English Industries of the Middle Ages

Chapter XI The Control of Industry

The control of industry is a subject for the treatment of which there are materials sufficient for more than one large volume. I do not, however, regret that I can devote comparatively small space to the subject, as its principles are simple and admit of broad treatment. There is, moreover, in the case of the student who is not a specialist, a danger of obscuring the outlines with a multiplicity of detail. And there is also the danger of selecting some puzzling and obscure incident or enactment, due to local causes of which we are ignorant, and using it as a basis for ingenious generalisations. Broadly speaking, the Control of Industry may be said to be either External, by parliamentary or municipal legislation, or Internal, by means of craft gilds. These two sections again admit of subdivision according as their objects are the protection of the consumer, the employer or the workman. Nor can we entirely ignore legislation for purposes of revenue—subsidies, customs, and octroi dues.

Of industrial legislation by the King’s Council, the predecessor of Parliament, we find very little trace. The royal charters of the twelfth century confirming or licensing craft gilds may be more justly regarded as revenue enactments, their object being rather to secure a certain annual return from the craft to which the royal protection was granted than to exercise any control over the craft. The proclamation in the early thirteenth century of the Assize of Cloth and of the Assize of Bread and Ale may be considered to mark the beginning of a national control of industry, though in each case existing regulations were formally adopted rather than new rules imposed. The growth of the towns and the rise of a wealthy merchant class during the reign of Henry iii. brought about the birth of Parliament, and naturally led to a certain amount of trade legislation. But with trade—the distribution of finished products by persons other than the producers—we are not concerned. Edward iii., thanks perhaps to his queen Philippa, from the cloth land of Hainault, realised the possibilities of the English cloth manufacture, and endeavoured to foster it by a series of statutes to which reference has been made above. During his reign, in 1349, the Black Death, that great landmark in medieval history, by reducing the numbers of the craftsmen increased the market value of the survivors, who at once demanded and obtained higher wages. Parliament retorted by passing the Statute of Labourers,714 according to which no smith, carpenter, mason, tiler, shipwright, leather-worker, tailor, or other artificer was to take higher wages than he had received three years earlier, before the pestilence. Though this was legislation in favour of the employer, it was not exactly a case of favouring the wealthy, for by imposing a penalty on the giver of excessive wages as well as upon the receiver, an attempt was made to prevent the small employer being deprived of his workmen by richer rivals. The Act was, so far as we can judge, inspired partly by fear that the capitalist might control the sources of labour, and partly by fear that those sources might get beyond control. Whatever its origin, the statute failed in its expressed intention, and wages remained, as Thorold Rogers has shown,715 permanently higher. This was not due to any laxity in applying the Act; for many years after it was passed justices were appointed in every part of England to enforce it,716 but the records of their proceedings, as for instance in Somerset in 1360,717 where many hundreds of offenders are named, show that the workmen had no hesitation in demanding, and found no difficulty in getting wages higher than the law allowed. Wholesale imprisonment as a remedy for scarcity of labour was scarcely satisfactory, and the small fines which were inflicted proved no deterrent.

As the position of the artificer had improved after the Black Death, so the crafts in general were assuming a greater importance in public estimation, and from about 1380 onwards the regulation of industries occupies an increasing amount of space on the Statute Rolls. With their growing influence, most of the crafts began to make their voices heard crying out for protection, which was usually given them with a liberal hand. But, although the pernicious effects of protective measures (deterioration of quality and rise of price) were to a large extent checked by the control kept over quality and prices by the national and municipal authorities, the consumer was sometimes roused to action. One of the best instances of the struggle between public and private interests is to be found in the case of the Yarmouth herring fishery. Edward iii. had granted to Yarmouth the monopoly of the sale of herrings on the east coast during the season of the fishery. As a consequence the price of herrings had risen enormously, and the king was driven to cancel the privilege: the men of Yarmouth at once began to pull the strings, and in 1378 recovered their monopoly, with the same result as before. Once more the consumer made his voice heard, and in 1382 the Yarmouth charter was revoked, only to be restored in 1385 on the ground that without protection of this kind Yarmouth would be ruined.

If a large number of parliamentary enactments were protective of the producer, as for instance the prohibition in 1463 of the import of a vast variety of goods, from silk ribbands to dripping-pans, and from razors to tennis balls, including such incompatibles as playing cards and sacring bells,718 yet still more were protective of the consumer. For one thing, of course, a single Act prohibiting certain imports might protect a dozen classes of manufactures, while the denunciation of one particular species of fraud would probably lead ingenious swindlers to invent a succession of others, each requiring a separate Act for its suppression. Sentimental admirers of the past are apt to imagine that the medieval workman loved a piece of good work for its own sake and never scamped a job. Nothing could be further from the truth. The medieval craftsman was not called a man of craft for nothing! He had no more conscience than a plumber, and his knowledge of ways that are dark and tricks that are vain was extensive and peculiar. The subtle craft of the London bakers, who, while making up their customer’s dough, stole a large portion of the dough under their customers’ eyes by means of a little trap-door in the kneading-board and a boy sitting under the counter,719 was exceptional only in its ingenuity. Cloth was stretched and strained to the utmost and cunningly folded to hide defects, a length of bad cloth would be joined on to a length of superior quality, or a whole cheap cloth substituted for the good cloth which the customers had purchased; inferior leather was faked up to look like the best, and sold at night to the unwary; pots and kettles were made of bad metal which melted when put on the fire; and everything that could be weighed or measured was sold by false measure.

Prior to the middle of the sixteenth century parliamentary attention was mainly concentrated on the cloth trade, and the preambles to the various statutes show that those in authority, including the more responsible manufacturers, realised that honesty is the best policy in the end. In 1390 it was pointed out that the frauds of the west country clothiers had not only endangered the reputations, and even the lives, of merchants who brought them for export, but had brought dishonour on the English name abroad.720 Two years later it was the reputation of Guildford cloths that had been damaged by sharp practices.721 The worsteds of Norfolk had early come into favour on the Continent, but in 1410 the Flemish merchants became exasperated at their bad quality,722 and thirty years later the foreign demand for worsteds had been almost killed,723 while in 1464 English cloth in general was in grave disrepute, not only abroad, but even in its native land, foreign cloth being largely imported.724 To give them their due, the gilds recognised the importance to their own interests of maintaining a high standard of workmanship, and co-operated loyally with the municipal authorities to that end.

Although we have classed the control of industries by municipal by-laws as ‘external,’ and control by gild regulations as ‘internal,’ no hard and fast line can really be drawn between the two. In England, in contrast to the experience of many Continental states, the two authorities worked together with very little friction, the craft gilds recognising the paramount position of the merchant gild or town council, and the latter, in turn, protecting the interest of the gilds and using their organisation to control the various crafts. The question of the origin of gilds is interesting rather than important, and has given rise to much discussion. It is known that the Roman crafts were organised into collegia, but while it is quite possible that some of the trade gilds in Constantinople, and even in Italy and Spain, might be able to trace their pedigrees back to Roman times, it is more than improbable that there was any connection between the Roman collegia and the English craft gilds of the twelfth century. The gilds of which we find mention in Anglo-Saxon records were clearly fraternities of purely social and religious import. These gilds, friendly societies for the support of religious observances benefiting the souls of all the members, and for the mutual relief of such members as had met with misfortune, survived the Conquest and increased greatly, till by the end of the fourteenth century there could have been hardly a village without at least one gild. It is natural to suppose that in towns, where the choice of gilds was considerable, there would be a tendency for members of the same trade to join the same gild. The strength gained by such union under the common bond of an oath to obey the same statutes and the same officers, and the advantage of the Church’s protection must soon have become obvious, and as in 1378 we find the weavers of London forming a fraternity whose ordinances are entirely of a religious nature and contain no reference to the occupation of the members,725 so we may well believe that many of the early gilds, while apparently purely religious, were in fact trade unions. Whatever may have been the methods in which craft gilds came into existence, we find them increasing in numbers and influence from the middle of the twelfth century onwards. Meanwhile, however, the capitalists and wealthy traders by means of ‘merchant gilds’ and similar bodies had so firmly established an oligarchic control over the towns and boroughs that they were able to keep the craft gilds in a subordinate position. Everywhere the town authorities, whether they were mayor and council, or gild merchant, or governors, could impose regulations upon the crafts, while such rules as the crafts drew up for their own management were legal only if accepted by the town council. The case of Coventry was typical, where, in 1421, the mayor and councillors summoned the wardens of the crafts with their ordinances. ‘And the poyntes that byn lawfull good and honest for the Cite be alowyd hem and all other thrown asid and had for none.’726 In the same way at Norwich in 1449, the mayor drew up a complete set of ordinances for the crafts.727 But although keeping a firm hand on the gilds, and taking measures to protect the interests of the consumers and of the town in general, the civic authorities left the gilds in control of the internal affairs of their crafts. So that the craftsman in his relations to another of the same trade was a gild brother, but in his relations to all other men he was a townsman.

From the consumer’s point of view the regulation of prices was perhaps the most important problem. The price of raw material was too dependent upon supply and demand to admit of much regulation, though in 1355 Parliament interfered to bring down the price of iron,728 forbidding its export, and ordering the Justices of Labourers (i.e. those appointed to enforce the Statute of Labourers) to punish all who sold it too high. The local authorities, civic and manorial, took constant measures to prevent the artificial enhancement of what we may call raw food stuffs, corn, fish, and meat, the ‘regrator and forestaller,’ that is to say, the middleman, who intercepted supplies before they reached the market and forced prices up for his own sole benefit, being universally regarded as a miscreant.729 The economists of that period had not grasped the fact that the cleverness shown in buying an article cheap and selling the same thing, without any further expenditure of labour, dear, if done on a sufficiently large scale, justifies the bestowal of the honour of knighthood or a peerage. In the case of manufactured food stuffs, such as bread and ale, the price was automatically fixed by the price of the raw material, and in general prices of manufactures were regulated by the cost of the materials. Even in the case of such artistic work as the making of waxen images, it was considered scandalous that the makers should charge as much as 2s. the pound for images when wax was only 6d. the pound, and in 1432 the waxchandlers were ordered not to charge for workmanship more than 3d. the pound over the current price of wax.730 The principle that the craftsman should be content with a reasonable profit, and not turn the casual needs of his neighbours to his own benefit is constantly brought out in local regulations, as, for instance, in London in 1362, when in consequence of the damage wrought by a great storm tiles were in great demand, and the tilers were ordered to go on making tiles and selling them at the usual prices.731

The question of prices, which were thus so largely composed of a varying sum for material, and a fixed sum for workmanship, is very intimately connected with the question of wages.732 The medieval economist seems to have accepted the Ruskinian theory that all men engaged in a particular branch of trade should be paid equal wages—with the corollary that the better workman would obtain the more employment—as opposed to the modern practice of payment according to skill, which results in the greater employment of the bad workman because he is cheap.733 There were, of course, grades in each profession, as master or foreman, workman, and assistant or common labourer, but within each grade the rate of payment was fixed—at least within the jurisdiction of any gild or town authority734—unless the work was of quite exceptional nature, as, for instance, the making of carved stalls for the royal chapel at Westminster in 1357, where the rates of pay were almost double those of ordinary workmen.735 Wages were at all times paid on the two systems of piece-work and time, and the hours, which varied in the different trades, and at different places and periods, were as a rule long.736 For the building trade at Beverley in the fifteenth century work began in summer (from Easter to 15th August) at 4 A.M., and continued till 7 P.M.; at 6 A.M. there was a quarter of an hour’s interval for refreshment, at 8 half an hour for breakfast, at 11 an hour and a half to dine and sleep, and at 3 half an hour for further refreshment. During the winter months they worked from dawn till dusk, with half an hour for breakfast at 9 o’clock, an hour for dinner at noon, and a quarter of an hour’s interval at 3. These hours agree fairly well with those laid down by Parliament in 1496,737 which were, from mid-March to mid-September, start at 5 and stop work between 7 and 8, with half an hour for breakfast and an hour and a half for dinner and sleep (the siesta was only to be taken from beginning of May to end of July, during the rest of the time there was to be an hour for dinner and half an hour for lunch—‘nonemete’). The blacksmiths of London worked, at the end of the fourteenth century, from dawn till 9 P.M., except during November, December, and January, when their hours were from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M.738 In the case of the Cappers’ gild at Coventry the journeymen’s hours were in 1496 from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M.;739 but in 1520 they had been increased, being from 6 A.M. to 7 P.M. in winter, and from 5 A.M. to 7 P.M. in summer.740 Wages, of course, when paid by the day, varied in winter and summer, if we may use these terms for the short and long days. In London the determining dates were Easter and Michaelmas,741 at Bristol Ash Wednesday and St. Calixtus (14th October),742 and in the case of the workmen at Westminster the Purification (2nd February) and All Saints (1st November), giving an exceptionally short winter period.743

Against the long hours we have to set the comparative frequency of holidays. On Sundays and all the greater festivals, as well as a variable number of local festivals, such as the dedication day of the Church, no work was done, and on Saturdays and the days preceding festivals work as a rule ceased at four o’clock or earlier. This early closing was enforced at Norwich744 in 1490, on the representation of the shoemakers that many of their journeymen were ‘greatly disposed to riot and idelnes, whereby may succede grete poverte, so that dyuers days wekely when them luste to leve ther bodyly labour till a grete parte of the weke be almost so expended and wasted... also contrary to the lawe of god and good guydyng temporall they labour quikly toward the Sondaye and festyuall dayes on the Saterdayes and vigils fro iiij of the clock at after none to the depnes and derknes of the nyght foloweng. And not onely that synfull disposicion but moche warse so offendyng in the morownynges of such festes and omyttyng the heryng of the dyvyne servyce.’ In the case of the founders in London,745 while no ordinary metal work, such as turning, filing, or engraving, might be done after noon had rung, an exception had to be made in the case of a casting which was actually in progress; such work might be completed after time, as otherwise the metal would have to be remelted, even if it were not spoilt by the interruption. So far as Sundays and feasts were concerned no work was permitted except in the case of farriers, who were expected to shoe the horses of strangers passing through the town.746 A good many shops were open on the Sunday morning until seven o’clock, especially shoemakers,747 who in Bristol were allowed at any time of the day to serve ‘eny knyght or Squyer or eny other straunger goyng on her passage or journee, merchant or maryner comyng fro the see,’ or, during the six Sundays of harvest, any one else who required boots.748 Markets during the early part of the thirteenth century were often held on Sundays, but most of these were soon shifted on to week days; and fairs were usually associated with a saint’s day, but a fair was an amusement at which the ordinary craftsman was an interested spectator, though the chapmen and merchants were kept busy enough. The London rule that Saturdays and vigils counted for wages as complete days, but that no payment was to be made for the Sundays and feast days749 was generally observed, but in the case of workmen engaged in building operations at Westminster and the Tower the custom was that wages should be paid for alternate feast days, but not for any Sundays.750

Rules against working at night or after dark are constantly found in all classes of industries, ‘by reason that no man can work so neatly by night as by day.’751 There was the additional reason that in many trades night work was a source of annoyance to neighbours. This was certainly the case with the blacksmiths,752 and was probably the cause of the enactment by the Council in 1398, that no leather worker should work by night with hammer and shears, knife or file, at making points or lanyers (laces or thongs).753 Worst of all these offenders were the spurriers,754 for ‘many of the said trade are wandering about all day without working at all at their trade; and then when they have become drunk and frantic, they take to their work, to the annoyance of the sick and all their neighbourhood.... And then they blow up their fires so vigorously that their forges begin all at once to blaze, to the great peril of themselves and of all the neighbourhood round.’ Nuisances of this nature the authorities put down by stringent by-laws, in the same way that they banished offensive occupations, such as the flaying of carcases, the dressing of skins, and the burning of bricks, outside the walls.755

A third reason for the prohibition of night work was that candlelight not only made good work more difficult, but made bad work more easy. Not only was it easy to pass off faked leather and other deceitful goods by the uncertain, artificial light, which was one of the causes that moved the Council to try to put down ‘evechepyngs,’756 or evening markets, in London, but it also enabled fraudulent workmen to avoid the eye of the vigilant searcher or inspector.757 All such evasion and secrecy was rightly regarded as suspicious, and at Bristol, to take a single instance, weavers had to work at looms visible from the public street, and not in cellars or upstair rooms,758 the better class of furs had also to be worked in public,759 and ale might not be sold in private.760 The medieval system of search or inspection was very thorough, in theory and, so far as we can judge, in practice also. The search of weights and measures, provisions, cloth, and tanned leather usually belonged to the mayor or equivalent borough officer, or in country districts to the manorial lord, but usually with other manufactures, and very often in the case of cloth and leather, the mayor deputed the duty of search to members of the craft gilds elected and sworn for that purpose. They could inspect the wares either in the workshops, or when exposed for sale, and seize any badly made articles. The forfeited goods were either burnt or given to the poor,761 and the offending craftsman fined, set in the pillory, or, if an old offender, banished from the town.762 To facilitate tracing the responsibility for bad work, weavers, fullers, hatters, metal workers, tile-makers, and other craftsmen, including bakers, were ordered to put their private trademarks on their wares.763

The process of search must have been much simplified by the custom so prevalent in medieval towns of segregating or localising the trades,764 so that all the goldsmiths dwelt in one quarter, the shoemakers in another, the clothiers in a third, and so forth. How far this was compulsory, and how far a mere matter of custom it is hard to say, but for those who in addition to or instead of shops sold by barrows or chapmen, definite districts were usually assigned. So the London shoemakers might only send out their goods to be hawked between Sopers Lane and the Conduit, and then only in the morning,765 and at Bristol smiths were not to send ironware through the town for sale in secret places, but either to sell ‘in here howse opynlych’ or else at their assigned place by the High Cross, where also all strangers coming with ‘eny penyworthes yclepid smyth ware’ were to stand.766 The principle of segregation was carried out still more strictly, as we might expect, in the markets. A list of the stalls in the provision market at Norwich in 1397767 shows forty butchers’ stalls together, followed by forty-five fishmongers and twenty-eight stalls in the poulterers’ market, of which nine were used for fresh fish; then there were fifteen shops belonging to the corporation in the wool-market, and the great building of the ‘Worthsted Celd,’ to which all worsteds sent in from the country had to be brought.768 Other trades were localised in the same way, and the two divisions of leather-workers, the cordwainers and the workers of the inferior ‘bazan’ or sheep’s leather, were bidden each to keep to their own set of stalls to prevent confusion and fraud.769

As the trades were kept each to its own district, so was the craftsman restricted to his own trade. By a law issued in 1364 artificers were obliged to keep to one ‘mystery’ or craft,770 an exception being made in favour of women acting as brewers, bakers, carders, spinners, and workers of wool and linen and silk,—the versatility of woman, the ‘eternal amateur,’ being thus recognised some five centuries and a half before Mr. Chesterton rediscovered it. Later statutes forbade shoemakers, tanners, and curriers to infringe on each other’s province. It is true that at Bristol771 we find a puzzling regulation that if a man who had not been apprenticed to tanning practises the craft to which he was apprenticed and also uses the craft of tanning, he shall not pay anything to the tanner’s craft but to his own craft and his ‘maistier servaunt de tanneres-crafte’ shall discharge the dues, etc. of a master of the craft. But probably this belongs to the later fifteenth century after the rise of capitalist employers; if not, it is certainly exceptional, the general tendency being to keep trades, and more especially the allied trades, separate, in order presumably to avoid the growth of ‘combines’ and monopolies. For this reason fishmongers and fishermen were forbidden to enter into partnership in London,772 because the dealers, knowing the needs of the city, would be able to manipulate supplies and keep up prices. The case against allowing all the branches of one trade to come under single control is vividly set out in the case of the Coventry iron workers in 1435:773—

‘Be hit known to you that but yif certen ordenaunses of Craftes withein this Cite, and in speciall the craft of wirdrawerz, be takon good hede to, hit is like myche of the kynges pepull and in speciall poor chapmen and Clothemakers in tyme comeng shallon be gretely hyndered; and as hit may be supposed the principall cause is like to be amonges hem that han all the Craft in her own hondes, That is to say, smythiers, brakemen,774 gurdelmen and cardwirdrawers; for he that hathe all these Craftes may, offendyng his consience, do myche harme. First in the smethyng, yif he be necligent and mysrule his Iron that he wirkithe be onkynd hetes or elles in oder maner, the whiche when hit is so spilt is not to make no maner chapmannes ware of, Neverthelater for his own eese he will com to his Brakemon and sey to hym:—“Here is a ston of rough-iron the whiche must be tendurly cherysshet.” And then the Brakemon most nedes do his maisters comaundement and dothe all that is in hym; and then when the Brakemon hathe don his occupacion, that that the mayster supposithe wilnot in no wyse be holpen atte gurdell, then hit shall be solde for hoke wire. And when hit is made in hokes and shulde serve the Fisher to take fisshe, when comythe hit to distresse, then for febulness hit all-to brekithe and thus is the Fissher foule disseyved to hys grete harme. And then that wire that the mayster supposithe will be cherisshed atte gurdell, he shall com to his girdelmon and sey to him as he seid to the brakemon:—“Lo, here is a stryng or ij that hathe ben mysgoverned atte herthe; my brakemon hathe don his dener, I prey the do now thyne.” And so he dothe as his maister biddethe hyme. And then he gothe to his cardwirdrawer and seithe the same to hym, and he dothe as his maister biddithe hym. And then when the Cardmaker hathe bought this wire thus dissayvabely wrought he may not know hit tille hit com to the crokyng,775 and then hit crachithe and farithe foule; so the cardmaker is right hevy therof but neverthelater he sethe because hit is cutte he must nedes helpe hymself in eschuing his losse, he makithe cardes therof as well as he may. And when the cardes ben solde to the clothemaker and shuldon be ocupied, anon the teeth brekon and fallon out, so the clothemaker is foule disseyved. Wherfore, sirs, atte reverens of God in fortheryng of the kynges true lege peapull and in eschueng of all disseytes, weithe this mater wysely and ther as ye see disseyte is like to be, therto settithe remedy be your wyse discressions. For ye may right welle know be experience that and the smythier and the brakemen wern togider, and no mo, and the cardwirdrawers and the middlemen776 togider, and no mo, then hit were to suppose that ther shuld not so myche disseyvaball wire be wrought and sold as ther is; for and the craft were severed in the maner as hit is seide above, then the cardwirdrawers and the myddelmen most nedes bye the wire that they shull wirche of the smythier, and yif the cardwirdrawer were ones or thies disseyved with ontrewe wire he wolde be warre and then wold he sey unto the smythier that he bought that wire of:—“Sir, I hadde of you late badde wire. Sir, amend your honde, or, in feith, I will no more bye of you.” And then the smythier, lest he lost his custumers, wolde make true goode; and then, withe the grase of Godd, the Craft shulde amend and the kynges peapull be not disseyved with ontrewe goode.’

The interests of the craftsmen, or producers, were as a whole opposed to those of the consumers. It is true that they co-operated, as we have seen, with the local authorities in maintaining the standard of workmanship, because the craft that did not do so would soon find itself ‘defamed and out of employ,’777 but it was obviously to their interest to keep up prices by the limitation of competition and of output. Their success in restricting competition varied very greatly in different trades and places. In Lincoln, for instance, no tiler might come to work in the town without joining the tilers’ gild,778 while in Worcester, so far was this from being the case, that the tilers were not even allowed to form a gild at all.779 As a whole the gilds had the townsmen behind them in their opposition to outsiders. The traditional attitude of the Englishman towards a stranger has always been to ‘heave half a brick at him,’ and as far back as 1421 the authorities at Coventry had to order ‘that no man throw ne cast at noo straunge man, ne skorn hym.’780 The sense of civic, or even parochial, patriotism was more developed in those times, and it was generally felt that while artificers ought not to work for outsiders unless there was no work to be had within the town, on the other hand, employers ought to give the preference to their fellow townsmen and not send work out of the town.781 As to encouraging strangers to settle within their walls, sentiment varied in different places. At Beverley in 1467 it was enacted that any person might come and set up in his craft without any payment for the first year—except a contribution towards the church light and the yearly pageant maintained by his craft—but after that he should pay yearly 12d. to the town and 12d. to his craft until he became a burgess and member of the gild.782 But the attitude of Bristol, where no one might weave unless he became a burgess (and a gild brother) was more typical of the general feeling.783 There was, however, at Bristol a rule that a stranger who had come to the town on a visit, or to wait for a ship might work at his trade for his support during his stay.784 This rule did not hold good, apparently, at Hereford, as a London tailor, whose master had allowed him during an outbreak of plague to go and stay with relations in Hereford, was imprisoned by the wardens of the local tailors’ gild because he did some tailoring for the cousin with whom he was staying, in order to pay for his keep.785 At Norwich, by the ordinances of 1449, no ‘foreign dweller’ might have any apprentices or even a hired servant unless the latter was absolutely necessary for his business, and in that case at the end of a year he must either ‘buy himself a freeman,’ or, if too poor to buy the franchise, ‘live under tribute to the sheriffs.’786

One advantage that the resident manufacturer had over the foreigner was that his wares entered the local market without the handicap of paying customs or octroi dues. Long lists of these dues on every conceivable kind of merchandise, from bears and monkeys to peppercorns, are to be found in the records of many towns,787 more especially seaports. It is true that the burgesses of many towns, and the tenants of many religious houses were theoretically exempt from paying these dues, but it is probable that the delay and worry of proving such exemption was often felt to be a greater loss than payment. So far as the alien importer was concerned, although there was no such thing as a protective duty (the import of an article was either prohibited altogether or unrestrained), he might find himself called upon to pay a higher, even a double, import duty on all his merchandise. This policy of discriminating against the alien, combined with the continual harassing of the unfortunate foreign merchants, induced many alien settlers to take out letters of naturalisation, and the long lists of these in the fifteenth century788 show how numerous and widespread these aliens were. Coming for the most part from Flanders and the Low Countries, they settled not only in London and the other great towns, but in the smaller market towns and villages throughout the country, exercising their various trades as goldsmiths, clothmakers, leather-workers, and so forth. In London in particular the foreign element was very large from an early date and, as a result of the invitation issued by Edward iii. to foreign clothworkers and their exemption from the control of the native clothiers’ gild, we have the exceptional occurrence of a gild of alien weavers. This gild, itself divided by the rivalries and quarrels of the Flemings and Brabanters,789 was unpopular with the native weavers because, while competing with them for trade, they did not share in the farm or rent paid by the native gild to the king, and in general there was a strong feeling against the aliens in London, which was fanned by the craft gilds and occasionally culminated in rioting, the murder of some of the foreigners and the plunder of their shops.

While the gilds were constantly coming into conflict with outside interests, there was also an internal conflict of interests between the masters, the hired servants, or journeymen, and the intermediate class of apprentices. This becomes more noticeable towards the end of our period. While there was occasional friction between employer and employed even before the second half of the fourteenth century, it was during the next two centuries that the rise of the capitalist, coupled with the descent of the small independent masters into the position of journeymen, brought about strained relations between the two classes. In the earlier period in most of the trades there was reasonable prospect for any craftsman that he would be able to set up as an independent master, but as time went on the difficulty of attaining independence increased. The growing attraction of town and craft life as compared with agriculture swelled the ranks of the craftsmen, and the gilds, whose management was in the hands of the masters, endeavoured to limit competition by raising their entrance fees and more especially by raising their ‘upsets,’ that is to say the fees which had to be paid by a craftsman upon setting up as a master. One of the earliest instances of this restriction of competition occurred in connection with the weavers’ gild of London, concerning whom it was reported in 1321 that they had during the last thirty years reduced the number of looms in the city from 380 to 80.790 In this case the object was to benefit all the members of the gild at the expense of the public, and not to protect existing masters from rivals within the gild, and the method employed was therefore the raising of the fee for entrance to the gild. This same weavers’ gild was so far ahead of its times that it had instituted the modern trade unions’ restriction of output, no member being allowed to weave a cloth in less than four days, though such a cloth could easily be woven in three if not in two days.791 But this was a most exceptional move, if not absolutely unique.

How far the desire to restrict output was at the bottom of regulations forbidding the employment of more than a strictly limited number of apprentices and journeymen, and how far such prohibitions were inspired by fear of the monopolisation of labour by capitalists it is difficult to say. Probably the dread of the capitalist was the chief incentive for such regulations, which are very numerous; the cobblers of Bristol, for instance, being restricted to a single ‘covenaunt hynd,’792 and the cappers of Coventry allowed only two apprentices, neither of whom might be replaced if he left with his master’s leave before the end of his term of seven years.793 The same principle of fair play between employers led to the ordaining of heavy penalties for taking away another man’s servant, or employing any journeyman who had not fulfilled his engagement with his previous master, and to the strict prohibition of paying more than the fixed maximum wages. As this last provision was sometimes got over by the master’s wife giving his servants extra gratuities and gifts, this practice was forbidden at Bristol in 1408, except that the master might at the end of a year give ‘a courtesy’ of 20d. to his chief servant.794 As the unfair securing of labour by offering high wages was forbidden, so the use of the cheap labour of women was as a rule regarded with disfavour. The fullers of Lincoln were forbidden to work with any woman who was not the wife or maid of a master,795 and the ‘braelers,’ or makers of braces, of London, in 1355, laid down ‘that no one shall be so daring as to set any woman to work in his trade, other than his wedded wife or his daughter.’796 A century later the authorities at Bristol went even further, for finding that the weavers were ‘puttyn, occupien and hiren ther wyfes, doughtours and maidens, some to weve in ther owne lombes and some to hire them to wirche with othour persons of the said crafte,’ whereby many ‘likkely men to do the Kyng service in his warris,... and sufficiently lorned in the seid crafte... gothe vagraunt and unoccupied,’ absolutely forbade the practice in future, making an exception only in the case of wives already so employed.797 Of child labour we hear very little, one of the few notices being an order on their behalf made, suitably enough, by Richard Whittington in 1398, that whereas some ‘hurers’ (makers of fur caps) send their apprentices and journeymen and children of tender age down to the Thames and other exposed places, amid horrible tempests, frosts, and snows, to scour caps, to the very great scandal of the city, this practice is to cease at once.798

Apprenticeship was from quite early times the chief, and eventually became the only, path to mastership. The ordinances of the London leather-dressers,799 made in 1347, and those of the pewterers,800 made the next year, give as alternative qualifications for reception into the craft the completion of a period of apprenticeship, or the production of good testimony that the applicant is a competent workman. A similar certificate of ability was required of the dyers at Bristol,801 in 1407, even if they were apprentices, but as a rule the completion of a term of apprenticeship was a sufficient qualification. That term might vary considerably, but the custom of London, which held good in most English boroughs, eventually fixed it at a minimum of seven years. This would often be exceeded, and we find, for instance, a boy of fourteen apprenticed to a haberdasher in 1462 for the rather exceptional term of twelve years; but in this case the master had undertaken to provide him with two years’ schooling, the first year and a half to learn ‘grammer,’ and the next half year to learn to write.802 In a list of apprentices who took the oath of fealty to the king and the city at Coventry in 1494, the terms range from five to nine years, though the majority were for seven years; during the first years of their terms, they were to receive nominal wages, usually 12d. a year, and for their last year more substantial rewards, varying from 6s. 8d. to 25s.803 The oath to obey the city laws serves as a reminder that the apprentice, not being a full member of the gild, was under the charge of the city authorities to some extent. Indentures of apprenticeship had as a rule to be enrolled by the town clerk,804 and in London the transfer of an apprentice from one employer to another was not legal unless confirmed by the city chamberlain.805 Besides having his indentures enrolled, and paying a fee to the craft gild, the apprentices, or rather his friends, had to give a bond for his good behaviour. The rights of the apprentice, on the other hand, were probably always guarded by a right of appeal to the wardens of his craft: this was certainly the case at Coventry in 1520, the masters of the cappers being obliged to go once a year to all the shops of their craft and call the apprentices before them, and if any apprentice complained three times against his master for ‘insufficient finding,’ they had power to take him away and put him with another master.806 As a master’s interest in his apprentice was transferable to another master, so it was possible for an apprentice to buy up the remainder of his term after he had served a portion. He could not, however, be received into his gild as a master until the whole of his term had expired,807 and although it would seem that he could set up in business by himself,808 probably he might not employ workmen, and as a rule he no doubt spent the unexpired portion of his term as a journeyman.

The journeymen, working by the day (journée), either with their masters, or in their own houses, as opposed to the covenant servants, who were hired by the year,809 and lived in their employer’s house, constituted the fluid element in the industrial organisation, and were composed partly of men who had served a full apprenticeship but lacked funds or enterprise to set up independently, and partly of others who had either served only a brief apprenticeship, or had picked up their knowledge of the craft in other ways.810 Although more or less free to work for what employers they would, practically all gild regulations contained a stringent order against the employment of any journeyman who had broken his contract or left his late master without good reason.811 In the matter of home work rules varied; the journeymen of the wiredrawers and allied crafts at Coventry in 1435 were allowed to work at home and might not be compelled to come to their masters’ houses,812 but in London, in 1271, the shoemakers were not allowed to give out work, as the journeymen were found to go off with the goods.813 The vagaries of this class, indeed, caused much heart-searching to their masters. Instead of being content with their holidays, and accepting their twelve hours’ working day, they had a pernicious habit of going off on the spree for two or three days, and amusing themselves by playing bowls, ‘levyng ther besynes at home that they shuld lyve by’;814 and the Coventry employers, with that touching regard for widows and orphans (or in this case wives and children) which has always distinguished the English capitalists, forbade them to frequent inns on workdays, ’as it is daylye seen that they whiche be of the pooreste sorte doo sytte all daye in the alehouse drynkynge and playnge at the cardes and tables and spende all that they can gett prodigally upon themselfes to the highe displeasure of God and theyre owne ympovershynge, whereas if it were spente at home in theyre owne houses theyre wiffes and childerne shulde have parte therof.’815 Not having any voice in the craft gilds the journeymen were continually forming ‘yeomen gilds,’ ‘bacheleries,’ and other combinations, which the masters’ gilds usually endeavoured to suppress. In 1387 the London journeymen cordwainers formed a fraternity816 and endeavoured to secure it by obtaining papal protection; nine years later the mayor and aldermen put down a fraternity formed by the yeomen of the saddlers, at the same time ordering the masters to treat their men well in future,817 and in 1415 the wardens of the tailors complained that their journeymen had combined, living together in companies in particular houses, where they held assemblies, and adopting a livery, whereupon the council, in view of the danger to the peace of the city from such an uncontrolled and irresponsible body, forbade the combination and ordered the journeymen to live under the governance of the wardens of the craft.818 The fraternity of the yeomen tailors, however, was not so easily suppressed, and is found two years later petitioning for leave to hold its yearly assembly at St. John’s, Clerkenwell.819 In the same way at Coventry, when the journeymen tailors’ gild of St. Anne was suppressed in 1420, they simply changed their patron and reappeared as the gild of St. George, against which measures were taken in 1425.820 The charges against the yeomen saddlers in 1396 were, that they had so forced wages up that whereas the masters could formerly obtain a workman for from 40s. to 5 marks yearly and his board they had now to pay 10 or 12 marks or even £10, and that also business was dislocated by the bedel coming round and summoning the journeymen to attend a service for the soul of a deceased brother. The clashing of religious observances with business led to an order at Coventry in 1528 that the journeymen dyers should make no assemblies at weddings, brotherhoods, or burials, nor make any ‘caves’ (i.e. combinations), but use themselves as servants, and as no craft.821 This was practically an enforcement of an order issued ten years earlier, that no journeymen should form ‘caves’ without the licence of the mayor and the master of their craft.822 Such a licence would not as a rule be granted, unless the masters were unusually broadminded, or the journeymen exceptionally strong. There was, however, at Coventry a recognised fraternity of journeymen weavers in 1424; their wardens paid 12d. to the chief master for every brother admitted; each brother gave 4d. towards the cost of the craft pageant, and the chief master contributed towards the journeymen’s altar lamp, while both masters and servants held their feasts together.823 At Bristol also there was a gild of journeymen connected with the shoemakers’ craft, sharing with the craft gild in the expenses of church lights and feasts.824

The success of the London saddlers in forcing wages up is a remarkable tribute to the power of union; and we find that during the fourteenth century the strike was well known, and when a master would not agree with his workmen the other workmen of the craft would come out and cease work until the dispute was settled.825 This practice was, of course, forbidden, but we may doubt with what success. At the same time the masters were pretty well unanimous in forbidding the employment of a craftsman whose dispute with his master had not been settled. So far as the offence of detaining wages due was concerned, penalties were often laid down in gild ordinances,826 while in the case of other disputes the matter would be settled by the council or court of the craft.827 The existence of a craft gild practically implied a court before which disputes between members of the craft or between craftsmen and customers were tried.828 Such courts were at first directly under the borough authorities, the mayor or his deputies presiding over the weekly courts of the weavers in London in 1300,829 and although they seem to have attained a greater degree of independence there seems usually to have been a right of appeal to the borough court.830 It was probably to avoid this that some of the Coventry masters took to impleading craftsmen in spiritual courts, on the ground that they had broken their oaths in not keeping the gild rules.831

Too much attention must not be given to the quarrelsome side of the gilds, for they were essentially friendly societies for mutual assistance. One of the rules of the London leather-dressers was that if a member should have more work than he could complete, and the work was in danger of being lost the other members should help him.832 So also, if a mason wished to undertake a contract he got four or six responsible members of the craft to guarantee his ability, and if he did not do the work well they had to complete it.833 Again, if a farrier undertook the cure of a horse and was afraid that it would die, he might call in the advice of the wardens of his company, but if he was too proud to do so and the horse died, he would be responsible to the owner.834 The rule of the weavers at Hull, that none should let his apprentice work for another835 was not an infringement of the principle of mutual aid, but was designed to prevent evasion of the order that none might have more than two apprentices; the fact that a fine was only exacted in the event of the apprentice so working for more than thirteen days actually points to the loan of temporary assistance being allowed. While help was thus given to the craftsman when in full employ, a still more essential feature of the gilds was their grant of assistance to members who had fallen ill or become impoverished through no fault of their own.836 Nor did their benevolence end with the poor craftsman’s death, for they made an allowance to his widow and celebrated Masses for the repose of his soul. The religious element in the organisation of gilds, though very strong, does not affect us very much in considering their industrial side, but there is one indirect effect which must be referred to. The custom of all the gilds and fraternities going in procession to the chief church of their town on certain feast days, carrying their banners and symbols, gradually developed during the fifteenth century until each gild endeavoured to outshine its rivals in pageantry. Payments towards the pageants were exacted from all members of the trade even if they were not members of the gild, but in spite of this the expenses were so great that the smaller gilds were almost ruined, and consequently we find during the latter half of the fifteenth century schemes to amalgamate, or at any rate to unite for the support of a common pageant, many of the smaller mysteries or crafts. An account of a pageant at Norwich837 about 1450 is interesting as showing the numbers of these lesser crafts, and the way in which they were combined. Twelve pageants were presented: (1) The Creation of the World, by the mercers, drapers, and haberdashers. (2) Paradise, by the grocers and raffemen. (3) ‘Helle Carte,’ by the glaziers, stainers, scriveners, parchemyners, the carpenters, gravers, colermakers, and wheelwrights. (4) Abel and Cain, by the shearmen, fullers, ‘thikwollenwevers,’ and coverlet makers, the masons and limeburners. (5) ‘Noyse shipp’ (Noah’s Ark), by the bakers, brewers, innkeepers, cooks, millers, vintners, and coopers. (6) Abraham and Isaac, by the tailors, broderers, the reders and tylers. (7) Moses and Aaron with the children of Israel and Pharaoh and his knights, by the tanners, curriers, and cordwainers. (8) David and Goliath, by the smiths. (9) The Birth of Christ, by the dyers, calenders, the goldsmiths, goldbeaters, saddlers, pewterers, and braziers. (10) The Baptism of Christ, by the barbers, waxchandlers, surgeons, physicians, the hardwaremen, the hatters, cappers, skinners, glovers, pinners, pointmakers, girdlers, pursers, bagmakers, ‘sceppers,’838 the wiredrawers and cardmakers. (11) The Resurrection, by the butchers, fishmongers, and watermen. (12) The Holy Ghost, by the worsted weavers.

In some cases the smaller crafts seem to have been absorbed into the larger, but in the Norwich regulations of 1449,839 when general orders were given for the annexation of the smaller crafts to the larger, the bladesmiths, locksmiths, and lorimers, for instance, being united to the smiths, it was laid down that such of the annexed misteries as had seven or more members should elect their own wardens, and that the mayor should appoint wardens for such as had fewer than seven members. This, which is interesting as showing how small some of these misteries were, points to a retention of control, the amalgamation being mainly concerned, no doubt, with the expenses of the pageant and the gild feasts. These latter became so elaborate and costly that many of the unfortunate members chosen as ‘feast-makers’ were ruined, and in 1495 orders were given at Norwich that the wardens alone should be feast-makers, and that they should provide one supper and one dinner, on the same day, and no more, and that should be at the common expense of the gild.840 These orders had to be repeated in 1531, and it is rather interesting to read that in 1547841 the dishes which had to be provided by the cordwainers’ feast-makers were ‘frumenty, goos, vell, custard, pig, lamb, and tarte. At soper—colde sute,842 hot sute, moten, douset,843 and tarte.’

With the pleasant picture of our craftsman resting from his labours and regaling himself in true English fashion, we may take leave of him and his work.

Footnotes

1 Galloway, Annals of Coal Mining, 5.

2 See Wright’s Uriconium.

3 Petrie and Sharp, Mon. Hist., i, x.

4 Printed by the Surtees Society and, more recently, in V. C. H. Durham.

5 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 293.

6 Op. cit. (Rolls Ser.), 160.

7 Galloway, op. cit., 18.

8 Riley, Mems. of London, p. xvi.

9 Galloway, op. cit., 30.

10 Assize R., 223, m. 4.

11 Mat. Paris, Chron. (Rolls Ser.), vi. 96.

12 V. C. H. Glouc., ii. 218.

13 Pat., 40 Hen. iii., m. 21.

14 V. C. H. Shrops., i. 449.

15 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 349.

16 Ann. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), iii. 105.

17 Pat., 35 Edw. I., m. 5d. Complaints had been made and commissions of inquiry appointed in 1285 (Pat., 13 Edw. I., m. 18d) and 1288 (Pat., 16 Edw. I., m. 12).

18 Galloway, op. cit., 23.

19 Colman, Hist. of Barwick in Elmet, 205.

20 Mins. Accts., bdle. 1040, no. 18.

21 Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxix. 174.

22 Proc. Soc. of Ant., xx. 262.

23 V. C. H. Lancs., ii. 359.

24 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 350.

25 Add. Ch., 49516.

26 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 351.

27 Ibid.

28 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 350.

29 Ibid., 351. Cf. a reference to ‘le dampe’ in 1316: Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., Middleton MSS., 88. This Report contains a great deal of value for the early history of coal mining.

30 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 350.

31 A ‘sowe’ is mentioned at Cossall in 1316.—Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., Middleton MSS., 88.

32 Galloway, op. cit., 53.

33 Ibid., 46.

34 Finchale Priory (Surt. Soc.), p. cccxci.

35 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 322.

36 V. C. H. War., ii. 221.

37 In 1366 in the manor of Bolsover, £4, 11s. was paid in wages to ‘a man looking after the coals and mine at Shutehoode, and keeping tally against the colliers and diggers of the same coals and stones.’—Foreign R., 42 Edw. iii., m. 13.

38 Except that the coalminers in the Forest of Dean, thanks to their intimate association with the iron-miners there, shared in the latter’s privileges.

39 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 322.

40 Exch. Dep. by Com., 29 Eliz., East. 4.

41 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 352.

42 ‘Fines for digging coals in the lord’s waste,’ in fifteenth century.—Galloway, op. cit. 76; ‘Licences to dig in sixteenth century,’ ibid., 113.

43 Exch. Dep. by Com., 21 Eliz., Hil. 8.

44 See, e.g., V. C. H. War., ii. 219; V. C. H. Derby, ii. 350; De Banco R., 275, m. 163d.

45 Star Chamber Proc., Hen. viii., file 22, no. 94.

46 Star Chamber Proc., Edw. vi., file 6, no. 99.

47 Rot. Parl., i. 228, 229.

48 See V. C. H. War., ii. 219.

49 The rent was sometimes paid, partly or wholly, in kind; as at Shippen in 1262 (Colman, Hist. of Barwick-in-Elmet, 205).

50 V. C. H. Shrops., ii. 454.

51 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 350.

52 Such partnerships were not uncommon; e.g. in 1351 W. de Allesworth demanded 2s. 10½d. from Geoffrey Hardyng, as the seventh part of 20s. paid to Geoffrey and his partners for coal got at Nuneaton.—Add. Ch. 49532.

53 Galloway, op. cit., 70.

54 Add. Ch. 48948.

55 Galloway (op. cit., 113-14) gives a late sixteenth-century case in Wakefield, where the ‘heads, pillars, and other works... for bearing up the ground’ being cut away, the ground suddenly fell in.

56 Galloway, op. cit., 45.

57 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 324.

58 Foreign R., 42 Edw. iii., m. E.

59 Pat., 8 Rich. ii.

60 Rot. Parl., iv. 148.

61 Galloway, op. cit., 70, 87.

62 Customs Accts., 106/1.

63 Ibid., 111/40.

64 Ibid., 171/26.

65 Kendall, Iron Ores, 15; V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 241.

66 Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass., xxix. 121-9.

67 V. C. H. Somers., i. 275. There was also a ‘collegium fabrorum’ at Chichester (Regnum).—Suss. Arch. Coll., vii. 61-3.

68 Kemble, Cod. Dipl., no. 30.

69 Chron. Evesham (Rolls Ser.), 26. The legend was probably invented as an explanation of the remains of the (Roman) town found below the ground here, but the tradition of the smiths had no doubt some foundation.

70 Dom. Bk., i. 162.

71 Ibid.

72 V. C. H. Cumberland, ii. 340.

73 Facsimiles of Charters in B. M., no. 64.

74 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 356.

75 Pipe Rolls, quoted in V. C. H. Gloucs., ii. 216.

76 V. C. H. Gloucs., ii. 217.

77 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 241.

78 See Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, 7.

79 Ibid., 467, 7 (7).

80 Ibid., 467, 7 (7).

81 Roy. and Hist. Letters (Rolls Ser.), i. 278.

82 Furness Coucher (Chetham Soc.), pt. iii., Intro.

83 Ibid.

84 Holinshed, Chron., sub anno.

85 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 357.

86 Peat was mixed with the charcoal in Lancashire, and doubtless elsewhere, when available.—V. C. H. Lancs., ii. 361.

87 This process was used by the Romans at Beaufort, near Battle, in Sussex, amongst other places.—Suss. Arch. Coll., xxix. 173

88 Journ. of Brit. Arch. Ass., xxix. 124.

89 Even after the introduction of the footblast the ‘cinders’ or slag, contained about half the original iron, according to Dud Dudley (Metallum Martis), and were worth resmelting in the improved furnaces of later times.

90 Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv. 513.

91 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 358.

92 Furness Coucher (Chetham Soc.), pt. iii., Intro., and pp. 261-6.

93 See above, p. 7.

94 The same term is used in connection with burning tiles, and is no doubt derived from the same root as anneal.

95 This account of the process of manufacture is compiled from several sources, the chief being: (1) the accounts of Tudeley Forge, Tunbridge, for the reign of Edw. iii., in the P. R. O.; (2) the accounts of Bedbourne Forge, Durham, in 1408, Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv. 509-29; (3) several Sussex accounts summarised by the present writer in V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 244-5.

96 Nicholls, Iron Making in the Forest of Dean, 20.

97 Cal. Chart. R., iii. 95-6.

98 V. C. H. Glouc., ii. 219, n. 5. Cf. the twelfth century grant to the monks of Louth Park of ‘duas fabricas, id est duos focos... scilicet unam fabricam blomeriam... unam operariam.’—V. C. H. Derby, ii. 356.

99 The date of the introduction of hammers driven by water power is problematic: a ‘great waterhamor’ was working in Ashdown Forest, Sussex, in 1496.—Misc. Bks. Exch. T. R., 8, f. 49.

100 The unworked bloom was called a ‘loop,’ which appears to be derived from the French loup, a wolf, the German equivalent, Stück, being applied to such a mass of iron.—Swank, Iron in All Ages, 80.

101 A furnace once lit might be kept in blast sometimes for as long as forty weeks, in the seventeenth century, but the periods usual in earlier times were no doubt much shorter.

102 Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv. 529.

103 Furness Coucher, pt. iii., Intro. The word used is ‘band,’ but it is apparently equivalent to ‘bloom.’

104 Exch. K. R. Accts., 485, no. 11.

105 Ibid., 466, no. 20.

106 Suss. Arch. Coll., ii. 202.

107 Exch. K. R. Accts., 546, no. 16.

108 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 246.

109 Exch. K. R. Accts., 483, no. 19.

110 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 245.

111 Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv. 509-29.

112 Exch. K. R. Accts., 485, no. 11.

113 Mins. Accts., 890, no. 25.

114 Latinised in one place as ‘anteriores flatores.’

115 Suss. Arch. Coll., xiii. 128.

116 At some iron mills near Teddesley in Staffordshire in 1583 the filler and fyner were identical, and there was a hammerman and a founder.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 546, no. 16.

117 Nicholls, Ironmaking in the Forest of Dean; V. C. H. Gloucs., ii. 219-23.

118 This was farmed in 1280 for £23, so that the amount exported annually must have been well over 10,000 loads.

119 The surface material which has to be removed before the ore is reached.

120 Arch. Cambr. (S. 3), iii. 418.

121 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 247

122 Exch. Dep. by Com., 22 Eliz., Trin. 4.

123 Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 129-42. For a list of Roman pigs found in England, see ibid., liv. 272.

124 Ibid.

125 Birch, Cart. Sax., i. 579.

126 V. C. H. Glouc., ii. 237.

127 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 323.

128 Pipe Rolls of Hen. ii.

129 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 348.

130 V. C. H. Somers., ii. 363.

131 Pat., 20 Hen. iii., m. 13.

132 V. C. H. Cumberland, ii. 339.

133 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 326.

134 V. C. H. Somers., ii. 367-9.

135 V. C. H. Cumb., ii. 340.

136 Pat., 15 Edw. IV., pt. i., m. 22.

137 Assize R., 143, m. 1. The Scottish king’s dominial rights over Alston, apart from the mines, seem to have been well established. William the Lion granted land at Alston as ‘in Tyndale,’ to William de Vipont, and later to his son Ivo de Vipont, the latter grant being confirmed by King John in 1210. Finally, after the whole matter had been carefully examined, Edward I. gave the manor of Alston in 1282 to Nicholas de Vipont to hold of the King of Scotland, reserving, however, the liberty of the mines.—Assize Rolls, 143, m. 1; 132, m. 34; Chanc. Misc. 53, file 1, nos. 20, 22.

138 V. C. H. Cumb., ii. 340.

139 Assize R., 143, m. 1.

140 Assize R., 132, m. 34; 143, m. 1.

141 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 339.

142 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 19.

143 e.g. at Eyam and Litton.—V. C. H. Derby, ii. 338.

144 Until the nineteenth century the would-be miner had to set up a model stow, fastened with wooden pins and not with nails.

145 i.e. forwards and backwards along the line of the vein.

146 It is not quite clear whether he threw from the old pit, in which case he would naturally throw a very short distance, or from his own pit, in which case he might so throw as to cover much of the vein which would have belonged to the elder pitchers.

147 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 328.

148 The Derbyshire standard dish made in 1512 and still preserved at Wirksworth contains about sixty lbs. of ore.

149 Assize R., 132, m. 34.

150 Ibid.

151 Memo. R., K. R., Mich., 2 Edw. ii., no. 55.

152 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 332.

153 Memo. R., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.

154 The load, or lade (lada), contained nine dishes (disci, scutella).

155 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 19.

156 Ibid., 261, no. 25.

157 Memo. R., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.

158 In 1302 there were four mines: the South Mine, the Middle Mine, the Mine of Fershull, and the Old Mine.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.

159 The smiths were paid 12d.-18d. a week.—Ibid.

160 Exch. K. R. Accts., 261, no. 25.

161 Anct. Corresp., xlviii. 81.

162 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 16.

163 Anct. Corresp., xlviii, 81.

164 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.

165 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

166 V. C. H. Durham, ii. 349.

167 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

168 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 6.

169 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

170 V. C. H. Somers., ii. 373.

171 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 22.

172 Archæologia, lvij, 113-124.

173 e.g. ‘In 6510 turbis tannitis emptis ad inde faciendos cineres pro plumbo affinando.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 4.

174 Memo., L. T. R., 25-26 Edw. I., m. 51.

175 Exch. K. R. Accts., 260, no. 7.

176 Ibid., no. 19.

177 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

178 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 324.

179 It is possible that ‘cut’ is the Celtic word ‘cwt’, meaning a piece, and dates back to British times.—Ibid.

180 Ibid.

181 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

182 Pat., 27 Edw. I., m. 28.

183 Exch. K. R. Accts., 126, no. 9.

184 Pat., 35 Edw. I., m. 19.

185 Mins. Accts., 826, no. 12.

186 Ibid., no. 11.

187 Exch. K. R. Accts., 265, no. 9.

188 Ibid., no. 10.

189 Close 24 Edw. I., m. 11d.

190 Pipe R., 28 Edw. I.

191 Ibid.

192 Anct. Corresp., xlviii. 177.

193 ‘Minera’ may also bear the sense of ‘ore.’

194 Close 7 Edw. ii., m. 6.

195 Anct. Pet., 13552.

196 Pat., 17 Edw. ii., p. 2, m. 15.

197 Assize R., 135, m. 26d.

198 Pat., 14 Edw. iv., p. 1, m. 7d.

199 Pat., 15 Edw. iv., p. 1, m. 22.

200 Pat., 18 Edw. iv., p. 2, m. 30.

201 Pat., 2 Edw. iv., p. 1, m. 7.

202 Exch. K. R. Accts., 262, no. 2.

203 Acts of Privy Council, 1542-7, p. 367.

204 Jour. of Brit. Arch. Ass., lxii. 145-60.

205 Archæologia, lix. 281-8.

206 V. C. H. Cornw., i. 523.

207 Ibid.

208 Vol. iii. of Harvard Economic Studies. The same writer has contributed a valuable article on tin-mining to V. C. H. Cornwall.

209 Lewis, op. cit., 5.

210 Lewis, op. cit., 11.

211 A case of a London goldsmith making engines and instruments to drain a deep tin mine near Truro occurs in first quarter of the sixteenth century—Early Chanc. Proc., 481, no. 46.

212 Memo. R., L. T. R., 9 Eliz., Mich., 3.

213 Either the channel by which the blast was admitted, or else the channel conveying water to the wheel.

214 The ore was sometimes roasted before smelting.

215 V. C. H. Cornw., i. 539.

216 Lewis, op. cit., 133-4.

217 W. de Wrotham, when appointed warden of the stannaries in 1198, ordered all masters of ships in Cornwall and Devon to swear not to take unstamped tin out of the country.—Lewis, op. cit., 337.

218 Lewis, op. cit., 190.

219 Op. cit., 187.

220 V. C. H. Cornw., i. 523.

221 Lewis, op. cit., 34.

222 For output, see Lewis, op. cit., App. J.

223 Lewis, op. cit., App. K.

224 Ibid., Apps. L-T.

225 Chron. of Battle Abbey, 11.

226 V. C. H. Northants., ii. 293-5.

227 Ibid., 295.

228 Fabric R. of York (Surtees Soc.), passim.

229 e.g. at the Tower in 1324 ‘one boatload of Aylesford stone called rag, 6s.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 469, no. 7. And in 1362 ’8 boatloads of stone called ragg, with carriage from Maidstone, £10, 13s. 4d.’—Ibid., 472, no. 9.

230 Ibid., 502, no. 10.

231 See the Westminster building accounts, passim.

232 Arch. Cant., ii. 112.

233 ’20 tontightes de peers de Beer.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 472, no. 8.

234 Exch. K. R. Accts., 491, no. 13.

235 For some fourteenth and fifteenth century references to the Haslebury quarries, see The Tropenell Cartulary (Wilts. Arch. Soc.), ii. 148-50.

236 V. C. H. Dorset, ii. 333.

237 Ibid., 339.

238 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 230.

239 Exch. K. R. Accts., 305, no. 12.

240 Ibid., 502, no. 3.

241 Arch. Cant., ii. 112.

242 The ‘pondus dolii,’ anglicised in other entries as ‘tuntight,’ seems to have been about 40 cubic feet.

243 Presumably from the Yorkshire quarry referred to above; it came via London.—Ibid., 121.

244 Apparently about 440 tons.—Ibid.

245 Pipe R., 16 Edw. iii.

246 The term ‘damlade,’ of uncertain meaning, seems to be peculiar to Yorkshire. See Fabric R. of York.

247 Pipe R., 7 Edw. iii.

248 Misc. Bks., Tr. of R., 4, f. 142.

249 Exch. K. R. Accts., 476, no. 5.

250 Ibid., 461, no. 11.

251 Exch. K. R. Accts., no. 12.

252 V. C. H. Northants., ii. 296-7.

253 A similar method of splitting was employed in the case of the slates of Stonesfield, in Oxfordshire.—V. C. H. Oxon., ii. 267.

254 Ibid.; V. C. H. Northants., ii. 296.

255 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 230.

256 Exch. K. R. Accts., 476, no. 5.

257 Ibid., 494, no. 4.

258 Pipe R., 7 Edw. iii.

259 Exch. K. R. Accts., 502, no. 3.

260 Fabric R. of York, 19.

261 A fifteenth-century account for Launceston mentions the purchase of ‘An iron tool for breaking stones in the quarry, called a polax, weighing 16½ lbs., and two new wedges weighing 10 lbs.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 461, no. 13.

262 For a fuller history of the Purbeck marble quarries, see V. C. H. Dorset, ii. 331-8, from which the details given below are taken when other references are not given.

263 See articles on ‘Medieval Figure Sculpture in England,’ Architectural Review, 1903.

264 Liberate R., K. R., 37 Hen. iii., m. 13.

265 Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 6 (2).

266 Ibid., 469, no. 8.

267 Ibid., no. 12.

268 Arch. Journ., x. 116.

269 Arch. Journ., lxi. 221-40.

270 See e.g. the Flawford and Breadsall figures, ibid.; and the catalogue of Alabaster carvings exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries in 1910.

271 Pipe R., 41 Edw. iii.

272 Arch. Journ., lxiv. 32.

273 Ibid., lxi. 229.

274 The numerous cases of the export of alabaster carvings from Poole make it probable that the Purbeck carvers, when the demand for their marble fell off, worked the alabaster which exists in the district.—V. C. H. Dorset, ii.

275 Some of these no doubt were sold at the time of the Reformation.—Arch. Journ., lxi. 239.

276 Ibid., 237-8.

277 Ibid., 230.

278 Arch. Journ., lxi. 234-5.

279 For an account of these, see Mr. Hope’s article in Archæologia, xli.

280 Arch. Journ., lxiv. 239.

281 Ibid., x. 120.

282 Fabric R. of York, 74, 78, 84, 90, 106.

283 Fabric R. of York, 15.

284 Exch. K. R. Accts., 504, no. 4.

285 Hundred R., ii. 56.

286 Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 4.

287 Customs Accts., 124/30.

288 Probably chalk may be taken at about 4d. the quarter.

289 Brit. Arch. Ass. Journal, lx.

290 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 231.

291 Chaffers, Gilda Aurifabrorum, 19.

292 Ibid., 23-5.

293 A long chronological list of English goldsmiths is given by Chaffers, op. cit.

294 Beverley Chapter Act Book (Surtees Soc.), ii., p. lxv.

295 Cal. of City of London Letter Books, A., p. 180.

296 Riley, Mems. of London, 350.

297 Foreign R., 4 Hen. V., m. A.

298 Camden Soc., xxxvii. 42.

299 Chaffers, Gilda Aurifabrorum, 38.

300 Ibid., 8, 9.

301 Foreign R., 3 Hen. iv., m. E.

302 Church Bells of England, by H. B. Walters, published since this was in print, contains much valuable matter.

303 Chron. Battle Abbey (ed. Lower), 17.

304 Cott. MS. Vesp. A., 22, f. 88.

305 Stahlschmidt, London Bell-founders, 72.

306 Ibid., p. 3.

307 On the other hand, Fagniez (Docts. relatifs à l’histoire de l’Industrie, ii. 67) says that ‘sainterius,’ the title applied to Thomas de Claville who recast a bell for Notre Dame in 1397, is ‘fait sur le vieux nom français des cloches saints... qui se rattache à signa.’

308 Ex. inf. Mr. C. H. Vellacott, from Assize Roll.

309 Most of the London founders recorded by Mr. Stahlschmidt as known or possible bell-founders used the title ‘potter.’—Loc. cit., 72-74.

310 Early Chanc. Proc., 24, no. 138.

311 Particulars are given in Raven, Bells of England, on which this account is based.

312 To prevent the core, thickness, and cope sticking together, it seems to have been usual to dust them over with tan.

313 Raven, op. cit., 74.

314 V. C. H. Berks., ii. 418.

315 Raven, op. cit., 57.

316 Early Chanc. Proc., 68, no. 144.

317 Ch. Ward. Accts. St. Mary-at-Hill (E. E. T. S.).

318 Raven, op. cit., 47.

319 Ibid., 319.

320 Recs. of St. Michael’s. See also Ch. Wardens Accts. (Somerset Rec. Soc.).

321 V. C. H. Berks., ii. 416. Cf. H. B. Walters, Church Bells of England, ch. xii.

322 Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, 295.

323 Raven, op. cit., 69.

324 London Bell-founders, 3.

325 Ibid., 45.

326 Issue R. of Exch., 239.

327 Ibid., 346.

328 Glouc. Corporation Recs.

329 Sacrist Rolls of Ely, ii. 114, 138, where details of the outlay in the purchase of tin and copper, and of clay for the moulds and other necessaries are given.

330 Raven, op. cit., 149.

331 Ibid., 90.

332 Fabric R. of York (Surtees Soc.), 9. Details are given.

333 Raven, op. cit., where illustrations of the three panels are given.

334 If the bell-shaped object is really the core, the ornamentation upon it must be ascribed to ‘artist’s licence,’ as the surface of the core would in reality be quite plain.

335 Inq. ad qd. damnum, File 108, no. 15.

336 Exch. K. R. Accts., 462, no. 16. Amongst the items of expenditure are ‘For eggs and ale bought for making the inscription round the bell 3d. For wax and cobbler’s wax (code) for the same 5½d.’ Possibly a mixture of eggs and ale was used to anoint the metal letter stamps and prevent their sticking to the clay of the cope.

337 Early Chanc. Proc., 24, no. 138.

338 De Banco, 831, m. 414; and Raven, op. cit., 164-6, quoting Year Book 9 Edw. iv., Easter Term, case 13.

339 V. C. H. Shrops., i. 47.

340 Ryley, Mem. of London, 205.

341 Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., no. 4.

342 Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., no. 4.

343 Foreign R., 9 Ric. ii., m. A.

344 Foreign R., 11 Ric. ii., m. H.

345 Issue R. of Exch., 346.

346 Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.

347 Foreign R., 3 Hen. iv., m. G.

348 Ibid., m. I.

349 Issue R. of Exch., 277.

350 An illustration of a gun firing an arrow, drawn apparently in 1326, is mentioned in Proc. Soc. Ant. (xvi., 225), and at the battle of St. Albans in 1461 guns were used shooting ‘arowes of an elle of length.’—Gregory’s Chron. (Camd. Soc.), 213.

351 Foreign R., 11 Ric. ii., m. G.

352 Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.

353 Issue R. of Exch., 332.

354 Ibid., 307-8.

355 Foreign R., 3 Hen. V., m. C.

356 In the Scottish expedition of 1496, five out of thirty-two ‘faucons of brasse,’ and twelve out of one hundred and eighty ‘hakbusses of iren’ were broken in action.—Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 7, f. 140.

357 Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 134.

358 Early Chanc. Proc., 78, no. 81.

359 Issue R. of Exch., 382.

360 Foreign R., 12 Hen. vi., m. D.

361 Figured in Suss. Arch. Coll., xlvi.

362 He was paid at the rate of 16d. the hundredweight.—Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 139.

363 Ibid., f. 34.

364 Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 158.

365 Early Chanc. Proc., 222, no. 112.

366 Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 132.

367 Ibid., f. 81.

368 Ibid., f. 96.

369 Early Chanc. Proc., 376, no. 32.

370 Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., 8, f. 136.

371 Ibid., f. 149.

372 Exch. Tr. of R., Misc. Bks., vol. vii., passim, and L. and P. Hen. VIII., vol. i.

373 Misc. Bks., vol. i., ff. 32, 78.

374 Ibid., ff. 57, 61.

375 Ibid., vol. iv., ff. 166, 181.

376 See V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 246-9.

377 Arch. Journ., xxx. 319-24.

378 See V. C. H. Northants., i. 206-12.

379 Ibid.

380 Proc. Soc. Ant., xvi. 42.

381 Brit. Arch. Ass. Journ., xxxiii.

382 Proc. Soc. Ant., xvii. 261-70.

383 Somers. Arch. Soc., xiii. (2) 1.

384 The dark colour of the Castor ware seems to have been caused by ‘smothering’ the kiln, by closing the vent, before the baking was complete.

385 Misc. Accts. 1147, no. 23.

386 Suss. Arch. Coll., xlv. 128-38.

387 A Roman glazing kiln was found at Castor.—V. C. H. Northants., i. 210.

388 Fagniez, Docs. relatifs à l’histoire de l’industrie, no. 133.

389 Dom. Bk., 65, 156, 168^b.

390 e.g. ‘Pottersfield’ at Horsham, in which parish several finds of green glazed thirteenth-century vessels have been made.—V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 251.

391 e.g. ‘Geoffrey the potter,’ who occurs in 1314 at Limpsfield, where remains of kilns have been found.—Proc. Soc. Ant., iii.

392 Lib. R., 51 Hen. iii., m. 10. Simon ‘le Pichermakere’ of Cornwall is found in the fourteenth century sending his wares (presumably pitchers) to Sussex.—Anct. Pet., 10357-8.

393 Inq. Nonarum, 361. Cf. the Hundred Rolls for Bucks.

394 Mins. Accts., 507, no. 8227.

395 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 251.

396 Ibid.

397 Arch. Journ., lix. 1-16.

398 Proc. Soc. Ant., xv. 5-11.

399 Rec. of Norwich, ii., no. 193.

400 Riley, Mem. of London, 254.

401 Ibid., 309. The monks of Boxley got as much as 10s. the thousand for some of the tiles from their tilery this year.—Mins. Accts., 1253, no. 13.

402 Toulmin Smith, English Guilds, 399. At Lincoln, on the other hand, the tilers had formed a gild in 1346, and no tiler not belonging to the gild might stay in the town.—Ibid., 184.

403 V. C. H. Essex, ii. 456.

404 Statutes, 17 Edw. iv.

405 Thorold Rogers, Hist. of Agriculture and Prices, i. 490.

406 Mins. Accts., 899, 900.

407 Possibly from the French, fétu = a straw, from their being moulded as hollow cylinders.

408 Turf was evidently used by the Cambridgeshire tilers for fuel.—Sacrist Rolls of Ely, ii. 67, 93, 137.

409 ‘Pro luto tredando ad dictos vj furnos pro tegulis inde faciendis.’ The meaning of tredando is uncertain, but as the process is always mentioned after the clay had been carried to the kilns, it may have been the rolling of the clay to the right thickness for cutting tiles from.

410 The words used for burning, or baking, the tiles are eleare and aneleare, both connected with our word ‘anneal.’

411 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 251.

412 In 1373 Peter at Gate leased the pasturage of Nackholt, where the tileries lay, at the low rent of 15s. on condition that he should serve as ‘the lord’s workman for making tiles.’

413 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 252.

414 De Banco, 407, m. 12.

415 Harl. Ch., 76 D., 32.

416 Ibid., B. 50.

417 Kelle = kiln: cf. Anct. D., A 4904, for a ‘tylekelle’ at Woolwich in 1450.

418 Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.), iii. 179-80.

419 Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS., 15.

420 Ibid., 62.

421 Sacrist R. of Ely, ii. 67.

422 ‘Flaunderistyle vocata Breke.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 503, no. 12.

423 Ibid., 472, no. 4.

424 Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS., 62.

425 Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley MSS., 128.

426 Ibid., 47. These by-laws distinguish in one place between ‘tilethakkers’ and ‘tile wallers,’ the latter being what we should call bricklayers.

427 Exch. K. R. Accts., 494, no. 4.

428 Ibid., 467, no. 6 (6).

429 Such were, no doubt, the paving tiles, of which 185,000 were bought from Richard Gregory, in 1357, for Westminster Chapel at 6s. 8d. the hundred.—Ibid., 472, no. 4.

430 Lethaby, Westminster Abbey, 48; Arch. Journal, lxix. 36-73.

431 V. C. H. Derby, ii. 375. Ibid.

432 V. C. H. Worces., ii. 275.

433 Suss. Arch. Coll., xi. 230.

434 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 295.

435 John of London, ‘glasyere,’ and John, son of John Alemayn of Chiddingfold, were acquitted on a charge of burglary at Turwick in 1342.—Gaol Delivery R., 129, m. 12.

436 Exch. K. R. Accts., 471, no. 6.

437 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 296.

438 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 296.

439 In 1404 the Sacrist of Durham had in store ‘of new coloured glass 2 scheff, of white glass and new 76 scheffe.’—Durham Acct. R. (Surtees Soc.), ii. 397.

440 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 297; V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 254.

441 Exch. K. R. Accts., 471, no. 6.

442 Durham Acct. R., ii. 393.

443 Fabric R. of York, 76.

444 Ibid., 83.

445 Ibid., 37.

446 Cat. of Pat., 1446-52, p. 255. The glorious windows now in King’s College Chapel were made between 1515 and 1530 by four English and two Flemish glaziers, all of whom were resident in London.—Atkinson and Clark, Cambridge, 361.

447 Fabric R. of York, 69.

448 Ibid., 104, 108, 109.

449 Hartshorne, Old Engl. Glass, 129.

450 Ale is also said in one place to have been used ‘pro congelacione vitri.’

451 ‘Frangentes et conjungentes vitrum super tabulas depictas.’

452 The colours in some cases were fixed by heating, and it is presumably to this that an entry in an account of work at Guildford Castle in 1292 refers: ‘In uno furno faciendo pro vytro comburendo—viijd.’—Exch. K. R. Accts., 492, no. 10.

453 Pipe R., 2 Hen. ii.

454 V. C. H. Lincs., ii. 302.

455 See charter of Stephen, Cal. Chart. R., iii. 378.

456 Pipe R., 19 Hen. ii.

457 Boldon Book.—V. C. H. Durham, i. 338.

458 Printed by Riley, Liber Custumarum (i. 130-1), and, from an earlier copy, by Leach, Beverley Town Documents (Selden Soc.).

459 The weavers were not villeins; had they been so, the leave of their lords would have been necessary before they could obtain the freedom of their town.

460 Liber Custumarum, i. 33.

461 Ibid., lxiii.

462 e.g. Ashley, Economic History, i. 193: ‘No cloth was manufactured for export; and a great part of the English demand for cloth’—indeed the whole of the demand for the finer qualities—‘was met by importation.’

463 Pipe R., 18 Hen. ii.

464 Pipe R., 27 Hen. ii., and other years.

465 Pipe R., 28 Hen. ii.

466 The ‘list’ is the strip of selvage at the edge of the cloth.

467 Assize R., 358.

468 Pat., 2 Hen. iii., m. 4, 2.

469 Pat., 9 Hen. iii., m. 5.

470 Lib. R., 30 Hen. iii.: some years earlier cloth to be distributed at Worcester had been bought at Oxford.—Lib. R., 17 Hen. iii.

471 Lib. R., 35 Hen. iii., m. 17.

472 Liber Custumarum, i. 124.

473 Cal. of S. P. Venice, i. 3.

474 Lib. R., 36 Hen. iii., m. 19.

475 Arch. Journ., ix. 70-1.

476 The manufacture of this cloth must have originated in the village of Worsted, possibly with some settlement of Flemish weavers, but soon spread throughout the county.

477 Rec. of Norwich, ii. 406.

478 Statutes, 20 Hen. vi.

479 Rot. Parl. iv. 230, 236.

480 Customs Accts., 5, no. 7.

481 Black Book of Admiralty (Rolls Ser.), ii. 197. Blues of Beverley, scarlets and greens of Lincoln, scarlets and blues of Stamford, coverlets of Winchester and cloth of Totness occur in wardrobe accounts of 1236. Pipe R., 19, 20 Henry iii.

482 Black Book of Admiralty (Rolls Ser.), ii. 187, 197.

483 There was an ‘omanseterowe’ in the Drapery at Norwich as early as 1288.—Rec. of Norwich, ii. 8.

484 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 4, 40. Narrow ‘Osetes’ were also made at Salisbury.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 344, no. 34.

485 Liber Custumarum, i. 125; ii. 549.

486 At Northampton the cloth trade, which in the time of Henry iii. employed 300 men, had almost died out in 1334.—Rot. Parl., ii. 85.

487 Liber Custumarum, i. 424.

488 As early as 1331 special protection was granted to John Kempe of Flanders and any other clothworkers who wished to settle in England.—Pat., 5 Edw. iii., p. 2, m. 25.

489 Statutes, 11 Edw. iii.

490 Rot. Parl., ii. 449, Close 13 Edw. iii., p. 3, m. 11.

491 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 3.

492 Langland, Piers Plowman.

493 ‘A Concise Poem on... Shepton Mallet,’ by Richd. Watts; printed in The Young Man’s Looking Glass, 1641. With this may be compared Deloney’s ‘Pleasant History of John Winchcombe (Jack of Newbury),’ written some fifty years earlier.—V. C. H. Berks., i. 388-9.

494 ‘Then to another room came they
Where children were, in poor array,
And every one sat picking wool,
  The finest from the coarse to pull.’

495 ‘Two hundred men, the truth is so,
Wrought in their looms, all in a row;
By every one a pretty boy
Sat making quills with mickle joy.’

496 The burler’s business was to remove knots, loose ends and other impurities.

497 The manufacture of these cloths was licensed in 1390, provided the quality was not improved.—Statutes, 13 Ric. ii.

498 Assize R.

499 Liber Custumarum, ii. 549. Spanish wool is prominent amongst the imports at Southampton in 1310.—Customs Accts., 136, no. 8, n.

500 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.

501 Statutes, 7 Edw. iv.

502 An alkali, known as ‘cineres,’ possibly a kind of barilla or carbonate of soda (Rec. of City of Norwich, ii. 209) occurs fairly often: e.g. taxation of Colchester, Rot. Parl., i. 244.

503 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 6.

504 e.g. Customs Accts., 136/4, 136/12.

505 Recs. of City of Norwich, ii. 209.

506 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 16-22.

507 Lands. MS., 121, no. 21.

508 Cf. Rec. Borough of Northampton, i. 121: the compiler has mistaken ‘wode’ for wood.

509 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 39.

510 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 81-90.

511 Rot. Parl., iv. 75.

512 Early Chanc. Proc., 7, no. 23.

513 Exch. K. R. Accts., 345, no. 16.

514 Plunket appears to have been a pale blue, half the quantity of woad sufficing for plunkets that was used for azures, which in turn took half the amount required for blues.—V. C. H. Suffolk, ii. 258.

515 Liber Custumarum, i. 129.

516 There were no doubt the ‘browne blewes’ of later records: e.g. a Benenden clothier was fined in 1563 for ‘a browne blewe, being a deceiptfull color.’—Memo. K. R., 7 Eliz., Hil., m. 330.

517 Liber Custumarum, i. 125.

518 Alkermes, an insect resembling cochineal.

519 Statutes, 24 Hen. viii.; cf. 4 Edw. iv.

520 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 8, 9.

521 Rec. of City of Norwich, ii. 119.

522 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.; 3 Hen. viii.

523 V. C. H. Essex, ii. 255.

524 V. C. H. Worcs., ii. 286.

525 V. C. H. Essex, ii. 383-4.

526 The use of woof in place of warp was strictly forbidden.—Liber Custumarum, i. 125; Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 2. At Worcester in 1497 any one bringing yarn to be spun into cloth was to bring the warp and the woof separate.—V. C. H. Worcs., ii. 285.

527 Rec. of City of Norwich, ii. 378.

528 Rot. Parl., iii. 618.

529 Arch. Journal, ix. 70: cf. Assize R., 787, m. 86.

530 V. C. H. Notts., ii. 345.

531 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 4.

532 Liber Custumarum, i. 134.

533 Arch. Journ., ix. 71.

534 The suspension of worsted weaving for a month from 15 August was enforced in 1511 to avoid a shortage of agricultural labour during harvest.—Rec. of City of Norwich, ii. 376.

535 Liber Custumarum, i. 423.

536 Ibid. Candlewick Street (now Cannon Street) was the centre of manufacture of a coarse cheap cloth used for horse trappings, and also bought in large quantities for the King’s almoner from 1330 to 1380.—Enrolled Wardrobe Accts., L. T. R., 2-4.

537 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 40, 123.

538 Statutes, 8 Hen. vi.

539 V. C. H. Shrops., i. 428.

540 Statutes, 3 and 5 Henry viii.

541 Toulmin Smith, Engl. Gilds, 179. The gild was founded in 1297, but this regulation was probably of later date.

542 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 127.

543 Liber Custumarum, i. 128-9.

544 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 13.

545 Ibid., 79.

546 V. C. H. Notts., ii. 346.

547 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 279.

548 e.g. at Nottingham; V. C. H. Notts., ii. 346.

549 V. C. H. Warw., ii. 252.

550 Ibid.

551 Statutes, 15 Ric. ii.

552 e.g. V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 344; V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 257.

553 Exch. Dep. by Com., 41 Eliz., East. 1.

554 Rot. Parl., i. 243.

555 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.

556 V. C. H. Suffolk, ii. 262.

557 Exch. K. R. Accts., bdles. 339-345.

558 Marcus le Fair of Winchester was the only clothier not a Londoner from whom cloth was bought for the royal household in 1408.—Exch. K. R. Accts., 405, no. 22.

559 V. C. H. Berks., i. 388.

560 V. C. H. Suffolk, ii. 256.

561 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep. viii. 93.

562 Vlnage, or aulnage, from aulne = an ell.

563 Statutes, 2 Edw. iii.

564 The penalty of forfeiture was withdrawn in 1354 as injurious to trade, deficient cloths being marked with their actual size.—Ibid., 27 Edw. iii.

565 Statutes, 7, 8, 10 Hen. iv.

566 Statutes, 11 Hen. vi.

567 Rec. of City of Norwich, ii. 407.

568 Rot. Parl., i. 292.

569 Statutes, 13 Ric. ii.; 11 Hen. iv.

570 Rot. Parl., iii. 637.

571 Statutes, 20 Hen. vi.

572 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.

573 Statutes, 18 Hen. vi.

574 Exch. Dep. by Com., 41 Eliz.

575 Statutes, 5 Edw. vi., 1 Mary, etc.

576 See Memoranda Rolls, K. R., passim.

577 Memo. R., K. R., Hil. 7 Eliz., m. 329. As an earlier instance, sixteen drapers in Coventry, thirteen in York, and seven in Lincoln, besides others elsewhere, were fined in the first quarter of 1390 for cloths of ray, not of assize.—Ibid., Hil. 13 Ric. ii.

578 Exch. Dep. by Com., 30 Eliz., Hil., 8.

579 Statutes, 14-15 Hen. viii.

580 Early Chanc. Proc., 141, no. 4.

581 Statutes, 5 Hen. viii.

582 Rot. Parl., i. 292.

583 The same material was used in 1323 for the pillows of the king’s new beds.—Enr. Ward. Accts., 3, m. 2.

584 Ibid., m. 10.

585 Ibid., 2, m. 11.

586 Engl. Hist. Rev., xvi. 289.

587 Rot. Parl., ii. 347.

588 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.

589 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 343.

590 Ibid., 343.

591 Exch. K. R. Accts., 344, no. 10. The output from Berks. for the same period was 1747 kerseys, of which Steventon accounted for 574 and East and West Hendred for 520.—Ibid., 343, no. 24.

592 Early Chanc. Proc., 140, no. 54.

593 Statutes, 14-15 Hen. viii.

594 Rot. Parl., iv. 361.

595 Enr. Ward. Accts., 4, m. 3.

596 V. C. H. Worcs., ii. 284.

597 V. C. H. Essex, ii. 384.

598 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep. viii. 93.

599 Rot. Parl., ii. 278.

600 Exch. K. R. Accts., 405, no. 22.

601 Rot. Parl., ii. 372.

602 Enr. Ward. Accts., 5.

603 Memo. R., K. R., 21 Eliz., East., m. 106.

604 Rep. Dep. Keeper of Recs., xxxviii. 444; suit re draperies at Norwich, 1601.

605 Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages, 46.

606 The suggestion that this law caused the trade to be established in Norwich (Recs. of Norwich, II. xii.) can hardly be correct, as there was no forest in Norfolk.

607 For instances of the infringement of these and other regulations, see V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 331-5; V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 259.

608 Lansd. MS., 74, 55.

609 V. C. H. Oxon., ii. 254.

610 V. C. H. Essex, ii. 459.

611 V. C. H. Shrops., i. 433.

612 Rot. Parl., i. 243-65.

613 Cott. MS. Vitell., C. vi., f. 239.

614 Lansd. MS., 74, f. 52.

615 Add. Chart. 30687.

616 e.g. at Colchester in 1425.—V. C. H. Essex, ii. 459; and at Richmond in 1280.—Assize R., 1064, m. 32. In London the tanners were held partly responsible for blocking the course of the Fleet in 1306.—Rot. Parl., i. 200.

617 Customs Accts., passim; e.g. those quoted in V. C. H. Dorset, ii. 327.

618 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 114.

619 The use of train oil instead of tallow was forbidden.

620 V. C. H. Northants., ii. 311.

621 Riley, Mems. of London, 421.

622 Lansd. MS., 74, f. 48.

623 Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.

624 Riley, Mems. of London, 364-5.

625 Ibid., 331.

626 Ibid., 546-7.

627 Lansd. MS., 74, f. 49.

628 Ibid., 60.

629 i.e. myrtle.

630 Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.

631 Ibid., f. 48.

632 Ibid., f. 58.

633 At Colchester in 1425 the charge for tawing a horse hide was 14d., a buckskin 8d., doe 5d., and calf 2d.—V. C. H. Essex, ii. 459.

634 Right Buffe were made from ‘Elke Skynnes or Iland hides brought out of Muscovia or from by Est’; the counterfeits were of horse, ox, and stag skins.—Lansd. MS., 74, f. 53.

635 The price given for Spanish skins is probably an error; possibly the values of the ‘right’ and ‘counterfeit’ are reversed.

636 In 1347 the London white tawyers charged 6s. 8d. for working a ‘dyker [a packet of ten] of Scottes stagges or Irysshe,’ and 10s. for the ‘dyker of Spanysshe stagges.’—Riley, Mems. of London, 234.

637 Corveiser was a still more common name for a shoemaker.

638 Riley, Mems. of London, 572-3.

639 Liber Albus, ii. 441-5.

640 Riley, Mems. of London, 136.

641 Ibid., 391.

642 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 108.

643 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 43.

644 Ibid., ii. 105.

645 Liber Albus, ii. 445.

646 Riley, Mems. of London, 547.

647 V. C. H. Northants., ii. 318.

648 Ibid.

649 Liberate R., 50 Hen. iii., n. 11.

650 Pipe R., 31 Hen. I.

651 Cal. Chart. R., ii. 34.

652 A Dyetary of Helth (E. E. T. S.), 256.

653 Giraldus Cambs. (Rolls Ser.), iv. 41.

654 Mat. for Hist. of T. Becket (Rolls Ser.), iii. 30.

655 Mon. Franc. (Rolls Ser.), ii. 8.

656 Statutes, temp. Hen. iii.

657 ‘[A Brewer’s assise] is xij^d highing and xij^d lowing in the price of a quarter Malte, and evermore shilling to q^a’ (= farthing).—Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 397. In other words, ale was as many farthings a gallon as malt was shillings a quarter.

658 Little Red Book of Bristol, 223.

659 Assize R., 912, m. 49.

660 Hundred R., ii. 216.

661 Cal. Chart. R., i. 168.

662 Ibid.

663 V. C. H. Notts., ii. 364.

664 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 25, 678, 710.

665 Ibid., 772.

666 Beverley Town Docts. (Selden Soc.), liv. In 1413, 260 barrels (30 gallons) and firkins (7½ gallons) made for Richard Bartlot of unseasoned wood and under size were burnt.—Riley, Mems. of London, 597.

667 e.g. V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 261.

668 Riley, Mems. of London, 319.

669 From this it would seem that it was customary to put herbs into ale.

670 Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), i. 185.

671 Riley, Mems. of London, 386.

672 Liber Albus, i. 360.

673 V. C. H. Worcs., ii. 256.

674 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.). 675. There were at least thirty brewers in Oxford in 1380.—V. C. H. Oxon., ii. 159.

675 Riley, Mems. of London, 318.

676 Andrew Borde, Introduction (E. E. T. S.), 123.

677 Op. cit., 122.

678 e.g. V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 262.

679 Riley, Mems. of London, 225.

680 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 229.

681 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 584.

682 V. C. H. Oxon., ii. 260.

683 Liber Albus, i. 358.

684 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 25.

685 Suss. Arch. Coll., vii. 96.

686 Liber Albus, i. 359.

687 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 637.

688 V. C. H. Oxon., ii. 260.

689 Exch. Dep. by Com., Mich. 18-19, Eliz., no. 10.

690 Cott. MS. Vesp., A. 22, f. 115.

691 Recs. of Norwich, ii. 98.

692 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 261.

693 Dyetary (E. E. T. S.), 256.

694 Riley, Mems. of London, 666.

695 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 261.

696 V. C. H. Dorset, ii. 367.

697 Coram Rege 852, m. 23.

698 Recs. of Norwich, ii. 100.

699 V. C. H. Shrops., ii. 422.

700 V. C. H. Surrey, ii. 382.

701 Ibid., 382-4.

702 Dyetary (E. E. T. S.), 256.

703 V. C. H. Dorset, ii. 369.

704 Pipe R., 6 Hen. ii., Essex; 13 Hen. ii., Windsor.

705 Giraldus Cambr. (Rolls Ser.), iv. 41.

706 Pipe R., 13 John.

707 Mins. Accts., bdle. 899.

708 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 263.

709 Ibid.

710 Mins. Accts., 1128, no. 4.

711 V. C. H. Sussex, ii. 263.

712 Memo., K. R., 17 Ric. ii., Hil.

713 A Venetian Relation of the Island of England (Camden Soc.), 9.

714 Statutes, 23 Edw. iii.

715 Six Centuries of Work and Wages, 233.

716 Engl. Hist. Rev., xxi. 517.

717 Assize R., 773.

718 Statutes, 3 Edw. iv.

719 Riley, Mems. of London, 163.

720 Statutes, 13 Ric. ii.

721 Ibid., 15 Ric. ii.

722 Parly. Rolls, iii. 637.

723 Statutes, 20 Hen. vi.

724 Statutes, 4 Edw. iv.

725 Unwin, Gilds of London, 139.

726 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 32.

727 Norwich Recs., ii. 278-310.

728 Statutes, 28 Edw. iii. Is iron raw material? Much labour has been expended on it before it reaches the market—but the same would apply to corn.

729 e.g. Riley, Mems. of London, 255.

730 Statutes, 11 Hen. vi.

731 Riley, Mems. of London, 308.

732 For an exhaustive examination of all that concerns wages, see the works of Professor Thorold Rogers.

733 From the end of the fifteenth century the gradation of payments to workmen becomes more pronounced, marking the institution of the modern system.

734 In the case of carpenters, etc., employed in country districts there appear to have been considerable variations.

735 Exch. K. R. Accts., 472, no. 4.

736 Beverley Town Docts. (Selden Soc.), 50.

737 Statutes, 11 Hen. vii.

738 Riley, Mems. of London, 538.

739 Coventry Leet Bk., 574.

740 Ibid., 673.

741 Riley, Mems. of London, 253.

742 Little Red Book of Bristol, 15.

743 Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 7.

744 Norwich Recs., ii. 104.

745 Riley, Mems. of London, 513.

746 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 185.

747 Riley, Mems. of London, 227.

748 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 168.

749 Liber Cust., i. 99.

750 Exch. K. R. Accts., 467, no. 7.

751 Riley, Mems. of London, 226, 243. It is exceptional to find that at Leicester in 1264 the weavers were allowed to work at night.—Borough Recs. of Leicester, i. 105.

752 Ibid., 538.

753 Borough Recs. of Leicester, i. 547.

754 Ibid., 226.

755 Little Red Book of Bristol, 98; Coventry Leet Bk., 302; Beverley MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), 47.

756 Riley, Mems. of London, 532, 246.

757 Ibid., 226, 239.

758 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 4.

759 Ibid., 97.

760 Ibid., 30.

761 Riley, Mems. of London, 573.

762 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 638.

763 For reproductions of some of the marks used by worsted weavers, see Norwich Recs., ii. 153.

764 See the maps of medieval Bruges, Paris, and London in Unwin’s Gilds of London, 32-4.

765 Riley, Mems. of London, 392.

766 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 182.

767 Norwich Recs., ii. 237.

768 Cf. Blackwell Hall in London, the sole market for ‘foreign’ cloth.—Riley, Mems. of London, 550.

769 Liber Albus, ii. 444.

770 Statutes, 37 Edw. iii.

771 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 117.

772 Liber Cust., i. 118.

773 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 180-3.

774 The ‘brakeman’ reduced the bar iron to rods, ready to be drawn into wire.

775 i.e. bending.

776 i.e. girdlers; middle = waist.

777 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 85.

778 Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, 184.

779 Ibid.

780 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 27.

781 Borough Recs. of Leicester, i. 105; Coventry Leet Bk., 95; Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 7, 8.

782 Beverley Town Docts. (Selden Soc.), 53.

783 Little Red Book of Bristol, 5.

784 Ibid., 98.

785 Early Chanc. Proc., 61, no. 478.

786 Norwich Recs., ii. 289.

787 e.g. Ibid., 199, 234; Woodruff, Hist. of Fordwich, 32-5.

788 See e.g. Cal. of Pat. Rolls 1419-36, 537-88.

789 Riley, Mems. of London, 346.

790 Liber Cust., i. 423.

791 Liber Cust., i. 423.

792 A servant engaged by the year.—Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 43.

793 Coventry Leet Bk., 573.

794 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 106.

795 Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, 179.

796 Riley, Mems. of London, 278.

797 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 127.

798 Riley, Mems. of London, 549.

799 Ibid., 234.

800 Ibid., 244.

801 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 84.

802 Early Chanc. Proc., 19, no. 491.

803 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 560-1.

804 e.g. Norwich Recs., ii. 290; Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 125.

805 Early Chanc. Proc., 66, no. 244.

806 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 672.

807 Early Chanc. Proc., 66, no. 244.

808 Ibid., 38, no. 40.

809 An ordinance of the fullers in 1418 forbade any master to take a stranger to serve him by covenant for more than fifteen days unless he engaged him for a whole year.—Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 142.

810 In the case of the London founders an intending journeyman had to satisfy the masters of his skill; if he could not, he must either become an apprentice or abandon the craft.—Riley, Mems. of London, 514.

811 They had to give, and were entitled to receive, eight days’ notice.—Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 573.

812 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 185.

813 Liber Albus, ii. 444.

814 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 106; Norwich Recs., ii. 104; Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 656.

815 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 786.

816 Riley, Mems. of London, 495.

817 Ibid., 542.

818 Riley, Mems. of London, 609-12.

819 Ibid., 653.

820 Hist. MSS. Com. Coventry, 117-18.

821 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 694.

822 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 656.

823 Ibid., 95.

824 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 151.

825 Riley, Mems. of London, 248, 307; cf. Acts of P. C., 1542-7, p. 367.

826 Riley, Mems. of London, 307, 514; Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 216.

827 e.g. Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 13.

828 See the proceedings of the court of the tailors at Exeter.—Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, 299-321.

829 Liber Cust., i. 122; cf. Borough Recs. of Leicester, i. 89.

830 Little Red Book of Bristol, ii. 14.

831 Coventry Leet Bk. (E. E. T. S.), 302.

832 Riley, Mems. of London, 232.

833 Ibid., 281.

834 Ibid., 293.

835 Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, 205.

836 Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, passim.

837 Norwich Recs., ii. 230.

838 Makers of ‘skeps,’ or baskets.

839 Norwich Recs., ii. 280-2.

840 Norwich Recs., ii. 111.

841 Ibid., 173.

842 Sute, probably = course.

843 Douset = a sweetmeat of cream, eggs, and sugar.