Origin of Corporations, Guilds, and Fraternities.

According to Dr. Smith, the origin of municipal corporations was very little posterior to that of cities and towns. After the fall of the Roman empire the proprietors of land generally lived in fortified castles on their own estates, while the towns were chiefly inhabited by tradesmen and mechanics, who appear to have been of servile or nearly of servile condition. This is apparent from the tenor of many ancient charters that concede to townspeople the right to give away their daughters in marriage, and bequeath their property to their children without consent of their lord, and which could hardly have been deemed immunities to any class of people had they been previously raised above the condition of bondsmen or villains. Their occupations were not more elevated than their social state, and consisted in travelling with their goods from place to place, and fair to fair, like hawkers and pedlers of the present times. In these peregrinations, they were subject to various exactions by the lords of the manors, through which they passed under the denomination of passage, pontage, lastage, and stallage. Sometimes the king, sometimes a great lord who had, it seems, upon certain occasions authority to do this, would grant to particular traders, especially those living on their own demesnes, a general exemption from taxes. Such traders, though in other respects of base condition, were upon this account denominated free-traders. They in return usually paid to their protector a sort of annual poll-tax; for, in those times of barbarous violence, protection was never afforded without compensation.

Under the favouring auspices of the monarch, the townspeople, by successive encroachments, emancipated themselves from the yoke of personal servitude to the barons. They also commuted the various imposts to which they were liable for a fixed tribute or rent, for the due payment of which the burghers were jointly and severally responsible. Nor was this all. They were generally, at the same time, erected into a commonalty or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates or town-council, of making by-laws for their own government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of conservative discipline, by obliging them to watch and ward. These immunities had become essential to their new condition of freedom; for having cast off the yoke of former masters, they were left to provide for their own internal order and security.

It would be neither compatible with our limits, nor is it essential to our purpose, to continue at greater length the history of corporations. Those who are desirous of more detailed information, may consult Madox’s “Firma Burgi,” and Brady’s “Treatise of Cities and Boroughs.” There can we apprehend be little doubt of the republican character of their first institution; every free burgess being a member of the corporation, and participating either directly or by representation in municipal government. They also shared in the general government of the country, by the privilege conceded to them in the thirteenth century of sending citizens and burgesses to parliament. The successive steps by which their immunities were principally curtailed were, 1. The Mortmain Acts, which interdicted the bequest of property, both to lay and ecclesiastical corporations, for charitable uses; 2. The restriction of monopolies in the sale of manufactures and commodities—which had become extremely oppressive to the rural population, and enabled the burgesses to indemnify themselves for the exactions they had suffered in a preceding age under the sway of the feudal proprietary; 3. and lastly, was the introduction of the statute of Quo Warranto in the reign of Edward the First, which compelled corporations to produce the charter or title under which they exercised their jurisdiction. The popular constitution of corporate bodies was ultimately destroyed through the agency of this law. Its professed object was to restrain the undue assumptions and remedy the disorders and irregularities in the exercise of municipal privileges; but it was perverted into a fruitful source of revenue by succeeding monarchs, especially by Charles II., who by compelling the surrender of all the charters in the kingdom, and granting for money new powers to select bodies in corporations, introduced or confirmed all these usurpations which are still maintained against the common rights of the people.

This was not the only result; for, by a manœuvre of the Collective Wisdom of the day, the chief part of the inhabitants of cities and towns were deprived of their political, as well as municipal franchises. A book was written, by Dr. Brady, to prove that the word commonalty in a charter meant corporation, or the “governing part” of the people; and, in pursuance of this new doctrine, the committees of the House of Commons, in the course of about twenty years, deprived the body of the people of a great number of boroughs of their elective rights, and confined the franchise to a small corporation, consisting generally of less than twenty-four persons. One part of the injustice is likely to be remedied by the Reform Bill, which will deprive close and self-elected juntos of the power they have long exercised with great profit to themselves, of making members of parliament, and restore to the inhabitants generally their ancient privilege of choosing representatives.

Let us next advert to the origin of the Guilds, Companies, or Fraternities, which still exist in the principal cities and towns, especially in London, Bristol, Preston, and Newcastle; and which form a curious and interesting branch of our domestic history. These societies, or mysteries, are of very ancient institution, and may be traced with certainty to a period anterior to the Conquest. In the British Museum are preserved several Saxon deeds which Dr. Hickes has transcribed into his Thesaurus, exhibiting the ordinances of two Saxon guilds. From these ancient documents, it would appear, that guilds were originally established by the mutual agreement of friends and fellow-workmen, and had no further object than the relief of the brethren in times of distress, and perhaps, the protection of the associated members against the lawless attacks of powerful neighbours. Certain pious offices, however, were the never-failing concomitants of these institutions, and they were mostly dedicated to some patron saint. After the Conquest, they were established for the express promotion of religion, charity, or trade, and were supported either by specific contributions from the members in money or goods, or by lands assigned to them by the founder. In order to erect a corporation, no other authority in ancient times was requisite in many parts of Europe, but that of the town corporate in which it was to be established. In England, indeed, a charter from the king was likewise necessary. But this prerogative of the crown seems to have been reserved, rather for extorting money from the subject than for the protection of the common liberty against such exclusive companies. Upon paying a fine to the king the charter seems generally to have been readily granted; and when any particular class of artificers or traders thought proper to act as a corporation without a charter, such adulterine guilds as they were called, were not always disfranchised on that account, but obliged to fine annually to the king for permission to exercise their usurped privileges. The immediate inspection of all corporations, and of the by-laws which they might think proper to enact for their own government, belonged to the town-corporate in which they were established; and whatever discipline was exercised over them proceeded commonly not from the king, but from the parent corporation of which these subordinate ones were only parts or members.

The rules of several of the ancient fraternities are preserved, and they obviously include the same objects of mutual assurance against the misfortunes of life which now form the basis of the institutions of Friendly Societies. Sir F. Eden, indeed, appears strongly inclined to trace the origin of benefit clubs to the guild foundations. The following ordinances of St. Catharine’s guild at Coventry, which was founded in the reign of Edward III affords strong confirmation of this conjecture, and are well deserving the attention of the antiquarian. They are cited at length by Dugdale, who speaks of them as very memorable, and “manifesting the decent government, ceremony, devotion, charity, and amity of those times.”

“If a member suffer from fire, water, robbery, or other calamity, the guild is to lend him a sum of money without interest.

If sick or infirm through old age, he is to be supported by his guild, according to his condition.

No one notorious for felony, homicide, lechery, gaming, sorcery, or heresy is to be admitted.

If a member fall into bad courses, he is first to be admonished, and if found to be incorrigible, he is to be expelled.

Those who die poor and cannot afford themselves burial, are to be buried at the charge of the guild.”

The chaplain is not to frequent common taverns. Mass was said, every day, and there were four solemnities or feast-days every year.

The guilds were encouraged by persons of rank. From the Northumberland Household Book, we learn that the Earl and Countess of Northumberland and their eldest son were members of St. Christopher’s Guild, at York; and paid annually each 6s. 8d. They each received yearly from the guild two yards of cloth; whether this was an article usually allowed to the members of such societies, or whether it was merely a compliment to a person of distinction cannot be ascertained.

The ancient associations, whether distinguished by the name of Guild, Fraternity, Mystery, Company, or Brotherhood, seem to have been no less addicted to feasting and conviviality than their descendants of Merchant Tailors’ or Drapers’ Hall. They generally assembled once a year, for the purpose of acting some interlude or pageant. There is a curious description in the Liber Niger of the anniversary feast of the guild of the Holy Cross at Abingdon; from which Blomefield probably took the following account which he has given of that festival. He says “the fraternity held their feast yearly on the third of May, the invention of the Holy Cross; and then they used to have twelve priests to sing a dirige, for which they had given them four pence a-piece; they had also twelve minstrels, who had 2s. 3d. besides their dyet and horse-meat. At one of these feasts, (A.D. 1445,) they had 6 calves valued at 2s. 2d. a-piece; 16 lambs, 12d. a-piece; 80 capons, 3d. a-piece; 80 geese, 2d. a-piece; 800 eggs, which cost 5d. the hundred; and many marrow bones, creame and floure; besides, what theyre servants and others brought in: and pageants, plays, and May-games, to captivate the senses of the zealous beholders.” Nor were the Guildhalls, of which vestiges may be found in many of our most insignificant villages, exclusively appropriated to the festivities celebrated at the expense and under the patronage of the companies. As most of these common-halls were well provided with household utensils, especially those requisite for culinary purposes, it was not uncommon for the inhabitants of a village, upon weddings and christenings, to hold their feast at the Guildhall. Sometimes, however, the smaller parochial guilds were so poor, that they could not afford to have a mustering place, but met at the members’ houses. In general they were in a better condition and possessed or hired a hall near the church, which, Sir John Cullum remarks, was “convenient for them, as their business was to pray as well as eat.”

However, we have not yet adverted to the main objects for which the fraternities were instituted, and which were neither convivial, pious, nor charitable; they were meant for the advancement of trade, and the perfection of the mechanical arts. It was for these purposes the numerous companies in the city of London were first incorporated; exclusive privileges being granted to them, that they might perfect themselves in their respective mysteries or occupations, so that the public might be guarded against fraud and adulteration, and not suffer either from the knavery or unskilfulness of traders and workmen. In the early stages of industry and commerce such a policy might be defensible. It tends, by a recognized division of labour, to improve useful vocations; and, moreover, as the members of these associations were also united on the principles of a Friendly Society, that circumstance gave them a claim to the protection of authority. But the immunities conceded to them ought to have been limited to a term of years, and not made perpetual; they ought to have been terminal, and granted on the same principle as the rights of a patentee, or of an author of a literary production. Without this precaution the incorporated companies were sure to degenerate into so many combinations against the public; whose interests and policy would be to preserve to themselves an exclusive market, to guard against competition from superior and cheaper workmen, and to retail their own industry and commodities at monopoly prices. These results were, in fact, speedily experienced, and we find the trade societies at a very early period notorious for the fraud and extortion they practised on the body of the community. For instance, we read that in the year 1285 Edward I. took away the charter of the city of London, and dismissed the mayor from office for taking bribes of the bakers to permit them to make their bread short of weight; but, it is added, the city soon after recovered it, by making concessions and presenting the king with a purse of money. It is not an easy task to maintain individuals at all times in a course of honesty, but it is far more difficult when they are confederated. The example just cited was anciently a frequent mode of replenishing the royal treasury; the charters were seized under the pretext of some delinquency, and then returned after a pecuniary mulct; the offenders being allowed to resume their iniquitous career.

Although the civil immunities of the guilds are nearly worn out, we sometimes meet with attempts to annoy the public by re-asserting them, both in the country and the metropolis. An effort of this kind was made some years since by the Merchant Tailors of Bristol, which terminated in the ruin of their society. The history of the Company is singular, and, as it will illustrate our subject and exemplify the present state of many similar fraternities in the kingdom, we shall shortly advert to it.

The company of Merchant Tailors derived its origin from a charter of Richard II., dated 16th October, 1399. It was granted to two burgesses of Bristol, in consideration of their having founded a chapel to celebrate divine service for the good of the king and the brotherhood. The fraternity was incorporated, with power to choose a master from their number, and to purchase lands and tenements for the maintenance of the society’s chapel. In the hall of the company are preserved the various deeds by which its possessions have been conveyed down from the original trust to the present feoffees. The last conveyance of the buildings, estates, and other property was in 1802, and was executed, among others, to Mr. Isaac Amos, who is the only surviving member. This gentleman, who is a resident housekeeper in Bristol, gives the following reasons for the condition into which the society has fallen.

About forty-five years ago the association, which was then composed of a great number of members, insisted that every person carrying on the trade of a tailor in Bristol was under a legal obligation to become a freeman of the company, for which the fee of 40s. was payable by such as were qualified by apprenticeship or birth, and £30 by others who purchased their freedom. This claim was resisted, and a suit instituted by the company to try the question, which was determined against them. From that time it has ceased to be an object to become a member of the company, which has accordingly received no accession to its number, and Mr. Amos has outlived all the old members.

The company having lost all claim to fees, its sole dependence has been the rents and premiums accruing from estates. These are considerable, and situate in several parishes of Bristol; they have been demised on leases of 99 years, with heavy premiums, and the reserved rents amount only to £55 per annum, An almshouse has been established for the reception of the decayed members, and is supported out of the funds of the society. The hall, formerly the scene of the festive celebrations of the worshipful fraternity, has been converted into a source of profit, by being let out for the use of any ephemeral pageant—lectures on astronomy—the French players—or a sparring exhibition; and the spacious kitchens are hired to dress dinners for the ancient lodge of Freemasons, the society of Odd Fellows, or some other of the whimsical associations which are found among the Bristolians. The last public act of the society was to let a piece of ground in Horsefair, for which a rent of 10s. was reserved, and a premium of £200 received; what became of the premium cannot be ascertained, as the practice has been to destroy the accounts immediately after being audited. Indeed, it is a curious incident in the latter days of the company, that Messrs. Palmer and Amos were for some time the only surviving members, and that until the death of Mr. Palmer, they were alternately master and treasurer, and each, in his capacity of master, audited the treasurer’s accounts!

We have thus shortly adverted to the history and present state of one of the ancient guilds, and some curious legal questions here present themselves, namely, in what capacity does the society now exist, and to whom do its possessions belong? Whether the Merchant Tailors’ Company has existed at all as a corporation since the dissolution of such religious fraternities under 39th Henry VIII. may, perhaps, be a subject of doubt, as there appears neither a re-grant nor recognition on the part of the Crown to set up the civil part of the establishment in its corporate capacity. If the company is to be considered as a corporation, it is apprehended that, as a corporation aggregate, it must have become dissolved by the death of all its members but one; and, in such case, as the use was limited so as to become vested in the corporation, an escheat of its property may be considered to have taken place. If it is not to be considered as a corporation, but a mere self-constituted community of individuals, it seems doubtful whether the legal estate was carried out of the feoffees, and whether the trust has not entirely failed and become extinguished by the non-existence of the object for which it was created, namely, the Company of Tailors; and hence arises the difficulty in whom the title to the property, hitherto regarded as belonging to the company, has legally vested. These points can only be resolved by a competent tribunal, and we doubt not their decision would involve the existence of many similar associations in the kingdom.