Page images
PDF
EPUB

they were appointed in an oligarchic fashion, the retiring wardens appointing four "sufficient, discreet and indifferent persons" who co-opted eight others: "and those twelve persons so named shall go together in secret place by themselves" to choose the new wardens1. The qualifications for office varied from place to place: the gilds of Norwich expressly excluded the civic authorities 2, at Bury St. Edmunds the rulers of the Weavers' craft were to be men of substance "having freehold within the town”3, and at Canterbury a curious proviso laid down that "any such masters so elected shall be none of the same crafts or misteries whereof they shall be elected "4. The wardens were bound by oath to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon their office : "Ye shall swear that with all your might and power ye shall keep peace and tranquillity within your craft, and ye shall make good and true search in your craft during this year next ensuing ". They were forbidden to inflict excessive punishment upon delinquents or to extort money from them for their own gain, but they were to carry out their duties "sparing no one for favour and aggrieving no one for hate " 5. Fines levied by the authorities of the gild were ordered to be "to the pleasure of God, after the ability of the people" to pay them, in order, said the rulers of Coventry, that "the city be increased to more wealthiness than it is now "6 ̧ Sometimes as an additional precaution they were only allowed to inflict fines "by the assent and oversight of the mayor", and at Norwich if the fines were "excessively and not indifferently made" the injured party could complain to the mayor and obtain redress 8. Where the gild was governed by a master as well as by wardens, an aggrieved

1 Records of Norwich, ii. 279 (1449).

3 Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep. App. viii. 133.

4 Ibid. 9th Rep. part i. App. 173.

2 Ibid.

For the oaths taken by wardens: Records of Norwich, ii. 315; Records of Northampton, i. 280, 394-397 (to be actuated neither by "love, favour, meed nor promise", nor by "hate, malice or evil will to any person"); Riley, Liber Albus, i. 527; Black, Leathersellers, App. N, 129-130. Among the Glovers of Hull the searchers were forbidden to make extortion. Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 216.

6 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 655 (1518).

Records of Northampton, i. 291 (1452).

8 Records of Norwich, ii. 284 (1449).

Search

throughout the work

shops.

brother could appeal to the former "to correct the wardens"1. The primary function of the wardens was to supervise the work turned out by members of the craft, and to ensure a high standard of quality and workmanship. Hence they were expected to institute rigorous search throughout the workshops 2; and searchers who acted fraudulently were fined 3. At Bristol where the gilds fully recognized the importance of the machinery for ensuring wares of sound quality, the wardens of the Fullers were to search every house of the craft twice a week and the master of the Pewterers once a week; while at Norwich search was made every three months or more often if necessary 5. As industry expanded the system of house-to-house search began to break down, and at Coventry in 1518 a place was provided where cloth was to be brought two days a week for inspection by the searchers 6. Defaults in workmanship were presented to the mayor and punished, sometimes by the pillory, sometimes by expulsion from the gild, but most commonly by fines of which half, and sometimes two-thirds, went to the city and the remainder to the gild'. A craftsman who hindered the searchers in the exercise of their duties laid himself open to severe penalties. At Norwich a tailor was accused by the wardens that he would not allow search to be made in his shop; he was fined sixteenpence and ordered "to give to the occupation a pound candle of wax "8. A bad workman was expelled from the craft; any servant found "false of his hands", ran an ordinance of the London Blacksmiths, the first time shall be corrected and fined, but the second time "put out of the craft for ever" 9.

1 Lond. and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 34.

2 E.g. at Norwich in 1415 (Records, i. 105) the wardens were to take annual oath before the mayor "to make good and true search in the craft of all defaults". 3 York Memorandum Book, i. 68. 4 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 77 (Fullers, 1406); 185 (Pewterers, 1457). 5 Records of Norwich, ii. 282 (1449). 6 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 657. 7 (i.) For presentation of bad work to the mayor, see infra, pp. 329, 336. (ii.) For the pillory: Records of Leicester, ii. 195. (iii.) For the equal division of fines: Smith, English Gilds, 332; Fox, Weavers of Bristol, 40, etc. The Tapestry-makers of York gave the city two-thirds of their fines: York Memorandum Book, i. 85. At Oxford the Cordwainers and Corvesors apparently paid all their fines to the city: Archæol. Journal, vi. 154.

8 Records of Norwich, ii. 160 (1524).

9

Lond. and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 33.

Council.

The assembly of the craft gild held meetings at different (iii.) times of the year. At Norwich it met at least four times Assembly. and oftener if necessary1. It generally enjoyed legislative functions of a subordinate character, and enacted ordinances regulating the administrative details of the craft. In some gilds a common council was appointed with power to judge (iv.) defaults and make ordinances for the craft "as often as is needful to be done", and these ordinances were then published at subsequent meetings of the gild. The gilds of Norwich (1449), for example, were ruled by a common council composed of the wardens and twelve members of the craft, by whom the new wardens were appointed. At Coventry the keepers of the Smiths (1540) were chosen by "twelve of the eldest and discreetest of the fellowship", and the government of the Cappers (1549) would seem to have been vested in the master and "twelve of the most ancient persons of the craft". Among the Tailors of Bristol (1560) the "seniors that have been masters of the craft" acted as an advisory body, and at Shrewsbury (1478) the wardens were also assisted by a council 2. At Bristol the ordinances of the Fullers (1346) were made "by the twelve most notable of the fullers ", and approved "by the commons of the same mistery". The rules of the gild were binding on its members, and some gilds possessed a court in which to enforce their (v.) Conregulations. We rarely meet with cases of friction between trol of a craftsman and his gild. At York, where a shearman rebelled against the searchers, the affair was brought before the mayor and the authority of the gild was vindicated 4. The Tailors of Exeter placed in the stocks members who neglected their duties 5; and the London Carpenters inflicted fines or even imprisonment for disobedience to its regulations and for disorderly conduct. But the crafts must often have found it difficult to coerce recalcitrant members, and their weakness served to increase their dependence upon the

1 Records of Norwich, ii. 284 (1449).

2 (i.) Norwich: ibid. ii. 280, 284. (ii.) Coventry: Leet Book, iii. 743, 792. (iii.) Bristol: Fox, Merchant Taylors, 43. (iv.) Shrewsbury: Hibbert, Gilds, 41. (v.) Bristol (Fullers): Little Red Book, ii. 10.

3 Infra, p. 339.

5 Smith, English Gilds, 323.

4 York Memorandum Book, i. 108 (1405).

6 Jupp and Pocock, Carpenters' Company, 138.

members.

Exaction of oaths.

municipal body. The Weavers of Beverley, for example, ordered that if a master owed wages to a journeyman and the alderman of the craft could not make him pay, complaint was to be made to the keepers of the town who could enforce payment by distress 1. It was a common stipulation, therefore, that any one admitted to the gild should take oath to keep the ordinances of the craft, and disobedience would thus expose the offender to penalties in spiritual courts. Among the Pewterers of London the oath ran: "Ye shall keep to your power well and truly all the good rules of pewterers' craft". The London Shearmen even required a new member to take an oath in the presence of a notary, "to the intent that if he break his oath he shall more be punished by the law of our Mother, Holy Church" 3. On this account also, ordinances were sometimes enrolled in the registry of ecclesiastical courts in order that the authority of the gild might be backed "by the law spiritual and temporal " 4. The practice of exacting oaths easily lent itself to abuse, since it tended to become an instrument for compelling gildsmen to comply with regulations which were oppressive. In 1344 a purser complained before the Husting that his fellow-craftsmen had bound him by oath not to sell his wares below a certain price, and when he broke his oath, summoned him before a spiritual court as a perjurer 5. In 1457 the court leet of Coventry alleged that the crafts abused their powers by enforcing the submission of their members to unjust ordinances. "Great discord daily falleth in the city amongst the people of divers crafts because that divers masters of crafts sue in spiritual courts divers people of their craft, affirming that they have broken their oaths made in breaking divers their rules and ordinances, which rules oft-times be unreasonable and the punishment of the said masters over excess; which if it

1 Beverley Town Documents, p. li (1406). Similarly at Coventry (Leet Book, iii. 654) offenders refusing to pay fines were brought before the mayor. 2 (i.) Pewterers: Welch, i. 5. (ii.) Glovers: Lond, and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 30. (iii.) Carpenters: Jupp and Pocock, 352. (iv.) York Saddlers: York Memorandum Book, i. 90. (v.) Leicester: Records, ii. 32. (vi.) Bristol Fox, Merchant Taylors, 48. 4 Ibid. 43.

3 Lond. and Midd. Archæol. Soc. iv. 42.

5 G. Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (1908), 92.

continued by likelihood would cause much people to void out of this city"1. The practice was accordingly forbidden, but in spite of the prohibition we find the Dyers in 1475 making rules about dyeing and enforcing them by oath 2.

between

The relations between the different craft gilds in the Relations town community were not always harmonious. It was a allied difficult task to draw a sharp line between allied occupa- crafts. tions, and the crafts jealously resented any attempts at what they regarded as usurpation. The arrangements made to prevent encroachment on the part of one mistery or another upon their several industrial spheres were extremely detailed. The Cordwainers and Cobblers of London, for example, agreed (1395) that no person who meddled with old shoes should sell new shoes 3. The principle, one man one trade, was well understood in the Middle Ages, though not always realized in practice. At Oxford it was ordered that every man should "keep and occupy his own proper craft or occupation wherein he hath been brought up, so that by their so doing every one of them may live by the other "4. We have here an exact expression of the mediaeval view of trade; the individual is consciously subordinated to the interests of the community, and the avowed purpose of all commercial dealing is to enable each man to obtain a reasonable livelihood and a "sufficient " profit. An attempt was made to carry this principle into law. The famous statute of 1363 bade "artificers, handicraft people, hold them everyone to one mistery " 5; but the act was not easily maintained. The Carpenters of London tried to enforce it by forbidding their members to undertake any other man's work whether in masonry, plumbing, daubing or tiling, "saving only that, that belongeth to carpentry". At Chester, on the other hand, strife arose

1 Coventry Leet Book, ii. 302. The account given of the incident in Harris, Old English Town, 269, needs correction: the crafts did not organize special courts for the purpose; and the use of spiritual courts was not only normal, but also quite in keeping with the semi-religious origin of the craft gild.

2 Coventry Leet Book, ii. 418.

4 Records of Oxford, 120 (1534).

3 Riley, Memorials, 540.

5 Statutes, i. 379.

6 Jupp and Pocock, Carpenters' Company, 350.

« PreviousContinue »