Efforts to delay the end.
The Gilds of workmen in building trades had been seriously affected, if not destroyed, long before by the Statute 2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 15, which allowed “any Freemason, roughmason, carpenter, bricklayer, plasterer,” etc. “borne in this realme or made Denizon, to work in any of the saide Crafts in anye cittie Boroughe or Towne Corporate ... albeit the saide p’son or p’sons ... doe not inhabyte or dwell in the cittee Borough or Towne Corporate ... nor be free of the same.” But in all other trades the law had upheld the companies, and associations strong as these were in antiquity were not to be destroyed without a struggle. In the early years of the nineteenth century they began to think about internal reformation, which, had it been accomplished with singleness of purpose, might perhaps have secured their further usefulness and life. The expenses connected with the annual feasts were regulated[219]. We have seen in the foregoing chapter how the senior members began to withdrawfrom the dissoluteness of the Show. The actions against intruders, which had long become chronic, were pushed on with new vigour. In the hopes apparently of deciding the question once for all the Mercers’ company instituted a great suit against a Mr Hart in the year 1823 which was looked upon by all parties as a test case. Two years previously a committee had been appointed to search for the charter and other documents which might be serviceable to the company in the great struggle they were apparently then meditating. The opinion of counsel was taken, and it being favourable to the company a full meeting unanimously resolved to act upon it. The first thing to be done was to retrench the expenses. It was decided that no dinner could be held that year (1823), and the annual subscriptions to the Infirmary, the Lancaster School, and other charitable objects were suspended. The costs of the actions were to be borne by all the combrethren “rateably and in proportion agreeable to the ancient custom and usage of the Company.” But several resignations and withdrawals took place, which show that there was some doubt, if not as to the exact legality, at any rate as to the expediency of the step which was being taken. But the great majority were resolved to press the matter to the issue. Actions against several intruders were consolidated, and that against Mr Hart came on for trial. Important counsel were engaged, and everything was done on both sides to discover the actual state of the law. The result was a verdict entirely in favour of the company. But the assessment ofdamages at a farthing (while the expenses incurred by the company were between six and seven hundred pounds) showed how strongly public opinion ran in a direction contrary to the mere letter of the law[220].
The defendants however in the present case submitted at once, and the company soon recovered its former financial prosperity. Its subscriptions were again paid after a brief interval. But it is noticeable that actions against intruders went on precisely as before. The effect of this great verdict, which was hailed with public dinners and illuminations, was absolutelynil.
It however stimulated the efforts of the companies in the direction of reform. In consequence of the action the Mercers resolved that the enrolment of apprentices (which they confessed had been “criminally neglected”) should be better carried out in future, and that abona fideindenture for seven years should be required in all cases before any claim to the freedom of the company could be admitted. As a tangible result a new book of apprenticeship was commenced, which continued to be carefully and neatly kept to the end. Its first entry is dated August 1, 1823, though there are several records of earlier indentures. Its last is July 2, 1835. A new book for recording the petitions of foreigners to be admitted was also provided. Thesewere comparatively few in number. They extend from July 31, 1823, to June 2, 1834.
The Municipal Corporations Act.
Such was the condition of the companies when the Municipal Corporations Act[221]was passed. No detailed description of this measure, albeit it was “second in importance to the Reform Act alone[222],” is needed here. As far as the companies were concerned its provisions were simple. It took away from them wholly and entirely all their exclusive privileges of trading.
“Whereas in divers cities, towns, and boroughs a certain custom hath prevailed, and certain bye-laws have been made, that no person, not being free of a city, town, or borough, or of certain guilds, mysteries, or trading companies within the same or some or one of them, shall keep any shop or place for putting to show or sale any or certain wares or merchandize by way of retail or otherwise, or use any or certain trades, occupations, mysteries, or handicrafts for hire, gain, or sale within the same: Be it enacted that, notwithstanding any such custom or bye-law, every person in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every lawful trade, occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire, gain, sale or otherwise, within any borough.” In these words, which might seem the echo of Magna Carta[223]through the centuries, liberty of trading was made a fact throughout England.
End of the companies.
It is interesting that we have recorded for us the way in which this sweeping change was received by those most concerned. The Mercers had foreseen (July 31, 1835) that it would be advisable to drop all pending actions against foreigners until the result of the Act then before Parliament should be decided. After it had become law the company met, for the last time under the old conditions, on March 25, 1836, to consider their position and to take steps for the future. It was apparently a stormy meeting. An influential minority proposed to divide the property among the members there and then, and so have done with the company. It was however carried “That the chief rents ... be not disposed of, but reserved to meet the payments to be made to the Alms people of St. Chad’s Almshouses[224], and for other purposes.” The fire engine, the company’s weights and measures etc., were sold. The other companies acted in a similar manner. The Saddlers divided at once the funds which remained in the treasurer’s hands, and which amounted to £1. 7s.0d.for each member[225]. Their arbour was however retained, and the rent from it expended on the annual feast on Show Monday. This arrangement was to continue so long as any of the freemen should be living: on the decease of the last survivor the arbour was to devolve to the town council. Lastly,all books, and whatever else remained to the company, were to be deposited with the wardens for the time being.
Partial continuation of the companies.
For attempts were made, even in the desperate pass to which the companies seemed to be brought, to prolong the end. A few patriotic members kept up the shadows of the old fraternities. The ancient custom of electing officers was maintained; the Mercers’ records bring the lists complete down to 1876. The arbours were repaired, mostly at the cost of private individuals, and at spasmodic intervals, while the Show still continued to afford opportunities for dissolute revelry to the lowest of the town and neighbourhood. The companies themselves fell back into their original condition of voluntary associations of individuals united for purposes partly benevolent but mainly social, and of which the state took no cognisance. “No one can give much attention to the subject without coming to the conclusion that feasting was one of the essential and most valued features of the companies in their early days[226]:” it became so again in their later. As they had existed long before external circumstances brought them into prominence, so they continued long after they had ceased to influence public affairs, and so they lingered on even after the nation had plainly signified that their existence was not only superfluous but injurious. For their endeavours to restrict trade had been, so far as they had been successful, detrimental to the prosperity of the town, while they had allowed theduty of succouring needy workmen to slip entirely from their hands.
The Friendly Societies which had long taken up this very important part of the functions which the mediæval Gilds had performed rose meanwhile into public favour. Their excellent work was so apparent that an Act of Parliament was passed for their encouragement in 1793, and it was even urged that they should be made compulsory.
Their property gives them life.
The companies had to all intents and purposes long forgotten their duty in this respect, and they could not take it up again now, though had this course been possible they might have commended themselves to public favour. There was only one means which kept them alive. The secret of their vitality was their possession of property[227], and as that melted away the companies were found dropping out of existence. For being deprived of their real essence they had nothing to recommend them. Even the Show degenerated into a public scandal, and the companies, like their annual pageant, at length died, one by one, unnoticed and unregretted[228].
Return to organisation.
Yet there was arising, even at the time when the old companies were being destroyed, a movement in favour of some return to organisation and regulation.Organisation indeed seems to have been a characteristic of the English people at all stages of their history. The Saxons had their Frith Gilds and their Monks’ Gilds; the English of the Middle Ages had their Merchant, Religious, Social, and Craft Gilds; in the sixteenth century they had their Trade Societies, the direct and in many cases the little-altered successors of the Craft Gilds. Then came the larger Regulated Companies, which also had some features in common with the mediæval Gilds, more with the sixteenth century societies. The main differences between the earlier associations and those of a later date lay in the avowed motive of confederacy and in the nature of the influence they exercised. The ostensible motive of the Gilds was the general welfare: in the case of the companies it was individual gain. The influence of the Gilds may be called a healthy social and moral influence[229]; that of the post-reformation companies in the towns was in the main directed to selfish and political ends[230].
New organisations, adapted to altered conditions of life and new modes of thought, resembling and yet differing from the Gilds, were now to arise and take the place of the companies as these had taken the place of the mediæval fraternities. The growth of these however will be beyond the scope of the present essay.
It was doubtless necessary that the companies should be pulled down from the lofty heights which they once had occupied. It was requisite that allrelics of the detailed system of trade-organisation which the Middle Ages had handed down to us should be broken up, to make room for arégimemore conformable to modern conditions of industry. The anarchic reign of individualism through which trade passed at the beginning of this century was an unavoidable step in economic development.
But it was a step attended with infinite loss and inestimable suffering, and it is well that proofs are not wanting of the approaching end of unrestrained competition and anti-social individualism. Signs of change are not wanting. Experience is continually demonstrating that organisation can accomplish vastly more than individual enterprise; that combination is immeasurably more powerful than competition. It is indeed the tracing out of this reaction in favour of combination for common ends, which lends to the economic history of the last hundred years its chief, perhaps its only, human interest.
Socialists and other forms of organisation.
The reaction has manifested itself in various ways. TheSocialistshave always made State-organisation of labour one of the strongest planks of their platform[231]. At the same time Englishmen have looked with peculiar jealousy on any attempts by the state to extend its sphere of action. Nevertheless a steady development has been witnessed in this direction; the various Civil Services show a uniform increase with the numbers and requirements of the nation. The Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the Charity and EcclesiasticalCommissioners, are further indications of the same tendency towards organisation.
Trades Unions; their achievements.Improvement in status of labour.
The Gilds cannot, as we have seen, be censured for low aims; moreover their endeavours to reach the level they set themselves were constant and sincere. And the latter half of the nineteenth century has seen a repetition of somewhat similar attempts.
The Trades Union movement[232]is one pregnant with promise for the future[233]. Though the Unions were formed in the first instances for the purpose of resistance to the masters, it may be hoped that as the need for this grows weaker the analogy which their promoters love to institute between them and the old Craft Gilds may become more and more real. They have already done much to raise the condition of labour, and as Friendly Societies they are of the highest value to the workmen[234]. There are signs too that we may even obtain organisations which, with due allowance for altered conditions, may accomplish much of the other good work which Gilds performed for mediæval industry.
Attempts at regulation of trade.Further necessary approximation to Gilds.Appreciation of the common interests of masters and men,and of the necessity of ensuring a higher standard of work.
The Unions already aim at ensuring stability of employment through deliberate regulation of trade. By this means they hope to strike a death-blow atthat root-evil of our present industrial system, irregularity of employment and uncertainty of wages.
But they yet fall short of the Gilds in two important particulars, and until these deficiencies are made good Trades Unions can only be considered as insufficient means to a highly desirable end.
In the first place there must be no association of men against masters, or masters against men, but union of men with masters for the common good of the craft. Fifty years ago it was pointed out[235]that “the recent destruction of the old Gilds was a purely negative policy, which required to be followed up by a reconstruction on similar, but modified, lines[236].” But of course nothing was attempted, though it is for their care in seeing that the public was well served that the Gilds are chiefly praised to-day.
In the second direction much less advance has been made[237]. Yet it cannot be expected that a highstandard of wages is to be maintained unless a high standard of workmanship is also ensured. Improvement in pay can only with justice accompany improvement in skill and application. Something of the sentiment and tradition of good work which so strongly characterised the Middle Ages must be brought back. As yet it is wofully lacking. Up to the present the Trades Unions have made no real attempt to grapple with this evil, though its removal is a necessary preliminary to anything like completeness in our industrial reformation. Until they can show their ability to direct trade in this respect in a manner more beneficial to the community than competing capitalists have done during the past, the student will find their analogy to the mediæval Gilds incomplete (and that in a point where the latter might be followed with benefit), and the public will consider their usefulness to society unsatisfactory.
NON-GILDATED TRADESMEN[238].
The ordinary authorities on Economic history say little or nothing of the non-gildated tradesmen in the towns, though these formed an important portion of the commercial community. To understand fully the conditions under which trade was carried on in mediæval England the existence of such unfree merchants must be taken into account and their importance appreciated.
Within the commercial class the enforcement of the Gild regulations doubtless depended very largely on circumstances and individual temperament. Moreover their reiteration evidences their futility in attaining the objects they had in view. There must have been much greater freedom and elasticity of thought and action during the Middle Ages than is generally recognised.
It must be remembered too that there were important exceptions to the regulations of the Gilds. The king’s servants, when exercising the royal privileges of purveyance and pre-emption, were naturally unrestricted.In Fair-time—and the Fairs were a very important feature in mediæval life—there was unrestrained freedom of trade. But more important than these was another. It was quite possible for ungildated tradesmen to purchase temporary or partial exemption from the local restrictions.
It will be observed that the royal charters which authorise the Gilds and grant exclusive privileges of trading differ somewhat in later years from those of the earliest date. In the earliest grants the words simply allude to the Gild only. Henry II.’s Charter to Lincoln is “Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis Lincolniæ ... gildam suam mercatoriam.” There is no hint of any tradesmen external to the Gild. But early in the thirteenth century it becomes evident that such stringent exclusiveness could not be enforced. The charter which Henry III. granted to Shrewsbury in 1227 confirmed the Gild in the following terms:—“Concessimus etiam eisdem Burgensibus et heredibus eorum quod habeant Gildam Mercatoriam cum Hansa et aliis consuetudinibus et libertatibus ad Gildam illam pertinentibus, et quod nullus qui non sit in Gilda ilia mercandisam aliquam faciat in predicto Burgonisi de voluntate eorundem Burgensium.” At about the same time the Earl of Chester and Huntingdon gave a charter to Chester forbidding trade in the town “nisi ipsi cives mei Cestrie et eorum heredesvel per eorum gratum.” The phrase “nisi de voluntate eorundem Burgensium (or Civium)” now became usual in the charters. In those granted by Edward I. to the towns which he founded in Wales, and which may be looked upon in some measure as model town constitutions, the provision appears in each. Thus it may be said that by the end of the thirteenth century it had become customary for the town authorities to grant exemptions from the Gildrestrictions by their own authority. They practically gave over to the Gilds the supervision of trade, but at the same time retained in their own hands the power of admitting traders without obliging them to join the mercantile fraternities.
This power of granting exemptions from the restrictions of the Gilds seems to have been exercised in various towns in different degrees. In some it extended no further than the permitting “foreigners” to come to casual markets on payment of a toll upon each occasion. In others however it was more largely and generally used, merchants being allowed to be resident and to trade continually and regularly by payment of an annual fine.
In the latter case the effect was to create two distinct classes of traders within the town. The burgesses may be divided into two classes, those of them who were gildsmen and those who were not. We now see that the tradesmen dwelling in the towns may similarly be divided into two classes, (i) those who were free of the town or of one of the Gilds (or free both of the town and one of its Gilds), and (ii) those who were neither burgesses nor gildsmen. Thus another has been added to the classes into which the inhabitants of towns are usually divided. Mention of theseunfreetradesmen is found in the records of many towns in England and Wales: in Norwich, Winchester, Lincoln, Leicester, Andover, Yarmouth, Canterbury, Henley-on-Thames, Malmesbury, Bury S. Edmunds, Totnes, Wigan, Chester, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Clun, Brecknock, Neath, Bishops’ Castle, and others.
The designation of these unfree tradesmen varies. At Andover they were known ascustumarii(in opposition to thehansarii—the full members of the Gild).At Canterbury a similar body appears under the name ofintrants. In Scotland and the north of England they were calledstallingers. The most usual name for them is howevercenser,chencer,tenser, and variations of these.
Censeris apparently the name applied to one who pays acenseorcess. In Domesday mention is made ofcensarius—“Ibi sunt nunc 14 censarii habentes septem carucatas”—and thecensariusis described as “qui terram ad censum annuum tenet.” The connection of the word is here purely territorial. It becomes more personal later in the history as is seen in the “Compotus Civitatis Wyntoniæ” of the third year of Edward I., which contains the following entry:—“Et de xliiijs.ijd.ob.de hominibus habitacionibus in civitate Wynton’ qui non sunt de libertate, qui dicuntur Censarii, per idem tempus.” Here thecensariiare evidently considered in their capacity not as possible landowners, but solely as tradesmen. Thecensushas changed from the land rent of Domesday to a distinctly personal payment.
A somewhat different class from thecensariiof Winchester are mentioned in the statute 27 Henry VIII., cap. 7. From the preamble we can form a good idea of the lawlessness and confusion which prevailed on the borders of Wales at that period. It is related that in the Marches, where thick forests frequently fringe the roads, “certain unreasonable Customs and Exactions have been of long time unlawfully exacted and used, contrary both to the law of God and man, to the express wrong and great impoverishment of divers of the king’s true subjects.” The most crying of these evils was that the foresters were accustomed to plunder all passing along the roads (probably under the plea of taking toll), unless they bore “a Token delivered to them by thechief Foresters ... or else were yearly Tributors or Chensers.” The statute offers no explanation of these terms, but it is most likely they applied to persons paying an annual sum, either to the king or the Lords Marchers, of the nature of Chief Rent, especially as Cowell, in giving his explanation of the wordchenserwhich will be noticed later, refers to this Act of Henry VIII. in support of his definition. If this be so we see that although the signification of the term had been extended so as to include distinctly personal and commercial tolls, it had, in some districts, also retained its original connection with land. This, censor, censer, gensor, chencer, and other variations, is the most usual form of the word, but occasionally it is found as tenser, tensor, tensur, and tensure. Tenser and tensor are used at Shrewsbury; at Worcester the same word appears as tensure or tensar (English Gilds, pp. 382, 394).
It is difficult to say whether or notenseris a confusion ofcenser. Etymologically the words seem akin,censebeing a tax or toll (cess), andtensaremeaning to lay under toll or tribute. In the Iter of 1164 enquiry is directed to be made “de prisis et tenseriis omnium ballivorum domini regis ... et quare prisæ illæ captæ fuerint, et per quem” etc. Another derivation oftenserhas been given. Owen and Blakeway (Vol. ii. p. 525) explain it to be a corruption of “tenancier,” and apparently intend to imply that these non-gildated traders were considered as holding directly of the king. This view receives some confirmation from Cowell’s definition of the “censure” and “censers” of Cornwall. He says (A Law Dictionary: or the Interpreteretc., ed. 1727) “Censure, orCustuma vocatacensure, (from the LatinCensus, which Hesychius expounds to be a kind of personal money, paid for every Poll) is, in divers ManorsinCornwallandDevon, the calling of all Resiants therein above the age of sixteen, to swear Fealty to the Lord, to payijdper Poll, and jdper an.ever after; ascert-moneyorCommon Fine; and these thus sworn, are calledCensers.” “Chensers,” he says again, “are such as pay Tribute orcense, Chief-rent or Quit-rent, for so the Frenchcensiersignifies.” Whether or no we receive Owen and Blakeway’s derivation of the word fromtenancier, even with the support of Cowell’s “censers” of Cornwall, we may press the latter authority into service in showing that the signification ofcenserandtenser, however different the two words might be in origin, became very similar in actual use.
The fines which the tensers or censers paid were imposed in the Court Leet. On the Court Leet Rolls at Shrewsbury are entered lists of names and fines headed “Nomina eorum qui merchandizant infra villam Salopie et Suburbia eiusdem, et non Burgenses, ergo sunt in misericordia.” In the first year of the reign of Henry IV. (A.D.1399) it was ordered that these fines should be levied before the feast of S. Katharine (November 25) in each year. The Court Leet also decided the amount of the fines, but in later times when the select body of magnates had deprived the popular courts of so many of their powers and privileges we find that the apportioning of the tensers’ fines had also passed to the close corporation. In 1519 the corporation fixed the tolls at 6d.quarterly. The statute 35 Henry VIII., cap. 18, gave the control of the unfree tradesmen in Canterbury to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City. “No foreigner, not being free of the said City, shall buy or sell any Merchandize (saving Victual) to another foreigner; nor shall keep any shop nor use any mystery within the said City or the liberties thereof, without the License of theMayor and Aldermen, or the major part of them, in writing under their Seal.” At Winchester in 1650 the rates were revised by the Mayor and Aldermen. The highest limit was fixed at £5, but the fees actually paid were generally sums varying from 6d.to 3/4 only (Gross,II.264).
When such a privilege was exercised by a select body it was certain to give rise to abuses. Such was found to be the case in early years when the fines were imposed by an authority other than the general assembly of burgesses. In the county court held at Lincoln in 1272 it was alleged that the late Mayor had taken pledges from the burgesses of Grimsby unjustly under the plea of exactinggildwite(as the fine or toll was sometimes called). We learn that at Shrewsbury in 1449-50 “this yeare the Burgesses and Tenssaars ... did varye.” What the cause of contention was, or how the dispute was settled, we do not know, but it could hardly arise over anything other than the question concerning the tolls to be paid by the tensers.
In some towns special civic officials were appointed to supervise the tensers. At Chester the “leave-lookers” were among the most important of the borough officers. The wordleveorleavehas very much the same signification as the wordcenseor cess. It is the English “levy,” and was the fee or toll for permission to trade. The “leve-lookers” were the officials who exacted the levy or toll which unfree tradesmen were obliged to pay. At Chester they were “appointed annually by the Mayor for the purpose of collecting the duty of 2s.6d.claimed by the corporation to be levied yearly upon all non-freemen who exercise any trade within the liberties of the City.” Their duties are described as having been “to give Licence and compound with any that came either tobuy or sell within these liberties contrary to our grants;” “if any did dwell within the city that were not free, if they did ever buy or sell within the liberties, they did likewise compound with theCustosandMercator[Custos Gilde Mercatorie] by the year ... the Leave-lookers do gather two pence halfpenny upon the pound, of all Wares sold by Forraigners within the City.” (Gross,II.42.) The same name is found at Wigan, where the duty of the “gate-waiters or leave-lookers” was to see that all “foreigners” paid their fines for licence to reside and trade in the town. (Sinclair,Wigan,passim.)
It is not easy to define the exact status of the tensers. They were certainly considered as an inferior body of burgesses, and might comprise three classes. Firstly, those not willing or not able to enter one of the gilds; secondly, traders waiting to be admitted burgesses; thirdly ex-burgesses fallen from the higher state through misfortune.
1. As an inferior class of tradesmen they could only purchase their stock from townsmen (Gross,II.177); they were incapable of bearing municipal office (Ibid.II.190) and they were liable to be called upon “to be contributorie to alle the comone charges of the Citie, whan it falleth” (Ibid.II.190). In the general course of trade but little difference might be perceptible between the tensers and the Gildsmen, but attempts to fuse or to confuse the two classes were jealously resented whenever they were discovered. Naturally these attempts to minimise the distinctions between Gildsmen and non-gildsmen were generally prompted, in later times, by political reasons. Only freemen of the town and members of the companies had the privilege of voting in Parliamentary elections, and great was thedesire to obtain a position on the list of voters. In “An Account of the Poll for Members of Parliament for the Borough of Shrewsbury taken June 29 and 30, 1747” etc., information is supplied concerning certain townsmen who had claimed to be freemen but were rejected on account of having proved themselves to be otherwise by payment, in times past, of the tensers’ fines. Of John Bromhall, baker, we read “It was objected to his vote that he was no Burgess, in support of which it was proved that he had paid Tensership several years, and that his ffather had paid toll. This Tensership is a ffine or acknowledgement commonly paid by persons following trade in the town that are no Burgesses, but it being insisted that it was paid through ignorance or mistake, his ffather was called and admitted to prove that he had voted at a former election for this Borough, whereupon the Mayor admitted his vote, but upon examining a copy of the Poll for the year 1676 it appears that all the ffamily of this Bromhall were upon a scrutiny rejected as not Burgesses.”
2. They comprised also among their number many tradesmen waiting to be made burgesses. We learn this distinctly from an ordinance of the corporation of Leicester passed in the year 1467, to the effect that every person opening a shop in the town should pay yearly 3/4till he enter into the Chapman Gild. (Nichols,County of Leicester,I.376.) There were several causes which would account for the existence of this class. The towns grew increasingly jealous of extending their privileges, as these became valuable. The Gildsmen would also desire to learn somewhat of the character of the new-comer before admitting him to full membership with themselves; while on the other hand the latter would wish to see whether the trade of the town weresufficiently prosperous to warrant him settling in the borough permanently. This cause would specially operate in the case of the Welsh boroughs which grew up after Edward I.’s conquest of the principality.
The townsmen however did not approve of the growth of a wealthy class of traders, sharing almost equal commercial privileges with themselves and at the same time not liable to the burdens which were the necessary accompaniment of those privileges. They therefore made it incumbent upon every tenser who evidently was sufficiently satisfied with the trade of the town to make the borough his permanent home, and who had attained to a fair competency, that he should throw in his lot fully and completely with them. He must become in fact a full burgess. This is carefully explained in theOrdinances of the City of Worcester—regulations concerning the trade of the town dating from the reign of Edward IV. No.XLVII.says “Also, that euery Tensure be sett a resonable fyne, aftrthe discression of the Aldermen, and that euery tensure that hath ben wtyn the cyte a yere or more dwellynge, and hath sufficiaunt to the valorofXLs.or more, be warned to be made citezen, by resonable tyme to hym lymitted, and iff he refuse that, that he shalle yerly pay to the comyn cofreXLd., ouer that summe that he shalle yerly pay to the Baillies or any other officers; and so yerly to contynue tylle he be made citezen” (English Gilds, p. 394).
3. There were, thirdly, those who had fallen from a higher state through misfortune or other cause. We read of individuals surrendering their freedom and paying the tenser’s fine. “He withdrew and surrendered the freedom to the Commonalty, and now pays toll” (Gross,II.240).
As regarded their dealings other than commercial in nature the tendency was to assimilate the tensers and the townsmen. In a grant made to Shrewsbury by Henry VI. and confirmed by Parliament in 1445 the same privileges are extended to the tensers as are possessed by the burgesses in the matter of exemption from the necessity of finding bail in certain cases. Similarly at Worcester the “tensures” shared with the citizens the right to the assistance of the afferors in cases of wrongful or excessive amercement. (English Gilds, 394.)
Nevertheless where commercial privileges were at stake the distinction was rigidly preserved by every means in the possession of the townsmen. The tenser’s fine was maintained up to the present century, though not without considerable difficulty. On every hand there were evidences that the companies had outlived their usefulness. Friction was everywhere injuring the social machine. Competition and individualism had taken the place of custom and co-operation. At Winchester there were grievous complaints of intruders who did “use Arts, Trades, Misteries and manual occupations ... without making any agreement or composition for soe doing, contrary to the said antient usage and custome, tending to the utter undoeing of the freemen ... and decay of the same City.” Everywhere the records of the companies detail little else than summonses to intruders to take up their freedom and notices of actions at law against them for refusing to do so. General demoralisation prevailed, and the existence of a class holding such an equivocal position as that of the unfree tradesmen did not help to mend matters. The case of John Bromhall which has been mentioned above illustrates the general looseness which prevailed in alldepartments of municipal administration. A ludicrous incident which happened at Shrewsbury in connection with the tensers in later years is recorded by Gough in hisAntiquities of Myddle, published in 1834. “This Richard Muckleston was of a bold and daring spirit, and could not brook an injury offered to him. He commenced a suit against the town of Shrewsbury for exacting an imposition on him which they call tentorshipp, and did endeavor to make void their charter, but they gave him his burgess-ship to be quiet.”
The companies were preserved from repetitions of this strange indignity by the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, in consequence of which there could no longer be any invidious distinction between freemen and non-freemen, hansarii and custumarii, gildsmen and tensers.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
Abram, W. A.—Memorials of the Preston Guilds.
An Account of the Poll for Members of Parliament for the Borough of Shrewsbury etc. (1747).
Boeckh, A.—Public Economy of Athens, translated by George Cornewall Lewis (1842).
Brentano, Lujo—On the history and development of Gilds and Origin of Trade-Unions.
“Britannia Languens, or a discourse of trade.” (1680.)
Bryce, J.—The Holy Roman Empire (1887).
Cowell—A Law Dictionary: or the Interpreter etc. (1727).
Cunningham, W.—The Growth of English Industry and Commerce (1885).
Dugdale, W.—Antiquities of Warwickshire.
Ebner, Dr Adalbert—Die klösterlichen Gebets-Verbrüderungen bis zum Ausgange des Karolingischen Zeitalters (1891).
Eden, Sir F. M.—The State of the Poor.
Eyton, W.—Antiquities of Shropshire.
Farquhar—The Recruiting Officer.
Foucart—Les Associations réligieuses chez les Grecs.
Foxwell, H. S.—Irregularity of Employment and Fluctuations of Prices (1886).
Froude, J. A.—History of England from the fall of Wolsey to the death of Elizabeth (12 vols., 1862-70).
Gneist—Geschichte des Self-Government in England.
Gneist—Das heutige Englische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht.
Gough—The Antiquities of Myddle (1834).
Green, J. R.—A Short History of the English People (1886).
Gross, Charles—The Gild Merchant (1891).
Grote, George—History of Greece (1888).
Hallam, H.—View of Europe during the Middle Ages. 1 vol.
Harrison, W.—A description of England (in “Elizabethan England,” Camelot Series).
Hatch, E.—The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches (Bampton Lectures, 1881).
Howell, G.—Conflicts of Capital and Labour (1890).
Howell, Thomas—The Stranger in Shrewsbury (1825).
Kemble, J. M.—The Saxons in England.
Longfellow—The Golden Legend.
Macaulay, Lord—History of England from the Accession of James II. (1889).
May, Erskine—Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. (1887).
Merewether and Stephens—History of the Boroughs.
Nichols, J.—The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (1795-1815).
Ordericus Vitalis—Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy (Bohn’s Series).
Owen and Blakeway—History of Shrewsbury.
[Owen, Hugh]—Some Account of the Ancient and Present State of Shrewsbury (1808).
Perry, C. G.—A History of the English Church (Vol.II.) (1878).
Pidgeon’s Memorials of Shrewsbury (old Ed.).
Pidgeon’s Some Account of the Ancient Gilds, Trading Companies, and the origin of Shrewsbury Show (1862).
Poynter, E. J.—Ten Lectures on Art (1880).
Quarterly Review, Vol. 159.
Riley, H. T.—Memorials of London ... in theXIII,XIV, andXVCenturies.
Rogers, Thorold—Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1889).
Rogers, Thorold—The Economic Interpretation of History (1888).
Scott, Sir Walter—Marmion.
Sinclair, D.—The History of Wigan.
Smith, Toulmin—English Gilds (E. E. T. S.).
State Papers, Domestic (Elizabeth).
Statutes at Large (6 vols, 1758).
Stow, John—A Survey of London (Carisbrooke Library).
Strype—Ecclesiastical Memorials (1821).
Stubbs, W.—Constitutional History of England (1883).
Stubbs, W.—Select Charters (1884).
Stubbs, W.—Lectures on Mediæval History.
Taylor MS. in Library of Shrewsbury School (Reprinted in S. A. S. Vol.III.).
Thackeray, W. M.—The Four Georges.
Through England on a Side Saddle in the Time of William and Mary, being the Diary of Celia Fiennes.
Transactions of the Shropshire Archæological Society (cited as S. A. S.), Vols.I-XI.
Wordsworth, W.—The Happy Warrior.
INDEX.