Florilegium urbanum - Commerce - Charges against the brewers of London

DISCUSSION

The modern English pub has had the reputation of being an almost ubiquitous outlet for drink. The above documents show that the brewing and retailing of ale were occupational activities equally widespread in medieval London. It was sold from taverns named much like modern pubs, from cellars where stored, from shops or informal alehouses located in private houses, down back-alleys, and by hucksters stationed in the streets; engaging in the trade were brewers, shop-owners, other citizens, non-citizens, foreigners, wives and servants. Ale was a commodity in much demand.

The city's brewing trade was – as with other trades – policed by the gild wardens, of which there were four for the east side and four for the west side of London, but offences had to be referred to the city authorities. The brewers believed, for no apparent good reason (there was some purported jealousy over the size of swans at a gild feast), that Richard Whittington held a particular dislike for their gild. Rather it seems to have been the case that Whittington was adamant in his efforts to combat what he saw as trade abuses in London. Abuses by brewers were commonplace, and their gild records show repeated instances of offers of goodwill gifts to the mayor or other city officials, to encourage leniency in enforcing the regulations against malpractices in brewing or in ale retail, in which brewers typically engaged (the French term brasserie reflecting the ancient combination of production and retail). Such gifts were customarily accepted; or, less frequently, declined with good grace.

Whittington was probably around the age of seventy in 1422, a grand old man of city politics who had entered the common council in 1384, been an alderman for almost thirty years, and served the first of three terms as mayor in 1397/98. His last mayoralty, in 1419/20, was marked by his attempt to regulate the brewers' trade, by bringing ale and beer prices under control and enforcing an earlier ordinance (1408) standardizing the containers in which they were sold. The maximum price per barrel he set was 42d., and it was to this that the brewers were obliged to offer a guarantee of compliance, despite their complaints that prices could not be kept low when they depended on the fluctuating cost of malt, and despite their unsuccessful attempt to curry Whittington's favour with an expensive gift of wine, as well as to bribe one of the sheriffs to support their petition to have the by-law amended to increase the maximum price. In protest against what they considered as Whittington's persecution of them, the brewers refused throughout his mayoralty to hold feasts or to provide for their annual livery (in which they were supposed to participate in official parades).

Whittington was probably in the minority in the dogmatic belief that prices could be kept below a certain level, reflecting a notion – traditional but becoming outdated – that it was the duty of those in power to protect the interests of the community above all; a community which suspected the brewers of profiteering. His seniority meant that the Corporation could not just ignore Whittington, and the rapid condemnation of the brewers, without them having much chance to defend themselves, suggests a desire to placate the venerable and influential Whittington. John Carpenter, despite his close connection to Whittington (evidenced by his role as the principal executor of Whittington's will), evidently had a different perspective. Perhaps he was influenced by 20s. paid him by the brewers in 1420 for unspecified advice and activities, or perhaps he just had a more realistic view of the situation or a better understanding of Whittington's ways. In the event, his assurances to the worried master brewers proved correct: after Whittington's death early in 1423, the matter was pursued no further and the Corporation for some years made no efforts to control prices.

By contrast with the strained relations with Whittington, the brewers described William Crowmer, mayor 1423-24, as "a man who performed his duties well on behalf of the entire community of the city, and all the city was well pleased with him, and also he was a good man who was well-disposed towards the brewers' craft and during his term caused the craft no harm, nor would he take any gifts or rewards from the craft during that time..." Crowmer did not refrain from punishing brewers who breached the assizes, as the list above shows, but the brewers' gild had no objection to this type of thing, particularly since it helped discourage practices contrary to their own interests and since the gild occasionally received a percentage of the fines and confiscations. It was the gild's own wardens and searchers who were policing these breaches.

Subject:	Charges against the brewers of London
Original source:	Archives of the Worshipful Company of Brewers, First Brewers Book, ff.69, 113-114
Transcription in:	R.W. Chambers and Marjorie Daunt, eds., A Book of London English 1384-1425, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931, 140-42, 182-85.
Original language:	Middle English
Location:	London
Date:	1420s

Keywords: London commerce ale malt prices brewers craft guilds market offences profiteering quality control measures Whittington

[1. Complaint made by Richard Whittington]

[2. Breaches of trade regulations 1423-24]