willing1. In certain cases a master was apparently permitted to pass on his apprentice to another master, though his power to "sell or alien" the term of an apprentice could only be exercised by the "advice and counsel" of the wardens 2. appren The number of apprentices which a master might employ Number of developed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries into a subject of burning controversy. One or two towns, York in 15193 and Coventry in 15244, removed all restrictions and allowed every craftsman to take as many apprentices as he pleased. But the practice easily lent itself to abuse, and the Fishmongers of London ordered that none of their craft should receive more apprentices than they could support. Unfortunately it is often very difficult to interpret the evidence, and determine what were the real issues involved in the struggle of the gilds to limit the number of apprentices; yet upon this interpretation turns our whole conception of the later history of the craft gilds. The attempt to restrict the number of apprentices might spring from one of three motives, according as (1) the interests of the apprentices, (2) of the journeymen, or (3) of the masters, were kept in view; and the problem is to distinguish between these different factors in the situation. In the first place, we cannot condemn the gilds for ordering a master to take only as many apprentices" as his power may extend". This was the rule among the Weavers of Hull, and the London gild of Founders advanced a similar pretext for refusing to allow more than two apprentices to be employed together at once: "Some person that hath had scarcely to find himself either work or meat or drink hath taken and useth to take three or four apprentices, and them may neither teach nor find [support], whereby good men's children of the country have been greatly deceived and this city scandalized "". But very often journeymen 1 Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. N.S. xvi. 172-173. Drake, Eboracum, 212. Leet Book, iii. 687. Riley, Liber Albus, i. 383. J. M. Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 1891, p. 207 (1564). Letter Book K, 375 (1456). also wished to restrict the number of apprentices in order to increase their chances of employment, without which it was impossible to accumulate enough capital to set up as independent masters. In the settlement of a dispute in 1424 between the masters and journeymen of the Coventry Weavers, the former were allowed to have as many apprentices as they pleased without challenge; it would seem that the journeymen had tried to impose limitations, and that the arbitrators had decided in the masters' favour1. On the other hand, the Weavers of Worcester were required to employ "one journeyman at the least" for every loom within the city or its suburbs 2. Again, among the Tailors of Exeter no master was allowed more than three servants and one apprentice "at the most " without licence of the company 3. Here the proportion of journeymen to apprentices was fixed so as to protect the journeymen from the competition of cheap labour, and the principle was subsequently embodied in legislation. Thus the act of 1497 forbade worsted weavers to employ more than two apprentices at a time, and the Statute of Apprentices (1563) compelled every master in the cloth-making, tailoring and shoe-making industries who had three apprentices to employ a journeyman 5. In the main, however, the decisive factor in the determination of gild policy was the interests not of the apprentices or journeymen, but of the masters. But the masters themselves were not united in their aims. At Coventry, as we have seen, they apparently desired to push their trade and draw freely upon an unlimited supply of labour. But more commonly they displayed a jealous reluctance to admit potential rivals into a share of the gild monopoly. The craft of Leathersellers in London (1482) made their members pay a fine for every one of their apprentices; and the reason comes out in their complaint that when apprentices had served their term, they refused to become servants to their masters "for reasonable wages as their masters did before them", but set up as masters on 1 Coventry Leet Book, i. 92. " Green, Worcester, ii. App. p. lxviii. (1497). For the object of this regulation, see infra, p. 416. Smith, English Gilds, 315. Ibid. iv. part i. 420. 4 Statutes, ii. 636. their own 1. Apart from their jealousy of the stranger who sought admission into their privileged ranks, the craft gilds did all in their power to prevent the growth of industrial capitalism among their own members 2. They discouraged initiative on the part of the more enterprising craftsmen, who were ambitious to pass their competitors in the race and become large employers of labour. The underlying principle of the gild system was order rather than progress, stability rather than expansion; and the rule which limited the number of apprentices a master might employ was the counterpart of the rule which limited competition among the gild-brethren in other directions 3. But on the other hand, there was perhaps some truth in the defence that apprentices were becoming too numerous and overcrowding the gild to the detriment of all. In 1435 the craft of Girdlers alleged "that nowadays there is so great abundance of apprentices in the said craft, that many freemen of the craft" were without employment and reduced to "become water-bearers and labourers, and some of them [have] gone home again to their own country, and gone to cart and plough and left this city for ever "4. The Pewterers in 1522 re-echoed the complaint that after serving their term, apprentices were compelled to take up some other occupation for a livelihood 5. Enough, perhaps, has been said to show the danger of facile generalizations as to the reasons why craft gilds tended to become exclusive. But whatever may have been the motive at one period or another, it is certain that a determined effort was made to keep down the number of trained and skilled artisans. Among the Shearmen of London 6 (1452), and the Worsted Weavers of Norwich (1511), no one was allowed more than four apprentices. The Barber Surgeons of London (1487) limited the number to three, the Cappers of Coventry 9 8 A Letter Book K, 200. 1 Black, History of the Leathersellers' Company, 39-40. 9 Records of Norwich, ii. 377. Worsted weavers in the country were only allowed two apprentices. 8 Young, Barber Surgeons, 64. • Coventry Leet Book, iii. 670. Restric tions on the choice tices. 3 (1520) to two, and the Tailors of Exeter 1 to one, though the Tailors also allowed their members three journeymen. Sometimes the number of apprentices was proportioned to the status of the craftsman. Among the London Founders 2 (1489) any one who had held the office of upper warden was permitted four apprentices, a past warden three, a liveryman two, and a master 'out of the clothing' one or two at the most. The London Coopers (1537) assigned three apprentices to a past warden or master, two to a liveryman, and one to a householder 'out of the clothing'. The Tailors of Bristol 4 adopted a somewhat different arrangement: a past master could take three apprentices, those who had twice served as wardens two, and those who had held no office one. Among the Paviors of London the apportionment of apprentices went on similar lines: those who had twice been wardens had three apprentices, those who had been wardens but once had two, and other members one 5. Lastly, the Carpenters drew the dividing line simply between those admitted to the livery and those outside; to the former were allowed two apprentices, and to the latter one. Similarly among the Pewterers, liverymen 'of the clothing' could take three apprentices, and those 'out of the clothing' two 7. But the problems that were to agitate the men of a later age, and make every gild the scene of contention and strife, of appren- seemed far distant in the remoter centuries when industry was still confined within narrow bounds, and the craftsman was content with one or two apprentices at the most. Drawn from the same social status, united by a sense of common interests, masters and men in the early days of industrial development could toil side by side in willing co-operation, undivided by the antagonism of capital and labour. In so far as any difficulty disturbed the smooth 1 Smith, English Gilds, 315. 2 W. M. Williams, Annals of the Founders' Company (1867), 11. In C. Welch, Paviors' Company (1909), 12. 7 Welch, Pewterers' Company, i. III. working of the gild system, it arose rather from the lack than the superabundance of apprentices. Throughout the Middle Ages England remained primarily an agricultural country, a land of tillers, to whose needs the interests of trader and artisan alike were frankly subordinated. But in the fifteenth century industry was beginning to prove more attractive than husbandry; it offered a wider scope to men of initiative and enterprise, and opened up a field of opportunity where wealth and prestige lay within the grasp of all who could approve themselves worthy by their skill and resources. The cloth trade was progressing by leaps and bounds, and the prosperous burgher began to store up riches in his house and entertain kings at his table for his guests 1. There was a movement from the country to the towns in the years that followed the Black Death, and the discontent of the peasants with the burdens of villeinage spurred on their ambition for better things. The cry went up that tillage was decaying from scarcity of agricultural labourers, and the government responded with the acts of 1388 and 1406. The first act enjoined that all who served in husbandry till the age of twelve should continue to do so, and not be apprenticed to any mistery 2. More important still was the second act, by which no one might place his child to serve as apprentice to any craft "or other labour within any city or borough, except he have land or rent to the value of twenty shillings by the year at the least"3. Some writers have supposed that this statute was ineffectual 4, but this view is undoubtedly incorrect. In 1429 the citizens of London petitioned against it, and they were excluded from its operation 5. Oxford made two futile attempts in 1450 and 1455 to obtain immunity from the act; they complained that their town was "desolate for the more part", since scholars had withdrawn from the University, saying that they may not have artificers to serve them " ". 1 In 1363 a London vintner feasted four kings: Stow, Survey of London, i. 106. In 1460 William Canynges entertained Edward IV.: G. Pryce, Memorials of the Canynges' Family (1854), 114. 2 Statutes, ii. 57. E.g. Rogers, Agriculture and Prices, iv. 117. 3.Ibid. ii. 157. • Rot. Parl. v. 205 a, 337 b. |