The demand for Royal Charters.

Meanwhile a tendency appears for the smaller handicrafts to fall into groups under the leadership, or rather the tutelage, of the more powerful Gild, that is, the Gild which represented those who finished the article and sold it. Thus the Cutlers take the lead over the Bladesmiths and the Sheathers, the Skinners over the Whittawyers and the Curriers. In other cases there was a struggle between the several Gilds connected with a particular industry to secure the profitable trading business. This was the case, as we shall see, with the Drapers, the Tailors, the Fullers and others, while again some, like the Grocers, were attempting to deal in all vendible kinds of merchandise. To prevent this the Stat. 37 Ed. III, c. 5, ordained that, whereas, by the consequent engrossing the price was enhanced, all artificers and people of Mysteries were in future to choose their own Mystery and abide by it, and the subsequent increase in the number of Craft Gilds was probably a result of this Statute.

But the more successful Gilds were not content with the somewhat limited powers of autonomy which they could obtain from the Mayor. They wished for royal authorization and for those more extensive privileges which the Crown alone could give, more especially that monopoly of their business which the Statute just mentioned granted.

In 1327 four Gilds or Crafts, those of the Goldsmiths, the Skinners, the Taylors, and the Girdlers, succeeded in their aim, to be followed by three others in 1363-4, the Drapers, the Vintners, and the Fishmongers.'

Although these earlier Royal Charters did not grant full incorporation, they gave the monopoly of the Craft or trade, and with it the right to see that the proper standards or measures were adhered to, a duty which hitherto had been discharged by the Mayors and Sheriffs by fits and starts; as well as the power to punish any infraction of their privileges, and complete authority

2

These Charters, as well as those granted at later dates, must not be considered as the origin of the Gilds. They are, in most cases, obviously founded on the ordinances' which the Gilds had already drawn up with the consent of the Mayor, and in any case they recognize the Gilds as existing organizations. Indeed, the ordinances themselves are generally confirmations of an organization which had previously existed.

2 Cf. Letters Patent, 38 Edward III, to the Drapers.

over their members. Thereby the chartered Gilds gained a position of supremacy and prestige which every other Craft envied and tried to win. Hence the constant jealousy between Gild and Gild, which on occasion broke out in violent conflicts. At the same time the growing importance of the Gilds is illustrated by the fact that kings and nobles became Honorary Members. Thus of the Skinners six Kings (Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, V, VI, and Edward IV), nine Dukes, two Earls, and one Baron were members before the time of Elizabeth, while the Merchant Taylors in the reign of Richard II counted four Dukes, ten Earls, ten Barons, and five Bishops among their Fraternity.'

All this was accompanied by increased antagonism to the 'foreigner'. The smaller craftsmen had always been jealous of foreign workers, whether they were Englishmen who were not Londoners, or men of alien race. Hitherto, however, there had been little English capital and many of the Crafts, more especially the mercantile ones, had been largely dependent on the foreign capitalist. But from the middle of the fourteenth century English began to replace foreign capital, and as a result the members of the mercantile Crafts, the Drapers, the Grocers, the Vintners, and others, began to engage in foreign trade with their own capital and therefore wished to exclude the foreign merchant.2

1 Stow, ed. Kingsford, i. 230; Herbert, Livery Companies, i. 29, note.

2 No stranger was allowed to stay more than forty days in the City. No stranger was allowed to sell by retail. They were to sell in gross within forty days after their arrival and to sell all before they left. They were to sell in London itself, and no freeman was allowed to go to meet merchandise coming to the City by land or water. They were neither to buy from nor sell to foreigners except at fairs on certain market days. Sometimes, as by 5 Henry IV, they were ordered to expend the money they gained by sale on commodities of the realm. They paid 'Scavage', a duty payable on 'showing' their goods to official examiners (Scavagers, Scavageators). No stranger was to exercise any calling 'to citizens pertaining.

Exceptions to these regulations were from time to time made by the Crown in favour of certain merchants, as for instance to the Hanse of Almaine or Teutonic Hanse, the Hanse of London, the merchants of Gascony then in English hands, and others. Cf. Letter Book B, p. 77. In the reign of Edward III a long struggle began, in which the City opposed the free-trade proclivities of the King, who was generally supported by Parliament, representing as it did the interests of the consumer and of the landed classes. In 1335 the Statute passed at York

These new features mark the commencement of that evolution which was eventually to overthrow the mediaeval organization of industry based on the Gilds, and at the same time help us to unravel the complicated and confused events which close the reign of Edward III and embrace that of Richard II. Not that the issues were solely municipal. The rural revolution which had been accompanying the industrial changes in the towns, both of which were affected by the Great Plague; the religious stir caused by the Wycliffite controversy; the political crisis which was eventually to lead to the fall of Richard II and the accession of the Lancastrian house under Henry IV;-all play their part. Even in the reigns of John and Henry III London had felt the influence of the wider national questions. But now she was really the Capital of England, and, as it were, the very storm-centre.

It cannot, therefore, be a matter of surprise that the civic

allowed Merchant Strangers to trade freely throughout the realm. Two years later, 1337, Letters Patent were issued confirming the City's rights notwithstanding the Act. From the year 1337 to 1383 the whole question of Strangers became involved in the struggle between the Victualling and non-Victualling Gilds. Cf. p. 31, note 1. In 1351 the Statute of 1335 was again confirmed.

But finally the towns were victorious. In 1393 by 16 Ric. II, c. 1, the old restrictions were confirmed. No alien was allowed to deal with another, or to engage in retail trade, except in common victuals. These restrictions continued till the close of the Middle Ages.

The Hanse of London was a union of various Gilds started in Flemish towns

in the twelfth century. To this Hansa Bruges furnished the Hansgrave. It subsequently became, like the Hanseatic League, a federation of towns. It disappeared at the close of the thirteenth century. The Teutonic Hanse originated in Gild of merchants of Cologne who received privileges from Henry II and Richard I, and expanded into the Hanseatic League with its Steelyard in London. The members of both these Hansas imported foreign cloth to England and bought English wool. Cf. British Museum, Additional MSS. 14252, fo. 99 b, 101, 105 a; Liebermann, Leges Ang., saec. xiii ineunte Lond. collectae; Liber Custum., Rolls Series, xxxiv. 61, 63; Liber Albus, Riley's translation; Charters of Edward I, II, III, pp. 126, 128, 131, 586, 587; Letter Books-C, p. ix; D, pp. 282, 283; I, 30, 38, 39, 40, 54; F, iii, 14, 111, 190, 229, 241, 242, 248; G, iv; H, xiii, 53; K, 167, 174; Ashley, Economic History, Bk. I. ii, pp. 104 ff., II. i, p. 13; Stow, Survey of London, ed. Kingsford, ii. 319; Pirenne, Belgique, i. 267; La Hanse de Londres, Bruxelles, 1899.

1 Cf. Johnson, Disappearance of Small Landowner, p. 17, and authorities quoted there.

2 Trevelyan, Age of Wyclif.

history during this troubled period should be difficult to explain. The notable advance in the position of the Gilds or Mysteries during the reign of Edward III, and the fact that the Mayors, the Sheriffs, and the Aldermen were now practically, though not necessarily, members of the more important Mysteries, had increased the pretensions of the Gilds.

Accordingly, they now make an attempt to wrest from the Wards the right to elect the Common Council,' a body which by this time had definitely assumed the legislative and executive authority over the City.

Premature
attempt on
the part
the Crafts
to elect the

of

Thus in 1351 and again in 1352 the thirteen greater Mysteries Common were summoned to elect members of their Crafts to act as a Com- Council of

mon Council. The attempt was premature. In 1353 the right the City. of electing the Common Council was temporarily restored to the Wards, a triumph which was very possibly due to the increase in the number of the parish Fraternities not connected with any Craft. The claim of the Gilds to elect the Common Council was, however, soon to be renewed.

The first list of Common Council men that exists is that of 1347. They were then 133 in number. Riley, Memorials, p. liii.

2 Letter Book F, pp. 237, 238.

The Grocers

The Mercers

The Fishmongers (Pessoners)
The Drapers

The Goldsmiths

The Woolmongers (Laners)

The Vintners

The Skinners (Pelleters)

The Saddlers (Celers)

The Taylors

The Cordwainers

The Butchers

elect six Representatives each.

elect four Representatives each.

The Ironmongers (Ismongers) two Representatives.

Of these, three (the Goldmiths, the Skinners, the Tailors) had obtained Royal Charters, three (the Drapers, the Vintners, the Fishmongers) were shortly to obtain them, and nine were subsequently counted among the twelve Greater Livery Companies.

the

3 On Parish Fraternities cf. Unwin. The struggle of the Gilds to get election of the municipal officers and the Common Council is paralleled by that which was going on about this time in Flanders, Brabant, and Liège, only with these differences: (1) Abroad, the richer Merchants appear to have been

London involved in political

issues of the

day.

Renewed at tempt of the Crafts to elect the Common Council.

At this moment the municipal history of London_became involved in the wider political history of England. The discontent, which had been gaining strength during the declining years of Edward III, came to a climax in the 'Good Parliament of 1376. Lord Latimer and three Aldermen were impeached for malversation of the finances; and one of them, Alderman Peche, was also accused of obtaining, with the connivance of the Mayor and other Aldermen, a monopoly in sweet wines. This gave an excuse for attacking the system under which the members of the Common Council were elected by the Wards, and for demanding that they should once more be elected by the Crafts as they had been in 1351 and 1352.

The Mayor, John Warde, a Grocer, in virtue of the powers given to the citizens by the late charter to remedy 'hard or defective customs',3 acceded to the demand. At a gathering of the representatives of forty-one Crafts, which met on August 1, 1376, it was decided that in future the Common Council should be formed of six, four, or two representatives elected for a year from the sufficient' Mysteries according to their size; that the Mayor and Sheriffs should be elected by this Council; and that no member of the Common Council should hold the office of collector or assessor of talliages. In accordance with this resolution, on August 9, 1376, a Council was forthwith formed of 157 members, returned by forty-seven Mysteries, who bound themselves by oath to preserve for each Mystery its reasonable customs. The King also confirmed the rule of 1319 insisting on the annual election of Aldermen.4

Mr. Unwin is of opinion that John of Northampton and the

organized in a Gild Merchant. In London there was no Gild Merchant. (2) The distinction between the trading Gilds and artisan Gilds is not so marked in England as abroad. Indeed, many of the English Gilds included men who were at once traders and makers of goods. Cf. Pirenne, Belgique, ii. 43, 51 ff.

I Richard Lyons, a Vintner, Adam de Bury, a Skinner (he had been removed from the Mayoralty ten years before by the King's orders, Letter Book G, p. 199), and John Peche, a Fishmonger.

2 Letter Book, p. 318.

3 15 Edward III.

4 Letter Book H, p. v and pp. 39, 41, 58. For the number of the members of the Common Council from this time until 1838, cf. Printed Minutes, Common Council, Jan. 23, 1840.