W. E. A.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 28 April 1926, Page 3

W. E. A.

WEEKLY LECTURE

UNFREE. TRADE IN EARLY BRITAIN.”

The weekly lecture by Mr Brotherton in the Borough Council Chambers on Monday night, under the auspices of the W.E.A.. dealt with trading conditions in early Britain. A .summary is given below: — In the title of the lecture we have the fundamental idea of the trading community of the middle ages. There was no violent change from the town as the centre of the. economic system to regarding. the nation as an economic whole, and the gild merchant, of which I am going to speak in- this lecture, was the typical product of the isolated town, and so dong as these merchant gilds remained the ruling force of economic policy a. national economy was well nigh impossible. The gild merchant was a. trading motiopov, and was.the most valuable privilege in the charter of the borough. The fundamental point was that the members of the Merchant Gild had the exclusive right to buy and sell —retail or wholesale—market and. other days—within the borough, without toll. Fairs were always, an exception, and there might be others nuide- for some special season. For their own interests strangers were allowed to sell wholesale to gild Smen only, and provided they -did. not deal in commodities of which there was a shortage, so as to limit the trade of members of the gild This concession was to merchants and not to neighbouring countrymen, who might sell direct to the consumer, but paid toll. . In addition, anyone, might buy food for their own use free of toll, but if lor reselling they were not exempt.

An offence which was regarded as a very serious one was '‘colouring” the goods of a lion-gildsman by pretending they belonged to a member; this was punishable by expulsion from the gild, ns in addition to breaking the monopoly it lost tolls. The system had a kind of '.rough justice, as the gild was open to all who could pay the necessary charges, and. the charter ox privilege® would have been bought at a high price some return was due to those- who had spent their money m obtaining it, and some towns even admitted members from the surrounding country districts, so that the gild was by no means a close corporation. One very, important ,privilege of tlie gild was that which permitted a. member to a share in the purchase made by any other member at the original price. ’ Usually he had to he present at the bargain to claim: this privilege, but not always. In Bewick we find that any member could make this claim whether present or not, but jn this case he has to allow the original purchaser “twelve pence for profit.’’ The idea of this provision was to prevent monopoly and to give some set-off against the collective responsibility of debt, which 1 will deal with in a moment. SomeI times a cargo could be bought jointly by the gild, an early case of collective bargaining, and a transaction which contains the germ of the joint stock company.' The chief idea in this case was to "give all gildsmen an equal opportunity and to put the stranger at a disadvantage. The gild had a very real esprit de corps, .and was to a certain extent a friendly society' in the same way as the craft gilds were to

other members. In passing I ask you not to confuse the craft gikls and the gild merchant. The one contained all the merchants of the town and only men who could pay their way, the others contained the members of a single craft only, but contained all those members from the richest to teic poorest. The gild merchant looked after ‘‘sick and unfortunate brethren,” both sick and poor. All members were subject to compulsory arbitration. and were not allowed to go to law among themselves, and a member lost his membership if lie struck a fellow-gildsman. Competition was discouraged between members, and in Shrewsbury we read of ail ordinance against .striking booths, as the gild did not wish one member to attract attention to bis goods at the price of other members of the gild. The governing bodv was usually an alderihan and two or four associates, and thev maintained the standairdjcf goods sold and fixed the charges. .The system was abused, however, at times by raising the price against the consumer, but that was mainly a later development, when the system had outgrown its usefulness. The administration wa'.s not originally the same, 'but tended in som. e to become merged with the town fauthon.ties. Certain charted towns bad exemption from tolls throughout the land, and if thenrights were not respected they distrained the goods of any member of the offending town after the manner of present-day international reprisals. Similar to this was. the . question of, responsibility for debt. Originally the town was held responsible, and any member of it liable to distraint to pay the debts of his fellow gildsman. Soon, however, protection began to be given in the borough charter, either absolute, or more often until after satisfaction had been demanded from the town. In 1275 Edward I. forbid the. general distraint, and .started a. system of enrolling- debts in certain fixed towns and imprisoning the debtor, himself and absolving the town of responsihilitv. The effect, of this is very doubtful. Custom died hard, and as late as the fifteenth century we find the contention “new statutes do not. alter the free customs 1 of the said town.” and this attitude was typical. In spite of this the towns imposed many harmful restrictions' upon themselves for the alleged good of the community. Fraud at that time was very common and primitive. Public opinion regarded the trade;- as fraudulent, especially the miller, baker, and brewer,, as. may he seen by Chaucer's, writings. There, were various “assizes” or standard weights and measures that had to he kept, hut fraud, was constant. A case of poetic justice is found in the case of the seller of had wine, who was to he compelled first to drink a draught of it and then the remainder was poured over his head ! The trouble at that time was that conviction for fraud carried no social stigma, and consequently it continued, as it . is only hv the voice of public opinion that law can he enforced. Things grew so had, however, that the victuallers were excluded by. statute, though not in practice, from public office': and when it was found that the statute was inadequate it was ordained. and generally carried out that “two'discreet persons” should be appointed to fix the. prices of victuals it one of the victuallers held office. To understand the attitude of the Middle Ages towards the trader it is necessary to grasp their conception of a just price. They did not realise that a fair* exchange can be profitable to both parties, and they had an abhor-

re rice of competition. The. three following examples of offences at law will be the best illustration _of the times. “Engrossing’’ or buying up .a stock, say com, while it is still m the .field, and holding it up until a high price can be obtained. “Forestalling or buying goods cheaply before they reach the open market;! this was partly disliked because it evaded, tolls. “Regrating” or buying to sell again at a higher price in the same market. These were all offences, punishable at law, and the restrictions thus imposed caused a shortage of corn, so that publie granaries had to be established in some places. _ ' In summary it may be said that the ' economic interests of the country'wpre deliberately sacrificed'.- to'Xthbsdr * •- select band, but heayy';sacxifices ; Had. ' been made by that band to gain their privileges, and they ward/prepared to;. share them with take their share of the expenses “ and further, owing to.. : the great risks’ incurred in trade at fhatr-.1/iin'e;;a highreturn was necessary to induce men to. » trade at all. The" monopoly really damaged the towns in the long run, but owing to the fairs and various ex-; centions upon other ’ heads this monopoly was more apparent than ,real.