Ancient Brewers’ Gilds

ANCIENT BREWERS’ GILDS

From the Documentary History of the United States Brewers’ Association – 1896

Among the ancient craft-gilds (although the word is frequently spelled guild, we prefer to use this form, adopted by all modern lexicographers) those of the brewers’ have from the earliest beginning of the co-operative movement, which subverted the thraldom of skilled labor, occupied a very conspicuous and in many of the Germanic countries an exceptionally prominent position.  Their gilds certainly belong to the oldest craft-organizations, and both in England and in Germanic Europe their gild-records are regarded by historians as the most valuable sources of information concerning the origin and antiquity, the aims and objects, the privileges and customs of craft-gilds in general.

It is universally assumed upon the authority and concurrent opinions of gild-historians that craft-gilds were first organized in the eleventh century, a long time after the merchants’ gilds and many centuries after the organization of those earliest religious and secular bodies of that name, the origin of which is hidden in the mysterious obscurity hovering over that border-land where tradition and legend, fable and folk-lore intermingle with written history.  A wide historical gap and broad space of time separate these latter gilds from the mediæval unions of handicraftsmen and there is no evidence of a genealogical link between them, except in the case of the brewers.

Strange as this may seem at the first glance, it is nevertheless a historical fact, sufficiently interesting to warrant a brief degression.  The meetings of the earliest gilds were styled Beorscipe or Gebeorscipe which, literally translated, means beer-ship or, freely rendered, beer-drinking meetings – hence, the Latin term convivium, which the Roman historian applied t the gatherings he had witnessed among the Germanic tribes.  The student of history need not be told that these meetings were not mere drinking-bouts; nor that it is, in fact, rather difficult to over-rate the deep political, social, religious and ethical significance of these feasts, which signalized all the more important events, in peace and war, that made up the life, public and private of that people.

In all of them, as even in Northern mythology, the brewer and his art played an indispensable and significant part.  Wilda, in his excellent work on Gilds (pp. 12, 13 et seq.) demonstrates beyond peradventure that these feasts were also called gilds; for “gild meant originally the sacrificial meal composed of the common contributions, then a sacrificial banquet in general, and, finally, a society.”  When in later ages the North yielded, more or less reluctantly, to the civilizing influence of Christianity, the sacrificial banquets, with all their rituals and ceremonies christianized, remained in existence fostered and even commanded by the church; but the libations were then offered in honor of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints, instead of Odin and Freya and the other indwellers of Aagard.  Wilda cites several examples of this amalgamation of Heathen feasts with Christian festivals, and among them that of King Hakon who ordained that Yule-tide should be celebrated on the day of Christmas and that every freeman should brew the third of a tun of good malt and continue the celebration as long as his beer lasted.  The ancient Scandinavian samburdar-öl, i.e., festival-ale, thus becomes a means of determining the origin of many of the customs which the conservative spirit and tenacity of the German and Anglo-Saxon nations have helped to preserve even up to our time.  The Whitsun-ales, lamb-ales, leet-ales, mid-summer-ales, &c., and the social and religious customs connected with them betrayed in a palpable manner the ancient usages from which they arose.

In the exceedingly interesting history of the struggles by which the craft-gilds finally succeeded, in the fourteenth century, in establishing for themselves civic rights, privileges and powers equal and, in very many instances, superior to those of the patrician gilds, we find the brewers among the foremost of the stanch champions of what was then considered to be freedom of trade.  They successfully maintained their standing wherever their industry flourished to any considerable extend, and both their social status and their share in municipal government demonstrate conclusively the power they wielded and the esteem in which they were held by other crafts and their fellow-townsmen.

At a time when there existed a very rigid social and political classification of crafts, when even certain handi-craftsmen were excluded from gild-rights and any participation whatsoever in the government of towns, the brewers generally ranked next to and often out-ranked the most distinguished gilds, such as those of the goldsmiths, the armorers and the drapers.

The German oldburghers, many of whom belonged to the gentry or lower order of nobility, frequently engaged in and sometimes monopolized brewing with their towns, as for instance, at Ratisbon where a powerful brewers’-gild flourished in the thirteenth century.  In the fierce and often sanguinary struggles of the towns against the rapacity and brutality of the nobles, the brewers distinguished themselves in many ways.  The brewers’-gild of Danzig, for instance, renowned for the great number of wealth of its members, was noted throughout Germany for the prowess and dauntless courage with which they defended by force of arms, the rights and safety of their city.  It was a brewer, Johannes Lupi, who in 1416 organized the gilds of that city and by force of arms wrested the government from the privileged classes who for many years had tyrannically oppressed the burghers and handicraftsmen.  Among the German Gilds who in the reign of Charles IV, opposed, with varying success, patrician mis-rule and the depredations of the robber-knights, the brewers everywhere participated in and often initiated and led the liberating movement, and wherever success crowned their efforts their gilds were invariable named among those entitled to seat and voice in the municipal councils.  Thus, we find the brewers at Nuremburg among the eight craft-gilds of that city, to whom, in 1378, after many hard-fought battles, was accorded the right of representation in the lower branch of the municipal legislature.  We find a brewer among the seven leaders, who secretly organized the craft-gilds at Augsburg and by the united efforts of their armed followers compelled the authorities to recognize their civic rights.  In Munich, Cologne, Hamburg, Bremen, Magdeburg; in all the larger cities of Flanders, Brabant, Bohemia, etc., the brewers’-gilds occupied eminent positions.  A large volume might be written on the subject of these brewers’-gilds and their successful work in the various countries; but as it is the object of this chapter merely to present an outline of the antiquity, objects, rights, privileges and customs of such ancient corporations, our purpose will be fully accomplished if we select a single typical gild and narrate its history as briefly as possible.  To this end no better selection could be made than that of the Brewers’ Company of London.

This company – still in existence under the official title of “The Master and Keepers or Warden and commonality of the Mystery or Art of Brewers of the City of London” – is doubtless on of the oldest craft-gilds whose records have been preserved in unbroken continuity from the time of their first authentic charter, granted by Henry VI on the 22nd of February, 1445, up to the present time.  It is impossible to determine when this gild was first organized, but there can be no doubt that it had existed for many years before the last-mentioned date.  This may be inferred from the wording of the charter which incorporates the company as “one of the ancient mysteries of the city of London” and further from a book entitled the “Records and Accounts of the Brewers’ Company from 1418 to 1440.”

Pre-eminence in point of antiquity and importance is usually claimed for the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London, (the twelve companies are those of the fishmongers, goldsmiths, skinners, merchant tailors, haberdashers, salters, ironmongers, vintners, clothworkers, mercers, grocers, and drapers.) to whom the brewers do not belong; but this claim, we apprehend, cannot successfully be maintained in the face of an array of significant historical data the correctness of which has never been disputed.  Even the historian of the Twelve Great Livery Companies, William Herbert, who from the very choice of this subject may be supposed to have had a slight leaning towards a bias in favor of thee gilds, animadverts disparagingly upon this claim in these words: “It is but candid to remark that notwithstanding the ancient rank of the Twelve Companies, many of the others are, on various accounts, of equal or superior importance.”  After mentioning several other companies more ancient, wealthy or important than an of the Twelve he states: “The brewers are distinguished for their ancient and curious records and yield on that point, perhaps, only to the leather-sellers.”

That the Brewers’ Company must have been an important gild, in prosperous and flourishing condition, long before the granting of t heir first charter may conclusively be inferred from the fact that as early as 1422 they owned their own hall, which many of the other gilds, among them some of the Twelve Companies, had hired at various times during the year named.  Many other evidences equally strong and conclusive support our assumption.  Their records for the years 1419, for instance, note the death of their clerk, John Morey, who had faithfully served them for many years; this fact proving that the company must have been thoroughly organized and systematically governed many years before the reign of Henry VI.  By a comparison of the amount of money subscribed by the various companies for the purpose of celebrating the second arrival of Henry V. from France, in 1422, the conclusion becomes inevitable that the Brewers’ Company, although not yet incorporated by royal charter, was even at that time one of the wealthiest of the London craft-gilds.  Another rather entertaining bit of evidence, frequently cited in other prints, may also be quoted here.  It is derived from the same source to which gild-historians are indebted for much of their information, i.e., the books of the Brewers’ Company, which for the year 1421 contain an account of the insubordination of brewer William Payne, at the sign of the Swan by St. Anthony’s Hospital, Threadneedle Street, who refused to contribute a barrel of ale, to be sent to the king (Henry V), whilst he was in France.  For this refusal he was fined 3s. 4d., for a swan for the master’s breakfast; and failing to pay, was imprisoned.  He afterwards refused to wear the company’s livery (The brewers’ livery, which females were also entitled to wear, consisted of a party-colored gown of “blood color parted with rayes; green & coars cloth for vestments.”) and was therefore brough before the mayor.  He eventually conformed, but it is added, “was very long before he could be humbled and brought to good behavior.”  This clearly indicates that the company exercised, even as early as 1421, all the more important prerogatives granted to chartered gilds.

As we have seen, the incorporation of the Brewers’ company occurred about a century after the period when the universal ascendency of the trades had imported to the craft-gilds such a degree of importance that Edward III, in whose reign were granted most of the charters legally sanctioning the privileges which the gilds had theretofore exercised only on sufferance, himself sought and obtained membership in the linen-armorers’ company.  The adoption of the gild-dress, called livery, which subsequently became, and up to the present time serves as, a distinguishing mark between the higher and lower grades of gild-members, dates from this period.  The prerogatives and privileges, as well as the duties and obligations of the craft-gilds were of a two-fold character, namely, industrial and political.  The gilds possessed absolute control over their trade in an economic sense, and their participation in and influence upon the city government was paramount.  Freedom of the city and membership in one of the companies were in one sense synonymous terms.

Their trade-regulations embraced every conceivable subject connected with the manufacture and sale of their product; the quality both of the raw-materials and of the finished commodities; the economic and social relations between gild-brothers and between apprentices, freemen and liverymen; trade competition with the jurisdiction of the company and all similar matters.  Besides this, the gilds watched over and sought to secure the physical and spiritual welfare of their members and in many matters touching the public weal the chosen officers of the gilds, with the consent and sanction of their associates, acted for and in behalf of the entire body of handicraftsmen.  Disputes arising from trade matters were settled exclusively by gild-courts.  They established schools and charitable institutions, and for the spiritual welfare of their members founded churches, chapels, altars, memorial windows and mural decorations.  In time of peace, they organized themselves into military companies, and in time of war undertook the defense of their city.  In this particular, English history offers abundant evidence of their sturdy bravery and martial spirit.  Indeed, in all the internecine wars the contending parties strove to enlist the support of the London craft-gilds, sure of winning if in this they succeeded.  The barons would probably never have secured the Great Charter without the aid of the militant gilds; if Henry III had not palpably betrayed his intention of despoiling the gilds, the armed handicraftsmen might not, perhaps, have gathered under the banner of De Montford.  The House of Lancaster succumbed under the opposition of London, and to the gilds’ loyalty to Parliament may in part be ascribed the victorious termination of the war which popular rights waged against despotic rule.

This was the status of craft-gilds in the century before the Brewers’ Company of London obtained their first charter.  From the report of the Companies’ Commission, presented to Parliament in the year 1884, it appears that “the great extent of the trade and the large number of persons exercising it in and about the City of London led to the incorporation of the company.”  This really means that the company perceived the difficulty of lawfully enforcing it trade-regulations beyond the confines of their own organization without the exercise of that judicial, political and police power which could be obtained only under and by virtue of a charter or act of incorporation.  Subsequent charters granted to them in the reign of Elizabeth, Charles I, Charles II, James I, and James II had the tendency and effect of enhancing the economic prerogatives and extending the jurisdiction of the company, and also of expanding the territorial limits of such jurisdiction.  At first confined to the city, the company in 1579, under their third charter (21 Elizabeth), brought under its control the entire trade in the suburbs and within two miles of the city.  Under Charles I this limit was extended to four and under James II to eight miles.

One of the essential levers of trade-control consisted in the compulsory membership of every person engaged in brewing; another, in the power vested in the gild to make and enforce rules and exercise supervision over all members of the trade and inflict penalties for non-observance of trade-regulations.  The charters gave the company the right to inspect brew-houses; to search for unlawful utensils, measures, materials and product; to exact quarterage according to the number of persons employed; to bind apprentices, prescribe the time of servitude and the necessary qualifications for admission to the trade and for election to its freedom and livery.

Certain rights, which under changed economic conditions became a standing menace to the freedom of trade and commerce, as well as to individual liberty, were deeded quite essential in the earlier stages of the development of craft-gilds.  As prominent among these may be mentioned, so far as the brewers are concerned, the right to regulate the sale of barley and malt.  Thus, for example, an ordinance provided that no foreigner, burgher or other person should buy barley or malt in the market until the resident brewers and maltsters had been served.  This exclusion of outsiders usually ceased at stated hours, generally at 11 o’clock in the summer and 12 o’clock in winter; or, as the old text reads, “by xj of the belle in somer season and yu wynter by xij of the belle.”

As in other gilds, admission to the brewing-trade depended upon moral conduct, stainless honor and respectable parentage.  The rigid regulation, which in most trades and towns debarred any one not “born to the trade” from being admitted to apprenticeship, seems to have been adopted by the company in a limited measure.  Membership could be obtained either by inheritance (patrimony), redemption or servitude.  The question of servitude has at all times been a prolific subject of gild-legislation and in later days aggravated the evils growing out of the gild-system after it had outlived its legitimate purposes and economic usefulness.  The apprentice, being regarded as a member of the family, owed filial devotion and respect to his master and was wholly subject to the latter’s guidance and control in moral and social matters.  Brentano justly styles this apprenticeship a novitiate to citizenship, for with the freedom of the trade that of the city was inseparably connected; it was for this reason that the initiation of apprentices always took place in the town-hall.  Having faithfully served his stipulated term and acquired the requisite knowledge of his art, the apprentice was advanced to full membership in the gild and thus, upon payment of a fee, became a citizen of London.  His political rights and privileges were then identical with those of the members of the other craft-gilds who jointly elected the lord-mayor of the city.

It may as well be stated here that the brewers’ company gave to the city, among many other meritorious officers, at least one very efficient lord-mayor, in the person of Sir Samuel Starling.  When visiting the court-room of the brewers’ hall some years ago, the writer’s attention was directed to the following inscription conspicuously placed over the mantle of the spacious hearth, viz.: “The Right Wor. Sir Samuel Starling, Knight and Alderman of London, a worthy member of the Brewers’ Company, did wainscott this parlour in the year 1670, the said Sir Samuel Starling being then Lord Mayor of the City of London.”

The stubbornly defended right of the company to prescribe the number of apprentices has often been characterized as the offspring of narrow selfishness, but this reproach – well founded in a much later period when gilds had degenerated into tyrannical monopolies – is totally underserved as far as the earlier periods of the development of craft-gilds is concerned, when the gilds supported the indigent and defective members of the trade, cared for the widows and orphans, assisted needy gild-brothers pecuniarily, attended to the education and moral and physical training of the children, and provided for the spiritual welfare of all.  (While the gilds flourished, England had no poor-laws and no need of them.)  The obligation thus assumed by the companies necessarily required some safe-guards against an undue increase of the number of persons entitled to the benefits arising from membership.  So long as the gilds were permitted to shape their own destiny without royal interference, prosperity perched upon their halls, their trades flourished and labor found ample reward for its efforts.  But the towns in which they dwelt naturally shared this prosperity, and some of the beneficent results of this healthful state of affairs are manifest even to this day.  Some of the older colleges connected with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for instance, were founded by craft-gilds, and England today has many excellent educational and charitable institutions which owe their existence to the munificence of gild-brothers and the wise and provident management of trust-estates by craft-companies.  The Brewers’ Company of London even to this day maintains, as we shall presently see, schools and eleemosynary establishments founded by members of their gild.  The brewers were no exception to the rule in this particular, but it deserves to be mentioned that their charitable bequests were made during the period succeeding the temporary suppression and spoliation of the gilds in the country-towns by Edward the Sixth’s uncle, Somerset, and the confiscation of all gild-lands by Henry VIII.

The oldest brewers’ charity is the one founded by Alderman Richard Platt on the 18th of February, 1596; it consisted of 20 acres of land in the parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex; a house in Great Knight Ryder Street and the Medburn Farm in Hertfordshire; its objects were the erection and maintenance of a grammar-school and almshouse at Aldenham.  The grammar-school, together with two lower schools at Aldenham and Medburn and six almshouses at Delrow still exist, but the control of them has been transferred, in part, to the parish authorities.  In 1875, a portion of the trust estate was sold to the Midland Railway Company, part of the proceeds being used to endow elementary schools, and $100.000 to endow the North London and Collegiate Schools for Girls.  In 1609, Dame Alice Owen purchased lands at Islington and Clerkenwell and conveyed them to the Brewers’ Company in trust for the use of an almshouse for poor widows, and a school, for both of which institutions she had erected suitable buildings.  In 1878, two hundred and sixty-nine years after this noble benefaction, a scheme for the administration of the Dame Owen charities was approved providing for the establishing of two new schools on the site of the old almshouses and school, viz: 1, a school for 300 boys with facilities for future extension, and 2, a school for a like number of girls.  Since then, the new buildings for the former institutions have been erected and the school is in a flourishing condition.

By far the most munificent charity is that of Alderman James Hickson, founded in 1686.  By his will Hickson gave to the Brewers’ Company the Manor of Willwotts, many houses and parcels of land in London and elsewhere, on the condition that they maintain certain schools and almshouses founded by him.  The Company managed this estate very successfully, and in 1852 erected a new school-house and master’s residence in Trinity Square, Tower-Hill.

In 1794, Samuel Whitbread conveyed to the company what is known as “The Great Barford Estate,” the object of the benefaction being to support “decayed master brewers and their widows.”  Another bequest for a similar purp0ose, i.e., to support and relieve poor freemen of the company and their widows, was made by the same Samuel Whitbread in the same year.  There are many other trust-funds of various kinds and for various purposes the main objects in each case, however, being either educational or purely charitable.  Among the minor bequests we find one which to the modern mind may appear a little singular.  It is that of Robert Hunt, who gave the company $1000 on the condition that $100 be paid annually to the Vicar of St. Giles’, Cripplegate, for “holding a catechising.”

In the course of nearly 300 years the value of the lands thus conveyed to the company has enormously increased in value and, naturally enough, every bit of ground is now utilized for buildings.  Thus the St. Pancras estate consists today of 73 houses in Aldenham, 36 houses in Pancras Road, 67 houses and a chapel in Goldington Crescent, 11 houses in Goldington Street, 40 houses in new Goldington Street, 30 houses in Medburn Street, 18 houses in Pennyn Street, 22 houses and the Police Station in Platt Street, 45 houses in Stanmore Street, 8 houses, a cottage and other buildings in Werrington Street.  The Clerkenwell estate, to cite but one more example, now consists of 260 houses, Brewer Street and Brewer Street, North.  The total annual rental value of the company’s property probably amounts to more than $160,000.  By way of comparison, it may be stated that the aggregate income of all the London companies is estimated at $2,500,000 annually.

The duties of gilds and gild-members in regard to pageants, holidays, public feasts, state-dinners, &c., were regulated with the utmost precision and the observance of them was a matter of compulsion.  In many ceremonials and feasts, particularly those of a religious character, females (whose rights, by the way, in the case of freedom by patrimony and other respects were fully secured) participated on equal footing, not as a matter of choice, but because the gild rules prescribed it.  Thus, for instance, the case of burial services for dead “brethren and sisteren” the company’s beadle notified all sisters and brothers of the day of sepulture and required them to be present at the dirge in full livery.  Attendance at divine service was also demanded of all, and this will not be deemed surprising when it is recollected that the brewers’ charter required all freemen to be communicants.

In like manner the ceremonies attending the initiation of members and officers were minutely described and religiously observed.  On becoming a freeman by redemption, the new gild brother had to give a breakfast; the officers also gave dinners celebrating their election’ in face, any event deviating in any way from the ordinary occurrences of every-day life was gladly seized as a welcome opportunity for such dinners, and that they must have been exceedingly sumptuous affairs is evidenced by some of the bills of fare preserved in the records of the Brewers’ Company.  The following gives in detail the courses served at an election dinner of the Brewers’ Company on the 5th of September, 1419:

First Course: – Brawn with mustard; cabbages to the pottage; swan standard; capons roasted; great custards.

Second Course: – Venison in broth, with white mottrews; cony standard; partridges with cocks roasted; leche lumbar; doucetts with little parneux.

Third Course: – Pears in syrop; great birds with little ones together; fritters, payn puff, with a cold backed meat.

(As an interesting evidence of the then prevailing prices we quote from the same source the following account showing services and materials required for this dinner and the cost of them, including a compensation of 1s 4d to the minstrels and of 3s 4d to the cook, viz.:

  • For 2 necks of mutton, 3 breasts 12 marrowbones, with porterage of a quarter coals, 2s 3d.
  • For 6 swans, 15s. 4 doz. Pigeons, 4s 4d.  12 conies, 3s.  200 eggs, 1s 6d  2 gals. frumenty, 4d  2 gals. Cream, 8d
  • Hire of 2 doz. Earthen pots, 4d.
  • Hire of 2 doz. White cups, 1s 4d.  1qt. honey, with a new pot, 4d. 
  • Divers spicery, 2s 4d
  • Porterage of water, by the water bearers, 4d.  1 pottel of fresh grease, 8d.  100 pears, 7d.  11 gals. Red wine, 9s 2d.  4 gals. Milk, 4d.
  • White bread, 2s.
  • Trencher bread, 3d.
  • Payn cakes, 6d.
  • Half a bushel of flour, 7d.  1 kilderkin of good ale, 2s 4d
  • Given to the minstrels, 1s 4d.
  • To John Hareley, cook, for him and his servants, 3s 4d
  • To William Denetaysshe, panter, 6d.  1qt. vinegar, 1d.
  • Packthread, 1d.
  • Hire of 2 doz. Of pewter vessels, 1s 2d
  • Salt, 1d
  • Washing of the napery, 4d.

Total, £2. 15s. 3d)

Swan seems to have been a delicacy in those days, calculated to arouse the envy of gourmets.  The Brewers’ Records perpetuate the fact that in 1419 Mayor Whityngton of London expressed his dissatisfaction with the Brewers’ Company for having had fat swan at their feast on St. Martin’s Day.

It has been stated that the brewers’ gilds possessed the same prerogatives, rights and privileges as all the other livery-companies; doubtless, in a general way, this statement records with historical facts, but in one respect there existed between them a very essential difference.  While in the matter of prices those gilds which produced commodities the use of consumption of which is a matter of individual choice, taste and means, were at liberty to avail themselves of whatever advantage the conditions of the market afforded them, the brewers, like the bakers and other producers of necessaries of life, were obliged to sell their product at a price agreed upon between them and the town authorities, or fixed by the King.  Prof. Thorold Rogers, in his “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” gives the following lucid explanation of the cause of this seemingly unjust rule: “In the Middle Ages, to regulate the prices was thought to be the only safe course whenever what was sold was a necessary of life or a necessary agent of industry.  Hence our forefathers fixed the prices of provisions.  The law did not fix the price of wheat or barley.  It allowed this to be determined by scarcity or plenty; but it fixed the value of the labor which must be expended on wheat or barley in order to make bread and ale.  Not to do this would have been to the mind of the thirteenth century, and for many of century afterwards, to surrender the price of food to a combination of bakers and brewers or to allow a rapacious dealer to starve the public.”

In the earlier years of its existence, the Brewers’ Company had a determining vote in fixing the price of ale, which was usually “assessed at law-day,” and there probably was no cause for complaint on their part; but a very disastrous change took place with Henry VIII – inveterate enemy and persecutor of the mechanics’ gilds, and in this respect the very antipode of Edward III – not only prescribed the quality of the beer, but also arbitrarily fixed the price of it, in utter disregard of the high price of barley, caused both by a scarcity of the material and the depreciation of coin – the latter one of his nefarious schemes for raising revenue.  The brewers remonstrated in vain and came near being amerced for jeopardizing the public weal.  This unfavorable turn in their affairs occurred at about the time when hops, used a long time before on the continent of Europe, were just beginning to be used pretty generally by English brewers.  The introduction of this healthful bitter element and preservative had been retarded by a prohibitory edict issued by Henry VI and now Henry VIII fond of spiced ale, when Burgundy was not to be had, again forbade the use of hops.  Unnecessary and harmful intermeddling of this sort harassed the trade considerably.  The injustice of fixing the price of ale became manifest in 1591, when the company, in an able remonstrance, clearly proved the hardship to which they were subjected by being compelled to sell their product at a price fixed sixty years before, although every material employed in brewing had since then vastly increased in price.  Although Elizabeth generally evinced a strong disposition to remedy the injury done to the trades by her predecessors, her government turned a deaf ear to the brewers’ “prayer,” and the company was compelled to rescind their order advancing the price of ale.  In the reign of Elizabeth, however, two new charters were granted to the company conferring upon the masters, wardens and commonalty further powers to regulate the trade.  It is difficult to determine whether these additional powers served to offset the effects of the serious restraint just described; but there can be no doubt, judging from the enormous increase in the consumption of ale, that the injury sustained by the trade by reason of the hardship before-mentioned, was counterbalanced to some extent by the e growing popularity of the beverage.  So common was the use of ale in England during Elizabeth’s reign that it formed part of the rather substantial breakfast of that time.  A quart of beer at breakfast was the usual allowance for each man and woman.  English brewers had an excellent reputation in those days, and great quantities of their product found a ready market in foreign lands.  Queen Elizabeth herself engaged in this export commerce, securing the needful material by purveyance.

The company had a charter from James I and another from Charles I confirming in the main the rights and privileges exercised by it under previous charters.  The period between the granting of the latter charter and the decapitation of Charles I was productive of many measures affecting the trades in general and among them one which could not but be particularly injurious to brewing.  We refer to the introduction by the revolutionary Parliament (1643) of excise-duties upon beer and ale, the very kind of taxes which Charles I was prevented, in 1626, from introducing by the determined opposition of Parliament.  This tax-law, rendered more severe and oppressive in subsequent years, undoubtedly caused a change of drinking-habits among the English people.  As a war-measure the imposition of this tax, like that of all the other taxes upon the necessaries of life, such as bread, meat, salt, sugar &c, seemed justifiable enough and for a time, the promise of an abolition of the taxes after the war being held out, was borne by the people without any signs of discontent.  The whole scheme of what we at present style the “internal revenue” soon became very unpopular, however, and gave rise to riots and other public demonstrations of opposition.  The greater part of excises were then abolished but those upon beer, malt and hops remained, increased from year to year until malt-liquors, enormously enhanced in price, yielded to the cheaper spirits, causing in after-years what is known in England as the “gin epidemic.”  At first this beer-excise proved to be an exceedingly prolific source of revenue, yielding an income for England and Scotland of $1,632,280 in 1659.  But subsequent increases of the tax-rate soon diminished he production of beer by gild-brewers and naturally led to surreptitious brewing by outsiders.  An illustration, taken at random from among many, may serve as an example.  In the year 1690 the quantity of beer brewed by the licensed brewers of London amounted to 2,088,595 barrels.  In 1692 the tax, which in 1650 had been 2s 6d per barrel of strong beer, was doubled and, as a result, the production of strong and small ale decreased in the following years to 1,593,123 barrels.

A great number of persons not members of the company engaged in brewing as soon as the upward tendency of the excise-rates began an in order to elude the legitimate control exercised by the chartered company, they carried on their business beyond the limits of the company’s jurisdiction to within 8 miles of the city and suburbs of London, under their charter granted by James II, in 1685.  We quote from the official abstract before referred to the following synopsis to this last charter: –

After reciting the charter of 16 Henry VI, and 4 Elizabeth, 1563, and the surrender of their charter by the company it orders all brewers within 8 miles of the City or suburbs of London to be of the corporation.  Provides for the election of a master, three warden, and 22 or more assistants, limiting the number to 28.  Ordains the manner of holding the elections, orders the offices to be held for life, unless such persons as above stated be guilty of misbehaviour, or be obliged to retire from some unforeseen cause.  Provides a clerk.  Orders that the master, one warden, and nine assistants shall form a court.  Orders brewers to be admitted to the company.  Establishes search and quarterage payments according to the number of servants employed.  Gives the company power to make laws or set penalties.  Grants a license in mortmain to purchase lands up to the value of £60.  Orders every master, warden, assistant, and clerk to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and to subscribe the declaration.  Orders each person elected to be a communicant.  Orders the clerk to be approved by the King’s sign-manual before election.  Sanctions the removal of any master, warden, assistant or clerk by an order in council.  Offers the corporation to be obedient to the lord mayor.  Confirms previous privileges.  Gives freemen the power to distil !!

The right of freemen of the Brewers’ Company to distil ardent spirits had already been conferred in the charter granted by Charles II.  To the student of the liquor-question this fact throws a flood of light upon the sad conditions and circumstances which in the subsequent century tended to put in in the place formerly held by malt-liquors.

In 1739 the company adopted new by-laws, which are virtually in force to-day.  Toward the middle of the eighteenth century, however, the brewers’ company, like all other craft-gilds, entered upon the ear of a gradual decadence.  Yet, some of these gilds, particularly in Germany, survived, in a fashion, for more than a century and a half, until in our age of inventions they succumbed to the new system.  It is needless to describe their downward course; every student of economic history knows how these institutions, after serving a most excellent purpose in the earlier periods of their existence, gradually degenerated into tyrannical and selfish monopolies, at war with each other, opposed to every progressive tendency of more enlightened ages, stubbornly clinging to, and brutally asserting, antiquated rights, prerogatives and privileges totally at variance with liberal views and aims as well as with the demands and requirements of more advanced and continually advancing political, social, economic and commercial conditions.

The London Brewers’ Company still exists, it is true; but, considered industrially, it is a mere shadow of its former self.  It still shares indirectly in the government of the city; freedom of the company must still be obtained by patrimony, servitude or redemption; the company still gives its state-dinners; its members of higher grade still wear liver; its liverymen, like those of all other gilds, with the lord-mayor and four aldermen still constitute the Court of Common Hall’ its many educational and charitable institutions secure to this day inestimable advantages to may person; all freemen by redemption must still “enter into a bond in $2,000 with the company against any expenses that may be incurred in the event of their being elected to the office of sheriff or lord mayor;” in short, the show and semblance of the thing still exists, but as a trade-organization, the Brewers’ Company amounts to nothing and might as well be dead, like all brewers’-gilds in other lands, whose places have been taken by journeymen’s organizations and modern brewers’ associations.