Page images
PDF
EPUB

Exclusion of crafts

men from

trade.

according to the trade which they carried on. Here, alse there are examples of combination among traders; for instance, in York the merchants, grocers, mercers and apothecaries were organized in one group, the drapers and merchant-taylors in another, and the linen-weavers in a third. In this case each trade or craft retained its own coat of arms, but for purposes of organization was grouped with other trades and crafts in a single corporation under one governing body1. But in London, in particular, each body of merchants retained its own independent organization; and instead of a single trading company embracing all classes of merchants, there were several companies, as we have seen, differentiated in accordance with the nature of their merchandise; hence the Grocers, the Goldsmiths, the Vintners and numerous other London companies. Elsewhere, on the other hand, most towns appear to have had a general trading company of dealers. There is evidence that in a large number of towns traders amalgamated in one company to protect their interests. The advantages of consolidation would be apparent to local dealers in preventing friction between the different groups of merchants and complaints of encroachment upon each other's trade, and in settling the relations between merchants and handicraftsmen. Moreover, the goldsmiths, mercers, drapers, grocers and the rest were commonly too few in number to allow of their organization in isolated groups; hence, while following a great variety of callings, they would naturally come together in a common association for the maintenance of their mutual interests. This serves to explain the heterogeneous nature of the trading companies, a feature which at first sight may well occasion surprise.

The growing differentiation of the mercantile and handicraft classes was stimulated by the efforts of the former to prevent craftsmen from dealing in merchandise outside their mistery. At Newcastle (1480) the Merchant Adventurers excluded craftsmen from retailing merchandise and 1 Drake, Eboracum, 224.

2 S. Kramer, "The Amalgamation of the English Mercantile Crafts", in English Hist. Review, xxiii. 15-34, 236-251. For the list of towns with companies of dealers: ibid. 17-18.

inflicted fines on offenders1. The latter contested their monopoly, claiming " to buy and sell all manner [of] wares", but a decree of the Star Chamber in 1516 laid down that they were not to engage in trade unless they first renounced their craft 2. At Hull (1499) merchants alleged that they were greatly injured "by tailors, shoemakers and others, which presumptuously hath taken upon them to buy and to sell as merchants"; and it was therefore enacted that no craftsman should buy and sell wares, but such as pertained to his craft 3. At Exeter, on the other hand, retail trade was open to all citizens, and the restriction here applied only to "adventuring beyond the seas" 4. Elizabeth's charter to the Merchant Adventurers of Exeter (1560) speaks of the many "inconveniences, which of late within the said city hath cropped in and grown by reason of the excessive number of artificers and other inexpert, ignorant and unworthy men, who do take upon them to use the art, science and mistery of merchandise and traffic of merchant wares "5. The city companies, headed by the Tailors, fought against the attempt of the merchants to establish an exclusive monopoly of foreign trade, but after two years of disturbance the merchants triumphed ". John Hoker, the historian of Exeter, who acted on behalf of the merchants, defended their monopoly on the ground that "to be an adventurer is not only to be subject to the perils of the seas, but doth also require more exact knowledge in itself than other trades do, without which the trade is like to be more dangerous than profitable". Similarly at Bristol, Edward VI.'s charter to the Merchant Venturers (1552) prohibited “artificers and men of manual art" from engaging in foreign trade "to the great scandal of the merchants "8. This cut off craftsmen from foreign trade, but not from retail trade within the town. The history of the Merchant Venturers, or "Meere Merchants", of Chester furnishes another example

1 Newcastle Merchant Adventurers, i. 5 (1480), 30 (1581), 81 seq. (fines inflicted). 2 Select Cases in the Star Chamber, ii. 75, 106.

3 Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 158.
▲ Cotton, An Elizabethan Guild of the City of Exeter, 104.
5 Ibid. I.

6 Ibid. 24-25.

8 Latimer, Merchant Venturers of Bristol, 42.

7 Ibid. 105.

Merits and defects of the gild

system.

of the tendency to exclude the manual craftsman from sharing in trade. They were incorporated by charter for foreign trade in 1553, and no member at first was allowed to exercise any manual occupation or to sell by retail. But the retail traders refused to abandon their right to traffic in foreign parts, and after many years' dispute they were admitted to the company in 1589, though craftsmen continued to be excluded 1.

The historian is apt to be influenced unconsciously by what we may term 'economic fatalism', the belief that social evolution moves along irresistibly to some predestined end. The society in which we live is so deeply rooted in our everyday thoughts and habits, that the sequence of historical events which has brought it into being appears to us unavoidable and inevitable. From this standpoint it has been possible to bestow praise upon the craft gild, in spite of the fact that its fundamental principles are in many respects so completely at variance with modern ways of thinking. It is contended that the pressure of the gild system in a primitive age, accustomed to the rudest forms of deceit, fashioned a public opinion in favour of those social and economic virtues that have now become a commonplace, and schooled men to recognize elementary maxims of honesty in trade and industry. It would then follow that, with all its uncompromising and rigid harshness, the gild system could be justified as an indispensable stage in our development. We scarcely know, however, sufficient of the factors which have moulded the national temperament, and created a social conscience, to postulate this view with certainty. But what we can do is to recognize that the gild system had certain qualities which may still afford an inspiration to our own age, and certain defects which may still furnish a warning. Both praise and criticism alike must take into account the economic environment under which the gild system grew up and flourished, the current conceptions of morality so widely different from the classical postulates of modern economics, and the conditions which

1 Morris, Chester, 463-464.

facilitated their application. On the one hand, for the purposes of a local market the craft gild was admirably designed to achieve its object, the limited production of a well-wrought article. Apprenticeship afforded ample opportunities for a thorough system of technical training, and the inspection of workshops stimulated and encouraged a high standard of craftsmanship. The regulation of wages and conditions of labour, if often prompted in the interests of the masters, would tend to protect the journeymen against arbitrary oppression and to set up a standard which was probably on the whole not unreasonable or unfair. Again, the determination of prices and the quality of wares sought to protect both the seller and the buyer, and to establish rates of remuneration for the craftsmen that were commensurate with the labour involved. It has often been remarked that mediaeval authorities endeavoured to fix prices according to the cost of production. Starting from the conviction that the labourer was worthy of his hire, their principle was to reward him with a recompense suitable to his station. They did not hold what we may call the theory of minimum subsistence-the iron law of wages-where wages are forced down to the lowest level at which the workman can subsist. Instead, they seem to have recognized that wages should be made to conform to a fit and proper standard of life. Another feature of the gild system was that the scope of individual enterprise was restricted, on the ground that the interests of the community were paramount. A striking example of the subordination of the individual to what was then conceived as the common good is afforded at Chester in 1558. Here a complaint was raised that Joiners and Carvers, instead of supplying the wants of the citizens, sold their wares to Ireland and other places beyond the sea "at an unreasonable, great and dear price" to their own enrichment, but to the discomfort of the community. Accordingly, they were forbidden to send away their work unless they had first obtained special leave 1. The chief criticism against the craft gild, however, is that it fostered a spirit of monopoly and promoted an unreasoning 1 Morris, Chester, 405.

[ocr errors]

jealousy of the stranger within the gates', which undoubtedly militated against the expansion of industry. Its monopoly indeed has met on every hand with severe condemnation, and the subsequent efforts of the gilds to confine membership to a narrow and selfish clique merit the censure they have received. But in the earlier stages of craft development the gilds, as we have already contended, can hardly be blamed for excluding from their privileges those who were reluctant to share their charges. The responsibility, if any, must lie with the Crown or the municipality, which employed the gilds as the instruments of their exactions. Moreover, we have to remember that the town authorities enjoyed the right to control the privileges of the craft gilds in the interests of the community, and could take steps to avoid the dangers of a monopoly. At Coventry country bakers and butchers were allowed to sell bread and meat in the market on certain days in the week 1, and the town traders were forbidden to molest them in any way. At Chester 'foreign' butchers and bakers could normally sell their commodities twice a week, so as to "reduce the sale of victuals to a lesser price "2. At London and York the victualling crafts were not permitted an unrestricted monopoly, and country dealers were allowed to sell in the market 3. A more significant example of the exercise of municipal discretion was displayed when the mayor of Chester, in order to set up a new branch of the cloth trade, introduced weavers from Shrewsbury skilled in the manufacture of "cottons, friezes, russets, bays", and protected the strangers from the native weavers who tried to drive them from the town 4.

But whatever opinion we may form as to the merits and defects of the gild system, we can at any rate do justice to its most admirable feature, the institution of apprenticeship. Whatever its drawbacks, the gild has bequeathed to us the ideal of technical training and sound craftsmanship, an ideal binding on all alike who work with hand or brain.

1 Coventry Leet Book, i. 24 (bakers, 1421); iii. 780 (butchers, 1547). 2 Morris, Chester, 421, 441.

3 For London, cf. supra, p. 338 (n. 7) (fishmongers). For York: Memorandum Book, i. 57. 4 Morris, Chester, 408 (1576).

« PreviousContinue »