Page images
PDF
EPUB

the town, that if there be any ordinance, point or new addition touching the said craft which can be profitable as well to the town as to the aforesaid craft, that then by the advice of us and of the masters of the said craft they shall be amended and firmly kept, these ordinances notwithstanding". As early as 1346 the ordinances of all the crafts were submitted to the mayor and council," and in some respects amended by them "2. The right of the town. authorities to control the gilds was laid down in express terms in the ordinances of the Smiths (1404): “Reserving all time to the mayor of Bristol and to the council of the town, power to correct, to punish, amerce and redress as well the masters and all other powers of the four crafts, each one after their deserving and trespassing as the case asketh". New ordinances were enrolled among the town. records and the gilds appear to have sought municipal approval of their own initiative, as impressing the stamp of authority upon their regulations. In 1419 the Weavers, and in 1439 the Barbers, asserted that their ordinances were violated because " they had not the ordinances aforesaid under the common seal for the more warrant, where through the craft is greatly hindered". They asked, accordingly, that their ordinances should be ratified "in writing under your common seal " 4.

Norwich and Bristol, the one a great manufacturing (iii.) At town, the other a great trading port, were the two chief Coventry. cities in the kingdom after London. Another important centre of industry was Coventry, and here also the municipal records bear striking testimony to the supremacy of the civic authorities in the supervision and control of all economic concerns. In the fifteenth century, the masters of every craft had annually to submit their bye-laws to the mayor, and ordinances" against the law in oppression of the people were annulled 5. In 1515 it was enacted "that every craft and occupation of this city that is a fellowship of them

1 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 80; similarly ii. 88, 100, etc.

2 Ibid. ii. I.

3 Ibid. ii. 183. Similarly the Dyers (1445): ibid. ii. 170.

4 Ibid. ii. 119 (Weavers); 152 (Barbers).

5 Coventry Leet Book, i. 29, 32 (1421); 170 (1434); ii. 418 (1475).

selves, that they bring in their books of their occupation at such time as master mayor commandeth them, and such caves and rules as be unreasonable to be reformed by master mayor and his brethren". At the same time it was added that all ordinances established by the craft gilds must be registered in "the mayor's book ", or they would be void1. This was intended as a precaution against any secret proceedings in the craft gilds carried on by collusion among the members. The authority of "master mayor" was also felt in other directions. He appointed keepers and searchers among the Candle-makers, Card-makers and Leather-tanners 2; he selected one of the two wardens in each of the victualling crafts; he received presentments of defective wares, and he had "the oversight of tile-making "4. In other towns also, we have evidence of the subordination of the crafts to the municipal government or the lord of the town. At Bury St. Edmunds, which was under ecclesiastical control, the "occupiers of the craft" of Weavers sought the sanction of the monastery to make ordinances and correct abuses 5. In Reading the mayor elected the wardens of the Fullers ; at Canterbury he appointed one warden in each of the crafts 7; at York he corrected gild ordinances "at his pleasure", and, as was mentioned above, punished gild offences; while at Beverley the town council regulated the misteries, and allowed any craftsman dissatisfied with the accounts of his gild to appeal to the governors of the town. Sometimes the municipality even took the initiative in forming a craft gild. At Northampton complaints were made that every tailor "esteems himself as good and skilful a master as another ", and customers suffered from their lack of skill. Accordingly the authorities themselves forced an organization upon the Tailors from above 1 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 645.

2 Ibid. iii. 703 (Chandlers, 1530); 712 (Leather-tanners, 1532); 793 (Card-makers, 1549). • Ibid. iii. 669 (1520).

▲ Ibid. ii. 554 (Pewterers' defective wares presented, 1494); i. 188 (Tilers, 1437).

5 Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep. App. viii. 133 (1477).

Reading Records, i. 216 (1550).

"Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. part i. App. 173 (1490).

8 York Memorandum Book, i. 185 (1467); Drake, Eboracum, 215 (1519). Beverley Town Documents, 53 (1467).

(1444), in order to "lay down order and good rule" among them 1.

at inde

There are indications that some of the Coventry gilds Attempts were restless under the dictation of the municipal authorities, pendence. and attempted to assert their independence and establish control over their members by suing them in spiritual courts 2. There is no reason, however, for regarding this as in any way exceptional or as a sign of gild degeneracy: there was nothing remarkable in the fact that powerful bodies of craftsmen occasionally chafed under the disabilities to which they were exposed, or that they sought to shake off their restrictions whenever it lay in their power to do so. Nor need we suppose that on their part the authorities never for a moment relaxed their rigorous control over industrial life, but strenuously carried out the strict letter of their numerous and detailed regulations. In all ages the execution of laws has lagged behind the good intentions with which they have been framed. It is sufficient if we can show that, speaking generally, the authority of the municipality over the craft gilds was in theory almost invariably recognized and in practice very frequently enforced.

Tailors

of Exeter.

More significant than the instance just cited was the The attempt of the Tailors of Exeter to rid themselves of the municipal yoke, and become an independent and self-governing body" dividing the mayor's authority". In 1466 they had been incorporated by Edward IV. and given a common seal; shortly afterwards they were involved in a bitter quarrel with the rulers of the city, who condemned their charter" as prejudicial and against the liberties of the city". The Tailors were a powerful fraternity, whose members were Imen of good wealth and countenance "`and had seats on the council; they were therefore not inclined to make easy submission. The king was forced to intervene, and by his award (1477) the gild was ordered to make no ordinances prejudicial to the rights of the Church or the city. The city, however, was not satisfied and in 1482 petitioned

[ocr errors]

1 Records of Northampton, i. 278. For their control of the crafts, see ibid. i. 237, 246, 291, 296. At Shrewsbury (Hibbert, Gilds, 39) the wardens of the Glovers took an oath of obedience to the town rulers.

2 Coventry Leet Book, ii. 302 (1457); see supra, p. 314.

Instances

of strained relations.

parliament against the gild, complaining that the mayor no longer had the "entire rule, oversight and governance of all merchants, mercers, drapers, grocers, tailors and al other artificers . . . and the correction and punishment of all offences within the city by them. . . or any other person there committed". The petition was successful and an act of parliament abolished the gild. Afterwards a peace was apparently patched up, for the gild was again revived and no further trouble ensued1. The struggle of the Tailors for independence stands isolated, and the other gilds of Exeter to all appearance made no attempt at imitation. The Cordwainers (1482) acknowledged the authority of the municipality with a deference which indicated their complete submission to its rule, and the jealousy of the governing body of the town is shown by the fact that they were required to surrender every year all the powers of their gild and resume them again by the new mayor's grant. As with the gilds of Bristol and other towns, their ordinances were entered among the records of the city in order that they might be "firm and stable" 2.

We have another example of strained relations between a craft and the municipal authorities in the case of the Shoemakers of Oxford. The gild of Shoemakers was founded by a royal charter in the twelfth century, and their monopoly of trade brought them into conflict with the town magistrates on at least two occasions. In 1321 they complained that the bailiffs allowed non-gildsmen to follow their craft 4, while as late as 1575 they were committed to prison for refusing to submit their ordinances to the mayor, and for exacting heavy fees of admission from new members 5. Again at York the Cordwainers, engaged in a struggle with the Weavers for precedence in the Corpus Christi procession, resisted the authority of the council for some years, until eventually the king himself was compelled to intervene. As may readily be gathered, conflicts were most frequent where the 1 Smith, English Gilds, 299-309; Select Cases in the Star Chamber, i. 1-6. 2 Smith, op. cit. 331, 334. Pipe Roll, 2 Hen. II. (ed. Hunter, p. 37).

4 Collectanea (Oxford Hist. Soc.), iii. 121, No. 64; Ogle, Royal Letters addressed to Oxford, 28.

↳ Archæol. Journal, vi. 150; Oxford Records, 376.

• Davies, Municipal Records of York, 250 (temp. Hen. VII.).

victualling crafts-the butchers, bakers, brewers and fishmongers were concerned: for the victuallers, strong in their monopoly of primary necessaries like bread and wine, were under a constant temptation to set municipal control at defiance by going on strike. But the authorities had in their hands a weapon by which they could easily bring a refractory gild to its knees, the admission of non-freemen to the market. At Chester (1557) the bakers rejected the mayor's assize and refused to supply bread, but the mayor forced them to submit by confiscating their charter and allowing strangers to bake bread 1. The butchers also went on strike and would not provide meat, because 'foreign butchers were admitted into the city; they were committed to prison till they promised henceforth to serve the city faithfully 2. A bakers' strike is again recorded at Coventry, where in 1484 they left the city "destitute of bread", but were soon compelled to surrender to the authorities. At York the butchers, taking advantage of the absence of competition, sold their commodities at excessive prices; accordingly the mayor for remedy extended permission to dealers living outside the city to sell at the Thursday Market. If the city butchers placed any hindrance in their way, they were to lose their franchises and be committed to prison 4. The struggle between the victualling crafts and the consumers is signally illustrated in the records of the Coventry butchers. In 1547, and again in 1550, it was ordered that the butchers of the city should allow foreign' butchers and other victuallers to sell in the town on two or three days a week. But eventually the provision dealers triumphed over the freetrade party, for in 1552 country butchers were excluded from Coventry and were henceforth" not to have any such liberty to sell their meat and victuals here, as they have had in time past" 5. The carpenters of Coventry were less successful in resisting the competition of country craftsmen, for in 1553 the latter were permitted to carry on their occupation in the city without opposition on the part of the town gild ".

1 Morris, Chester, 416 seq.

3 Coventry Leet Book, ii. 518.

5 Coventry Leet Book, iii. 780 (1547); 6 Ibid. iii. 807.

2 Ibid. 438 (1578).

4 York Memorandum Book, i. 57. 795 (1550); 803 (1552).

« PreviousContinue »