The English craft gilds and the government; an examination of the accepted theory regarding decay of the craft gilds

Front matter

A;

A; Oj 0!

1 ;

Preface

The conclusions presented in the following pages were reached as the result of an investigation of the relations commonly supposed to have existed between the English government and mediaeval craft gilds, as shown especially in a series of statutes enacted in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, to which a great influence has hitherto been ascribed in the decay of English craft gilds.

The present study had its beginning at the University of Pennsylvania under the direction of Professor Edward P. Cheyney, who held that three factors should be taken into account in considering the decay of those organizations: First, internal divisions in craft gilds; secondly, external changes in the distribution of industry, shown by the rise of the " domestic system " of manufacture; and thirdly, the hostility or intrusion of the national government, indicated by a series of acts from 1436 to the Elizabethan Statute of Apprentices of 1563, by which the gilds were deprived of their administrative, legislative and jurisdictional freedom, as well as superseded in many of their economic functions.

Nor is Professor Cheyney alone in the stress thus laid upon legislative action. Various writers upon craft gilds have emphasized more or less the influence of such government intrusion. Professor Ashley sees as a factor in the weakening of industrial organization in the towns the increased action of the central authority, while Hib- 447] 5

PREFACE bert goes so far as to attribute an utter change in craft gilds as a whole, to one of these acts, that of 1563.

Such conceptions of the policy of the English government, however, show an apparent contradiction in its action relative to the gild system. On the one hand the state would seem to have favored the old towns by trying to check the growth of industry outside of their jurisdiction, by passing laws to regulate the processes of manufacture in different industries as they rose, and in some of these acts by giving power to gild officers to enforce state regulation. Yet in others, by the act of 1563 for example, craft authorities were entirely ignored, and thus the old trade organizations were supposedly superseded in the exercise of much of their work. Again, by the series of acts already referred to, freedom of action of the gilds was restricted by the requirement to submit their by-laws to the inspection and endorsement of government officials before they might be put into execution. It is these latter acts which have been held of especial importance in the decay of the gild system.

A detailed study of the relations which existed between the English government and craft organizations has failed to corroborate such views of the influence of any state action upon the gild system, and has led the writer to a view entirely opposed to that which she previously had held in keeping with the theories of Professor Cheyney and others. This has perhaps been but the natural result of a more extended study of the subject and a more complete isolation of the history of craft gilds. On the other hand the results have been made possible only by the thoroughness of training and the excellent methods of work derived from Professor Cheyney, to whom I have been much indebted throughout this investigation.

I wish also to express my thanks to Professor James

449] PREFACE j

H. Robinson, of Columbia University, for much insight into historical perspective ; to Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman and Professor Herbert L. Osgood for their encouragement and good counsel, and to Professor Merrick Whitcomb, of the University of Cincinnati, for similar assistance. In the final revision I have been greatly helped by Miss Louise R. Loomis, of Barnard College.

Stella Kramer.

New York, April, 1905.

Introduction

PAGE

The study of institutions 13

Gilds as borough institutions . . 14

A chartered privilege 14

The Gild merchant the first expression of industrial gild 15

Underlying principle — association to co-operate 15

Rise of artisan gilds 17

Attitude of the boroughs 17

Three methods of accounting for the rise of craft gilds 18

The relation between the gild merchant and craft gilds 21

Conditions in Leicester 22

Change in borough government 28

Second stage in craft-gild development 28

Development in Bristol and London 29

Evolution of the early crown-chartered gilds in Oxford and London. 32

Result of change in borough government 34

Relation between national and local industrial interests 36

National encouragement of craft gilds 37

Craft-gild aggression 37

Situation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 38

Chapter I Policy Of The Government With Reference To Craft Gilds

Beginning of governmental intervention 39

Fourteenth century conditions 39

1. Action of 1388 40

Writs for information concerning craft gilds 40

Cause of this action 41

Craft gilds a generally established institution 42

Petition of 1376 43

Relations between gilds and town authorities 43

Conduct of the gilds evokes state intervention 45

2. Act of Henry VI, 1437 45

IO CONTENTS [452

Page

Cunningham's theory of the occasion of the act 46

Is his the true interpretation ? 47

Procedure up to 1437 47

Interpretation not verified by existing conditions 49

Cunningham's theory of the value of the act 49

Jurisdiction of the justices of the peace 50

Institution of the office in the boroughs 51

Actual effects of the act 53

Policy of Henry VI 54

Policy of Edward IV 55

Summary of fifteenth century state policy 57

Conclusion— Probable cause of the enactment 58

Chapter II Policy Of The Early Tudors Toward Craft Gilds

Continuation of the fifteenth century policy 60

1. Intervention under Henry VII 61

Theories regarding occasion of the act 63

Busch's theory 63

Theory of a contemporary chronicler 63

Act in operation . , 64

Influence to be ascribed to this act 66

Specific charge contained in the act— Unlawful ordinances in

prices 67

The customary method of determining price 68

Gilds no recognized authority 73

Inquiry into the efficacy of the act 74

Motive of the government's action 77

Conclusion 77

2. Intervention under Henry VIII 78

II. Act of 1537 79

Complication resulting from national and municipal regulation of the same offense 80

Summary of governmental policy under Henry VIII .... 81

Chapter III Later Tudor Policy As A Factor In The Decay Of Craft Gilds

I. Action of the government under Edward VI 85

No break in the continuity of craft-gild development .... 86

Craft gilds flourishing throughout the realm 87

453] CONTENTS H

Page

2. Policy of the Elizabethan government 88

Statute of apprentices 88

Views of its influence upon the gild system 88

Preamble of the act 89

Three important provisions 90

Ashley's interpretation 90

(1.) Assessment of wages 91

Method in vogue from Norman period to 1563 01

Terms in the act of 1563 97

Summary of later conditions 98

Can Ashley's interpretation be accepted? 100

Consideration of two questions to determine effects of the act. 101

Who were the "discreet" men to be consulted? ... 101

Was the act enforced? 102

Conclusion— Influence of this part of act 102

(2.) Seven-years apprenticeship 103

Provisions of the act of 1563 103

Evolution of the custom of apprenticeship 104

Influence of the act 106

Hibbert's interpretation 106

(3.) Authorities entrusted with the enforcement of this

act 107

Cause for the insertion of an apprenticeship clause 107

Hibbert's theory of the effect of act of 1563 .110

(a.) Craft gilds came to an end • . no

Examination of later conditions in

(d.) Craft gilds amalgamated 113

The movement toward amalgamation ... 114

Policy of the Elizabethan government illustrated by charter

to a Worcester gild - 120

Conclusion— State policy 121

Chapter IV English Economic Policy In The Middle Ages

Gilds no rights of initiative 124

Relationship between state, municipality and gild 125

Relationship between law and custom 125

Local authority first in command 125

Government interference of the fourteenth century . . . . 125

General rules for conduct of trade and industrial dealings . . 126

Assize of measures, etc 126

Borough government given power to enforce assizes .... 127

12 CONTENTS [454

Page

Privileges enjoyed by the towns 128

Borough prosperity dependent upon craft prosperity .... 130 Craft exercise of power in spite of borough interference . . . 130 Gilds dependent upon borough aid for regulation of trade . • 131

Gild returns for municipal favors 131

Municipal authorities insist upon fair dealing 132

Municipal authorities refuse to ratify craft by-laws 132

Royal authority for municipal power 133

Gild membership dependent upon burgess-ship 133

Gilds dependent upon borough recognition 134

Gild contributions for town's support 134

Borough authorities as gild members 135

Borough authorities forced to respect the law 135

Craft recognition of legal enactment 135

Craft violation of law with borough encouragement 136

Borough respect for the law of the land 136

Craft gilds' respect for state and borough law 136

The law of the land the tribunal of last resort 137

Punishment for gild transgression 138

Struggle for existence of the gild system 138

Decay not due to legislative enactment 139

Conclusion — Gild merchant succeeded by municipal and craft organization 139

Subordination of gilds to municipality 140

Gild transgressions— Acts of 1437, 1503, 1531, 1537 141

Radical change of state policy under Elizabeth 141

Elizabethan policy encouraged craft gilds 142

English industrial scheme, a three-fold combination of forces. 143

Reasons for difficulty of a separate consideration 144

(1.) Importance of gilds in industrial centres 144

(2.) Influence of London gilds upon gilds in all parts

of the realm 144

(3.) English industrial policy was protective, into

which the gild system naturally fitted 145

End of craft gilds corroborates the theory of their rise as purely municipal institutions 146

338.6

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Stubbs has doubtless testified for all time to the value and great interest which the history of institutions has for those who, as he puts it, " have courage to work upon it."1 Of no institution, perhaps, can this be more truly affirmed than of English craft gilds. In its broadest conception a study of those organizations involves the entire social history of England. In a stricter sense it narrows itself into a survey of the development of burghal interests and ambitions after the Norman Conquest, since it was in its boroughs that England's commercial and industrial life centered.

That the Norman duke realized to the very fullest degree the worth of his " conquest," Domesday Survey testifies ; especially when it shows that, with the exception of the towns bestowed upon his favorite nobles or influential clergy, he had retained as his particular dominion the cities and boroughs of England.1 But he lost no time in showing his willingness to propitiate the most royal of all his boroughs when he granted London a charter confirming her citizens in all the law whereof

1 Constitutional History , vol. i, Preface.

'Jenks calls attention to the fact that the "conquest" places propertymuch more at the disposal of its master than the heritage or office. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 39. Maitland classifies Domesday boroughs as royal and mediatized. Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 212-218. See Ballard, Domesday Boroughs, pp. 9-10, for a list of Domesday boroughs.

455] 13

14 ENGLISH CRAFT GILDS [4S&

they had been worthy in King Edward's day.1 To the series of Anglo-Norman charters, through which from that time burgesses gradually obtained the privileges they desired and emancipated themselves from feudal control, we owe our knowledge of the growth of English towns.2 During this process their political and commercial influence, keeping pace with the amount of corporate unity developed within their borders, gradually gained from the ruling powers the recognition that the boroughs were distinct forces in the land, and as such worthy of especial attention and privilege. What these privileges were, and how they became one by one chartered rights, by either royal or baronial favor, extant records amply testify.

One of the earliest of borough privileges thus recorded was the concession to burgesses in various towns of their gild merchant.3 The significance of such an article in a twelfth century charter is not really apparent until we later see the institution in full operation. Then we appreciate the worth of the grant to the townsmen of the right to bind themselves in an association which

1 For William's sole surviving charter, see Norton, Commentaries, p. 257-

'According to Miss Bateson, Mediaeval England, p. 271, the privileges chiefly sought were " liberty to manage their own finance, their own judicature, their own trade, freedom from the interference of the king's officers ; and out of them the towns began to develop their councils, their courts, and powers of self-government of every kind."

4cj7] INTRODUCTION ^

exempted them from the payment of trade tolls and gave them the monopoly and regulation of all commercial interests within their domains. This was a royal privilege at that time, and as such, no doubt, right royally paid for. It is, moreover, most valuable testimony to the fact that English boroughs were profiting commercially and industrially by the incoming of the Normans. The desire or need for such an organization registers that fact for us,1 and its authorization by royal charter lends to the mediaeval gild merchant special significance as an English institution.

Association of men for the purpose of advancing common interests is a universal phenomenon of human society, indeed the very foundation of society itself. The fundamental principle underlying all such unions is invariably the same,— desire for co-operation — but the form in which that principle is expressed naturally varies with the conditions the association is established to meet and further. So in the industrial world there have doubtless always been unions of artisans, in all ages and among all peoples. In recognition of this fact we no longer attempt to trace the direct descent of English industrial gilds from earlier associations, such as the Roman colleges of workmen.2 Given a body of men vitally concerned with the development of a particular interest, what will they do to promote it? History has and will unfailingly

1 " Not until there was something of importance to protect," says Professor Gross, "not until trade and industry began to predominate over agriculture within the borough, would a protective union like the Gild Merchant come into being." Gild Merchant, vol. I, p. 4.

* Professor Seligman in his Two Chapters on Mediaeval Gilds, p. 50, considers this part of the subject, and establishes an absolutely independent origin for English gilds. Professor Ashley also discusses this phase in an interesting manner. English Economic History, vol. ii, pp. 77, 78.

l6 ENGLISH CRAFT GILDS [458

record one answer. They will of their own accord draw together into an association rendered necessary and profitable by the state of society which called it into being. It is, then, not this general principle leading to association but the particular form which the first attempt at industrial organization assumed in England with which we are concerned. This seems to have been the gild merchant. Just how great a role co-operation in trade had played in that country before the Norman conquest is not easy to determine. Some cities and boroughs had undoubtedly important commercial relations. London in the time of Athelstan had use for eight moneyers; Canterbury required six, and many other towns supported smaller numbers.1 The merchant was protected ; special inducements and emoluments were provided for his encouragement.2 There were also distinct market regulations, traces of which may be found among Anglo-Saxon records,3 although the idea of conceding to a community the right of association for the complete monopoly of trade seems not to have obtained before the creation of the gild merchant.4 Nevertheless, the rapidity with which that institution spread through-

'Maitland, op. tit., p. 195.

2 A doom of that time ordains that a merchant who had made three long sea voyages on his own account should be entitled to the rank of a thane. This shows how great a national concern the encouragement of commerce had become. Norton, op. tit., p. 21.

3Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. ii, p. 73, 328.

* Professor Gross has found no trace of a gild merchant in any of the Anglo-Saxon records, and therefore concludes that it was a new institution for England, probably introduced from Normandy. This is the view held by Norton also. The earliest distinct mention of it in extant English records is found in the charter granted the burgesses of Burford, in Oxfordshire, some time between 1087-1107. Op. tit., vol. i, pp. 4, 5, 191.

4cq] INTRODUCTION i j

out the land testifies to the development of England's commercial and industrial life.

Following closely upon the earliest known gild merchant there appeared another species of gild in certain of of the boroughs. During the later years of Henry I, Exchequer rolls testify to the payment by various artisan unions in London, Oxford and Lincoln for recognition of their right to have gilds.1 That such a privilege during the twelfth century was exclusively a royal gift Henry II's Exchequer proves by its allusions to artisan gilds daring enough to establish themselves without such permission, which were detected and brought to terms.2 By this time, moreover, legitimate gilds are evident in various other boroughs, especially in Nottingham, York and Winchester. Most of these were associations of weavers and fullers, results of the growth of the cloth industry ; but a few other trades appear, more especially in London, where only (with the exception of the Oxford cordwainers) do such trades as the bakers, saddlers and goldsmiths appear important enough to have their unions recognized. Beyond the mere fact of their existence little is known of these earliest artisan gilds, except that they required royal permission to form at all. But in spite of their crown grant or, perhaps, because of it, their presence within some of the boroughs was evidently resented, and to such an extent that their members were refused the usual privileges of burgesses.

'A Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, records payment by the weavers of Oxford, of two marks of gold that they might have their gild, while those of Lincoln were amerced for one mark only. Stubbs, op. cit., vol. i, p. 412.

* These were the so-called adulterine gilds, so designated because "set up without Warrant." For so, 'according to Madox, " 'tis explained in subsequent records referring expressly to this great Roll of the 26th year." History of the Exchequer, vol. i, p. 562.

This spirit of burghal hostility directed chiefly against gilds of weavers and fullers in such places as London, Oxford, Winchester, and in some of the less important towns as Beverley and Marlborough,1 has in modern times been made the basis of the earliest theory of the origin of English craft gilds. Other views, wholly or partially opposed to the first, have since been put forward until we have now practically three methods of accounting for the rise of that institution. Brentano and his followers, the first in the field, arguing from the illfeeling shown in the boroughs just referred to, and drawing upon analogies furnished by Continental conditions, ascribe the origin of English craft gilds to the expulsion from the greater gild, or gild merchant, of the artisans, who were thus led to form unions of their own.2 Professor Gross and his adherents, on the contrary, contend that the hostility in some towns was wholly exceptional, that artisans, generally speaking, were freely admitted to the gild merchant in most English boroughs, and that the rise of craft gilds was a spontaneous movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.3 The exceptional instances of exclusion Mr. Gross explains as due probably to jealousy against Flemish intruders. Regarded as

^he weavers and fullers of Oxford, for example, were " not to weave or full any cloth that is their own without the leave of the proved men of the town," upon pain of forfeit of the cloth. No freeman could be "attainted" by a weaver or fuller, nor could they "bear any witness." Besides such restrictions from Beverley records it seems that "if any one wishes to forswear his craft let him deal with him who is called mayor and with the bailiffs of the town, that he may be received into the franchise of the town; and let him remove the looms from his house. And this law they have in the franchise of London as they say." Libei Custumarum, p. 131. See, also, Beverley Town Documents (Selden Society Publications) , p. 135, for a more correct version of these laws.

a Smith, English Gilds, cxv.

* Gild Merchant :, vol. i, p. 117.

46l] INTRODUCTION IO,

aliens, they were refused admission to civic and mercantile franchises.1 Professor Ashley, however, takes a middle position, asserting that there is no reason to believe that these artisans were of Flemish blood, and excluded on that ground from borough privileges. He believes that the relation which existed between the gild merchant and the artisans within the English boroughs was by no means so harmonious as Professor Gross would have us suppose.2

However, all that we really know about the matter is that there was this opposition shown toward weavers and fullers in the towns already mentioned, and that it took the form of barring them, as long as they exercised their trades, from the usual rights of free burgesses. The

1 Ibid., p. 108. See Ochenkowski, Englands wirthschaftliche Eniwickelung im Ausgange des Mittelalters , pp. 58-62. Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i, pp. 176-182. Liber Custumarum, Introd. lxi, for the same view of their foreign origin.

2 He refutes Professor Cunningham's view of their foreign origin, and discusses the question in his review in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. vi, p. 155. For Ashley's explanation of the rise of craft gilds, see English Economic History, vol. i, p. 80. Professor Seligman, in his Two Chapters, p. 58, also opposes the supposition of a foreign origin, and considers these as exceptional cases which from the outset were regarded with disfavor by the gild merchant. This latter statement, however, raises the question, worthy perhaps of some emphasis, which seems not to have attracted attention heretofore, namely, whether the opposition directed against these early artisans did not proceed rather from the burgesses as a whole, than from the organized gild merchant. What significance may lie in this, cannot be decided at this time, but burgess-ship and membership in the gild merchant were by no means identical terms in the earliest stages of a town's development. "The test of burgess-ship may well have been one thing in the year 1000, another in 1200, another in 1300. By 1400, to enter the gild merchant of Leicester . • • was to enter the freedom of the borough; but in 1300 a distinction between the gildsman and the burgess is still so far visible as to make it likely that in 1200 it was obvious." Bateson, Records of Leicester, vol. i, Introd. xxviii.

precise period when this spirit of hostility was displayed towards those handicraftsmen is by no means certain, since the date of the records has not been established beyond dispute.1 Nor can the cause of this burghal ill will be easily determined in the absence of sufficient evidence to warrant our attributing it to a foreign nationality. In any event no single explanation can suffice for conditions so widely prevalent, nor can it account for the—rise of craft gilds as an English institution. It may well be that the right even though derived from the crown to establish a gild in boroughs where the citizens as a whole already enjoyed in their gild merchant a monopoly and oversight of all trade, would be sufficient occasion for borough dissatisfaction. This partial duplication of powers would naturally bring the two associations at some point into conflict. It was an imperium in imperio in the community's industrial world, and consequently very likely to breed dissension.2

'We have evidence now which may help to determine this vexing question of the period when artisan gilds first evoked town antagonism. Heretofore investigators have depended wholly upon the account in Liber Custumarum, which contains warrant for the supposition that expressions of ill will belonged to the later thirteenth century. In formulating her hypothesis the writer had only that evidence to draw upon. She has discovered since, among the publications in the London Municipal Collection of Documents, from original manuscripts in the British Museum {English Historical Review, vol. xvii, p. 509), references to these early Norman-French gild laws which fix their date as no later than the ninth year of King John. Moreover in the volume of Beverley Town Documents , edited for the Selden Society, Mr. Leach has incorporated copies of these laws taken from the British Museum collection. In connection with them he remarks that the character of the handwriting in which the laws were written fixes their date somewhere in the last quarter of the twelfth century. (Introd., xlv.) If that be the epoch of borough antagonism, there is new ground for the argument that hostility to the artisan gilds came rather from the town than from the gild merchant.

sOne cannot but wonder whether Henry II was not providing against

Nevertheless, whatever tlje correct explanation may be of the rise and status of these earliest known artisan gilds, their history can by no means be taken as typical in dealing with that system of craft gilds which arose later in the thirteenth and the following centuries, and which as it developed, dominated the English industrial world for centuries. It is the failure to appreciate this fact, perhaps, which is responsible for the confusion that exists in regard to the rise and development of the gild system as a whole, where one must take into consideration chiefly the gild merchant and the later craft gilds. What is the true view of their relationship? Herein lies the point of contention among writers upon the subject, and the obscurity in which it has been involved has led to the various conceptions of a hostile spirit supposedly existing between the two species of gild organization.

The publication within the last few years of the Leicester Borotigh Records, containing the earliest extant gild merchant rolls, enables us to see something of the real connection between the two classes of industrial organizations in that borough, at least, and affords a basis for

this contingency when in confirming Oxford's right to have a gild merchant he granted its members the sole privilege of exercising trade within the town and suburbs " nisi sicut solebat tempore regis Henrici avi mei" (except as was customary in the reign of Henry I, my grandfather). To whom did this exception refer if not to the gilds of weavers and cordwainers which had in the reign of Henry I obtained recognition by the customary method, namely, a payment into the king's treasury? Is this not proof that the Oxford gild merchant had no power to make trade regulations for those gilds or to exercise supervision over their immediate interests? After all, was not the manifestation of antagonism the protest of the borough rather than of the gild merchant against the existence of separate gilds? Since weavers and fullers seem in most of the towns to have been the only trades able to purchase gild privileges, their associations were made to bear the brunt of burghal disapproval.

conjecture as to the normal mode of gild development throughout the country.

Leicester, probably one of the most important midland boroughs, appears after the Conquest as the property of Robert, Count of Meulan, Henry I's chief confidant. Conveniently situated for commercial intercourse, with perhaps an added importance from its former standing as one of the five Danish burghs, Leicester early in the twelfth century obtained from its lord the grant of a gild merchant.1 Just how soon the men of that borough took advantage of this privilege does not appear. The earliest gild roll preserved bears date of 1196; this indicates that by that time, at least, men of every trade then known enjoyed the privilege of enrolling themselves within its membership.2 They paid the entrance fee, pledged obedience to gild rules and promised attendance at all its meetings. Thus they became burgesses of Leicester in the very fullest sense of the word. As the next century progressed the membership grew, and soon

'"Robert, Count of Meulan to Ralph the Butler and all his men, French as well as English of all his land of England, greeting. Know ye that I have granted to my merchants of Leicester the gild of their merchants with all the customs by which they held in the time of King William, and of King William, his son, and now in the time of King Henry." This grant is dated between 1103-1118. Bateson, Records, vol. 1, p. 1.

2 The first roll gives practically nothing but the names of those who enter the gild and their payments. Their names, however, often indicate their occupation, and show that not alone the merchant, sometimes designated by the French form "marchant," enrolled himself within the gild membership, but the dyer, the weaver, the tailor, the shearman, the shoemaker, the cook, the pistor, the stabler, all were admitted. This roll corroborates Professor Gross's contention that craftsmen were freely admitted to the gild merchant. Op. tit., vol. i, p. 107. For the roll see Bateson, op. tit., vol. i, p. 12 et seq. Professor Ashley, in his criticism of Gross's Gild Merchant, enters into an elaborate discussion, disputing this fact. Historic Surveys, p. 216.

the gild developed a mechanism which enabled it to assume control of the financial as well as industrial affairs of the borough. With a definite meeting place — the gild hall — and regularly elected officers, gild meetings became important centres of burghal activity. By 1258, the presiding officer was known as the mayor.1 As the chief civic official he dispensed funds collected for town purposes at gild meetings. He presided over the gild court, where in accordance with gild regulations infringement of gild law met its merited punishment. The gild merchant of Leicester had developed far.