 100s. New rules were also to be enregistered in
the mayor's book, and a 20s. fine taken from any craft for every month
that a rule had been observed without the mayor's knowledge and licence
(_ib._, 645-6).]
[Footnote 480: Green, _Town Life_, ii. 100.]
[Footnote 481: _Leet Book_, 92.]
[Footnote 482: _Ib._, 573. In a later version of the rule (_Ib._) this
matter is worked out in detail. Each apprentice put in surety in £5
to perform his covenant. If the lad broke it, it was only by handing
over the £5 to the craft that the master could immediately take an
apprentice in his place.]
[Footnote 483: _Leet Book_, 687.]
[Footnote 484: _Ib._, 774, 778.]
[Footnote 485: _Ib._, 792. The masters of crafts exercised a particular
form of oppression in forcing apprentices to take oaths on entering
their service (_cf._ "the unlawful oaths of the dyers") perhaps
to the effect that they would not set up in business after their
apprenticeship was over. The craft masters were forbidden by leet to
cause others to take an oath on "any point of their occupation" under
penalty of a fine of 100s. "without any pardon" (_Ib._ 654).]
[Footnote 486: _Leet Book_, 690-1 (1525). The fines for admission
varied with the different crafts. The cappers took from strangers 26s.
8d. and 13s. 4d. from town apprentices--payments extending over four
years, but nevertheless so high as to prevent the poorer class from
entering the craft in question. In 1518 the leet determined to overcome
the crafts' exclusiveness. Fines were then fixed for apprentices at 6s.
8d., payable at setting up shop, and for strangers at 10s., of which
5s. was paid at the end of the first year, and 5s. at the end of the
second year after starting business (_Ib._, 574, 655). The mercers' and
drapers' apprentices paid the fine at the sealing of their indentures.]
[Footnote 487: _Ib._, 553-4. For the discontent this act called forth
see p. 201.]
[Footnote 488: _Leet Book_, 671. Such was the rule among the cappers.]
[Footnote 489: Corp. MS. F. 2.]
[Footnote 490: _Leet Book_, 92-3.]
[Footnote 491: The member was "to warn" the master, who was to warn the
other members of the fellowship (_Carpenters' Accounts_, Corp. MS. A.
4).]
[Footnote 492: Under penalty of 6s. 8d.]
[Footnote 493: _Leet Book_, 557.]
[Footnote 494: Corp. MS. B. 35 (18th Nov. 8 Hen. IV. 1406); B. 38 (8th
Mar. 1 Hen. V. 1414); B. 47 (25th Jan. 19 Hen. VI. 1441).]
[Footnote 495: Corp. MS. B. 40 (22nd Nov. 8 Hen. IV. 1406).]
[Footnote 496: Corp. MS. B. 41 (8th Mar. 1 Hen. V. 1414). These last
two deeds are misdated--though with a query--in Mr Jeaffreson's
catalogue. A comparison of the dates of the patents of general
prohibition with those for a particular suppression will show that they
were executed in one instance on the same day, in another instance
within an interval of four days.]
[Footnote 497: Ryley, _Memorials_, 543.]
[Footnote 498: _Leet Book_, 94.]
[Footnote 499: MS. his.]
[Footnote 500: _Leet Book_, 656.]
[Footnote 501: _Leet Book_, 694.]
[Footnote 502: _Ib._, 653.]
[Footnote 503: _Ib._, 673. The winter hours were also increased. The
workmen came at 6 a.m. and left at 7 p.m.]
[Footnote 504: _Carpenters' Accounts_ (Corp. MS. A. 4).]
[Footnote 505: _Leet Book_, 574.]