persons (William Grantham, William de Hanapested, Thomas Freland, and John de Bromford), who are stated "to have been chosen by all the company to superintend the accounts and delivery of the wardens." In 1349, the number of these auditors appears to have been reduced to two; the retiring wardens' accounts of that year being stated to be rendered to John de Gonwardby and Robert de Hatfelde, as "auditors of the accounts."

Mr.

Something like a court, it is probable, soon followed the appointment of the first-mentioned six assistants or counsellors; for, in after-entries of the reign of Edward III. their successors are denominated "the feliship associed." Heath has also engraved a curious antique memorial, yet remaining with the company, evidently an appurtenance of these early courts; and which seems to have been a substitute for the bell and hammer of modern courts or committees. It is a little carved figure of St. Anthony, holding a small bell, which the master or chairman struck, when he wished to gain the attention of the meetings. A particular account of this interesting relic will be given hereafter.

66

The brewers' books, in 1420, mention in decided terms the establishment in that company of what may be considered a court of assistants, though not so named, and specify its duties. The entry which records the occurrence states a resolution made by Thomas Greene, master, and the three wardens, and others,' that they and their successors should meet a 'brewereshalle,' there to hold their communication, on what necessities of the same craft were to be enquired of, sought into, and executed by them, as they should see most expedient for its honor and prosperity." Their meetings were to be held every Monday, except when changed to other days on account of festivals. This company's affairs had evidently been conducted previously by general assemblies of the companies, with the masters; for the year before (1419) the clerk is said to have been elected by the master and wardens, "with the counsell and unanimous consent of the brewers' craft."

The books of the merchant tailors, in noticing this sort of court, make the first mention we have met with of Assistants, by name, in 1512; when "the common clerk of

the company," (Henry Maynard,) is said, in an entry amongst their minutes, to have "transacted certain affairs of the company, at the commandment and request of the master and wardens, with the advice of the more part of the most substanciall and discreet persons, assistants and counsellors of the said fraternity." In the reign of Elizabeth, mention is made in the same company's records of "promiscuous courts of assistants," and "ordering courts of masters and wardens," together in succession. The merchant tailors also constituted what they called "wardens substitutes," which were a sort of court of sixteen persons, "to aid and assist in such matters as the court of assistants should direct.” Dr. Wilson's list, in his History of Merchant-tailors' School, of the latter courts, when Sir William White, (the Oxford founder,) and other eminent men, were on them, shews their members to have been numerous at this time.

Subjection to City Control.-The subjection of the companies to the mayor has been shewn by their charters, and by the oath "of the wardens of crafts," already copied. It had, however, been acknowledged before the existence of either of those authorities, by the appeal of the weavers and burillers to Elias Russel, in the reign of Edward I. It was also admitted, by the weavers being exempted from such control by the grant of Henry II.,; and by King John's revoking that grant, on being promised an additional ferme by the city. Common sense would indeed prove that a sort of visiting jurisdiction over the trade societies of the metropolis must, from their foundation, have existed, as a matter of necessity, in the civic authorities. * We shall only stop at present to give a few specimens of the

The brewers acknowledge this subjection in a very humble petition, dated 1435, in which they address the chief city magistrate as their "right worshipfull and gracious lord and sovereign, the maior of London." In after ages the mayor, (virtute officii,) is styled "master of all the companies," (City Records, Rep. 29, fo. 182.) In a contest respecting the rights of a minor company in the reign of Elizabeth, they similarly speak of him, as "the warden of all the companies." The return to a habeas corpus in 1646 sets out the precise jurisdiction of the court of aldermen over the companies. (Jor. City Records, Adams, No. 40, fo. 375.) Ever since alderman Plumber's case, in 1775, who was master of the Goldsmiths' Company, and refused to attend a common hall, on the precept of the mayor (Beckford), to present to the crown a petition for redress of grievances, (and which refusal was sanctioned by the Court of King's Bench,) several companies have uniformly declined to attend common halls, unless for election purposes.-Vide Commentaries on London.

City's exercise of this power, and chiefly with a view to amusement. It will be seen from them, that the mayor could fine and imprison the wardens of companies at his pleasure; and that it was common to make presents, or, what modern times would call, give bribes, in order to obtain favour during his year of mayoralty. The instances we shall quote are from the records just referred to of the brewers'. They are curious for giving the character of each mayor, accordingly as he proved favourable or unfavourable to the craft.

The first entry we meet with is in 1422, and respects an information against the company for selling dear ale. The complainant in this case was no less a personage than the renowned Sir Richard Whittington. The substance of it, translated from the original, in Norman French, follows:

"On Thursday, July 30, 1422, Robert Chichele, the mayor, sent for the masters and twelve of the most worthy of our company to appear at the Guildhall; to whom John Fray, the recorder, objected a breach of government, for which 201 should be forfeited for selling dear ale. After much dispute about the price and quality of malt, wherein Whityngtone,' the late mayor, declared that the brewers had ridden into the country and forestalled the malt, to raise its price,' they were convicted in the penalty of 201.; which objecting to, the masters were ordered to be kept in prison in the chamberlain's custody, until they should pay it, or find security for the payment thereof."

Whittington having obtained his conviction, and the mayor and court of aldermen "gone homeward to their meat," the masters (who, the record proceeds to state, remained in custody,) "asked the chamberlain and clerk what they should do? who bade them go home, and promised that no harm should come to them; for all this proceeding had been done but to please Richard Whityngtone, for he was the cause of all the foresaid judgement."

The same year furnishes an example of the city's control in what may be termed the impressment of the companies into the public service. It states that in

"1422, Parliament having enacted that all the weirs or 'rydells,' in the Thames between Staines and Gravesend, and Queensborough, should be destroyed, the mayor and common

council ordained that two men from each of the twenty-six crafts should go out with the mayor for this business. With the brewers were joined six other crafts, viz. the girdlers, fletchers, salters, barbers, dyers, and tallow-chandlers, who were all to go in one barge. The fletchers excusing themselves as being too busy on account of preparing 'artillery' for the king, (who was then in France,) were permitted to find substitutes, and make payment.

"Thomas Grene and Robert Swannefeld were chosen on this occasion to go up to Kingston on the part of the brewers, who spent 13s. 4d; and Robert Carpenter and John Mason to go to Gravesend, who spent 20s.; each having a reward of 6s. 8d. They moreover paid to the chamberlain 56s. for three workmen for twenty-eight days, and by order of the mayor levied the amount on the craft for this purpose; but which (it is added) was with difficulty collected."

The system of bribery is entertainingly illustrated by the following entries:

1422-3. "A note (in Latin) that William Walderne (mayor that year) behaved well to the company, until two or three weeks before his retirement from office;" when, beginning to annoy them, they "assuaged his displeasure" by presenting to him "a boar, price 20s.; and an or, price 17s."

Whittington himself is stated to have received a douceur through his servant, in an item of expenditure in the warden's accounts afterwards; which debits the company 77. 3s. 4d. "for ij pipes of red wyne to Richard Whetyngton's butler." In a succeeding mayoralty another sum of 137. 6s. 8d. is charged "for gyfts to the lord maior." Other entries record the receiving of presents of different kinds, both by the chief magistrate and his officers; or speak of such gifts as customary compliments to obtain favour. Thus we find in

1423, an entry of "money given to divers serjeants of the maior, for to be good friends to our craft," or, as it is afterwards worded, "for their labour to the profit of the craft." Mention is also made of 167. " given to a tasker of the kings, to suffer our carpenters still in our work;" (who were artisans employed at this time in the repairs of the company's hall, and were liable to be impressed for the king's works.)

1424. "A record in praise of John Michelle."—He was mayor

this year; and, though a receiver of presents, like his predecessors, is eulogised, because "he was a good man, and meek and soft to speak with. When he was sworn into office, the brewers gave to him an or that cost 21s. 2d. and a boar, price 30s. 1d.; so that he did no harm to the brewers, and advised them to make good ale, that he might not have any complaint against them."

The preceding year, 1423, affords an example of a mayor who would not take a bribe. The entry is in these words:

"William Crowmere, mayor this year, was a good man, and well pleased all the citizens, especially the brewers; when the masters offered gifts to him he thanked them, but would not receive any."

A long notice in Latin describes the character and behaviour to the company of Robert Chichely, mayor in 1423, who, it is said, "always treated the brewers well, and early exhorted them to due diligence in their craft, and to prevent transgressors." It concludes with mentioning a regulation made by him as to the beer trade of the time, not exactly applying to our present subject, but curious. It was

"That retailers of ale should sell the same in their houses in pots of 'peutre,' sealed and open; and that whoever carried ale to the buyer should hold the pot in one hand and a cup in the other; and that all who had pots unsealed should be fined."

Liveries.-Liveries are not mentioned to have been worn by any of the companies before the reign of Edward I., as observed in the case of the sadlers,* and then they emanated from themselves. Stow had not read "of any licences procured by them to wear liveries but at their governor's discretion to appoint, and as discretion asked, sometimes in triumphant manner, sometimes in more mourning wise; and such liveries," he adds, "they took upon them as well before as since they were by licence associated into such brotherhoods." He instances, of the former kind, a procession of the citizens in 1329, on Edward the First's marriage, at Canterbury, with his second queen, Margaret, when the fraternities rode, to the number of six hundred," in one livery of red and white, with the connu

Strype's Stow, 1754, 11, p. 246.