Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:19:29.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberty and Fraternities in the English Revolution: The Politics of London Artisans' Protests, 1635–1659

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2009

Norah Carlin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A series of artisan revolts in the London corporations between 1635 and 1659 found both radical ideas of individual liberty and the guild ethos of fraternity relevant to their aims. The apparent paradox of democratic demands combined with calls for stricter economic regulation can be explained only by examining the participants' concrete grievances and specific demands. The protesters were neither rising industrial capitalists nor a new wage-earning class, but small masters attempting to restrain competition, the use of cheap labour, and the enlargement of enterprises. Their concerns had something in common with those of the Levellers, but the movements diverged in significant ways.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , August 1994 , pp. 223 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1994

References

1 Burt, Nathaniel, A New-yeers Gift for England, and all her Cities, Ports, and Corporations (London, 1652/1653), p. 12Google Scholar.

2 Saddlers' Company Minutes, London Guildhall Library MS 5385, f. 273.

3 Burt, A New-yeers Gift, p. 13.

4 Most recently in Brenner, Robert, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London's Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 343–345, 395, 452, 549, 693, 702, 709Google Scholar.

5 Unwin, George, The Gilds and Companies of London (3rd edn, London, 1938), pp. 333–343Google Scholar; idem, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (2nd edn, London, 1957), pp. 203–210; James, Margaret, Social Problems and Policy during the Puritan Revolution 1640–1660 (London, 1930), pp. 193–223Google Scholar; Dobb, Maurice, Studies in the Development of Capitalism [hereafter, Development of Capitalism] (2nd edn, London, 1963), pp. 134–138Google Scholar.

6 Dobb, Development of Capitalism, pp. 123–176; Merrington, John, “Town and Country in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,” in Hilton, Rodney et al. , The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (London, 1978), pp. 170–195Google Scholar.

7 Veale, Elspeth M., “Craftsmen in the Economy of London in the Fourteenth Century,” in Hollaender, A. E. J. and Kellaway, William, Studies in London History presented to Philip Edmund Jones (London, 1969), pp. 133–151Google Scholar; Swanson, Heather, “The Illusion of Economic Structure: Craft Guilds in Late Medieval English Towns,” Past and Present, CXXI (1988), pp. 29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Black, Antony, Guilds and Civil Society in European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Present (London, 1984), pp. 12–75Google Scholar.

9 Brucker, Gene A., “The Florentine Popolo Minuto and its Political Role, 1340–1450,” in Martines, Lauro (ed.), Violence and Civil Disorder in Italian Cities, 1200–1500 (Los Angeles, 1972), pp. 155–183Google Scholar.

10 Black, Guilds and Civil Society, p. 44.

11 Macpherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962), pp. 107–159Google Scholar.

12 Burt, Nathaniel, For every individuall Member of the Honourable House of Commons, Concerning the Major, Magistracy, and Officers of Dover (London, 1649), p. 4Google Scholar.

13 Unwin, Guilds and Companies of London, pp. 155–175, 302–328.

14 Clockmakers' Company Minutes, London Guildhall Library [hereafter LGL], MS 2710/1, pp. 15, 23. In both these cases, new members were specifically forbidden to practise clockmaking.

15 Rev. Johnson, A. H., The History of the Worshipful Company of the Drapers of London (Oxford, 1922), vol. IV, pp. 96–102Google Scholar; Girtin, Thomas, The Triple Crowns: A Narrative History of the Drapers' Company, 1364–1964 (London, 1964), p. 244Google Scholar.

16 See for example: Champness, Roland, The Worshipful Company of Turners of London (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Fisher, F. J., A Short History of the Worshipful Company of Homers (London, 1936)Google Scholar.

17 Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1964), pp. 50–53Google Scholar, 120–122; Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp. 322–324, 343–345, 362, 692. Brenner appears to believe, wrongly, that all freemen of the companies sat in Common Hall.

18 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, does not go beyond 1643; Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, misleadingly categorizes men on whom he has no information related to overseas trade as “nonmerchant citizens”; Keith Lindley's forthcoming work on London between 1640 and 1653 should dispel the obscurity surrounding this aspect of the revolutionary years.

19 Beier, A. L. and Finlay, Roger (eds), The Making of the Metropolis: London 1500–1700 (London, 1986), pp. 26–27, 141–167Google Scholar.

20 Rappaport, Steve, Worlds within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth-Century London (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 23–60, 162–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Archer, Ian W., The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 100–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Pearl, Valerie, “Change and Stability in Seventeenth-Century London,” London Journal, V (1979), pp. 3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kahl, William F., The Development of the London Livery Companies (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 26–28Google Scholar; Kellett, J. R., “The Breakdown of Gild and Corporation Control over the Handicraft and Retail Trades in London,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, X (1957–1958), pp. 381–394Google Scholar. The main problem with Pearl's calculations is that although she allows for a certain proportion of freemen to have been living in the suburbs, she does not say what this proportion is, nor is it easy to think of how it might be determined. Company membership records for the seventeenth century are unhelpful, as the habit of listing addresses with names did not appear widely until the eighteenth century.

22 For the continuing association of the London livery companies with differing political alignments in a later period, see de Krey, Gary Stuart, A Fractured Society: The Politics of London in the First Age of Party, 1688–1715 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 121–176Google Scholar.

23 Dr J. Ward of Wayne State University, Detroit, has convinced me of this point, which would explain the common occurrence of such incidents in various company minute books; e.g. Cutlers' Company Minutes (1602–1670), LGL MS 7151/1, f. 375, which was seen by Margaret James as another instance of conflict: James, Social Problems and Policy, p. 220.

24 O'Riordan, Christopher, “The Democratic Revolution in the Company of Thames Watermen, 1641–42,” East London Record, VI (1983), pp. 20Google Scholar, 17–27.

25 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, pp. 352, 453.

26 Smythe, W. Dumville, An Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of Girdlers, London (London, 1905), pp. 98–99Google Scholar.

27 Pewterers' Company Minutes (1611–1643), LGL MS 7090/4, f. 339v.

28 Ibid., ff. 338, 339v, 342v, 345v, 346v; Pewterers' Collection Book, LGL MS 7095/1 (1642); Corporation of London Record Office [hereafter CLRO], Repertories Vol. 55, ff. 196, 203v.

29 Cutlers' Company Minutes (1602–1670), LGL MS 7151/1, ff. 316v, 347v, 352, 363.

30 Saddlers' Company Minutes (1605–1654), LGL MS 5383, f. 269v.

31 Blagden, Cyprian, The Stationers' Company: A History, 1403–1959 (London, 1960), pp. 130–137Google Scholar.

32 Carpenters' Company Minutes (1635–1656), LGL MS 4329/5: 1643–4, f. 9.

33 SirPrideaux, Walter Sherburne, Memorials of the Goldsmiths' Company II (1896), pp. 22Google Scholar, 10–12.

34 Atkins, Samuel Elliott and Overall, William Henry, Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers of the City of London (London, 1881), pp. 60–64Google Scholar.

35 Clothworkers' Hall, Company Minutes 1639–1649, f. 180. The Clothworkers' Company archives do not seem to be systematically numbered or catalogued, and some of the references in the printed literature could not be found.

36 SirCoke, Edward, Fourth Part of the Reports (London, 1738 edn), ff. 77v–78Google Scholar.

37 Clothworkers' Hall, Minute Book 1639–1649, ff. 183v, 184v, 186, 187v, 198, 199v, 200v, 211v; Minute Book 1649–1665, f. 9.

38 The Government of the Fullers, Shearers and Clothworkers of London […] compiled by a member of the court, circa 1650, pp. 4, 14. This was indeed a flaw in the Levellers' theory of government by consent, which they never confronted.

39 James, Social Problems and Policy, pp. 214–220.

40 The Case of the Commonalty of the Corporation of Weavers of London truly stated (London, n.d.), pp. 1–3, 5–6.

41 William Meade Williams Transcripts (Founders' Company), LGL MS 6353, p. 102. The Founders' Company archives, like those of the Girdlers' Company, were unfortunately lost in the Blitz of 1940, but the Williams transcripts on this incident seem very full.

42 Ibid., pp. 107–108, 131.

41 To the High Court of Parliament: The Humble Representation of the Commonaltie of the Weavers Company (London, n.d.).

44 Atkins and Overall, Account of the Clockmakers, p. 62.

45 Lindley, Keith, “London and Popular Freedom in the 1640s,” in Richardson, R. C. and Ridden, G. M. (eds), Freedom and the English Revolution (Manchester, 1986), p. 132Google Scholar.

46 Burt, New-yeers Gift, p. 3; Case of the Commonalty of the Weavers, p. 5.

47 Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, II, p. 23.

48 Case of the Commonalty of the Weavers, p. 5; Williams Transcripts, LGL MS 6353, pp. 127–128.

49 Saddlers' Company Minutes, LGL MS 5383, ff. 257–258; Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, II, pp. 24–25: the committee set up to hear the protesters' case included Aldermen Viner, Noel, Wollaston and Allein, and Colonel Barkstead, Lieutenant of the Tower, who can all be usefully followed from the index of Brenner's Merchants and Revolution.

50 Unwin, Guilds and Companies, pp. 335–343; idem. Industrial Organization, pp. 204–210; James, Social Problems and Policy, pp. 193–223; Archer, Pursuit of Stability, pp. 106–113, 119–120. In some companies (e.g. the Saddlers), members of the livery were chronically reluctant to serve as Wardens of the Yeomanry because of the expense of holding the dinner expected of them, and almost every year the Assistants had difficulty in collecting the fines due in lieu of the dinner or for being allowed not to hold the office. The yeomanry organization was thus not always a political issue.

51 Blagden, Stationers' Company, pp. 130–151.

52 The early Stuart charters of a large number of companies were produced for inspection by the nineteenth-century enquiries into local government in London, and may be compared in the Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Municipal Corporations of England and Wales (London, 1837); City of London Livery Companies Commission: Report and Appendix (London, 1884), vols II, III.

53 Welch, Charles, History of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers of the City of London (London, 1902), I, 38–49Google Scholar, 82, 84, 90; Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, I, 126–127 and passim.

54 Archer, Pursuit of Stability, pp. 124–130; Kellett, “Breakdown of Corporation Control”, pp. 383–385.

55 CLRO Repertories, vol. 50, ff. 92–93.

56 Dumville Smythe, Historical Account of the Girdlers, pp. 98–99; Barker, T. C., The Girdlers' Company: A Second History (London, 1957), pp. 60–61Google Scholar.

57 Plummer, Alfred, The London Weavers' Company, 1600–1970 (London, 1972), p. 43Google Scholar; Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, pp. 294–295.

58 Ibid., pp. 179–181, 188–192, 244–250.

59 Ibid., pp. 259–261.

60 To the High Court of Parliament, p. 4; Case of the Commonalty of the Corporation of Weavers, p. 7; James, Social Problems and Policy, p. 219: James was therefore mistaken about the novelty of the 1653 yeomanry.

61 Clode, Charles Mathew, Memorials of the Guild of Merchant Taylors, II (London, 1875), pp. 24–28Google Scholar; James, Social Problems and Policy, pp. 205–207.

62 James, Social Problems and Policy, pp. 204, 200–205.

63 SirCroke, George, Reports (trans, and ed. SirGrimston, Harebottle, London, 1669), pp. 516–517Google Scholar; SirCalthrop, Henry, Reports of Speciall Cases Touching Severall Customs and Liberties of the City of London (2nd edn, London, 1655), pp. 48–65Google Scholar.

64 Clothworkers' Company Minutes (1649–1665), f. 18.

65 Plummer, London Weavers' Company, p. 17.

66 Cutlers' Company Minutes, LGL MS 7151/1, f. 31; Lambert, John James, Records of the Skinners of London: Edward I to James I (London, 1933), pp. 341–342Google Scholar; Phillips, H. L., Annals of the Worshipful Company of Joiners of the City of London (London, 1915), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

67 CLRO Repertories, vol. 50, f. 93.

68 Clode, Memorials of the Merchant Taylors, II, p. 26; James, Social Problems and Policy, p. 205; Girtin, Thomas, The Golden Ram: A Narrative History of the Clothworkers' Company 1528–1958 (London, 1958), p. 116Google Scholar; Williams Transcripts, LGL MS 6353, p. 119.

69 Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, I, p. 272.

70 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, pp. 299, 304.

11 Ibid., p. 340; Plummer, London Weavers' Company, pp. 55–57; for the origins of these conflicts in the sixteenth century, see Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 134.

72 To the High Court of Parliament, pp. 2–7; Case of the Commonalty of the Weavers, pp. 3–5; To the Right Honourable the betrusted Commons of England Assembled in Parliament. The Humble Petition of the Commonalty of Weavers of London: being many thousands (London, n.d.).

73 Atkins and Overall, Account of the Clockmakers, pp. 61, 62. Although Atkins and Overall suggest (pp. 4–5) that the number of non-Englishmen in the Company can be calculated by observation of “foreign” names, one of the dissidents' leaders had the un-English surname Fromanteel (the spelling engraved on his products in the Guildhall museum). The English-born may have been acceptable whatever their parents' origin.

74 Clode, Memorials of the Merchant Taylors, II, pp. 24–25.

75 Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, II, p. 46.

76 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, pp. 298, 311.

77 Ibid., p. 159; Plummer, London Weavers' Company, pp. 60–62.

78 Case of the Commonalty of the Weavers, pp. 4–5.

79 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, pp. 157–159, 294–312, 340–360.

80 Ibid., p. 161; Plummer, London Weavers' Company, pp. 17–18.

81 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, p. 301.

82 Ibid., pp. 217, 352.

83 Girtin, Golden Ram, p. 114; Ramsay, G. D., “Industrial Discontent in Early Elizabethan London: Clothworkers and Merchants Adventurers in Conflict,” London Journal, I (1975), pp. 227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Archer, Pursuit of Stability, pp. 103–106.

84 Clode, Memorials of the Merchant Taylors, II, p. 25.

85 Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, II, p. 29.

86 CLRO Repertories, vol. 50, f. 92; Common Council Journal, CLRO Jor. 41, ff. 173–187. Clothworkers' Company Minutes (1639–1649), f. 51; Williams Transcripts, LGL MS 6353, p. 120.

87 CLRO Jor. 41, ff. 59, 173–187.

88 CLRO City Extracts I (7), Jor. 41, f. 210.

89 Ramsay, G. D., “Industrial Laisser-Faire [sic] and the Policy of Cromwell,” in Roots, Ivan (ed.), Cromwell: A Profile (London, 1973), pp. 136–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Unwin, Gilds and Companies of London, p. 302.

91 In the Pewterers' Company, relations with the tin patentees caused disputes and possibly factions; the members would have preferred free trade in their raw materials, whatever their view on industrial regulation. Pewterers' Company Minutes (1611–1643), LGL MS 7090/4, ff. 259–260, 286v–289, 290v, etc.

92 Unwin, Industrial Organization, pp. 142–145.

93 Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp. 347, 381–387, 608–613.

94 Ibid., pp. 494–557.

95 Henderson, B. L. K., “The Commonwealth Charters,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, VI (1912), pp. 132, 129–162Google Scholar.

96 Williams Transcripts, LGL MS 6353, pp. 118–123; Burt, New-yeers Gift, pp. 1–10.

97 Ibid., pp. 7–8; Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, II, p. 20.

98 The chairman of the Committee for Corporations at the time of this enquiry into London corporation charters, Daniel Blagrave, appears as an opponent of the Protectorate oligarchy in his home town of Reading a few years later. Henderson, “Commonwealth Charters”, pp. 136–138.

99 Girtin, Golden Ram, p. 115.

100 Manning, Brian, 1649: The Crisis of the English Revolution (London, 1992), pp. 64–102Google Scholar; Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp. 494–557. There are, of course, historians who would deny that any of these ideas were radical in any meaningful sense, since they did not meet the “functional” criteria for radicalism suggested by Davis, J. C., “Radicalism in a Traditional Society: The Evaluation of Radical Thought in the English Commonwealth 1649–1660,” History of Political Thought, III (1982), pp. 192–213Google Scholar. I believe this is to misrepresent Davis's article, which does not invalidate all enquiry into historical connections or continuities, but simply ignores this dimension of the subject.

101 Ramsay, “Industrial Laisser-Faire”, p. 141.

102 Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 203.

103 Dobb, Development of Capitalism, p. 134.

104 Unwin, Industrial Organization, pp. 199–200; Dobb, Development of Capitalism, pp. 137–138.

105 James, Social Problems and Policy, p. 223.

106 Marshall, T. H., “Capitalism and the Decline of the English Gilds,” Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929), pp. 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Cutlers' Company Minutes, LGL MS 7151/1, ff. 154, 163v, 167v, 268, 272v, 288v, 289v, 291v, etc.

108 James, Social Problems and Policy, pp. 211–212 (“Printers' Company” on p. 211 is clearly an error).

109 Blagden, Stationers' Company, pp. 130–152.

110 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 219–224, 238–250; Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 102. An extensive search of the Court of Aldermen's Repertories for the period 1640–1660, mainly but not exclusively concentrating on the companies which are known to have experienced constitutional conflicts, has produced no examples of journeymen's collective cases other than those mentioned in this article.

111 Plummer, London Weavers' Company, p. 17.

112 Minute books of the Carpenters', Cutlers', Clothworkers', Founders', Pewterers' and Saddlers' Companies, which I have consulted for various periods between 1600 and 1660, contain examples far too numerous to list. See also Champness, Worshipful Company of Turners, pp. 87, 130, 134–135.

113 Pewterers' Company Minutes, LGL MS 7090/5, f. 78.

114 Clockmakers' Company Minutes, LGL MS 2710/1, p. 39.

115 Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, I, pp. 203, 229–232.

116 The work of the wives and daughters of incorporated artisans was never seen as a problem in any of these incidents, and the cheap labour of “boys” was condemned at least as frequently as that of “maids”. This is not to say that women enjoyed equality within the crafts, but their labour was not at this time a point of conflict.

117 CLRO Repertories, vol. 54, f. 310v.

118 Ibid., vol. 66, f. 331v.

119 Ibid., f. 64v.

120 Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles 11: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis, pp. 189–216.

121 Unwin, Industrial Organization, pp. 214–227.

122 Macpherson, Possessive Individualism, pp. 137–142.

123 CLRO Repertories, vol. 65, f. 68; Atkins and Overall, Account of the Clockmakers, p. 64.

124 Weavers' Ordinance and Memorandum Book, LGL MS 4647, p. 298.

125 Barker, Girdlers' Company, pp. 27–28.

126 Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 16.

127 Haller, William and Davies, Godfrey, The Leveller Tracts 1647–1653 (New York, 1944), p. 127Google Scholar.

128 Aylmer, Gerald, “Gentlemen Levellers?,” Past and Present, XLIX (1970), pp. 120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clothworkers' Company Minutes (1639–1649), f. 36; McMichael, Jack R. and Taft, Barbara (eds), The Writings of William Walwyn (Athens, Georgia, 1989), p. 2Google Scholar; Bottigheimer, Karl, English Money and Irish Land: The “Adventurers” in the Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland (Oxford, 1971), p. 189Google Scholar; Gentles, Ian, “London Levellers in the English Revolution: the Childleys and Their Circle,” Journal of Ecclesiatical History, XXIX (1978), pp. 281–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 Haller and Davies, Leveller Tracts, p. 153.

130 Londons Ancient Priviledges Unvailed (London, 1648); Prideaux, Memorials of the Goldsmiths, I, pp. 285–287; II, p. 5.

131 England's Discoverer, or the Levellers' Creed (London, 1649), p. 1; The Craftsmen's Craft, or the Wiles of the Discoverers (London, 1649).

132 Lilburne, John, An Impeachment of High Treason against Oliver Cromwell and his Son in Law Henry Ireton (London, 1649), p. 38Google Scholar; idem, The Charters of London: or the Second Part of Londons Liberty in Chains Discovered (London, 1646), pp. 1, 37–40.

133 Lilburne, Impeachment of High Treason, p. 38; Haller and Davies, Leveller Tracts, p. 127.

134 Higgins, Patricia, “The Reactions of Women, With Special Reference to Women Petitioners,” in Manning, Brian (ed.), Politics, Religion and the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 179–222Google Scholar.

135 Thompson, E. P., Customs in Common (Harmondsworth, 1993), p. 63Google Scholar.