Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

assistance to any member who became bankrupt1. The White Tawyers of London not only gave sevenpence a week to a poverty-stricken member in old age or sickness, but also enacted that "after his decease, if he have a wife, a woman of good repute, she shall have weekly for her support sevenpence so long as she shall behave herself well and keep single "2. The Barber Surgeons of London appear to have restricted their charity to older members: "if any brother of this fraternity, who has been of this fraternity for seven years, by chance fall into trouble or into poverty, and if he have nothing of his own by which he may be able to live, and if it be not through his own folly, that then he shall have each week from their common box tenpencehalfpenny for his sustenance". The Tanners of Gloucester (1543) apportioned their relief according to the status of the "decayed or poverty-stricken" member. A past master who was in need received sevenpence a week; those who had not attained to the gild dignities or borne the burden of office received fourpence a week if they fell into poverty. The institution of almshouses marked an important step towards the establishment of an organized system of poor relief, and in this direction also the gilds anticipated state regulation. The Goldsmiths 5 (1341) and the Company of Merchant Taylors (1406) built almshouses near their halls "for the brethren of the livery or clothing falling into poverty". The gildsmen were expected to leave legacies to help any brother, who fell into poverty after he "hath done his duty well and truly to the fraternity". The Weavers of Gloucester received a bequest of forty pounds to be distributed annually among the poor, who were to return the loan at the end of the year 8. Throughout the gild ordinances runs the conviction that those who

1 Kingdon, Grocers' Company, i. 12.

3 Young, Barber Surgeons, 33 (1388).

2 Riley, Memorials, 232 (1346).

4 Trans. Bristol and Glouc. Archæol. Soc. xiii. 265.

5 Rymer, ii. part ii. 1157.

C. M. Clode, Early History of the Merchant Taylors (1888), i. 3. 7 Smith, English Gilds, 317; Kingdon, Grocers' Company, i. 12, 20.

8 Stevenson, Gloucester Corporation Records, 436. Another example of alms for poor members is furnished by the London Shearmen (Lond, and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 40), with the stipulation as to "good rule".

had served their fellow-men and had been " of good rule " should be cared for in their hour of need. Side by side with provisions for the sick and the poor went a due regard for the interests of the young. Many free grammar schools were founded and maintained by the gilds, which formed one of the main sources of education in the Middle Ages 1; and one gild, that of Corpus Christi, Cambridge 2, perpetuated its memory by founding the famous College that still bears its name. In this way the gilds contributed to the spread of learning, and the voluntary efforts of artisans helped to keep burning the lamp of knowledge.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tration.

Another purpose of the craft gild was to determine all (iv.) Arbidisputes between its members, and no craftsman was allowed to take legal action against a fellow - gildsman without leave of the master and the wardens" 3. The complainant was bidden first to "bring his grief" to the officers of the gild, who would endeavour "to set the parties at peace". A detailed rule was laid down among the London Shearmen (1452) : that no man of the said craft shall take action by the law upon another where the matter may be ended by treaty or compromise, unto the time that he hath asked the wardens' leave . . . and that the same wardens shall truly examine both parties, and that each of them shall choose a man or two within the said craft and they for to set them at accord if they can". If their efforts failed, the parties could then "go to the common law "4. The motive of this prohibition was to avoid as much as possible contact with rival courts of jurisdiction, and to maintain unimpaired the authority and prestige of the wardens; at the same time it helped to strengthen the feeling of solidarity among those whose social and economic interests were so intimately interwoven. In 1504, however,

1 A. F. Leach, English Schools at the Reformation (1896), 34. The Drapers of Shrewsbury maintained a school in 1492: Hibbert, Influence and Development of English Gilds, 33.

* Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i. 103; Cambridge Gild Records, ed. M. Bateson (1903), p. xxiii.

3 Young, Barber Surgeons of London, 33 (1388); Welch, Pewterers' Company, i. 32 (1466); Jupp and Pocock, Carpenters' Company, 384; Kingdon, Grocers' Company, i. 20.

4 Lond. and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 40.

Relations between fellow

members.

a statute of parliament allowed a gildsman to sue his fellowmember at law without leave of the fellowship1. This act excited great resentment among the gilds, and is represented by the clerk of the Merchant Taylors as the work of the city recorder. According to his account, the rule against litigation had served to foster "good obedience" in the crafts" and perfect love and charity . . . between brother and brother, . . . by reason whereof the citizens .. did richly increase and grew into wealth and prosperity". But this idyllic condition was "to the prejudice" of the lawyers, and the recorder "by his great labour, subtle wit and crafty means" originated the act in the interests of the legal profession 2. However this may be, the act appears to have remained inoperative. The old rule was not abrogated, and is found among the ordinances of the Barber Surgeons in London (1530) 3, and of the Merchant Venturers in Exeter (1560), while in 1563 a merchant of Newcastle forfeited a sum of six and eightpence as penalty for suing a fellowmember in a court of law 5.

An essential feature of the gild system was the principle that none should seek an unfair advantage over his fellows. It was strictly forbidden to entice a servant away from the service of his master or a customer from a dealer". Paradoxical though it may seem, the democratic spirit is always strongest in an oligarchical and privileged body. The craft gilds were oligarchical in the sense that they enjoyed a monopoly of industry, and placed "strangers" and untrained workmen under heavy disabilities. But within their own ranks they sought to establish as nearly as possible a condition of absolute equality. The forces which we have already seen at work in the village community and the merchant gild were also in operation among the crafts, and

1 Statutes, ii. 653. * Clode, Early History of the Merchant Taylors, i. 39. 3 Young, Barber Surgeons, 423.

4 Cotton, An Elizabethan Guild of Exeter, 18.

5 Newcastle Merchant Adventurers, ii. 172.

Riley, Liber Custumarum, i. 78 (Lorimers, 1260); Riley, Memorials, 258 (Furbishers, 1350), 514 (Founders, 1389); Young, Barber Surgeons, 33 (1388); Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep. App. viii. 136 (Bury Weavers, 1477). York Memorandum Book, i. 114 (Dyers: c. 1390); Smith, English Gilds, 317 (Exeter Tailors).

the gild ordinances often approach to something that, while not actually communism, seems akin at any rate to the spirit of communism. Thus among the London Shearmen, if one master had three journeymen and another had none, "the wardens shall go to him that hath the said journeymen. and shall take of them such as the goodman of the house may best forbear, and deliver him to him that hath none and hath need to have". The same spirit of joint effort and co-operative action is seen in an ordinance of the White Tawyers of London (1346): "And if any one of the trade shall have work in his house that he cannot complete, or if for want of assistance such work shall be in danger of being lost, those of the said trade shall aid him that so the said work be not lost "2. Again, among the Carpenters of London a craftsman was expected to find whatever work he could for a fellow-member that was unemployed. "If any brother go idle for default of work and another brother have work whereon he may work his brother, and that work be such that his brother can work it, then shall he work his brother before any other and give him as another man would take of him for the same work". These ordinances are valuable for the light they throw upon the working of the gild system. But their interest lies deeper; they give us an insight into the working of the mediaeval mind and afford a wholesome contrast to certain aspects of latter-day individualism. Other measures were also taken to secure employment for those without work. Some faint approach Unemployto the idea of a "labour exchange can be discerned in the ordinances which required unemployed workmen to assemble at fixed hours and places, and there offer themselves for work. In London (1370) Flemish weavers repaired to the churchyard of St. Lawrence Pountenay, and those of Brabant to the churchyard of St. Mary Somerset 1. At Coventry (1553) carpenters, masons, tilers, daubers, and all kinds of labourers who lacked employment were bidden to assemble at 5 A.M. in summer with their tools in their

[ocr errors]

1 Lond. and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 43 (1452).

2 Riley, Memorials, 232. Similarly, the Masons: ibid. 281 (1356). 3 Welch, The Boke' of Ordinances of the Carpenters, 13.

Riley, Memorials, 346.

ment.

Organiza

tion of the

(i.) mem

bership.

hands at the Broad-Gate ", where employers might be able to find them1. At Norwich a similar injunction was made in 1573 the unemployed were ordered to gather every morning between 5 and 6 A.M. at the market-cross in case a citizen wished to hire workmen 2. At Worcester (1497) labourers who wished to be given work were instructed "that they with their tools in their hands daily stand at the Grass-cross on the work days within the said city, and be there ready to all such persons that will hire them" 3.

Membership of the craft gilds was compulsory on all craft gild: engaged in a particular industry. At a later period the gild tended to become exclusive and sought to place limits to its membership, but in earlier times the position was exactly the reverse. The problem of the craftsmen was then, not how to keep the monopoly of trade in their own hands, but how to avoid a monopoly of burdens; and they were anxious to compel artisans outside their ranks to join the gild and share its taxes. In 1348 the craft of Weavers in Lincoln complained that some weavers refused to contribute towards the farm of the gild, and the king ordered that every weaver should pay a proportional share. Again, the Tailors of Beverley laid down the rule that drapers who encroached upon their mistery should be liable to their assessments 5. On the other hand, at Norwich no one was to be compelled to join the gild, unless "he be in substance and value of goods meet for the same". The control of the craft gild Wardens. lay in the hands of the assembly and the wardens, who were generally two or four in number. They were sometimes nominated by the mayor 8, but more commonly were elected in the assembly, and held office for the year. At Norwich

(ii.)

1 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 807.
3 Green, Worcester, App. p. lii.
assembled in certain open spaces:

2 Records of Norwich, ii. 144. Similarly at Paris the unemployed Economic Journal, v. 228.

4 Patent Rolls, 1348-1350, p. 120. For the conflict between native and foreign weavers over this point, see infra, p. 410.

5 Beverley Town Documents, 75 (1492).

• Records of Norwich, ii. 113.

? At Bury four wardens were appointed: Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep. App. viii. 133.

8 The wardens of the Fullers of Reading were chosen by the mayor: Reading Records, i. 216. At Canterbury (1490) the mayor elected one warden, the craft the other: Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. part i. App. 173.

« PreviousContinue »