Skip to main content

Full text of "The history of the Worshipful Company of the Drapers of London, preceded by an introduction on London and her Gilds up to the close of the XVth century"

See other formats




The Right Hon. Sir William Grey Ellison Macartney, K.C.M.G. 


Robert Stansfeld Barrow. Lionel George Trower. 

Major John Alan le Norreys Daniell. William Archer Thomson. 


Rev. Henry Boyd, D.D. Arthur George Ashby. 

Charles Hales. Edmund de Quincey Quincey. 

Ernest Gardner, M.P. Sir John Aird, Bart. 

Henry Trood Mason, J.P. John Dalton. 

Arthur Warren Williams. Herbert Bowring Lawford. 

Walter Silvester Gardner. Percival Boyd. 

Arthur Stewart Daniell. Col. Eustace Edward Melville 
Col. Starling Meux Benson, LL.D. Lawford. 

Lieut.-Col. John Lewis Rutley, V.D. The Right Hon. Frederick Lever- 
Gerald Walton Williams. ton Harris. 

George Gardner. Sir Alfred Pearce Gould, K.C. V.O., 
Sydney Shorter. C.B.E. 

Rev. John Neale Dalton, K.C.V.O., 
C.M.G., LL.D. 

Ernest Henry Pooley. 

. r\ 

Initial from Charter No. i 

HE History of The 
W)rshipful Company 
of the Drapers of 

London : preceded by 
an Introduction on London 
and her Gilds up to the close of the XVth 
Century. By the Rev. A. H. JOHNSON, 
Fellow and Chaplain of All Souls College 

Vol. Ill 
From the Accession of James I 


At the Clarendon Press 

Oxford University Press 

London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen 
New Tork Toronto Melbourne Cape Town 

Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai 
Humphrey Milford, Publisher to the UNIVERSITY 



OWING to the outbreak of the War in 1914 and its 
aftermath the publication of the concluding Volumes of 
the History of the Worshipful Company of the Drapers 
has been unavoidably delayed. I have dealt in consider- 
able detail with its fortunes up to the Revolution of 168 8. 
To have treated the more modern period with the same 
minuteness would have made an undue demand on the 
patience of my readers, especially as by the close of the 
seventeenth century the Company had completely assumed 
its modern form. From that date therefore I have confined 
myself to points of especial interest. 

Among many who have given me generous help I wish 
to give especial thanks to Mr. A. B. Beaven, the author of 
c The Aldermen of the City of London >, and Mr. Hopkins, 
Past Master of the Merchant Taylors Company. To the 
first I am indebted, not only for many corrections of errors 
in my first two Volumes, but also for invaluable informa- 
tion on minute points of municipal history ; to Mr. 
Hopkins, for having read the proofs with the greatest 
care, for many helpful suggestions and for most useful and 
illustrative references to the history of the Merchant 
Taylors Company. Professor Firth has kindly read the 
proofs of the part dealing with the Stuart Period, while 
the whole of the third Volume was carefully revised by 

vi Preface 

the late Sir Cornelius Dalton, Past Master of the Drapers' 

I have also to thank Mr. Elwin, a livery man of the 
Company, for allowing me to use a MS history of the 
Company written by Mr. Chapman, a late member of 
the Court, and Mr. Garraway Rice, F.S.A., for help in 
compiling the genealogy of the Garraways. 

Messrs. Freshfield and Williams have generously placed 
at my disposal important papers printed privately by them 
concerning the case of the Attorney-General v.The Irish 
Society and others, 1898. 

Miss Greenwood, the assistant to Mr. Pooley the clerk of 
the Company, has not only undertaken the arduous task 
of compiling the index, but has also been most assiduous 
in looking up references and giving me information on 
many points. 

The labours of Miss Watkins until she left Oxford, and 
then of Miss Hugo, have also been, in the tedious work of 
preparing many of the Appendices, beyond praise. 

Finally, I have to thank the members of the Court for 
the thoughtful and generous treatment they have 
accorded me. 



October , 1911. 



Preface . v 


The Relations of the Drapers' Company to Public Events 

during the Reign of James I I 


The Internal History of the Company during the Reign of 

James I, 1603-2, ;j- ....... 73* 


Relations of the Drapers to the Political Events of the 

Reign of Charles I . . . . ' . . u^ 


Internal History of the Company during the Reign of 

Charles 1 171 


The External Relations of the Drapers during the Common- 
wealth . . . . . . . . .2,11 


The Internal History of the Drapers' Company during the 

Commonwealth ....... 2,2,9 


External Relations of the Company during the Reigns of 

Charles II, James II and William III . . . 2,61 


Internal Affairs of the Company during the Reigns of 

Charles II, James II and William III . . .308 



External Relations of the Company from 1688 to 1815- . 345- 

The Drapers and their Irish Lands since 1688 . . 374 

Internal History of the Company since 1688 . . . 42,5- 


Pageant at the Entrance of Marie de Medici, the Mother of 
Henrietta Maria, into London, October 1638. From 
P. de la Serre, Histoire de 1'Entree de la Regne mere 
(Marie de Medici) dans La Grande Bretagne, London, 
1639 ....... -.between 6 &7 

The Gentleman of Ireland; The Gentlewoman of Ireland; 
The Wilde Irish Man; The Wilde Irish Woman. 
From the margin of Spede's Ireland, i6op, in the 
possession of the Irish Society .... facing 3 8 

The Map of Drapers' Hall and Adjacent Buildings before the 

Fire. From Faithorne, Map of London, 165-8 . 276 

Map of the Site of Drapers' Hall and Adjacent Buildings after 
the Fire. From Maitland, History of London, ed. 

Map of Drapers' Hall and Adjacent Buildings in 175-5-. 

From Maitland, History of London, ed. 175-6 . . 2.82, 

* Engines for spouting water.' From Nicholl, History of 

the Ironmongers . . . . . . .2.83 

Drapers' Town from the Churchyard. From a drawing by 

W. J. Booth, 1 82,7 facing 3 87 

Moneymore from the Road leading to Stewart's Town. 

From a drawing by W. J. Booth, 182,7 facing 3^3 

Crowns or Garlands of the Carpenters' Company . -436 



AMES the First ascended the The Corona- 
English throne at an unfortunate tion of 
moment. During the year 1603 fiS?* 
London was again visited by a serious i^oj) a * 
outbreak of the Pkgue. As many hurried one 
as 30^,708 are said to have died in owing to 
London and the liberties thereof the Pla g ue - 
within twelve months. 2 Many 
members of the Company fell vic- 
tims, and among them one Warden, 
Mr. Wilkinson their clerk, and their 
carpenter. 3 It was thought desirable 
to cleanse and perfume the Hall. 
The election dinner was given up, 
and ten pounds of the money, which 
should .have been spent on the feast, was distributed among the 
poor; 4 as well as ^41 i^.s. 8</. which was contributed by the 
House. 3 

In consequence of this visitation, the ceremonies at the first 
entry of the King into London and at his coronation were hurried 
and curtailed. The Lord Mayor, the aldermen, and twelve of the 
principal citizens alone attended at the coronation, the pageants 

1 This initial comes from the Charter of 4 James I framed at Drapers' Hall. 

2 Stow, Chronicle, Howe's continuation, ed. 1831, p. 857. 

3 Rep. + 13 i, p. i ab. With regard to the deaths among the Liverymen, see 
infra, p. 86. 

4 ) by the Wardens ; <} by the House. Rep. H, fo. 297 ab. 

5 Rep. H, fo. 297 b ; Rep. + 13 I, p. 2 b. 
1603-3 B 

^ Relations of the Drapers" Company to 

which had been prepared were abandoned, 1 and the king did not 

First Pro- make his progress through the City till the March of the following 

gress of year. This however was conducted * in pompous and magnificent 

J ames * state ' ; and, as was then the custom, the orations were written by 

Ch^March some ^ tne well-known playwrights and poets of the day. 

1604. Thomas Dekkcr prepared an elaborate libretto, although he reminds 

us that 'in regard that his Majestic should not be wearied with 

tedious Speeches a great part were left unspoken ', while Ben Jonson 

also wrote * his part of King James' royal and magnificent 

entertainment *. 2 

The Drapers took their accustomed share in the ceremony. In 
the assessment made on the London Companies to raise 400 for 
the pageants they stand fourth on the list. They also enlarged 
their standing in Cheapside, and the total expense incurred by 
them for the coronation and the pageants at the progress was 
over ^si- 3 

The other important public processions alluded to in the Drapers' 
Books were those prepared for the visit of the King of Denmark, 
the brother of the Queen, in 1606; for the Investiture of Henry 
Prince of Wales in 1610, and for the four Mayor's shows prepared 
for Sir Thomas Hayes, Sir John Jolles, Edward Barkham, and 
Martin Lumley : all of whom were Drapers. 

The references to the two first in the Drapers' books are confined 
to a statement of the charges to which the Company was put. 4 The 
comparative silence of the Drapers with regard to the reception of 

1 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 3. 

2 Nichols, Royal Progresses of James I, vol. i, pp. 377 fF. j for Dekker and 
Ben Jonson, Dictionary of National Biography. Cf. on pageants of the time, 
Fairholt, Lord Mayors' Pageants, in Percy Soc. Publications, vol. x j J. B. Nichols, 
London Pageants. 

3 Rep. H, fos. 7 b, 71 b, 195; b j Rep. + 13 I, pp. 6 a, 8 b ; Wardens' Accounts, 
1603-4, fo. 10 b; Renters' Accounts, 1603-4, fo. 13 b. The assessment followed 
the rates allotted for the provision of corn, and is of importance as indicating the 
precedence of the Company among the London Gilds (John Nichols, Progresses 
of James I, p. 400). In these royal pageants the gildsmen did not take part in 
the procession as they did in the Mayor's Show. They were arranged according 
to their Companies along the route in Cheapside, at first standing behind rails, 
and, after the reign of Elizabeth, seated, as will be seen from the print from La 
Serre given in Appendix IX A. 

4 For the pageants in 1606, 76. io/. j Rep. + 131, p. 40 b. For that of the 

Public Events in Reign of James I 3 

the King of Denmark may be explained by the continuance of the The Recep- 

* sickness V while in the case or the Investiture of Prince Henry it " onofthe 
may be that they were jealous of the favour accorded to the Cloth- DejimLk 
workers and the Merchant Taylors, who had succeeded, the one in ^otf, and 
enrolling King James himself, and the other the Prince, among their the Installa- 
honorary freemen. 2 Yet from other sources we learn that both " on ^ 
these ceremonies were on a magnificent scale. The playwright and J7 mce 

1 -n i ir T^. & i Henry.itfio. 

ballad writer, Anthony Munday, mmselr a Draper, prepared the 
pageants of ' London 's love to royal Prince Henry ', and two 
speeches to be delivered to the Prince at his Investiture, in the 
presentation of which the actors Richard Burbage and John Rice 
took part, Burbage himself assuming the role of Queen Corinea. 3 
It was, however, on the Lord Mayor's shows that the Companies 

Prince, 11 6s. 6d. 3 for hire of a barge and other charges, as well as an aid to the 
Prince : Rep. +131, p. 66 b; Renters' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 9 b. 

1 Cf. the most royal and honourable entertainment of the most famous King 
Christiern. Nichols, Progresses of James I, vol. ii, p. 54. 

2 There had been some friction between the Mayor, who was a Clothwotker, 
and the Merchant Taylors over the affair. Clode, Memorials of the Merchant 
Taylors, p. Iji ; Early History of the Merchant Taylors, Pt. I, p. 184. We 
have the precept of the Mayor to the Merchant Taylors and the Stationers given 
in Nichols, Progresses, i. 318. Cp. also Jupp, Carpenters, p. 74. But that to 
the Drapers is not in the Drapers' Books. 

3 For the pageant c London's Love ' cf. Nichols, Progresses of James I, vol. ii, 
p. 3 if. Rice and Burbage were paid 17. ios. 6d. for their robes, which they 
were allowed to keep. Munday received a fee 4. 6s. +d. and 47*. for expenses. 
Cf. Guildhall Rep. xxix, fo. 2-32 b; xxx, fo. z$$. These references I owe to 
Mr. C. W. Wallace. Cf. also Stow's Chronicle, continued by E. Howes, ed. 163 i, 
p. 900. For Burbage and Rice cf. Diet, of National Biography. 

Anthony Munday 's father was a Draper. He himself was apprenticed to 
a Stationer, but was translated to the Drapers. He was a most prolific though 
rather dull writer of pageants, romances, plays, and chronicles, and his rival 
Middleton sarcastically called him * the black Monday ' while Ben Jonson said 
that he wrote the City's Pageants c when a worse could not be had '. Cf. 
Diet, of National Biography. I have received from Mr. C. W. Wallace 
two or three notices of his works in the Guildhall Repertory, especially his 

* Chronicle', which was dedicated to the Court of Aldermen, and for which he 
received zo nobles, and his edition of Stow's Survey, for which he received f.6o. 
In return for his services to the City he was granted the privilege of nominating 
one person for the freedom of the City and is said to have earned as much 
as 600 a year from the fees he charged. The privilege was also given to his 
widow. Cf. Guildhall Rep. xxx, fo. 12,5 ; xxxiii, fo. 1390; xxxviii, fo. 3 i ; xli. fo. 
165 bj xlviii, fo. 14. He died August 1633 at the age of 80, and a monument 

4- Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

The Lord concentrated their energies, more especially because the ceremonies 
Mayor's connected with the old Midsummer Watch had been for some 
show - time discontinued. 1 

In these shows the Company which had the honour of providing 

the Mayor took the leading part and bore the chief expense ; 2 and 

since four Drapers held the office during the reign, we have much 

curious information on the subject. 

That the reader may the better understand the references, I give 

a contemporary account of the Ceremony, written in the later 

years of Queen Elizabeth. 

' The day of St. Simon and St. Jude the Mayor enters into his state 
and office. The next day he goes by water to Westminster in most 
triumphant-Iike manner, his barge being garnished with the arms of the 
City j and near it a ship-boat of the Queen's Majesty, being trimmed up 

was put up to him in St. Stephen's, Coleman Street. This was destroyed in the 
great fire of 1666, but the inscription, which is to be found in the sixth edition of 
Strype's Stow, vol. i, p. 576, runs thus : 

He that hath many an ancient Tomb-stone read, 

Ith' Labour seeming more among the Dead 

To live, then with the living, that survaid 

Abstruse Antiquities, and ore them laid 

Such vive and beauteous Colours with his Pen, 

Thar, Spite of Time, the old are new agen, 

Under this Marble lies interr'd ; his Tomb 

Claiming, as worthily it may, this Room 

Among those many Monuments, his Quill 

Has so revived, helping now to fill 

A Place with those in his Survey, in which 

He has a Monument more fair, more rich, 

Than polisht Stones could make him, where he lyes 

Though dead, still living, and in that ne'er dies. 

1 The Midsummer or Marching Watch was an annual muster of the 
Companies for the of forming a guard for the ensuing year. It had been 
temporarily omitted between 1^40 and 1548. It was then revived, but on 
.1 more economical scale, and lasted on under the name of the c Standing Watch ' 
till the force was superseded by the City Trained Bands in 1614. Grose, 
Military Antiquities, vol. i, p. '195 ; Raikes, Hon. Royal Artillery Company, vol. i, 
p. 103. The last notice I have found of the Midsummer Watch is in 1571. 

2 When the Mayor was not a Draper the expenses were comparatively small, 
viz.: i 6s. allowance to the four Wardens for their dinner with the 
Mayor (-f-8</. loss on exchange), and something over 7 for hiring a barge, for 
whifflers, torch-bearers, and trumpeters, and their refreshments. Cf. Renters' 
Accounts, j<5ii-j, fos. 10, 1.3. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 5- 

and rigged like a ship of war, with divers pieces of ordnance, standards, 
pennons and targets of the proper arms of the said Mayor, of his Com- 
pany, and of the Merchants Adventurers, or of the Staple, or of the 
Company of the New Trades. Next before him goeth the barge of the 
Livery of his own Company,, decked with their own proper arms; then 
the Bachelors' barge ; and so all the Companies in order, every one 
having their own proper barge, with the arms of their Company. And 
so passing along the Thames, he landeth at Westminster, where he 
taketh his oath in the Exchequer before the Judge there : which done, he 
returneth by water as aforesaid, and landeth at Paul's Wharf, where he 
and the rest of the Aldermen take their horses, and in great pomp 
pass through Cheapside. 

' And first of all cometh the two great standards, one having the arms 
of the City, and the other the arms of the Lord Mayor's Company ; next 
them two drums and a flute ; then an ensign of the City and then 
about seventy or eighty poor men, marching two and two, in blue gowns, 
with red sleeves and caps, every one bearing a pike and a target, whereon 
is painted the arms of all those that have been Mayors of the same 
Company that this new Mayor is of. Then two banners, one of the 
King's arms, and one of the Mayor's own arms. Then a set of hautboys 
playing, and after them certain wyfflers, 1 in velvet coats and chains of 
gold, with white staves in their hands ; then the Pageant of Triumph 
richly decked, whereupon, by certain figures and writings, some matter 
touching Justice and the office of a Magistrate is represented. Then 
sixteen trumpeters, eight and eight, having banners of the Mayor's 
Company. Then certain wyfflers in velvet coats and chains, with white 
staves as before. Then the Bachelors, two and two, in long gowns, with 
crimson hoods on their shoulders of satin ; which bachelors are chosen 
every year of the same Company that the Mayor is of (but not of the 
Livery), and serve as gentlemen on that and other festival days, to wait 
on the Mayor, being in number according to the quantity of the Com- 
pany, sometimes sixty or one hundred. After them twelve Trumpeters 
more, with banners of the Mayor's Company ; then the drum and flute 
of the City, and an ensign of the Mayor's Company ; and after, the 
waits ot the City in blue gowns, red sleeves and caps, every one having 
a silver collar about his neck. Then they of the Livery in their long 
gowns, every one having his hood on his left shoulder, half black and 
half red, the number of them according to the greatness of the Company 
whereof they are. After them follow Sheriffs' officers, and then the 
Mayor's officers, with other officers of the City, as the Common Serjeant 
and the Chamberlain; next before the Mayor goeth the Sword-bearer, 

1 Whifflcrs originally played on pipes, but at this date the pipes had been 
dispensed with. 

6 Relations of the Drapers Company to 

having on his head the cap of honour, and the sword of the City in his 
right hand, in a rich scabbard set with pearl, and on his left hand goeth 
the Common Crier of the City, with his great mace on his shoulder all 
gilt. The Mayor hath on a long gown of scarlet, and on his left shoulder 
a hood of black velvet, and a rich collar of gold of SS about his neck, 1 
and with him rideth the old Mayor also, in his scarlet gown, hood of 
velvet, and a chain of gold about his neck. Then all the Aldermen, two 
and two (among whom is the Recorder), all in scarlet gowns ; those that 
have been Mayors have chains of gold, the others have black velvet 
tippets. The two Sheriffs come last of all, in their black and scarlet gowns 
and chains of gold. In this order they pass along through the City to 
the Guildhall, where they dine that day, to the number of 1,000 persons, 
all at the charge of the Mayor and the two Sheriffs. This feast costeth 
4.00, whereof the Mayor payeth 100, and each of the Sheriffs *co. 
Immediately after dinner, they go to St. Paul's church, every one of the 
aforesaid poor men bearing staff, torches, and targets, which torches 
are lighted when it is late before they come from evening prayer. 2 

The Mayor- For the show of Sir Thomas Hayes in 1614 the Company 
airy of Sir ma de special arrangements, while in that year another * brother', 
Martin Lumley, held the office of Sheriff. 3 Besides providing the 

1 The SS collar dates from the reign of Henry IV. It takes several forms, the 
SS being sometimes linked together chainwise, sometimes used as ornamental 
bosses of a garter-shaped strap collar. Its origin is doubtful. According to 
Camden the Tetters are a repetition of the initial of Sanctus Sinio Simplicius, an 
eminent Roman lawyer; others believe them to be a repetition of the initial 
'Souveraine ', the favourite motto of Henry IV when he was Earl of Derby. Others 
connect them with the word c Souviegne ', or forget-me-not, which was Henry IV's 
flower, in goldsmith's work. They were certainly used as a badge of the House 
of Lancaster. Others again suggest that they represent the words Spiritus 
Sanctus '. The badge was used in the ceremony conferring knighthood, and is 
still worn by the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Mayor, and others. Specimens of 
it are to be found on the effigy of Henry IV's wife at Canterbury. Cf. Camden, 
Remains, ed. 1619, p. 194; Meyrick, Ancient Armour, vol. ii, p. 103 j Skelton, 
Oxfordshire, ed. 1813, p. 16 ; Parker, Glossary of Heraldry, ed. 1847, p. 271 ; 
Wylie, History of reign of Henry IV, ed. 1 898, vol. iv, p. 117; Gough, Sepulchral 
Monuments in Great Britain (Nichols, Lond. 1796), vol. ii, p. 34. 

2 From A briefe description of the Royal Citie of London, by Wm. Smith, 
citizen and haberdasher. Cf. J. B. Nichols, London Pageants, p. 9?. Cf. also 
p. 94, 'Order observed by Lord Mayor', printed by John Day, i J68. See also 
Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. i, pp. i99ff. 

3 The following Drapers were sheriffs and Mayors during the reign of James I : 

Sheriff Thomas Hayes 1604-5. Mayor in 1614-1 j 
John Jolles 160^-6 1615-16 

Ed. Rotherham 1611-13 

Illill Ellllll 

nn "ffniirin ;nnnpmH 

"Hi^iV mill 

w 'IB- wj^|252 


yo ggwlgWffli 


/. \ THEE /;" y.u.i.r. 

v .s / ,. i !//,/. / ; /^ /; /, < ' .v / ' i< /; 


From P. de la Serre. Histoire de 1'Entree de la Reyne mere (Marie de 
Medici) dans La Grande Bretagne. London, 1639. 

'Public Events in Reign of James I 7 

gratuities of 66 8s. ^d. to the Mayor and $ 3 6s. %ct. to the Sheriff' 
and lending plate to them, as was the custom when they were 
members of the Company, a new barge was ordered, while the War- 
dens were empowered to admit twenty-one freemen to the Livery 
over and above the Master Bachelors of the year and of the previous 
year. These were to pay 20 marks each ' so that the service of 
the Lord Mayor might be the better borne '. Eighty Bachelors 
were ordered to attend the procession, forty dressed in foynes who 
were to contribute ? towards the general charge, and forty 
dressed in budge 2 who were to pay 3 ; while those excused from 
attending in foyne were to pay ,12,, and those excused from 
attending in budge 6. 

This appears to be a new expedient for raising money to meet 
the expenses of the Mayor's show, when he belonged to the 
Company. It is at least the first notice of the practice which I 
have come across. One hundred gowns were also prepared for 
the poor of the Company, who were to carry javelins and torches, 
and coats for those who bore banners. Committees of important 
members of the Company were appointed to go by barge to 
Westminster, dressed in gowns faced with foynes, to welcome guests 
at the Mayor's banquet, and then to dine there with certain of the 
Livery dressed in budge, while the rest of the Livery were to 
dine at Drapers' Hall. 3 

The pageant, which was called ' Himatia-Poleos, the triumphs 
of old Drapery or the rich Cloathing of England ', was written by 
Anthony Munday. 4 

Sheriff Henry Jaye 1613-14 

Martin Lumley 1614-15. Mayor in 1613-4 
Allan Cotton 1616-17 i6zj-6 

Besides these, three declined to serve in i6r3 : Brian Janson, Henry Butler, 
Will. Garraway j cf. Appendix XLII B. When a Warden was elected to or refused 
the office of Sheriff he ceased to be Warden, but kept his place on the Court. 
Cf. + 13 r, p. 1563. 

1 Wardens' Accounts, 1614-15, fo. 46. The present to the Mayor had been 
increased since 1578, when it was 5 o marks or 40. Cf. vol. ii of this work, 

P- IJ7- 

2 c Foyne ' was the skin of the tree or beech martin. c Budge * is lambskin 
dressed outwards, something like astrakhan. 

3 Cf. Rep. + 131, pp. loz b, 103 a, 104 b, 105 a b. 

4 Cf. J. B. Nichols, London Pageants (Bodleian Libr. Gough Adds, London, 

8 Relations of the Drapers' 1 Company to 

Sir John As most of the charges of the Mayor's installation and show 


w h en h e was a Draper were borne by the Bachelors, and their 
accounts anterior to 1615-16 have not survived, we do not know 
what the total expense amounted to, 1 but in the following year the 
show in honour of Sir John Jolles cost no less than 688 'is. -$d. 
in addition to the present of 66 8s. ^d. for ' his house painting '. 2 

To meet this heavy charge, resort was had to the method already 
mentioned. Ten sufficient men were received into the Livery 
from the Bachelors, who paid a fee of 4.0 marks apiece, while those 
who declined were fined. To this was added the fees of the 
Bachelors in fbynes and budge and the quarterage money, both of 
the yeomen 3 and of those who had paid their quarterage to the 
Wardens on their entry in the current year. 

P'or the show itself Munday again dilated on the Triumphs of 
Old Drapery in his * Metropolis Coronata '. Two pageants were 
exhibited which are thus described by Fairholt. 4 

The first represented Jason and his companions accompanied 
by Medea ' in a goodly argoe rowed by divers comely eunuchs, 
and shaped as neere as art could yeeld it to that of such auncient 
and honorable fame as convaied Jason and his valiant argonautes 
of Greece to fetch away the gold fleece from Colchos '. 

The second displayed Neptune and Thamesis in the sea chariot 

* shaped like a whale, or the huge leviathan of the Sea ' ; in which 
also appeared Henry Fitzalwyn, the first Lord Mayor, attended 
by eight * royall vertues ', each one bearing the arms of some 

Octavo 179), p. ioi; Hazlitt, Livery Companies, p. zij. c Old Drapery ' is 
cloth which has been fulled, while * New Drapery ' generally meant manufactured 
worsted. See also Illustrations from the Pageant of The Goldsmiths Chrysanaleia, 

* The Golden Fishing', in 1616 (also written by Munday), by Nichols, 1844. 

1 The expenses connected with the taking of his oath by Sheriff Lumley in 
that year cost (besides the present of 33 6s. 8<f.) for trimming of his house, hire 
of a barge, and cakes and wine at the Hall, &c, 1 17 /. yd. Renters' Accounts, 
1613-14, fo. 14. 

2 Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1615-16, fos. 40, 41, 41 j Wardens of Bachelors' 
Accounts, + 178, fo. 3. 

3 Wardens of Bachelors' Accounts, -f 178, fo. i ; Rep. + 13 I, p. i i6a. 

4 Fairholt, Lord Mayors' Pageants, Percy Society, vol. x, p. 138. Cf. also 
J. B. Nichols, London Pageants, p. 101. This is the first of the Drapers' 
Pageants of which a copy still survives. Cf. Bodleian Library, Gough Adds. 
London iiz-6 j unfortunately it has no illustrations. 

"Public Events in Reign of James I 9 

celebrated member of the Drapers' Company. ' No sooner is my 
Lord and his brethren seated in their barge ' than he is addressed 
by Fitzalwyn in a long jingling speech. After his return from 
Westminster, ' the Lord Mayor is edified by the first show. A 
faire and beautifull shippe stiled by the Lord Mayor's name, and 
called Joell ', filled with sailors, and attended by Neptune and the 
Thames, and followed by 'a goodly ram me or golden fleece, the 
honoured creast to Drapers and Staplers, having on each side 
a housewifely virgin sitting, seriously imployed in carding and 
spinning wool for cloth, the very best commoditie that ever this 
Kingdom yeelded'. The Argoe succeeded this pageant, and 
* instead of Neptune's whale, commeth another sea-device tearmed 
the Chariot or Man's life, displaying the "World as a globe, sup 
ported by the four elements and running on seven wheels, 
emblematic of the seven ages of Man's life. It is drawn by two 
lions, and two sea-horses, and is guided by Time, as a coachman to 
the life of man.' 

The principal pageant displayed London and her twelve 
daughters (the twelve Livery Companies) placed around. * Onely 
Drapery is neerest to her as being the first and chiefest honoured 
Society before all others.' 1 'Foure godly mounts, Learned 
Religion, Militarie Discipline, Navigation and Homebred Hus- 
bandrie, are grouped round her as bulwarks to protect her.' 

After all these shows appeared * a device of huntsmen all clad 
in greene, with their bowes, arrowes and bugles, and a new slaine 
deere carried among them. It savoureth of Eaiie Robert de la 
Hude, sometime Earle of Huntingdon, and sonne-in-lawe (by 
marriage) to olde Fitzalwyn.' He is attended by ' Robin Hood, 
Little John, Scathlocke, Much the Miller's sonne, Right hitting 
Brand, Fryar Tuck ' and many more. Robin Hood and Friar 
Tuck repeated a short dialogue, and the pageant ended with a 
huntsman's song. 

Considering how expensive had been the honour of placing two Translation 
Drapers in the Lord Mayor's chair in two successive years, it is of Alderman 
not surprising to find that the Company demurred to the transla- ^ at t j^ am 
tion of Alderman Barkham from the Leathersellers, because Drapers' 
he was shortly to be elected to the office. When the Court of Company. 

1 That is, because the Mayor was of their Company. 
1603-3 c 

TO Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

Aldermen ' and the Privy Council insisted that the request of Alder- 
man JBarkham should be complied with, the Company moved the 
Court of Aldermen to free it from the charges of the Lord Mayor's 
Day, * so that the City be not disgraced nor they occasioned to com- 
plain elsewhere, as they without precedent have been complained 
of After a lengthy controversy the Drapers gave way, 2 and when, 
shortly afterwards, Barkham became Lord Mayor, the Company 
were not niggardly in their expenditure. 

The Pageant The pageant termed 'The Sun in Aries' was written by 
of i<Jn. Thomas Middlcton, and, as we are told in the title-page, was per- 
formed at the sole charge of the Drapers' Company. Middleton 
himself also made and set out some of the pageants, with the 
assistance of Anthony Munday. 3 

The whole ceremony is thus described by Fairholt : 4 

The triumph of honour, in which the heroes of antiquity are en- 
shrined, is the first to greet the Mayor on his return from Westminster 
it is placed in St. Paul's Church Yard. Jason delivers a speech, con- 
taining allusions to his voyage for the Golden Fleece, moralised for the 

1 The Court of Aldermen actually went so far as c to order and decree ' that 
the Drapers' Company should receive Alderman Barkham into their Society. 
Cf. Guildhall Records, Rep. 3$, fos. in, no, 130, July 10-14, 1611. 

2 +131, pp. 161 b, 163 b, 16435 +301, Reverse, fo. 75. The reason for 
Barkham's desire to be translated was because it was now the custom that the 
Mayor should belong to one of the twelve Greater Livery Companies ; cf. Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. i, p. 330. Herbert, with his usual inaccuracy, calls him Barker: 
i. 437. He had been Master of the Leathersellers. Sir R. Walpole was 
descended from his daughter. 

, 3 Nichols, Progresses of James I, vol. iv, p. 174. Thomas Middleton was 
a dramatist of some repute : cf. Diet, of National Biography. He entered 
the Drapers' Company by redemption in 1616. Freedom List +179, fo. 131. 
Cf. Bachelor's Accounts, + 178, fo. 26 : 

f Item paid to Mr. Thomas Middleton, Garrett Christmas, and Anthony Munday 
by Agreement for makinge and settinge out of the Pageantes and showes, viz : 
The one in forme or likenes of a Mountaine ; one other of a fountaine, with 
a triple Crowne ; a third called the tower of vertue or ye brazen tower : and 
the fowrth a Chariott drawne with twoe pellited lyons ; and for all Chardges 
incident to those shewes . . . CXL li.' 

4 Fairholr, Lord Mayors' Pageants, Percy Soc., ed. 1844, vol. x, p. 48. I have 
added a few sentences from the original. Cf. Nichols, Progresses of James I, 
vol. iv, p. 714. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I n 

occasion. The Mayor is then conducted to "the Master Triumph called 
the Tower of Virtue, which, for strength, safety and perpetuity bears 
the name of the Brazen Tower, of which integrity keeps the keys, virtue 
being indeed as a brazen wall to a City or Commonwealth; and to 
illustrate the prosperity it brings to a Kingdom, the top turrets or 
pinnacles of this Brazen Tower, shine bright like Gold ; and upon the 
gilded battlements thereof stand six Knights, three in silvered and three 
in gilt armour, as Virtue's Standard bearers or champions, holding six 
little streamers or silver bannerets, on each of which are displayed the 
arms of a noble brother and benefactor, Fame sounding forth their 
praises to the world, for the encouragement of after ages, and Antiquity 
the register of Fame, containing in her golden legend their names and 
titles ", as that of Henry Fitzalwin, Draper L. Mayor foure and twenty 
yea res together; 1 Sir 2 John Norman the first that rowed in barge to 
Westminster with silver oares at his owne charges ; Sir Francis Drake, 3 
the sonne of Fame, who in two yeares and tenne monthes did cast 
a girdle aboute the world; the unparallel'd Simon Eyre, 4 who built 
Leadenhall at his own cost, a store house for the poore both in the upper 
lofts and lower ; the generouse and memorable Sir Richard Champion 5 
and Sir John Milborne, 6 two bountefull benefactors; Sir Richard Hardell, 7 
in the seat of Magistracy six yeares together; Sir John Pulteney four 
yeares, 8 which Sir John founded a College in the parish Church of 
St. Lawrence Poultney, by Candlewick Street ; John Hinde a re-edifier 
of the parish Church of St. Swithins, by London Stone. 9 Sir Richard 
[Pype 10 ] who, being free of the Leathersellers, was also from there 

1 On the question whether Fitzalwin (al : Fitzalwyn) was a Draper, cf. vol. i, 
p. 75. The Drapers have always held that he was, and in 1613-14 procured a 
patent to that effect: cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1613-14, fo. 25. Unfortunately 
this is not a conclusive proof. 

2 Mayor 1453-4. The title of c Sir* given to Fitzalwin, R. Hardell, John 
Norman, and Simon Eyre is incorrect. They were none of them Knights. Nor 
was it the custom to confer the title on the Mayor till later: cf. Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. i, p. 2,55. 

3 Given the freedom of the Company in 1589. 

4 Mayor 1445-6. 

5 Mayor 1565-6. 

6 Mayor i 510-1. 

7 Mayor 1154-7. It is doubtful whether he was a Draper, and his Christian 
name was probably Ralph. Cf. Stow, ed. Kingsford, vol. ii, p. 156. 

5 Mayor 1330-1, 1331-1, 1333-4, ^33 6 ~7- 
9 Mayor 1390-9, 1403-4. 

Master of the Leathersellers 1566-7, translated to the Drapers 
Master of the Drapers 1573-4, 1577-8, 1581-1, Mayor 1577-8. 

ix Relations of the 'Drapers* Company to 

translated to the ancient and honourable society of Drapers, and many, 
whose names for brevitie's cause 1 must omit. 5 

His lordship is now conducted toward the new standard, and, 
in allusion to the repair it and St. Paul's had recently undergone, 
* one in cloudy ruinous habit leaning upon the turret at a trumpet's 
sounding suddenly starts and wakes, and in amazement throws off 
his unseemly garments at the Mayor's approach, and addresses him 
in a complimentary speech '. * After this for the foil close of the 
forenoon's triumph, near St. Lawrence lane stands a mountain, 
artfully raised and replenished with fine woolly creatures ; Phoebus 
on the top shining in full glory being circled with the twelve 
celestial signs.' Aries, placed near the principal rays, addresses 
the Mayor, whose entrance on the duties of his office is typified 
by the Sun's entrance into this sign. ' A triple crowned fountain 
of Justice ' adorned with the figures of the graces and virtues that 
should belong to honourable magistrates, attend with the other 
Pageants near the entrance of his lordship's house at night, when 
Fame again addresses him. 

To meet the charges, which came to the sum of 61? ~]s. 6V., 
the method already adopted in 1614 and 161? was again 
followed. 1 

The excuse given by the Company for their unwillingness to 

admit Alderman Barkham as a member had been that they shortly 

Maitin expected to have another Mayor of their Company. This occurred 

Lumley's m I( ^-3 when Martin Lumley was elected. For this occasion 

Show, 1623. Middleton produced 4 The Triumphs of Integrity ', which is thus 

described by Mr. Fairholt. 2 The first show on the water was ' a 

proper and significant masterpiece of triumph called the Imperial 

1 Ref. + 131, p. i68a; Renters' Accounts, 1621-2, fb. 14; Bachelors' 
Accounts, + 178, fos. 22 IF. 

300 o o was paid by divers men raised to the Livery. 

1 3 68,, one for exemption from all charge and service, 

except quarterage. 

143 18 o 79 for dismissment '. 
7j o o Bachelors wearing foynes. 
3200,, those wearing budge. 
Total 564 4 8 
The balance was paid by the House. 

a Percy Soc. Publications, vol. x, p. 49. Mr. Fairholt has adopted as far as 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 13 

Canopy, being ancient arms of the Drapers Company '. The first 
on land was ' a Mount Royal upon which were placed six Kings 
and great commanders that were originally sprung from shepherds 
and humble beginnings ' : some with gilt laurels holding in their 
hands silver sheep-hooks, intended as a compliment to his lordship's 
Company, as also was the pageant, a chariot containing the most 
famous men of his lordship's Fraternity figured under the form of 
various virtues. This chariot was drawn by two pelleted lions, 
the proper supporters of the Company's Arms. 1 Upon them were 
seated Power and Honour. Next appeared ' an unparalleled master- 
piece of art called the Crystal Sanctuary, or Temple of Integrity '. 
In this temple, Integrity ' with all her glorious and sanctimonious 
concomitants sat, transparently seen through the crystal ', which 
was made to open in many parts ; the columns or pillars were of 
gold and the battlements of silver : the whole being adorned at 
night ' with many lights, dispersing their glorious radiances on all 
sides through the crystal '. The concluding pageant at night was 
the Canopy of State, or arms of the Drapers' Company, ' three 
Imperial Crowns cast into the form and bigness of a triumphal 
pageant with clouds and sunbeams, those beams by enginous art 
made often to mount and spread like a golden and glorious canopy 

possible the original language of the pageant. Hazlitt, in his Livery Companies, 

p. 113, says that Munday also wrote the 'Triumphs of the Golden Fleece*. 

Probably this was the c Argoe ' mentioned in the Drapers Bachelors' Accounts, 

+ 178, fos. 36,37. t d 

Paid Anthony Munday for an Argoe . . . . . 3500 

Item to Mr Mundaye's man for bringing the bookes . i o 

Item given to Mr. Munday 's * men to drinck, when the wardens 

went to veiwe the Argoe when it was making. . Jo 

Item paid to Mr. Monday for the hyer of a barne in Whitecrose 

Streete to make the Argoe in z i $ o 

Paid to and allowed to Davies the marshall in leiue of his scarfe i o o 

Item to Mr. Monday * and his partener for the like . . i o o 

* The different spelling of Munday 's name in the same document is character- 
istic of the custom of those days. 

1 Cf. Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fo. 36. Paid Mr. Thomas Middleton and 
Garrett Christmas ... for making and setting out of the pageants and Shewes j 
viz. the one in forme of a mountayne ; one other a Chariott drawne with twoe 
Pellited loyons ' j a third a Chrystall Temple, and the fourth a royall canopy of 
State ; and for all chardges incident to those Shewes CL li.' Garrett Christmas 
was a carver and statuary of reputation. Cf. Diet, of National Biography. 

The Gun- 
and the 
Cowrie Con- 

14. Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

over the deified persons who were placed under it, which were 
eight in number figuring the eight Beatitudes; to improve which 
conceit, Beati pactfici^ being the King's word or motto, was set in 
fair great letters near the uppermost of the three crowns. 

Of this pageant the charges came to over 6X9, and as we have 
a very elaborate account of the way in which the money was 
collected and spent, I give it in the Appendix. 1 Part of the money 
was raised as before, by calling Bachelors to the Livery. We how- 
ever hear for the first time of divers obstinate young men, who 
refused to pay their fines and be conformable to the charges for 
the Show. 8 

Of other events during the reign of James I, the Gunpowder 
^ ot * s on ^ mentioned because it was decided that it should be 
commemorated by a yearly dinner 3 at the charge of the House. 
The Court also determined to hold another dinner on every jth 
o f August in memory of the king's escape from the Cowrie con- 
spiracy in Scotland ; and since the dinner was like to fall near the 
day of the election feast, it was ordered that a new cistern should 
be made in the kitchen, since ' there is like to be a scarcity of 
water for dressing of the two dinners '. 4 A third dinner was to 
be given on March 24, the anniversary of his accession. 5 

Four other notices of the Drapers' attendance on royal and other 

1 Appendix IX B. They also contributed 66 8/. +d. toward the c trimming ' 
of the Lord Mayor's House, as was customary when the Mayor was a Draper. 

Renters' Accounts, 1613-4, fo. 14. 
Wardens 3 Accounts, 16x3-4, fos. 43, 44. 
Bachelors Accounts, +178, 1613-4, fos. 33-39. 
Rep. -f 131, p. i8ib. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, 1613-4, fo. 46. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 60 a. 

4 Rep. + 131, p. 383. 

5 Rep. +131, pp. 513, ?4 a - The cost of the dinners was not to exceed 
zo each. For the Cowrie conspiracy cf. A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. ii, 
pp. 449-64. These were 'Stewards' dinners. The dinners held at this time were : 




The Election Day 
Dinner, Aug. i 
Quarter- Day Din- 

Usually I 


By whom attended. 

By Livery and Free- 
By Livery and Free- 

How provided. 

At charge of the four 

At the charge of the 

two youngest War- 


Allowance of 
the House. 


Public Events in Reign of James I 15- 

progresses are referred to in the Precepts of the Mayor, 1 although 
not noticed in the Repertory. On all these occasions minute in- 
structions are given as to the number to be present and their dress. 
They were to be on horseback apparelled in velvet coats and gold 
chains, and to be attended by a footman ; while at the progress to 



By whom attended. 


*View Day Din- 

Usually 2. 

For Wardens and 


those appointed to 


Stewards Dinners 

4, Oct. 29, Ld. 

For the Livery only 

Mayors Day 

March 24, 


King's Acces- 


Aug. y, to 


ate King's es- 

cape from 

Cowrie Con- 


Nov. j, Gun- 


powder Plot 

*Court Dinners 

Varied, gen. 4 

For the Assistants 

*Scarch Dinners 


By the Wardens and 

after measuring 



Auditors' Dinners 

By Auditors 

*Dinners after 


By Wardens 

distribution of 


""Committee Din- 


By Members of 



Yeomanry Dinner 


By Yeomen 

on Election Day 

How provided. 

At charge of the War- 

At charge of the 

Allowance of 
the House. 

At charge of theHouse Varied, abt. {,6 
13/4 from the Bache- Two guineas 
lors' Box 

Varied, abt. 3 
At charge of the House Varied, io/. to 

At charge of the House 
By the Bachelors' Box, 

* All those dinners which are marked with an asterisk wete usually held at Taverns, not at 
the Hall, until 1818 and 1827; cf. Records, + 138^.636} + 139, p. 577. 

Cf. Wardens and Bachelors' Accounts for any year. The allowances for these 
dinners were altered at various dates j e.g. 1655, 1671, 1674, 1690, i^pj, 
cf. infra. 

1 September 1617 : Twenty-four to attend the King from his galley at 
Kingbridge near St. James to Westminster and back on the Lord Mayor's Day. 
Their names are given. Three Wardens, five Assistants, fifteen Livery, one doubtful. 
November i6ij : eight or ten to accompany the Russian ambassador to his 
residence. Their names are given. The four Wardens, two Assistants, four 
Livery. May 1619 : to attend the King from Gray's Inn Fields to Whitehall, on 
his first appearance in London since his dangerous sickness. March l6zo: to 
attend the King from Whitehall to St. Paul's to hear a sermon. Mayor's 
Precepts, + 3 / i, pp. 2 a b, 3 a, 5 a b, 7 b. 

1 6 Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

the sermon at St. Paul's the whole of the livery was to appear 
accompanied by ten wiflers. The standings and rails were to be 
covered with fair blue cloth, and standards and streamers were 
to be set up ' as shall best beseem the places '. In September 162,0 
the Master and Wardens were ordered to attend the Mayor and 
Aldermen to the conduit head to view the water supply of London 
* as in former years hath been accustomed '.' 

The New That the very important scheme of Hugh Middleton (Myddel- 

River Com- ton) and his ' New River Company ' for furnishing pure water 
to the c i t y f rom the river Lea finds no place in the Drapers' 
records reminds us at least that neither he nor his Company were 
originally financed by the Gilds or by the City, although at a kter 
date the City lent him a loan of 3,000.* 


The Planta- A marked characteristic of the Drapers' Society, as of the other 

tion of Livery Gilds of London, is to be found in the wide range of their 

' efjl ' activities. In the reign of Elizabeth they had participated in the 

numerous Companies founded for the purpose of exploration and 

of trade. In the reign of James I they took part in the two 

great schemes of colonization, which have left a deep impress on 

the history of England. These are the Plantation of Ulster and 

the settlement of Virginia. 

The opportunity for the Plantation of Ulster was found in the 
confiscation of the lands of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell 
for a supposed intention to rebel. 3 Since the days of Queen Eliza- 
beth it had been held that the most efficient cure for the Irish 
difficulty lay in the plantation of English settlers. The pkn had 

1 Mayor's Precept, +371, p. 7 b. 

2 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 18 ff. Quoting from the 
Journal and the Repertory of the City. 

3 For descriptions of the Ulster settlement see Hill, The Plantation in Ulster ; 
Leland, History of Ireland, ed. 1773, P- 43 > Beresford, Concise View of the 
Irish Society, 1841 ; Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, vol. i, c. 5 ; Calendar 
of State Papers, Ireland. Most of the important original documents are given in 
Hill. A still more complete collection is given in books privately printed by 
Messrs. Freshfield for the case of the Attorney General v. the Irish Society, 1898, 
where also documents dealing with the Companies of the Mercers and the 
Ironmongers are to be found. The volumes, which I have been kindly allowed 
to consult, have been most helpful. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 17 

been adopted in that reign with regard to the province of Munster. 
But the scheme, it was held, had failed because the lands had been 
granted in large isolated blocks dispersed about the country and 
intermixed with the Irish, and the proprietors, finding themselves 
surrounded by a large Irish population, had readmitted the Irish, 
and in many cases ceased to reside in Ireland. 1 

To avoid this it was now proposed to plant Ulster with a number 
of smaller proprietors, chiefly or English and Scotch blood. These 
colonists were to be settled in districts or ' proportions ' where they 
were to dwell apart from the Irish. The lower Irish were to be 
removed to districts assigned to ' Servitors ', that is, persons who 
had served in the Irish wars, or had been employed in civil service 
in Ireland. Such men, it was thought, would be best fitted to 
govern them. The principal Irish were to be pacified by com- 
petent grants of land in the neighbourhood of the Servitors, while 
the Swordsmen were to be removed, some to serve under the 
Swedish king, others under the great Lords in Munster. 2 In this way 
it was hoped that a strong settlement would be made, which might 
form a veritable garrison and act as a leaven to all around. Later 
experience has led some to the conclusion that, apart from the 
question of the justice of the confiscation, the whole idea of this 
fateful policy was fundamentally wrong, and that, if Ulster has 
often since served as an English garrison, it has also worked as 
a running sore to arrest the natural development of the Emerald 
Isle, and has been the cause of those religious and racial discords 
from which she has suffered ever since. 

The lands of the Earls comprised some 3,798,000 acres in the 
six counties of Armagh, Tyrone, Coleraine, Donegal, Fermanagh 
and Cavan. 3 At first it was proposed to offer all the land to in- 
dividual undertakers, and in October 1608 commissioners were 
appointed to draw up a plan for the Plantation and to formulate 
the conditions to be observed by those who applied. 

The settlers were to be of three kinds: undertakers from 

1 On the Munster settlement cf. Bagwell, Under the Tuclors, ed. 1890, 
vol. iii, p. 198. 

2 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1608, 10, Preface, p. Ixxvii. 

3 Hill, Plantation in Ulster, p. 445. Of this, some 511,46? acres only 
were capable of cultivation. 

1603-3 D 

Orders and 
of The 

i8 Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

England and Scotland, servitors who had served in Ireland either 
in military or civil office and native Irish. The undertakers 
were to be given lands of 1,000, 1,5*00, or 2,,ooo acres. They 
were to pay a quit-rent for their lands at the rate of 6s. 8</. for 
every sixty acres, but with a remission of rent for the first two 
years. They were to reside on their lands for at least five years. 
They were within two years to place a competent number of 
English and Scotch tenants on their portion, but not to aliene 
their lands to any one till the expiration of five years, nor ever 
to the * mere Irish.' The conditions for the servitors were much 
the same, but their estates and their quit-rents per acre were 
smaller, and they were allowed to sub-let, though not to aliene, to 
native Irish. Both undertakers and servitors were to take the 
oath of Supremacy and to have *a convenient store of Arms'. 
They were to have the privilege of importing victuals, materials 
for building and utensils free of customs for the first five years. 
The native Irish had to pay higher quit-rents; they were to use 
tillage and husbandry after the manner of the English Pale, and 
not to work their ploughs by attaching them to their horse's tail ! ' 
All were to enclose a ' bawn ' (court yard), and the larger settlers 
to build a stone house or castle according to the size of their 
estates. 2 At the same time provision was made for the Church of 
England, for free schools, and for the College in Dublin. 3 

Bacon did not approve of the facilities offered to the under- 
takers and servitors to take under-tenants. He believed that, in 

1 Other rude and barbarous customs of the Irish were howling and crying at 
Wakes, and blowing their milch cattle to make them give milk. Calendar of 
State Papers, Ireland, 1611-14, p. 193. 

2 Cf. Harris, Hibernica, DubUn, 1770, p. 113, Orders and Conditions for 
Plantation; and pp. 105, 113, The Project of Plantation. State Papers, 
Ireland, 1608-10, vol. ccxxvi. 13, p. 355, No. 587$ Patent Roll, Ch. Ir. 7 
Jac. I, pt. I. Cf. Hardy, Vol. of Certified Copies, p. 42. 

3 For the question of the * Termon ' and ' Erenagh ' Lands cf. Bagwell, 
Ireland under the Stuarts, vol. i, p. 69 : Hill, Plantation, p. 91, note. Besides 
the episcopal lands, which were about 69,000 acres, each incumbent had his 
tithes and his glebe lands, which varied in extent from 60 to 120 acres; 
amounting in the aggregate to some 285,000; ib., p. 217. The acreage 
reserved for the College of Dublin, which was popularly supposed to be only 
some 10,000 acres, was really more like 100,000. Hill, Plantation, p. 445, 
note. Over 20,000 acres was appropriated to Free Schools : ib., p. 216, note 5 3. 

Tublic Events in Reign ofjames I 19 

spite of the regulations, owners, finding it difficult to obtain 
English or Scotch tenants, would admit natives, as indeed they did, 
and that their loyalty could not be trusted. Sir Arthur Chichester, 
the Deputy, on the contrary wished to distribute among the native 
Irish as much land as they could cultivate, and to plant English 
and Scotch colonists on the remainder only. 1 Both were, from 
their own point of view, probably right. As owners, self-interest 
might have kept them loyal, but they were not satisfied with the 
position of mere under-tenants. Many got no land even as tenants, 
and yet were not removed, more especially the ' Swordsmen ', a and 
many of them joined the rebellion of 1641. 

Since, however, a sufficient number of applicants did not present Share of 
themselves, especially for the north part of Ulster 3 , it was sub- Lonjon in 

sequently decided to request the City to join in the project. a " 

A j i * T * i J j r . J . 

Accordingly, in May loop a circular was prepared containing 

* Motives and reasons to induce the City to undertake plantation 
in the Northe of Ireland '. 4 The country was declared to be well 
watered and wooded, suitable for breeding cattle, and for the 
cultivation of hemp, flax and madder. Iron was to be found in 
the hills, and pearls in the rivers. It had excellent harbours. It 
was well stocked with ' redd deare, foxes, conye, martin, squirrel 
and sea fowl '. In short, it contained such abundance of provisions 
that, besides supplying the Plantation, it would assist towards the 
relief of the London poor. Moreover the City, which was so 
overcrowded ' that one tradesman was scarcely able to live by 
another ', would there have an opportunity to get rid of some of 

1 Cf. Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, vol. i, pp. 6j, 67 } Calendar of State 
Papers, Ireland, 1608-10, pp. 68, 85, 161, 177, ja 1. Cf. Hill, Plantation in 
Ulster, p. 407, notes 5:7, 58. 

2 The question of the native Irish was a most difficult one. If they were 
removed, the undertakers would have difficulty in getting supplies and necessaries 
and would be ruined, while to the natives themselves c the word of removing was 
as welcome as the sentence of death'. As a matter of fact the Irish were never 
entirely removed, for the adventurers dared not do it, and in the reign of 
Charles I they were released from this condition. Calendar of State Papers, 
1608-10, pp. 530, 531, Preface, xci; ib., 1615-15, Preface, p. xxiv. 

3 It was said to be 'deserted' by other planters, probably because the natives 
of those parts and their chief, Sir Donnell O'Cahan, were known to be warlike. 
Cf. Hill, Plantation in Ulster, p. 358. 

4 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1608-10, p. ZO7. 

10 Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

its surplus population, and at the same time render itself less liable 
to infectious diseases, which had of late led to frequent attacks of 
the Plague. Thus, by participating in the scheme, the citizens 
would not only find profit themselves, but promote the welfare of 
London, and so do a work acceptable to God. For, said the King, 
' when his enemies should hear that the famous City of London 
had a footing therein they would be terrified from looking into 
Ireland, the back door to England and Scotland '.' 

After some hesitation the Court of Aldermen and divers freemen 
of London, selected by the Privy Council, resolved to invite the 
Livery Companies and others to consider the matter and to appoint 
committees to confer with the Court of Aldermen ; and the Mayor 
forthwith issued precepts to this effect. As however the Com- 
panies were shy of venturing in the undertaking, 2 a Commission 
of four wise and grave citizens were ordered to go and view the 
lands. Of these Commissioners one, John Rowley, was a Draper. 3 
Every means were taken to satisfy these Commissioners. They 
were hospitably entertained, and careful instructions were sent to 
the Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester, that they should be conducted 
along the best roads, and be accompanied by discreet persons * able 
to controule whatsoever man shall reporte either out of ignorance 
or malise ' and confirm and strengthen every part of the project 
by demonstration. When one fell sick and would fain have 
returned, all means were used to comfort and restrain him, lest this 
accident should discourage his companions. All matters of distaste, 
such as fear of the Irish, of the soldiers, of cess and such like, were 
not to be so much as named ; these ' were matters of mere discipline 
and order ', and could be set right afterwards. Finally, if the 
Londoners should express a wish respecting anything, ' whether it 

1 Letter of Sir T. Phillips : Harris, Hibernica, ed. 1770, p. 144. 

2 Thus there is no mention of the Mayor's Precept in the Drapers' Minutes, nor 
is there apparently in those of the Goldsmiths. The Ironmongers pleaded Mack 
of Money '. The Mercers urged that, living as they did by merchandize, they 
were inexperienced in adventures of this kind. Ironmongers' and Mercers' 
Minutes, July 1 1, 1609. The Mayor issued several precepts which were not 

3 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 31, quoting Journal of the 
City. Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1608-10, pp. i66 t 268. The others 
were a Goldsmith, a Mercer and a Painter Stainer. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 

be the fishing, the Admiralty ' or any other particular which may 
serve for a moty ve to enduce them ', it was to be conceded at once ; 
and no private interest was to be allowed to stand in the way. 
The order was faithfully carried out. Presents of hides, tallow, 
salmon and other fish, pipe staves, beef, and iron and lead ore were 
given them ; samples of the produce of the country were sent to 
the Mayor, and ' the best rhetorick was used to persuade ' the 
Londoners to go on with their plantation, ' which would secure 
the whole island to the Crowne of England for ever.' 2 

That the Commissioners reported favourably cannot under these 
circumstances be a matter of surprise, nor that a Committee 
appointed by the Common Council advised that the Common 
Council of the City should authorize the formation of a Company 
and the raising of i.f,ooo from the City Companies. 3 The Privy 
Council, however, was by no means satisfied. The sum, they 
declared, was wholly inadequate. They demanded 2,0,000, of 
which one-fourth was to be forthwith levied on the Twelve 
Livery Companies according to their corn assessment, and the 
remainder by instalments. 4 

Finally, on the 2,8th of January i6"io, a special Agreement was The Agree- 
signed between the Committee of the Court of Aldermen and the ment - 
Privy Council formulating the conditions of the Plantation in 
2,7 articles, January i<Sio. 5 

1 By the admiralty was meant the jurisdiction over the coast. 

2 Letter of Sir J. Davis to the Earl of Salisbury. Calendar of State Papers, 
Ireland, 1 608-10, p. 280. 

3 City Journal 28, fos. 16, 19, Campbell Mayor. Two Drapers, Sir John 
Jolles and Mr. Megges, were members of the Committee. 

4 January 1610. City Journal 18, fos. 24, 26, 32, Campbell Mayor. The 
remainder was raised in March and August 1610 and March 1611. Owing to 
the changes in the relative wealth of the Companies since the last fixing of the 
rate, some were overcharged and others greatly favoured ; a new assessment was 
made for the last two payments (City Journal 28, fo. 53, Campbell Mayor), but, 
as the quotas paid by the Drapers were not altered, it is clear that their 
assessment remained at the same rate. 

5 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1 608-10, pp. 347, 348, 350, 359; 
1611-14, P- 3?- See also Propositions from the Lord Deputy, Calendar of 
State Papers, 1611-14, P- 3?- h ' s of importance to note that the City held 
that it was bound by this Agreement, and not by the original orders and 
conditions enjoined upon the individual adventurers, especially with regard to 
settling of English and Scotch tenants (cf. infra p. 137 note 2). 

^^ Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

Land The district granted to the City in perpetuity consisted of an 

granted to area o f not j ess t | ian ^ OO)OOO acres, exclusive of Church Lands 

anc ^ l ^ e l an( k f r tne f ree schools and for the College in Dublin, 
lying within the Baronies of Coleraine, Kenaght, Tirkeerin, and 
Loughinsolin, as well as the town of Derry. 1 The City was to 
have the customs for a term of pp years, paying to the Crown an 
acknowledgement of 66s. 8</. a year; as well as a rent for the 
lands. It was to hold the office of the Admiralty of the county of 
Tyrconnell and Coleraine, with all the royalties and profits thereto 
belonging, as well as the exclusive right of salmon and eel fishing 
over certain portions of the rivers Bann and Foyle. The City 
was also to have the patronage of the churches in the Plantation. 
All particular men's interest within the district should be cleared 
away except that three or four Irish gentlemen, at most, now 
dwelling in the county of Coleraine, were to be admitted as free- 
holders to the City, and pay a small rent; the extent of their 
freeholds and the amount of rent to be settled by Commissioners 
indifferently chosen between the King and the City. The City 
was to build 200 houses at Derry and 100 at Coleraine within 
two years, and to provide sites for 5-00 more. The King on his 
part was to maintain sufficient forces for a certain time. On the 
conclusion of the Agreement the Common Council ordered that 
the Plantation should be administered by a Governor, a deputy 
Governor and twenty-four assistants (subsequently increased to 
thirty-three) consisting of the Recorder, five Aldermen and eighteen 
freemen of the City. It was to have power to hold courts and to 
treat, debate and determine all matters affecting the Plantation. 
This body, later known as the Irish Society, carried on the manage- 
ment with funds supplied by the Livery Companies till the year 
1613. In return for this grant the City agreed to levy 20,000. 
It was not, however, long before the City was informed that 
the 2,0,000 already promised was inadequate, and further sums 
were from time to time extorted, under threat that a refusal to 

1 The only important grantee other than the City was Sir Thomas Phillips, 
who was granted Limavaddy and Castle Dawson. The Bishop and Dean of 
Derry were also secured in their lands. Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, 
vol. i, p. 78. For the Charter to the Irish Society and the Licence to hold in 
Mortmain, cf. Irish Society and London Companies. Report 1890, pp. 450, 478. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 13 

comply would lead not only to the forfeiture of the money already 
subscribed and of all claims on the Plantation, but to the imprison- 
ment of offending persons. 1 By these arbitrary measures 51^00 
was extorted. 2 Or this, ^,000 was to be spent in satisfying 
private adventurers and other interests; the rest on the Planta- 
tion itself. The contribution of the Drapers and the Tallow 
Chandlers was ^V,ooo, 3 which was paid in fourteen instalments 
between i6op and 1617. 

In all these transactions the Drapers took a prominent part. 
Among the representatives of the Committees of the City for the 
business of Ireland we find William Megges, and among those 
who signed the articles Sir John Jolles, and possibly Harrison ; 4 
while John Rowley, another draper, was not only one of the 
Commissioners who went to view the site of the proposed Planta- 
tion, but was also the first Treasurer of the Irish Society. He 
forthwith set out for Ireland to set the Plantation going. He 
appears to have been a grasping man, and the administration of the 
Plantation under him was not satisfactory. 5 

1 Sharpe, vol. ii, pp. 40, 41. Mercers' Minutes, March 8, 1610, p. 12. Two 
Companies, the Coopers and the Brown Bakers, accepted this alternative. 
Court of Aldermen, Rep. 30, fo. 376, Pemberton Mayor. 

2 In the Wardens' Accounts, 1618-9, fo. 52, the sum is put at 60,000, but 
51,5:00 is correct : cf. City Journals 28, fo. 24, Campbell Mayor j z8, fo. 239, 
Craven .... } 29, fo. 49, .... j 29, fo. 178, Middleton . . . . j 29, fo. 299, 

3 So it is stated in the Wardens' Accounts, 1618-19, ^- 5 a - According to 
the abstract M. A. Dr. Bi. 44, given in the Appendix, only 4,608 was raised in 
1617. 12 was paid in 1618-19, a "d this, with the 160 subscribed by the 
Tallow Chandlers, would come to 4,880. 

4 William Megges was Warden of the Drapers twice, in 1607-8 and 1610-11. 
Sir John Jolles was Master twice, in i6oj-6 and 1610-11, and Mayor in 
1615-16. There are three Harrisons, who were Drapers j and the Christian 
name of the person who signed the articles is not given, but in all probability 
he was Thomas Harrison, a Merchant Taylor, who was the second largest sub- 
scriber of that Company. Cf. List of Masters and Wardens, Appendix, p. XLIII A ; 
Beaven, Aldermen of London, vol. ii, p. 49; Freedom Lists, 1519, 1596, 1599, 
1602 ; Rep. + 13 i, p. 71 a. Possibly four more on the Committees, Fox, Bond, 
Richard Wright and Wheeler, were Drapers, but, as they were not at the time 
on the Livery, and apparently no Company had more than one representative on 
the said Committees, this is improbable. 

5 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1611-14, pp. 184, 3115 Hill, Plantation, 
pp. 4 1?" 2 5- 


Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

Difficulty of The City authorities found much difficulty in prevailing on the 
raising the Companies to furnish even their quota of the 20,000 which had 
originally to be raised ; and still greater difficulty with regard to 
the later demands. As Chichester had feared, they proved like 
their London women, who ' long today and loathe tomorrow '. 
The Wardens of the Mercers and Cloth workers and some other 
Companies were committed to prison by the Mayor for failing 
to obey his orders. 1 The Wardens of the Drapers were also 
threatened. 2 

The assessment of the members of the Drapers' Company had 
been left to the discretion of the Wardens, ana it is evident that 
their remissness was due to the unwillingness of members to venture 
in the undertaking. 3 In June 1610 the Wardens gave information 
that divers had wilfully refused, and, on receiving a promise that 
they should be defended at the Company's charge in any action 
that might be brought by those committed, proceeded to send 
three of the recalcitrant to the Compter, and warned others. 4 
When Mr. Gillings, one of those warned, sought the support of the 
Lord Cooke ' for this parliament time ', although his assessment 
had been reduced from 10 to 8, the Wardens were instructed 
to ask if his Lordship intended to protect him, and if not ' to pro- 
ceed with him and others in like case '. 5 In the year 1614 the 

1 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 39, who refers to the City 
Repertory. Cf. also State Papers, Domestic, 1608-10, p. 2975 Prideaux, 
Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 112. 

2 Rep. + 131, p. 100 a. 

3 That the venture was admittedly a risky one appears from this motto inserted 
in the Repertory : 

* Mischaunces will sometimes befall a man 

Though he n'er so chary doe he what he can.' 
Rep. +131, fo. 85 b. 

4 Rep. + 1 3 I, p. 723. Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 20 a. \6s. is paid 
to the Sergeant of the Mayor for attending to commit the three men, and a little 
later 52^. for warning others (ib., fo. 21 b, 23 a j 6 to the Beadle for warning 
members to pay their assessments (Rep. +131, pp. 77 b, 97 b). Cf. also three 
imprisoned and others warned, Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 42 ; divers 
warned, ib. 1610 n, fos. 42, 45 ; one imprisoned, ib. \6\ 1-12, fo. 49 j divers 
f attached ', ib. 1612-13, fo. 5?. 

5 Rep. -f 131, p. 72 b. This is curious. Lord c Cooke' is the famous Chief 
Justice Coke. 

TuUic Events in Reign of James I 15- 

Court of Aldermen issued an order at the c humble suit of the 
Master and Wardens of diverse Companies ' to * attach ' those who 
refused to pay, and to bring them before the Lord Mayor. 1 As 
late as 161 y there were some who had neglected to pay, 3 although 
the Court had by that time met the claims on the Society out of 
the corporate funds. 3 

In November and December 161 1 all those who had been 
originally assessed for the first charge of 384. were ordered to 
pay their share of all further sums that might be demanded, except 
those who had either been expressly released by the Court, or had 
disposed of their share to some other member willing to undertake 
the responsibility, or who would surrender their shares to the 
House. 4 In November 1612. it was enacted that the payments 
due by those who had fallen into poverty should be defrayed 
by the House, and that the executors of those who had died 
should be offered the alternative .of continuing the payments 
still due or of surrendering the shares to the Company. 5 In 
January 1614 the Wardens were instructed to assess so many 
more as they should think fit until there were sufficient to bear 
the charge, 6 and eventually twenty-three Assistants, thirty-nine 
Liverymen, and 146" Freemen, making a total of 2.o8, 7 were 

1 Court of Aldermen, August 17, 1614 j City Rep. 31, fol. 389. 

2 ib., p. 117 a. The same difficulty was experienced in the other Companies. 
Cf. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 1 1 z j Clode, History of the Merchant Taylors, 
Pt. I, p. 3 2 7 fF. 

3 At least the Company is not mentioned in a precept of the Mayor of 
September 8, 1617, requiring immediate payment of overdue instalments. City 
Journal 29, fo. 375 b. 

4 Rep. +131, pp. 79 b, 80 a. 

5 Ib, p. 91 a. There are several instances of members, or of their widows, 
executors, or descendants, petitioning to be relieved of their payments. Some- 
times their petitions were granted on their surrendering their shares j sometimes 
they were refused, but given a gratuity j sometimes they surrendered their shares 
in return for an extension of the leases of their houses in London. Cf. Rep. +131, 
pp. 117 b, I3ob, iJ4 a j 156 a, \6i a, 168 b, 174 b, i86b, zoz a. 

6 Rep. + 131, p. 100 a. 

7 Five Assistants and nine Liverymen, as they stand in the list of 1610-1 1, did 
not subscribe. No list of the year 1609-10 exists. Cf. Livery Lists, +301, 
fos. i, 3 ; and c Abstract of those who subscribed '. Appendix LII. The 
number of freemen who did not subscribe is not known, as we have no list of 
freemen of that date. Five of those who put down their names never paid 

1603-3 E 

16 Relations of the 'Drapers Company to 

induced to put down their names. Of these, 1^3 subscribed a total 
of 366 (in sums varying from 10 to 15- s.) to the first call of 
384, while twenty-one others contributed to some of the later 
calls. In spite of this, the number of contributions to the later 
subscriptions fell off. This is accounted for by the fact that some 
had fallen into poverty, some had surrendered their shares to the 
Company, and some had probably died intestate and without 
heirs. The total amount subscribed to the fourteen calls came to 
3,416 us. 8</.,' the balance of 1,^83 8s. 4^., to make up the 
^'5-5000 demanded of the Company, being found by the House. 
Seven men presented their shares to the Company. 2 The others 
received interest on their shares whenever any dividends were 
distributed by the Irish Society, or whenever there was any 
balance on the account of the Drapers' estate at Moneymore, 
which, as we shall see, they were shortly to acquire. 3 From the 
first some of those who had adventured were bought out by the 
House on the terms that the sum repaid them should be the amount 
they had subscribed, less the total dividends they had received. 
I believe also that the shares of those who fell into poverty before 
they had paid all their instalments, which were then defrayed by 
the House, accrued to the Company, unless, as was sometimes the 
case, the money was refunded to them by express order of the 
Court. The shares retained by individuals were treated as personal 
property. They could be disposed of by grant or by will, and, in 
case of intestacy, passed to their nearest of kin. 4 But, as time 
went on, a good many died intestate and without heirs, and their 

anything : Edmund Cotton, Francis Bickley, Thos. Harvie, John Williams and 
Wm. Anstrop. 

1 That is to say, including zz i/j. 6d. arrears, which were paid subsequently. 
Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1617-18 to 1630-1. 

2 Sir John Jolles, Wm. Garway, Henry Wollaston, Clement Buck, J. Hollins- 
head, John Blanshard, Wm. Essington. The last two only paid five calls. 

3 Cf. infra, for list of dividends. This plan was adopted by other Companies, 
e. g. the Merchant Taylors, but Sir W. Prideaux, the historian of the Goldsmiths' 
Company, informs me that the subscribers of that Company retained no share j 
all the land belonged to the Company. The subscriptions (which, however, only 
amounted to 548 171. 6d.} were therefore presents to the Company. Prideaux, 
History of the Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 113. 

4 Hopkinson, Ancient Records of the Merchant Taylors, p. 38 ; Miscellaneous 
Documents of the Merchant Taylors, A 13, fo. 3 vj City Journal 18, fo. 163. 

Tubllc Events in Reign of James I 17 

shares would again fall to the Company. The result was that the 
number of shareholders gradually dwindled away, while the 
corporate holding of the House increased. 1 

Meanwhile, in January 1611, the Mayor had called upon the Land 
Companies to certify whether they were willing to accept an g rante ^ 

allotment of land in proportion to the money they had subscribed, 

r . . i i L t 

and cultivate and plant it with settlers at their own charges 

according to the conditions, or leave the ordering of the Plantation 
to the Committee chosen by the City for managing the business. 2 
They were given a week in which to make their decision, and 
were warned that they would in any case have to contribute 
towards the expense of building houses and fortifications, and the 
freeing of tithes. Eight of the greater Livery Companies (includ- 
ing the Drapers) and ten of the inferior Companies signified their 
intention to accept a proportionate part of the land ; 3 and 
apparently all eventually agreed. 

Accordingly in the year 1613 all the lands granted to the 
Irish Society, with the exception of Derry and Coleraine 
and some 7,000 acres adjoining the said towns, which were 
reserved to the Society, were divided into twelve parcels and 
distributed by lot among the twelve Livery Companies. With 
these some of the lesser Companies were associated as sub-sharers 
so as to make up the money found by each group of Companies 
approximately to 3,333 6s. 8d* With the Drapers were 

' Cf. Appendix LIT. 

2 Rep. +13 i, p. 76 a. 

3 Rep. +131, p. ?6a. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 40, 
quoting the City Journal. The other Livery Companies who originally con- 
sented were the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Salters, Iron- 
mongers, Vintners ; and of the inferior Companies, the Armourers, Blacksmiths, 
Bricklayers, Broderers, Dyers, Founders, Tilers, Weavers, Whitebakers, and 

4 For description of method adopted cf. Hill, Plantation, pp. 432-3, or 
Concise View of Irish Society, p. 19. The actual amount of subscriptions from 
all the Companies amounted to 39,740. Where the sum totals of each group 
fell below the sum of 3,333 6s. Sd., the deficiency had to be made up: e.g. 
the Drapers and the Haberdashers paid i 6s. 8d. 3 the Mercers, the Goldsmiths, 
and the Skinners, 6s. Bd. each j the Vintners, 13*. qd. Where they exceeded 
the required amount, the surplus was returned : e. g. the Clothworkers received 
3 6s. 8d. 3 the Fishmongers and the Ironmongers, 13*. $d. each. The actual 
transfer was not made till September 

Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

associated the Tallow Chandlers, who subscribed 160, while the 
contribution of the Drapers amounted to 3,071. In January 
1618, however, the Drapers bought the Tallow Chandlers out for 
3 oo. 1 The Drapers were the only Livery Company who had 
only one sub-sharer. The Grocers and the Merchant Taylors held 
a full share each without any sub-sharers, and also contributed to 
the group headed by another Livery Company. All the other 
Companies had at least three sub-sharers, and the Vintners as many 
as eight. 8 

1 i.e. 300 ready money. They also remitted a debt of 74 lit. lod. due 
by the Tallow Chandlers for disbursements. Rep. +131, pp. 133 b, 1343. 
February 1618, B. if, M.A. Dr. 1617-18. 42. 

8 Thus: s. d. 

I. Drapers ........ $3072 o o 

Tallow Chandlers z6o o o 


2. Merchant Taylors (in part) 

3. Clothworkers 
Overplus from 
Butchers . 
Brown Bakers 
Bowyers . 
Fletchers . 

4. Grocers (in part) 

a Cf. City Journal 29, fo. 178, Middleton Mayor. This sum was part of the 
?,ooo originally subscribed. The balance of 1,668 went to the Irish Society, 
on which the Drapers hoped to receive interest. Thus : 

s. d. 

Original sum subscribed by the Drapers . . . 4,740 o o 
Tallow Chandlers . . 260 o o 


ant Taylors 



























Paid for Moneymore 
Shares in Irish Society 

f,ooo o o 

3,332 o o 
1,668 o o 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 19 

As mentioned above, some 7,000 acres round and including 
the towns of Derry and Coleraine and the castle of Culmore, as 
well as the ferries, the fisheries and the timber, not being easily 

y. Vintners . 

Overplus from Grocers 
Wood mongers . 
Weavers . 
Plumbers . 
Poulterers . 
Tilers and Bricklayers 
Fruiterers . 

6, Mercers 
Inn holders 


/. d. 

2,080 o o 

540 13 4 

200 o o 


80 o o 

80 o o 

80 o o 

64 o o 

64 O O 

44 O O 

r3>33* 13 4 

2,680 o o 

20O O O 

zoo o o 

153 o o 


Derry, Cole- 
raine, the 
ferries, and 
timber re- 
tained by 
the Irish 

Plasterers . 
Musicians . 

2,260 o o 
950 o o 
40 o o 
20 o o 

8. Goldsmiths 
Armourers . 

2,999 o o 

250 o o 

44 o o 

40 o o 

9. Skinners. . 
Stationers . 
Girdle rs 

1,963 o o 

520 o o 

480 o o 

370 o o 

go Relations of the Drapers* Company to 

apportionable, remained in the ownership and under the control 
of the Governor and Assistants of the New Plantation in Ireland. 
This body, which was subsequently called * The Irish Society ', re- 
ceived a Charter [March ip, 161 3], by which it was enabled at all 
times to (receive and possess lands and hereditaments and to grant 
them ; and the lands and territories above mentioned were granted 
them to hold and enjoy the same with all profits ... to the only 
proper use and behoof of the said Society and their successors for 
ever). It was also given powers to transact and determine all 
manner of matters concerning the Plantation. The territory 
over which its jurisdiction extended was at the same time erected 
into the City and County of Londonderry, 1 with its Mayor, 

10. Salters 
Saddlers . 
Woolmen . 

x. d. 

1,954 o o 

580 o o 

390 o o 

115 o o 

164 o o 

10 o o 

1 1. Ironmongers 
Scourers . 
Coopers . 
Pewterers . 
Barber Surgeons 

n. Haberdashers 
Founders . 

1,514 o o 

500 o o 

370 o o 

180 o o 

140 o o 

230 o o 

100 o o 

3,114 o o 

80 o o 

68 o o 

60 o o 

1 Hill, Plantation, pp. 416-41. Clarke and Finnelly, Reports, vol. xii, 
pp. 435 rf". For the Charter, cf. Appendix LA. Subsequently, in September 30, 
1615, the Irish Society was granted a licence to hold in Mortmain c to the 
end that they might be encouraged to proceed and finish the Plantation, and 
in future tymes reape some gain and benefit of their great travailes and 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 31 

Aldermen, Chamberlain, and Burgesses, John Rowley the Draper 
being the first Mayor. 1 

It was understood that the rents and profits arising from this 
district and from the fisheries, ferries, and timber 2 should, after 
the conditions of the Charter were fulfilled, be divided among the 
Companies; and this was done from time to time. 3 

The question subsequently arose whether the Irish Society were The Irish 
entitled to use their own discretion as to how the revenues from Society 
the lands they retained in their own hands were to be appropriated, ^ d tlie . 
so long as they fulfilled the conditions of the Charter and the 

expenses taken and bestowed therein '. Cf. Appendix L B. Of the original 
Assistants of the Irish Society, the following were members of the Drapers' 
Company : Edward Rotheram, who was Master at the time ; Sir John Jolles, 
twice Master, 1605-6 and 1610-1 1, Mayor 1615-16; and Morris Abbot, who 
was one of the Assistants at the time, but subsequently held many important 
posts. He was brother of the Archbishop ; thrice Warden, Alderman of two 
Wards at different times, Master in 1625-6 and again in 1638-9, when he also 
held the Mayoralty; M.P. for Hull 1620-21, 1624-5, Burgess for the City 1626, 
Deputy Governor and then Governor of the E.I.C. 1615-37, Treasurer of the 
Levant Company 1614-16, and one of the Assistants of the Company 1616-24, 
Subscriber to and on the Council of the Virginia Company, Incorporator of the 
Somer's Isles and New Passage Companies, and leading member of the French, 
Italian, and Muscovy Companies. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, who, however, 
gives a wrong date for his second mastership ; Brown, Genesis of the United 
States, p. 8 1 1 . For the important part taken by Morris Abbot in the manage- 
ment of the East India Company, cf. Hunter, British India, vol. ii, p. 144. 

1 Hill, Plantation, p. 404, note 53. He was shortly after dismissed from his 
post of Agent or Treasurer to the Irish Society for having in divers ways dealt very 
incorrectly and unfaithfully. City Journal 29, fo. 26, Middleton Mayor. He 
was the ancestor of the Rowleys who held a lease of the Proportion in the 
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Besides John Rowley the Mayor, the 
following members of the Corporation of the City of Londonderry were Drapers : 

The Chamberlain Robert Goodwyn. There were two of this name j the 
younger, who was admitted by patrimony in the same year 1613, and his father, 
who was certainly at this date over sixty-six years of age. Which of these two 
was the Chamberlain is doubtful, but it is pretty certain that the son was subse- 
quently steward of the Drapers' Court at Moneymore j cf. infra. 

Francis White was one of the Aldermen, and Richard Middleton one of the 
Burgesses. Cf. Freedom Lists, + i ?9y 1585, 1601, 1613. 

2 In 1741 the Irish Society surrendered its right to the young trees to the 
Companies on their respective Proportions, to encourage planting on their part : 
B. 2, M. A. Dr. 239. 

3 e. g. Wardens' Accounts 1620-1, fo. 30, 90; i6zi-2 } fo. 32, 60 ; 
1622-3, *- 3j 8 > 1626-7, fo. 36, 80. 

Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

Agreement, or whether they were trustees for the benefit of the 
Companies and were responsible to them for the way in which 
they administered the trust and spent the income. The contro- 
versy, which was raised by the Drapers' Company as early as 
itfyS, 1 came to a head in the unsuccessful action brought by the 
Skinners' Company against the Society in 183 8. 2 The House of 
Lords, to whom the case was referred on appeal, affirmed the 
decision of Lord Langdale, the Master of the Rolls, in 1 845% and 
Lord Lyndhurst in delivering judgement 3 declared that the objects 
for which the Irish Society had been constituted were public and 
important objects, . . . that the funds of the district were applicable 
to those purposes; that the Irish Society had a wide discretion as 
to how, to what extent, and to what objects they should apply 
these funds, and, that being so, they were public officers invested 
with a public trust. If indeed there was any surplus after they 
had fulfilled these objects according to their discretion, it should be 
handed over to the Companies as it had been in the past, but the 
first duty of the Society was to carry out the conditions of the 
Charter and the Agreement in developing the district, and that 
they were not responsible to the Companies for the way in which 
they thought fit so to do. 

Since that date the Irish Society has spent its whole income on 
its plantation, and there has been no surplus to divide. Neverthe- 
less, by rendering a yearly account to the Companies of its income 
and expenditure it has acknowledged that, if there were a surplus, 
it should be divided amongst them. 

No doubt the decision of the House of Lords was a correct 
interpretation of the Charter by which the Irish Society was in- 
corporated. But when we remember the magnificent hopes which 
had been held out as to the profits to be derived from taking 
part in the Plantation we cannot wonder that the Companies felt 

1 Cf. infra, p. 118 and Rep. -f i$z, p. 104 b. 

2 In 1 8 id we find the Court, at the request of the Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, 
and the Salters, applying to the Irish Society for such accounts and documents as 
might give information with regard to the interest of the Company in the estates 
under the management of the said Society. Records, + 1 3 8, pp. $17, 540. 
The request was acceded to. Cf. Appendices LXII A, B. 

3 12 Clarke and Finnelly, p. 465. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 33 

aggrieved. Nor is it a sufficient answer to say that the Companies 
received a fair equivalent for their subscriptions in the ' propor- 
tions ' which were granted to them separately. 1 As will DC seen 
hereafter, it was a long time before the Drapers' Company derived 
any profit from their plantation ; 2 and, if as time went on there was 
a substantial surplus of income over expenditure, it should be re- 
membered that the gain would have been infinitely greater if the 
sums expended in Ireland had been invested in landed estate in 
the City of London. The truth of the matter is that the Ulster 
settlement, like that in Virginia and like the Chartered Company 
of South Africa of to-day, was an attempt to promote a political 
object by means of a commercial speculation, and that in the con- 
flict of these two aims the commercial interests suffered. 3 

The district apportioned to the Drapers and the Tallow Chandlers Drapers' Hall 
was called Moneymore or Drapers' Hall, and consisted nominally or Monev - 
of 3,630 acres of arable land, to which must be added large tracts r 
of heath and bog, wood and waste. 4 The grant also included 
all mines, minerals, quarries, waters and weirs. The Irish Society 
retained the fishing rights on the rivers Bann and Loughfoil and 
all ' timber wood ' other than fir. The Company, however, might 
cut any timber needed for building, while the Irish Society had a 
like privilege with regard to gravel, sand, &c., needed for the same 
purpose. The Company was to provide for the defence of the 

1 The licence to hold their lands in mortmain was granted in order that they 
might be thereby encouraged and enabled to perfect the plantation, and in future 
times to reap some gain of this their great travail and expenses. For the case of 
the Skinners -v. The Irish Society cf. Clark and Finnelly, Reports, vol. xii, 
p. 425 fF., and for the case of the Attorney General for Ireland i>. The Irish 
Society 1898, Proceedings before the Master of the Rolls, Dec. 2, 1898, 
certified by R. W. Lucas, Reporter to the Court, and Report of Select Committee 
of the House of Commons, May 4, 1891, Hansard 221. 

2 The same was the case with regard to the other Companies. 

3 Cf. the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with regard 
to the Chartered Company. Times Law Report, vol. 34, p. 595. 

4 Cf. the Grant, Appendices LI-LII. That is of 6v\ Balliboes c more or less ' j a 
Balliboe was about 60 acres. This did not include the waste. The total area was 
approximately 27,268 acres, of which 25,826 were in 1880 arable and meadow, 
cf. infra. Much by that date would however be reclaimed, and it is probable 
that * arable ' land in the original grant did not include meadow land ; cf. Irish 
Estates, +775, P- 415 b. Phillip's Plan will be found in Appendix LII B, and 
a complete Survey and valuation of the date 1820 in +773 and 777. 

1603-3 F 

to deal with 
the Drapers' 
July 1614. 

34- Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

district by building a ' Castle ' and by providing an adequate supply 
of arms r They were to settle their Proportion with some artisans 
and to establish some freeholders, They were to repair the Church 
on their Proportion, and furnish the ministers with a Bible, a Book 
of Common Prayer and a Communion cup. 2 

In November i6~i^ a licence to receive any lands by gift of the 
Irish Society or any other persons or bodies whatsoever and hold 
the same in Mortmain was granted to the Company 3 ' to the end 
that they might be encouraged to proceed and finish the Plantation, 
and in future tymes reape some gain and benefit of their great 
travailes and expenses taken and bestowed therein '. In lo'ip the 
Proportion was constituted a Manor with a court by the Irish 
Society and granted to the Company. 4 In the preceding year 
a Committee had been appointed to deal with the planting and 
building of houses in the 'Proportion '. 5 Until March 1615- John 
Rowley, who had been the Treasurer and Agent of the ' Irish 
Society ', and Tristram Beresford, another agent of the Irish Society 
and sometime Mayor of Coleraine, acted for them. 6 On Ro wley 's death 
in 1 6 1 7, Robert Russell was appointed their agent, while R.Goodwyn, 
a member of the Company and a tenant on the Drapers' Proportion, 
was also continually consulted. Russell's fee or ' exhibition ' was 
to be ^30, which was subsequently raised to jVo,and he was also, 
in the year 1616, granted a further gratuity of 6 i%s. ^d? 

1 Rep. +131, p. 177 b. 

2 Beresford, Concise View of Irish Society, pp. 34 fF. 3 Ib., p. 2?. 
4 B 23. Cf. Appendix L. 5 July 1614. R e P- + *3 r > P- r 3 b. 

6 Rep. +13 i, pp. loob, 1 15 a, I3ob. Beresford was a Kentish man. His 
eldest son became an influential man in Ulster. His great-grandson was created 
Earl of Tyrone, and the family is now represented by the Marquis of Waterford. 
Beresford, as well as Rowley, was accused of satisfying his private interests to 
the disadvantage of the lands of the Irish Society. City Journal 29, fol. 26, 
Middleton Mayor. After Rowley's death his widow made a claim for moneys 
disbursed by her husband, and for his salary. The Company declared that they 
had never contracted to pay him any definite salary. They had given him 
a present of jo and let him off" the rent of a house in Lothbury, which he held 
of the Company. They also said they had paid him fees for any work he had 
done (e.g. 15 for surveying and superintendence). After some hesitation the 
Court consented to pay 150 in full satisfaction of all claims. Letter Book 
+ 383,fos. 3, 1 6, 175 Rep. + 131, p. 1393; Irish Account Book, +782, p. 37 b. 

7 Rep. + 131, p. 1 88 a b. Goodwyn was probably the same man who was for 
a time town clerk of Deny. Concise View of Irish Society, p. 29. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 35- 

The Company now set to work to develop the lands assigned 
to them, and it is evident from the continued references in their 
minutes and other authorities that they took very considerable 
trouble. 1 Their endeavours were not however very successful. 
Robert Russell, their agent from lo'iy to lo'ip, does not appear to Bad be- 
have been at all satisfactory. 2 In a series of letters between April haviour of 
1618 and January i6ip the Committee bitterly complain that his R> Russe ^- 
answers to their repeated questions were ' very slender ' and that 
they were ' almost wearied out ' with paying the constant bills of 
exchange he drew on them. 

In spite of these heavy charges, which * were more than any 
other Company had been put to ', the ' Castle ' was unfinished and 
so badly built that a part of it had fallen down, and the rest ' in 
hazard to fall ' because, owing to his negligence, it had not been 
roofed in. On the other hand, an unnecessarily large brewhouse 
had been erected, to the disturbance of Money more and the pro- 
faning of the Sabbath by drunkenness. Nor was this all ; he had 
* engrossed four of the new built houses and the Mill and the Smithy 
to his own use, and would allow only poor people to dwell in them, 
who were encouraged if not forced " to draw his beer ", whereby 
frays were caused ; or else he granted them to " tapsters ", who 
admitted Irish, or other loose persons, without restriction night and 
day, whereby the town was often disturbed by frays. Instead of 
paying the workmen their wages in money, he had forced them to 
take them out in supplies, and those bad, so that they naturally 
took them out in ale, and then ran away. He had even declined 
to employ anyone who would not drink his beer. . . . Besides all 
this he had diverted the water from the pipe which brought it 

1 Besides the references in their Minute Book, or Repertory, and in their 
Wardens' and Renters 3 Accounts, the Letter Book survives. This book, which 
covers the period from 1618 to 1633, contains 148 quarto pages of letters 
written to the agents, tenants, and others in Ireland. See too the Receipt Book, 
1611-78, and the Account Book, 1614-16, and for many of the original 
documents. Catalogue Manor of Drapers. By the year 1614 they had let 58 town 
lands at 3 a town land, which came to 174. Account Book + 781, p. 40 a. 

2 R. Russell is mentioned as being the chief tenant of the Drapers in 1618, as 
well as their agent. He held 3,000 acres in freehold ; he had twenty-three men, 
two muskets, ten calivers, one pike, and three swords for defence. Calendar of 
State Papers, Ireland, 161 j-ay, p. zzz. 

Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

into the town.' All such things they truly said were * enough to 
subvert any plantation ', or any hope * of comfort or profit V He 
was also accused of wrongly charging certain items to their account. 
As however he was then in prison on a suit of debt brought by 
some private person, he was given 30 towards his charges and 
forgiven a sum of ^"64 us. n</., which he owed the Company. 2 
Other The ill success of the Drapers in developing their c Proportion ' 

causes of the must not however be laid exclusively to the ill deeds of Russell. 
ess In the first place, there were persons who made claims to lands 
Plantation. on ^ Q ground that they had received previous grants from the 
Crown. Of these the most troublesome were Messrs. Lewys Price 
and John Cornewall, who had been granted six and a half town 
lands containing about 360 acres close to the ' Castle ', on the sup- 
position that they lay in County Tyrone, whereas they really lay 
in Derry. And when these patentees had been satisfied by receiv- 
ing jfioo in lieu of their claims, the question still remained whether 
the Company ought to pay a quit-rent which had been reserved 
by the Crown in the patent to the said Price and Cornewall, a 
question which was not settled till the reign of Charles I. 3 Then 
again the Committee had endless troubles with the applicants for 

1 Letter Book +383, fos. 7, 19-11, 13-16. Certificate of complaints of 
inhabitants against R. Russell, and Beresford's letter on behalf of Russell, B. 
118, M.A. Dr. 1618, 465 B. 198, M.A. Dr. 1618, jf. 

2 Rep. + i 3 i, pp. 1 1 1 b, 1 1 8 a b, 1533. 

3 Letter Book +383, Letters beginning fos. r, 3, 13, 18, 31, 4?, 8f, 86. 
The lands in question were the following : Balliloghan, Kilbarny (Killenbarny), 
Tyressan and Donagona (al. Balligonan and Lisdromard), Moyghe and Cloghoge, 
Tawnagmore and Nart, Donnemane and Lismoney. Cf. Rep. +131, p. 317 b. 
It appears that Price and Cornewall were dependents of Sir Tobie Caulfield. 
Cornewall was in all probability the John Cornewall who was sub-sheriff of Tyrone 
at the date of the flight of the Earl of Tyrone. Hill, p. iff. For the convey- 
ance of these lands by Cornwallis to Richard Archdale and others in trust for the 
Company, cf. B. 17, M.A. Dr. 1616, 10. We also hear of a Mr. H. Min, another 
patentee on the Drapers' proportion, who had not surrendered his lands in 163 i. 
Cf, Letter Book +383, Letters beginning fos. 135, 137. In 1634 the Irish 
Parliament expressly declared that the negligent granting of these patents, of 
which men c with eagle eyes ' took advantage to the utter overthrow of many 
deserving persons who had fairly acquired their estates, was the principle cause 
of the slow planting and building ; and prayed that the Stat. 1 1 James I, c. i, 
protecting the subject against c concealments ', should be extended to Ireland. 
Strafford Letters, ed. 1739, vol. ii, p. 311. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 37 

freeholds or leases on their land ; more especially with the sons of 
Robert Russell and William Rowley, the son of John Rowley their 
first agent. 1 

Sir Arthur Chichester, speaking of the whole Plantation in its 
earliest days, and especially of the private undertakers, reported 
that they were for the most part greedy and apathetic, and that 
many of them were allowing the Irish to creep back as their 
tenants. These hated their masters, and especially the Scotch, 
hoping one day to cut their throats. 3 Nor, unless the account of 
a presbyterian minister and the son of a settler is grossly exagge- 
rated, was the character of the settlers likely to conduce either to 
the peace or improvement of the country. ' From Scotland ', he 
says, * there came many and from England not a few ; yet all of 
them generally the scum of both nations, who for debt, or break- 
ing and fleeing from justice, or seeking shelter, came hither ; hoping 
to be without fear of men's justice in a land where there was nothing 
or but little as yet, of the fear of God.' . . . ' A body of people of 
different names, nations, dialects, temper, breeding ; and in a word 
all void of Godliness, who seemed rather to flee from God in this 
enterprise than to follow their own mercy.' 3 

Moreover, as Chichester feared, there was trouble from the native 
Irish. Many of these asserted that they had enjoyed a freehold 
in their land, which could not be forfeited by the attainder of their 
chief lords, and, when this was denied, they and others who had 
no such claim took to violence. 4 In 1617 the Plantation was 

1 William Rowley claimed a freehold, which had been granted to his brother 
Nathaniel, but who had died before being estated. The two Russells disputed as 
to who should succeed their father. Neither case was decided during the reign. 
To be a freeholder it was necessary that the tenant should build a substantial 
dwelling-house and do service at Assizes and Sessions ; the Company had only 
the power to recommend, the Irish Society alone could estate the person. Rep. 
+ 13 i, p. iSobj Letter Book +383, Letters beginning fos. 76, 101. Numerous 
other disputes with regard to tenants and their leases are to be found in the Letter 
Book. They seem to have been a litigious, grasping set of men j cf. infra. 

2 Hill, p. 446 j Carte Papers, vol. xxx, Nos. 64, 6j. 

3 Hill, p. 447. 

4 Cf. Letter of Sir J. Davies, Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1608-10, p. 497. 
He says that under their chieftains the Irish tenants had but a * scambling and 
transitory' possession. Sir A. Chichester's letter: 'The Irish will rather die 
than be removed to small proportions assigned to them/ Ib. p. 503. 

3 8 Relations of the Drapers* Company to 

overrun with guerilla bands, who levied blackmail, and committed 
robberies. ' There were never sithence I came hither ', wrote an 
eye-witness, * soe many kernes out in the woods as now ; they are 
in five or six several! companies, soe that man can travel no way 
neare anie woods without great danger, except they goe a good 
companie together and well provided'; 1 and in that year there was 
a serious plot to capture the forts in Ulster, to surprise and burn 
Derry and Coleraine, and to massacre the inhabitants. 2 Under 
these circumstances it is not surprising that Sir Josias Bodley, the 
King'sCommissioner, made a most unfavourable report of the general 
condition of the Plantation in that year. 3 In response to this, James 
addressed a letter to the Lord Deputy threatening to resume the 
lands unless there were immediate improvements. The great 
majority of the undertakers, the King declared, had either done 
nothing at all, or so little that the work seemed to be forgotten. 
Some had begun to build and not to plant, others to plant and not 
to build, while all of them retained the Irish on their lands, the 
avoiding of which was the fundamental reason of the Plantation. 
The Plantation had been established for reasons of State and no 
private man's worth was able to countervaile the safety of a King- 
dom, which the Plantation if well accomplished would procure. 4 
Captain When in i6ip Captain Pynnar made his survey, matters had 

Report improved. Even he however doubted whether the colony would 
March 1619. endure, because many of the English did not yet plough their lands, 
nor use husbandry. As the Irish graziers promised higher rents, 
the agents discouraged British settlers and thus increased the number 
of the Irish, who, though indispensable, were dangerous. Pynnar 
also noted that there were more Irish on the Londoners' lands than 
elsewhere. He thus describes the condition of the Drapers' Pro- 
portion 5 : 

C 3,zio acres. This Proportion is not set to any man but is held by 
the Agent Mr. Russell. Upon this there is a strong bawn of stone and 

* Canning, agent of the Ironmongers in Ireland j quoted Hill, Plantation, 
p. 440. 

Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, idJij-zy, Preface, p. x. 

3 - s P- 449- 

4 Cf. Nichol, Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Ironmongers, p. 4 J 3 . 

5 Calendarof Stare Papers, Ireland, 161 f-z j,p. 384. For Pynnar's report on the 
Plantations of the other London Companies and of the Irish Society, ib., pp. 378 ft". 

~J7.v (fcniisrruin oj Inlcnd "^The (jtntkworrwn fff Ireland 

77v 'U'tU.- Irijh man (The <U'Mt Injh <U'gnun 

From the margin of Spede's Map of Ireland, 
in the possession of the Irish Society. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 39 

lyme 100 feet square, 15 feet high, with two flankers. There is a Castle 
within the bawne of the same wideness, being battlemented, the which 
hath also two flankers, and near finished. Right before the Castle there 
are built twelve houses whereof six are lime and stone, very good, and 
six timber, inhabited with English families ; and this the best work 
I have seen for a building; a Water Mill, and a Malt-house also. 
A quarter of a mile from the town there is made a conduit head, which 
bringeth water to all places in the bawn and town in pipes. But these 
tenants have not any estates, for the Agent can make none, 1 neither will 
they have estates till such time as their land can be improved to the 
utmost. Within this castle there is good store of arms.' 

The original idea of the Drapers had been to let the ' whole 
Proportion ' on a long lease to some eight or ten tenants con- 
jointly. 2 As no such offer was made, negotiations were entered 
into with several individuals. 3 They all broke down until the 
August of the year 1609, when Sir Thomas Roper contracted to 
take a lease for fifty-five years, paying a fine of ^4^0 and an 
annual rent of 2,30 for the first twenty-one years and 2,60 for 
the rest of the term. 4 The fine was paid, but difficulties soon 
arose. The agent of Sir Thomas, Sir Baptiste Jones, interfered 
with the tenants already settled on the Plantation, apparently 
without the authority of Sir Thomas. In June 162,2, the Com- 
mittee complained that he had never paid any rent, that he was 
now 690 in arrear, and that he ' doth thinke little of the ex- 
tremitie that many of the Company do endure being in povertie '. 
In answer Sir Thomas asked for a remission of ^30 off his rents 
and an allowance of 2,5-0 towards the completion of the ' Castle '. 
The Company declined to entertain these proposals until the 

The whole 
leased to 
Sir Thomas 

August 1619 
to October 

1 The freeholders could only be estated by the Irish Society. The Company 
could only recommend them. 

2 Rep. +131, p. 1 15 a. 

3 The applicants were Capt. Cloteworthy, R. Goodwyn, and Edmund Pike. 
Ib., pp. 133 b, 144 a b, 145 b. The chief points on which the negotiations broke 
down were the finishing of the c Castle ' and the Church, and the uncertainty as 
to the title to six and a half Town lands, which had been previously granted 
to Messrs. Cornewall and Price. Cf. supra, p. 36 and Rep. + 13 i, p. 160 b. 

4 Rep. + 131, p. 1493. The Goldsmiths and the Ironmongers also let their 
lands to one tenant in 1614. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 1243 Nichol, 
Ironmongers, p. 417. 

Sir Thomas 
Roper sur- 
renders his 

Reports of 





40 Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

arrears were paid, and in the following October Sir Thomas sur- 
rendered his lease. 1 

Thereupon the Committee decided to take their * Proportion ' 
into its own hands again, and speedily 'to see to the amendment 
of such defects as might be in their power to reform and amend ';" 
and, though there were other applicants, the Company continued 
to administer the estate till the year lo^S. 3 Accordingly they 
gave instructions that the finishing of the 'Castle' should be 
hurried on. It was to be made ' strong, but not curiously finished 
as a man of wealth would make it for his dwelling ', and strength- 
ened by a dry ditch and a drawbridge. 4 

Meanwhile the Company had been admitting leasehold tenants 
and causing freeholders to be estated on a portion of their lands, 
and building houses. As will be seen in their Report of November 
lo'io, 5 given in answer to series of Questions asked by the Governor 
and the Committees of the New Plantation (Irish Society), there 
were, in addition to the * Castle ' with chapel and bawne, which 
was ' near finished ' and well supplied with arms, a church called 
Desart Martin in good repair and another near to their Proportion 
finished 'to the roof, to which they were subscribing, a mill, 
a brewhouse and a smithy; twelve houses in Moneymore, six 
of stone and six of timber ; elsewhere eight other substantial 
houses, and ten cottages, all inhabited by English or Scottish 
tenants, as well as four other houses just begun. Of freeholders 
there were five, 6 of whom three were resident, and of leasehold 

1 Rep. +131, p. 171 a j Letter Book +383, Letters beginning fbs. 17, 37, 
39, 40, 41, 44, 47, ?9, 63, 67 j Livery Book +301, reverse fo. 85. 

2 Report of February, i6r|. Appendix, LII I D. 

3 The other applicants were William Rowley, jhe brother of John, their first 
agent, Mr. Staples, and Robert Harrington, then their agent. Letter Book, 
Ireland + 383, Letters beginning fos. 76, 81, 84, loj, 106. 

4 Letter Book +383, Letters beginning at fos. 91, 93. 

5 Cf. Appendix, LII I A. 

6 (a) Already estated 

Sir F. Cooke, Monisholin and Annan. 

Lieut. Thursby, who had lately bought from D. Hall the freehold of 

Culmore and Moyennat, B. az, M.A. Dr. 1619, 74, Report of 

November 1610, Appendix LIV A. 
(/3) about to be estated 

R. Russell, Gortatawry and Cloughfin, B. 1741, M.A. Dr. 116. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 41 

tenants eight, including the parson Mr. Harford, a carpenter, a 
mason, as well as divers other handicraftsmen, making a total of 
fifty able persons, all of them British tenants. Unfortunately we 
are not told how many Irish were still remaining. In the follow- 
ing December the Drapers presented another report, which is sub- f 
stantially identical with that of November, except that the number 
of substantial houses is given as twelve instead of eight. 

If we may trust the Survey of Sir Thomas Phillips made two Survey of 
years later, matters had not then much improved. 1 The number p"'.^. homas 
of natives on the Drapers' Proportion was one hundred and eighty- All J JJ 5 ' 
six, a larger number than on that of any other Company except October 10, 
those of the Fishmongers and the Skinners. The Report does not \6zz. 
give the number of British residents; but, as mentioned above, the 
Companies Report of 162,0 put them at fifty. In this respect the 
Drapers stood sixth, while the Haberdashers had planted as many as 
one hundred and twenty-three. Of these fifty, only sixteen were 
armed and those 'meanly ' and officeholders only one was resident. 2 

In the matter of building, the Drapers had done more than any 
of the other Companies except the Haberdashers, whose plantation 
Sir Thomas especially praises as the strongest and most able to 
defend itself, and the Vintners. 3 Nevertheless three of the houses 

G. St. Lawrence, Town of Kilbarnine in the Carrinah, B. 18, M.A. Dr. 

1619, 77. 

J. Elcocke, Town of Ballygone in Carrinah, B. 26$, M.A. Dr. 1619, 7?. 
Of these Thursby, Russell and Elcocke were resident. 

1 Of this interesting survey, taken in virtue of a Royal Commission, I have 
printed in the appendix the parts which deal more especially with the Drapers' 
Proportion and the general remarks. The original is among the archives of the 
Drapers' Society +793- There is another copy in the Lambeth Library, cf. 
Appendix LI II A. Sir Thomas was a persistent enemy of the Londoners. 
They accused him of malice ; an accusation which he repudiated. The survey 
was probably correct, although some of his remarks at pp. 84^ 87 b, 88 a may 
be somewhat exaggerated. 

2 The freeholder was probably Mr. subsequently Sir Thomas Staples. He 
bought John Elcocke's freehold, and later lived in Drapers' Town. The other 
residents whom we find mentioned in the Drapers' books were: The minister} 
Messrs. Finch, Miles and Woodroofj Widow Russell j Birket the mason and 
the smith. According to the Report of the Royal Commission two years later 
sixteen persons held land. 

3 In Phillips' plan we find twenty-four buildings besides the c Castle ' (six of 
frame work and stucco, eight of stone or clay, ten cabins) and, the necessary 

1603-3 G 

41 Relations of the "Drapers Company to 

in Moneymore are marked f void ', and the condition of the Castle 
was very bad. It was partly uncovered, its walls were decayed 
with the weather, having so remained these six years, its umber 
was rotting, the floors and partitions were not finished, and it and 
the ' bawne ' in which it stood was used as a pound for cattle. 1 

Nor was the condition of the other Proportions better. Out of 
a total population of some 4,000 in the districts held by the Irish 
Society and the Companies, only 971 were British. Of these only 
749 were armed, and not more than two-thirds serviceable men. 
Of natives there were as many as 1,814.* Besides these there were 
another 5-00, who were Irish natives, freeholders on the Church 
lands and on Sir Thomas' lands at Umavaddy. Three hundred 
persons were idle; of the others many were young men dwelling 
with parents, or servants. 

According to Sir Thomas the state of the whole Plantation was 
a perilous one. In some Proportions there were murders and rob- 
beries. 3 Indeed he prophesied that unless speedy course were taken 
to strengthen the towns and other defences and to increase the 
number of British settlers, and especially of freeholders, it would 
be a lost country. 4 

Robert Har- Meanwhile Robert Harrington, a member of the Company, had, 
Agent"' on l ^ e death f Russell, been appointed Agent (October 1 612.) s ; and 
October in 1 613 Robert Goodwyn, who had throughout acted as a sort of 
i<Jn-8, superintendent for the Company in Ireland, was created Steward 
and or the Company's Manor: with authority to hold a Court Baron 

accompaniment of a town, the stocks. The analysis given in the Calendar of 
State Papers, i6if, K>*7, p. 370, is inaccurate. 

1 A later note of an uncertain date in the margin, however, says that the Castle 
had been repaired since the Survey. 

2 So he says in his summary, p. 8f a, but the number given in each separate 
account comes to i,8ztf. 

3 Especially in the Proportions of the Fishmongers, Grocers, Ironmongers and 
Mercers. +793, pp- i9> *fj ?f- 61. 

4 Cf. Appendix LIII A, and Survey +793, pp. 84 b, 87 b, 88 a. Sir Thomas 
particularly advised that in the Drapers' Proportion c a good plantation* 
should be 'made at the foote of the mountaine of Sleoghgallen,where Tyrone made 
his last fight with the Queene's forces.' This might be 'well seconded by the 
garrison of Dissert Martin, where Sir Windsor his roote Company lies.' Ib. p. 79. 

5 Rep. + 131, p. 173 a; Letter Book + 383, fo. 68. He was a tenant on the 
Grocers' Proportion, ib., fo. 71. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 

and Court Leet or view of Frankpledge, and to enjoy the fees, R- Goodwyn 
profits and emoluments to the same office appertaining. z Steward of 

The appointment of Harrington was soon followed by con- '^ ' l l> 
tinned complaints on the part of the Committee that he did not 
answer their questions, and that when he did they were ' dark and 
uncertain ' ; that he was remiss in collecting their rents and in 
distraining for the same, although they had instructed him so to 
do. 2 Possibly one reason for his want of zeal was that his 
remuneration was small. 3 But, as we gather from the correspon- 
dence, their letters did not always reach him, 4 and in truth the 
administration of the estate and the planting of the same was no 
*asy matter. 

Nevertheless under his management some progress was made, Reports of 
s is seen by the two Reports of February and November i62g. s 
Lt the later date the number of leaseholders had risen to twenty- 
three, exclusive of the carpenter, the mason, a tailor and divers 
other persons of several other trades. The number of the free- 
lolders had however decreased. It only stood at three, of whom 
me only was residing on his estate and one near by in Money- 
lore ; three more, however, were shortly to be estated. This is the 
ist notice that we have of the Plantation during the reign of 
fames the First in the books of the Company. 6 But we learn from 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 175 a, 177 a. The grant of this Manor had been made by 
the Irish Society in 1619. The conditions were: (r) That the lands to be 

icluded in the Manor were to be specified by name, (z) That common lands 
irere to be apportioned for the use of the Tenants. (3) That not less than five 
reeholders should be created, with not less than a Balliboe (a loose term com- 
prising 60 to no acres) apiece. (4) Upon such freeholds double of the King's 
rent might be reserved. (5) Freeholders were to be bound to the conditions of 
the plantation (unless otherwise agreed), dwell on their freeholds, inclose, and 
'ceep arms. Cf. Concise View of Irish Society, London, 1831, p. 14. 

2 Letter Book +383, Letters beginning at fos. 77, io(f. 

3 He appears to have only been paid casual fees. Cf. Letter beginning fo. 83. 
le ceased to be agent in itfzS, when the whole * Proportion ' was let to Peter 

* The questions are often repeated because there was danger of their mis- 
carrying owing to c length of journey, dangers of seas and passage, and ordinary 
casualties '. Ib., fo. 77. 

5 Cf. Appendix LIII D. 

6 The freeholders were : Th. Thursby, resident j Sir F. Cooke, non-resident. 

44- Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

a memorandum in the State Papers of March 1624 that the 
Company held 64 town lands, of which 48 were planted with 
i8p Irish tenants and only 16 with English; and that the total 
rents came to $ 1 1 i$s. a year. 1 

had sold to Sir Wm. Windsor ; Mr. Staples, living in Moneymore ; Nath. 
Goodwin, G. St. Laurence, and the son of Rob. Russell were shortly to be estated. 
For names of other tenants cf. Reports of February and November. Besides the 
persons already mentioned in the text, the following members of the Company, 
admitted in the reign of James I, are noted as being in Ireland, though not 
necessarily on the Drapers' Proportion. Cf. Quarterage Books + 2.^9, z6o, ^6^ J 
z66 t 167. 

Ashley, Erasmus 

Babbington, Eld red 

Barrow, Josias 

Berry, John 

Berry, Richard 

Burge, Thomas 

Downes, Wm. 

Drue, Gilbert 

Faulconer, Wm. 

Fenton, John 

Goodwine, John 
Goodwine, Nathaniel 
Greene, Clement 
Hall, Anthony 
Harod, Wm. 
Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 

Hassell, Ed. 
Head, John 
Heynesworth, Francis 
Jenkins, Wm. 
Miller, John 
Pinchion, Philip 
Preslley, John 
Spanning, Rich. 
Still, John 
Swanney, Wm. 
Toll, Henry 
Waller, Wm. 
Walker, Sam. 
Willcocks, Bernard 

Repcrt the condition of the several Proportions was this: 

p. 471-z. According to this 


Salters .... 
Vintners .... 


Planted with 
Irish English 
Tenants. Tenants. 

4 Z 2 Ir 
29 io| 

of Irish 
Rents. Inhabitants. 

s. d. 
244 5 o 147 
193 10 4 104 


Drapers .... 









Mercers .... 




1 66 





Goldsmiths . . 

4 1 ! 


Z 4| 






Grocers .... 






.(besides 4. in 


Fishmongers . . 
Haberdashers . . 
Cloth Workers . . 






6 9 



I I 

Mr. Griffin's 
hands planted 
with natives). 


Merchant Taylors . 


i 4 






1 1. 

Ironmongers . . 



l6 ? 






Skinners . . 













> o 



Tubltc Events in Reign of James I 45- 

The lands had been granted to the Irish Society and to the The project 
Livery Companies to the end that 'they might in future times how far 
reap some gains and benefits of their great travail and expenses a ^ nancial 
bestowed thereon '. The Irish Society were not in a position to 
pay any dividend till 162, 3.' As to the Drapers, they had, accord- 
ing to their own statement, spent (beyond the y,ooo originally 
paid to the Chamber of London) near 3,000 on the buildings alone 
on their Proportion before April 161 8. 2 There were also numerous 
incidental expenses which came to a considerable amount. 3 Mean- 
while their rents had been small. 4 Consequently, although the 
Court had decided as early, as March 161? that all particular 
brethren, who had paid all the calls and retained their shares 
should receive a ' proportionable gayne ' (interest) according to 
the sums they had disbursed, 5 it was not until the December of 
the year 162,1 that they were in a position to pay any interest. 
In that year they distributed a dividend of 8| per cent, to all the 
existing subscribers, who still held their shares. The remainder 
of the profits fell to the House, whether in return for the original 
sum subscribed by it, or in consequence of gifts, deaths, or 
surrenders. 6 This method was adopted whenever a dividend was 


In divers of these Proportions the numbers of the natives are not certainly set 
iwn, but in this manner, c and such a town land is inhabited by such and such 
natives, and others'. The diminution in the number of the natives since i6zz 
on the Proportions of most of the Companies except that of the Drapers, 
where they had increased by three and in that of the Mercers is remark- 

1 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 44. 

2 Report of April 1618, Letter Book +383, fo. 3. By the year 1623 they 
had expended 3,562. 6s. od. in building. Ib. reverse, fos. 6, 7. 

3 Sir Thomas Phillips, when declaring that if the King had kept the lands in 
his own hands he would have made a great profit, forgets the expenses to which 
the Companies had been put. Cf. +793, p. 89 b. 

4 In 1614, 174. In 1619 they let the whole Proportion to Sir T. Roper for 
230, and a fine of 4 jo. But the rent was never paid. Cf. supra, p. 39. By the 
year 1623 the total amount received in rents was 1,482. Cf. Letter Book 
+ 383, reverse, fo. 8. 

5 Rep. + 131, p. in b. 

6 The shares of those who had not paid all the calls were forfeited to the 
Company, which made itself responsible for the balance. In some cases, however, 
the actual amount paid was returned by way of charity. 

4-6 Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

declared, but this did not happen again till 162/7, when a dividend 
of 5-9 per cent, was distributed. 1 

That the subscribers did not consider the investment a profit- 
able one may be gathered from the number who abandoned their 
shares, rather than pay all the calls (although no doubt in some 
cases this was due to the * decay ' of the holders of shares, or to 
their dying intestate and without heirs), and from the rapidity 
with which those who had so paid surrendered their shares. No 
less than ninety-five belong to the first category, while before 
the close of James's reign eleven, and by the end of the reign 
of Charles I eighty-five, additional shares had been surren- 
dered. 2 

The venture then was not a financial success to the original 
subscribers, nor to the Company for many years. The Company 
indeed benefited as time went on by the surrender or lapsing of 
shares, as shown above, by the increase in the value of the land, 
and owing to the reclamation of part of the waste. But considering 

1 +701 Irish Estate. 

Dividends paid to individual shareholders. 

1621 at 8|% from total profits 617 +701, p. 73. 

* 6 *7 at 5|% 411 ib., p. 27 a 

1628 at 6{l% 500 ib., p. 27 a 

1630 at 10% 700 ib., p. 27 b 

1*32 at 2j% 100 ib., p. 27 b 

16^6 (due at the feast of All Saints, 1634, at y|% 390 ib., p. j 17 b 

1660 at y% 44 i. if,. O rf. . . ib, p. 8ib 

a Total number of those who put down their names 208. Of these 

5 never subscribed. 

6 gave their shares before 1621. 

9$ received no dividend and abandoned their shares before 1621. 

f surrendered their shares between 1621-4. 

8 ? j, 1625-48. 

ii 1660-79. 

We have in all only 42 actual surrenders, but the rest either died or evi- 
dently surrendered because they ceased to receive dividends ; and the date 
when this happened may be taken as the date of surrender, ft is curious that 
more surrenders should not have been recorded, as a Special Book was kept of 
dividends and surrenders, + 701. By the year 1679 all the individual shares had 
fjllen to the Company. Cf. Appendix LI I. 

Tublic Events m Reign of James I 47 

the serious expenses incurred in managing the estate, it was a 
long time before an adequate return was received. 

It has been by some asserted that the survey was carelessly 
made, and that the area of land granted was much larger than 
had been intended. The only ground for such a statement with 
regard to the cultivated land is that in the grant the words 
* a balliboe more or less ' sometimes appear. But the instances are 

Koo few to make much difference. 
With regard to the waste land it is probable that less care was 
aken. Nevertheless it would seem that the Government made 
a very good bargain. In 16*41 1,000 acres of good arable and 
pasture land, with a sufficiency of bog, mountain and wood in 
Ulster, were offered to settlers by the crown for 2.00 ; ' at that price 
he Drapers should have received some 1^,000 acres of arable 
nd pasture land, instead of the 3,110, which was all they were 
ranted. In other words, they would at that price have received 
early five times as much as they did. No doubt the value of 
nd had declined considerably in 1641 owing to the rebellion, 
et it is questionable whether the fall would be as much as one-fifth, 
specially when we remember that the lands were valued at the 
me price in 16? 3 when Ireland had been subdued. 3 Nor, as 
vents were to prove, was the Ulster settlement any more fortunate 
.s a political measure in its immediate results. The failure was in 
ct due to the confusion of financial and political ends. If it was 
esired to establish a strong English garrison in Ireland, the settle- 
ent should have been made more thorough, and it should not 
ave been run on the basis of a joint-stock Company. ' The bane 
fa Plantation ', says Bacon, ' is when undertakers or planters make 
ch haste to a little mechanical present profit as disturbeth the 
hole frame and nobleness of the work for times to come.' 3 
As for the private undertakers, they appear to have been less 
satisfactory than the Companies. Their pecuniary interests tempted 
them to be remiss in strengthening the Plantation with a sufficient 
umber of British settlers and with adequate defence, and led them 

1 Cf. 1 6 Car. I, cap 33, i. 

2 Act of Sept., 1653. Firth and Rait, Acts of the Interregnum, vol. ii, 


3 Bacon, Speech of the year 1617 : Spedding, Life of Bacon, vol. vi, p. zo6. 

48 Relations of the Drapers* Company to 

to re-admit too many Irish as tenants, or to leave them as depen- 
dants without any interest in the land. 1 Moreover, as stated 
below, both the Irish Society and the Companies denied that they 
were under any conditions to remove the Irish. Many of these 
Irish who remained, and whose employment had been fighting, had 
now to till the land of others to gain a living. The rest lived as 
nomad herdsmen on the uncultivated and unappropriated lands, 
which had not been included in the grants. None of them had 
any legal interest in the lands c and few had anything to lose by 
a revolt, while many might think they had much to gain thereby '. 2 
Had Chichester's advice been followed, these men would have been 
given lands, and might thus have been turned into loyal subjects. 
As it was there were too many discontented Irish, 3 who felt that 
they had been despoiled, and too few British to keep them in 
control. The result was the Ulster rebellion of 1641. 
Commission The ill-success of the Plantation led to considerable trouble in 
of Inquiry on the last year of James I's reign. In January 1624. a Commission 
Petition of O jp i n q u i r y was appointed on the motion of Sir Thomas Phillips. 
Sir Thomas ,,,, >, J . . c i c . -pr i 

Phillips The Commission, or whom Sir Thomas was a member, was 

' instructed to inquire into the number of the Irish that were 
inhabiting, residing, manuring, creaghting, 4 or depasturing on the 
several Proportions. In spite of the protest of Tristram Beresfbrd, 
the agent for the Londoners, who alleged that the Londoners 
were purchasers and not planters, the inquiry was made. This 
showed that there were 305- town lands planted with Irish and 

1 Cf. Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1615 zf, p. 514: Memoir by 
Sir T. Phillips. They were even threatened with confiscation ; cf. Petition on 
behalf of the undertakers: Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-25, 
p. 518. 

2 Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, vol. i, p. 89. He estimates that the 
natives were not granted more than one-tenth of the land in the whole of 
Ulster j the rest lived chiefly as dependants on the undertakers : and the number 
of the Irish on the Proportion of the City and the Companies was, according to 
Pinnar, greater than elsewhere. 

3 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1608-10, pp. 501-503,505. Chichestcr 
speaks of the f disappointment of the Irish at the small quantity of land left them 
upon the division', and of their 'discontent and heart's grief. 

4 e Creaghting " is to take herds of cattle from place to place. c Creaght ' is 
a wandering herd. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 49 

3 1 if with English tenants, and 863 Irish, in all, inhabiting the 
said proportions. 1 

In the following July, Sir Thomas presented a petition to the 
King, declaring that the Londoners had brought the country into 
an almost desperate case : that, if they had spent much money, 
they had received valuable consideration for the same, and had 
' so mispent their charge ' that ' their towns and fortresses were 
rather baits to ill affected persons, than places of security ', and 
that ' the few British now planted there were at the mercy of the 
Irish, being daily murthered, robbed and spoiled by them, to the 
terror of others, who would otherwise be willing to come and 
plant there '. 2 

In consequence of this petition the City was, in September, ordered 
to carry out the provisions of the Articles originally agreed upon, 
.nd Sir Thomas was appointed to oversee their performance, with 
a salary of 2,00 to be paid by the Irish Society. The Society 
was further instructed to strengthen its towns and provide adequate 
munitions, to create freeholders and tenants for lives, but none for 
ears certain, thereby debarring the tenants from transferring 

eir estates and departing from their holdings. 3 

The Companies, who had, it was acknowledged, built their 
castles, were to see to the better defence of them, with men and 
munitions; while it was suggested that two additional castles 
should be built, one at the foot of the mountain of Slew Garron 
Sleogh Gallen), whither Tyrone had made his last retreat, the 

Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, pp. 462, 470, 477. The contention 
D the Irish Society and of the Companies was that they were not bound by the 
orders and conditions originally issued to the undertakers, but by the Articles of 
Agreement with the City. In the Articles there is nothing stated as to removal 
of the Irish, nor of the nationality of the tenants they were to plant. In \6\\ 
however the Privy Council, when asked by the Lord Deputy whether the 
Companies were to retain the natives as the then agents assumed, answered that 
they were to plant as other undertakers did, excepting the special privileges 
xpressed in the Articles. Calendar ofState Papers, Ireland, \6\ 1-14, p. 35. It 
irould appear that the Privy Council correctly interpreted the original wish of the 
(ing. But to remove the Irish was impossible, and Charles I was forced to make 
concessions. Cf. supra. 

2 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-2?, p. 514. 

3 The freeholds could not be alienated except by the consent of the Irish 

1603-3 H 

Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

other between Dungiven and Derry. They were to establish six 
freeholders of at least one balliboe each, and ten leaseholders for 
lives on their several proportions. With regard to the remainder 
of the lands a concession was made. Natives might be set there 
if they would take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, learn 
English, adopt English fashion of apparel, and resort to church. 1 
The Meanwhile the Lord Deputy was warning the Privy Council that 

Deputy's Ireland was ' full of rumours, doubts and fears (of a general insurrec- 
warnmg, tion), and full of unsettled and ill-affected people, who desire nothing 
a ' ' so much as alteration', and that he and his Council are utterly 
unprovided with means to prevent or withstand sudden dangers, 
* that the forts are in decay, the army small, their pay hard to be 
collected so great is the want of money and what little there is 
. . . gathered into a few hands, who fear to part with it in these 
doubtful times '." 

On May 27, the Common Council made the following answer 
to the demands of the Privy Council : That the Irish Society 
had long ago fulfilled their agreements with regard to building, 
and moreover had during the past year taken further measures to 
strengthen the same ; but that as for munitions they were not tied 
by any agreement, and humbly prayed that His Majesty would 
provide them. That the twelve Companies had furnished their 
castles with a competent number of arms and munitions ; but that 
from building the two more castles suggested they were disabled, 
by reason of the excessive charges to which they had already been 
put, and conceived that they were not tied to any such article or 
contract. That every one of the twelve Livery Companies had made 
at least six freeholders British of one balliboe at least . . . and that, 
if there were not so many at present, the defect had arisen through 
the default of such as had the estates . . . granted unto them, and 
that they would ' endeavour to reduce the same to the course by 
them therein at the first settled '. That they were unable to 
make the leaseholders required because the rest of the lands had 
been sett for long terms, and humbly prayed that, * inasmuch as 
they were not in a state of other undertakers, who had forfeited 
their estates, and in regard of the extraordinary charge which 

1 Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, i5if-zj, pp. 5x7, 5x9. 

2 Ib., PP- 47*, 484, 54- 

Tubllc Events in Reign of James 1 5-1 

they were willing now to undergo, they might retaine such of 
the natives as. shall conforme in religion and habit and take the 
oath of allegiance and supremacy, without increase of rent or tax V 
Before this answer had been received, James was no more. He 
had died on the 2,7th of the preceding March, and, as was the 
case with so many of his schemes, he was spared from seeing the 
results of his misguided efforts to solve the Irish problem. 


If the Plantation of Ulster was fraught with fateful results to Tfie Virginia 
England and to Ireland, the Colonization of Virginia, though at Colon y- 
first it met with little success, was eventually to have a great 
future. Of this Colony, Sir Walter Raleigh may be called the 
founder. Indeed, but for his half-brother Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 
who made an unsuccessful attempt to colonize Newfoundland, he 
was the first Englishman to dream of making a settlement in the 
New World. In 15-84 Sir Walter received a renewal of a Patent 
originally given to Gilbert. The Patent authorized him to inhabit 
and fortify all lands not yet possessed by any Christian Prince or 
people; and granted him, his heirs and assigns, full proprietary 
rights over all lands within two hundred leagues of the place in 
which he should, during the next six years, make settlements, 
with a monopoly of trade within those limits. 2 Under his auspices 
two attempts were made to colonize the south-west coa>t of the 
Bay of Chesapeake, which, in honour of the Queen, was called 
Virginia. The attempt, however, failed, 3 and it was not till the 
reign of James I that the project was revived. 

1 City Journal, May 17, 1625; Gore, Mayor. Guildhall Library, Tor. 33, 
fos. nob, in, i iz a. 

2 For the history of the Colony of Virginia, see Doyle, The English in America, 
vol. i, pp. 6a ff. ; Brown, Genesis of the United States, vols. i, ii $ Scott, Joint 
Stock Companies, vol. ii, pp. 246 ff. ; Records of the Virginia Company, Washing- 
ton, 19065 Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century 5 
IKingsbury, Records of the Virginia Company of London, Washington, 1908 . 
Egerton, Short History of English Colonial Policy, chap, ii ; Bruce, Economic 
History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 

3 In 1589 Sir Walter transferred his rights to certain Gentlemen of London 
(cf. Brown, Genesis of the United States, vol. i, pp. i8-zo), and a grant of Arms 
was made for the proposed New City of Virginia (cf Queen's College, Oxford, 

Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

The First In April 1 606 two Companies were formed. With the first, 
Charter, chiefly composed of West-country gentlemen and traders, and 
which started the Northern or Plymouth colony, we are not 
concerned. The other turned its attention to the country to the 
south, with its centre at Jamestown. Its principal members were 
Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, Sir John Popham (Chief 
Justice of the King's Bench), Sir Henry Montagu (then Recorder 
of London), 1 and Richard Hakluyt. A few merchants (chiefly of 
London) are also found on the list, but the majority of the Patentees 
belonged to the official and military classes, who at that time were 
deeply interested in all such schemes. 3 

The government of the Company was to be in the hands of 
a resident Council of thirteen, and subsequently of twenty-five 
persons, nominated by and under the control of the superior 
Council in England, the members of which were to be appointed 
by the Crown. The resident Council was to elect a President out 
of its own members, and a Treasurer or Cape Merchant to superin- 
tend the trade. It was to have the privilege of coining money, 
and the control of all precious metals, paying a royalty of one- 
fifth to the Crown. It was to enjoy the right of free transport 
of emigrants and supplies for seven years. It could impose a duty 
of 2-2 per cent, on all subjects, who were not adventurers, and 
5- per cent, on foreigners trafficking in the colony. The proceeds 
were to belong to the Company for twenty-one years, and then to 
fall to the Crown. The resident Council was given the power of 
making laws subject to confirmation by the Crown. The tenure 
of land was to be the same as that in the mother country, and 
provision was made for the establishment of the Church of 
England. 3 

MS. 137). There is one person among the grantees who may possibly have 
been a member of the Drapers' Company, Wm. Stone, who was admitted through 
apprenticeship in 1580. But more probably he was a Clothworker (c Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 49). 

1 Subsequently Chief Justice and then Lord High Treasurer, created Earl of 

2 Doyle, vol. i, pp. 1 44 fF. ; Brown, Genesis of United States, vol. i, p. J i ; 
Ospood, vol. i, p. 31. No Drapers are found on this list. 

^Cf. Doyle, vol. i, pp. 145-7 j Brown, vol. i, pp. 51, 6$ ; Scott, Joint Stock 
Companies, vol. ii, p. 147. 

% Public Events in Reign of James I 5-3 

By this Charter the novel system was established of a com- 
promise between a Proprietary Colony on a joint-stock basis and 
a royal Province. The Crown retained the ultimate control of 
the government, while the proprietors, who were appointed by 
the Council, undertook the risks and benefited from any profit 
that might be made. The majority of the settlers appear to have 
been gentlemen, artisans and labourers. Many of the ' gentlemen ' 
were probably decayed, but the others appear to have been of 
a superior class to those who emigrated at a later date. 1 Of 
this colony the famous Captain John Smith was at one time 

It should be remembered that the main objects of the Settle- 
ment were held to be the discovery of minerals, * and the founding 
of a port, which should be fitted to receive the trade of all the 

countries about', and form a convenient starting-point for the dis- 
covery of the Western Sea. For that purpose Captain Newport, 
who conducted the first expedition after the granting of the Charter, 
was instructed to make choice of that river * which bendeth most 
to the North West, for that way you shall soonest find the other 
sea '. 2 No sooner were these expectations, and especially the hope 
of finding gold, found to be an idle dream than the adventurers 
at home, seeing no hope of immediate profit, became unwilling to 
provide fresh capital, or to induce others to subscribe. They 
declared that their interests were neglected by the resident 
Council in Virginia, which had too much power. They com- 
plained that * hitherto it had fed the adventurers but with ifs and 
ands and hopes and some few proofes ', and warned the settlers that 
if they could not make some return for the supplies sent them, 
which had cost between 2,000 and 3,000, 'they were like to 
remain as banished men '. 3 This however the settlers were quite 
unable to do. Of the 300 colonists sent in 1600 about one-third 
had died and their places had not been filled. 4 Finally those at 
home feared that the King's known desire to conciliate Spain 

1 Osgood, vol. i, p. 34. 

2 Cf. Brown, Genesis, vol. i, pp. 79 IF. 

3 Scott, Joint Stock Companies, vol. ii, p. 149. 

4 Osgood, The American Colonies, vol. i, p. 61 

tion of the 

Precept of 
the Mayor. 

5-4- Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

might end in an abandonment of the plantation. 1 They claimed, 
as seemed not unnatural, that those who supplied the funds of the 
undertaking should have more immediate control, and therefore 
wished to transfer the government to a Council in England, and 
to free the Company from its close dependence on the Crown. 

The outcome of these complaints and difficulties was the 
reorganization of the Company which was effected in the spring 
of i6op. This was preceded by a vigorous appeal for more 
support. Every inducement was given to encourage subscribers 
and settlers. The City rang with sermons insisting on the 
* glorious and happy work of planting there, not only humanity 
instead of brutish incivility ', but the Protestant religion, and com- 
paring the settlement of Virginia to that of Canaan by the 
Israelites. ' This land ', said one preacher, * was of old time offered 
to our Kings. Our late soveraigne Queen Elizabeth, being a pure 
virgin found it, set foot in it and called it Virginia. Our most 
sacred Soveraigne, in whom is the spirit of his great Ancestor 
Constantine, the pacificer of the World and planter of the Gospel in 
places most remote, desireth to present this land a pure Virgine to 
Christ . . . Lord finish this good worke Thou hast begun, and 
marry this land, a pure Virgine, to thy Kingly sonne Christ Jesus; 
so shall Thy Name be magnified ; and we shall have a Virgin or 
Maiden Britaine, a comfortable addition to our Great Britain.' 2 

At the same time the more material interests of the Londoners 
were not forgotten. And here we note a change in the prospects 
held out. Although belief was still expressed that the country 
was rich in gold and copper, there is but doubtful reference to the 
possibilities of penetrating to the Western Sea. The Pamphlets 
which were distributed spoke in glowing terms of the fruitfulness 
of the soil, of the quantities of fish and timber, and of the numerous 
articles of export, which would establish a thriving trade with the 
old world. 3 

To this appeal the civic authorities gave their support. 
Sir Humphrey Weld, the Lord Mayor, a member of the Grocers' 

' Cf. A Justification for planting Virginia, Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 
xciii, fo. 100. 

2 Cf. Brown, vol. i, pp. 148, tftf, 185, 361 ff, 377. 

3 Records of Virginia Company, vol. i, p. 10. 

Tub lie Events in Reign of James I 


Company, issued a precept * charging the Masters and Wardens of 
the London Companies ' to deal very earnestly and effectually ' 
with their members, while Aldermen were enjoined to do the same 
with regard to the inhabitants of their wards. The citizens were 
reminded, as they had been in the matter of Ulster, that the 
plantation would give an opportunity of diminishing the risk of 
famine and pestilence in the City by removing some of the surplus 
population, and also prove a source of profit to the adventurers. As 
for the emigrants, they were promised ' meate drinke and clothing, 
with an howse, orchard and garden for the meanest family, and a 
possession of lands to them and their posterity.' 2 In response to 
these appeals, fifty-six Companies 3 and 6yp individuals consented to 
take shares. The 6_fp persons who took individual shares were 
of all classes and professions, and their subscription varied from 
12, los. od. 4 to 150. In all a sum of 18,000 was contributed ; 
f,ooo by the Companies and 13,000 by individuals. 

Although the contribution of 1^0 made by the Company of 
the Drapers was not nearly as high as that of the Grocers, which 
subscribed 4.87 TOJ-. o</., it stood fifth on the list with that of the 
Fishmongers. 5 Besides this corporate contribution, towards which tureof 1609. 
ten subscribed ? each, ten other influential members and probably 
nine freemen were among the original subscribers whose names 
appear in the Charter. In addition to these, four more members 
of high standing in the Drapers' Company and four or five free- 
men subsequently took shares. 6 

In May i6op the Company was reorganized. By the 

Part taken 


1 Brown, vol. i, p. 254. 

2 Letter of the Lords of his Majesties Council; cf. Appendix. 

3 The answers of the various Companies may be found in Brown, Genesis, 
vol. i, pp. 2jo, 254, 257, 277, 278. He is, however, wrong when he says that 
there is no reference to the venture in the Drapers' Records. 

4 Cf. Brown, vol. i, p. 229. Peers, zi j Knights, 96; Members of learned 
Professions, 1 1 ; Captains, 53 j Gentlemen, j8 ; Merchants, 1 10 j Citizens, 282 j 
Unclassified, 28. Of the 659 Adventurers, 130 subscribed for three or more 
shares j 229 subscribed for less than one share; 200 never paid up for their 

5 The Mercers, the Goldsmiths, and the Merchant Taylors subscribed 200 
Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 47 j Brown, Genesis, vol. i, p. 468. 

6 Cf. Appendix VIII. 

5*6 Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

Second charter, which was then granted, 1 it was constituted a Corporation 
Charter of under the title of * The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers 
and Planters of the City of London ' for the Colony of Virginia. 
I* was composed of the (rj-p subscribers, a motley assemblage of 
Peers, headed by Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, of Members of 
Parliament, 2 Knights, Captains, Esquires, Gentlemen, Merchants, 
Citizens and Ministers. To these were added the fifty-six Com- 
panies who had subscribed. The government was vested in 
a Treasurer and Council in England, and a Captain General who 
was Governor in the Colony. 

The members of the Council in England were to be nominated in 
the first instance by the Crown. Subsequently they were to be 
elected for lifeby the Members themselves, but subject to the approval 
of the King. All legislative power and the right to appoint officials 
was vested in the Treasurer and Council in England. The Com- 
pany was given full sovereignty over all British settlers, whom it 
might import at will : empowered to wage defensive war by sea 
and land, and to levy custom duties of 5- per cent, from British 
subjects, and 10 per cent, from aliens, for twenty-one years; they 
were then to accrue to the Crown. The Company was therefore 
established as an independent Community governed by a representa- 
tive Body ; a Commercial Company with over-lordship over 
a proprietary Colony, which had added to its commercial responsi- 
bilities the functions hitherto enjoyed by the Crown, although 
like all other Corporations the Company was subject to the 
sovereign control of King and Parliament. The first Treasurer 
was Sir Thomas Smith, a Haberdasher and member of several 
other chartered Companies, and the first Governor Lord De 
la Warr. 

The limits of the Colony were also greatly increased. It was 
to extend from sea to sea along the coast for two hundred miles on 
each side of Point Comfort, as well as to all islands within one 
hundred miles of the land, and covered an area of one million 
square miles. 

Membership in the Company was open to all who took a share 

1 Cf. Brown, Genesis, vol. i, pp. 108 fF. 

2 At least one hundred had been, were, or were to be M.P.s. 

Public Events in Reign of James I 5-7 

d. Subsequently every such share could be divided 
into half-shares. In return for their subscriptions the share- 
holders received Bills of Adventure. 1 These entitled them to have 
a part, according to their contribution, of all such lands ' as should 
from time to time be recovered, planted and inhabited, as also of 
such mines and minerals of gold, silver and other metals or 
treasure, pearls, precious stones, or any other kind of wares, 
merchandise, commodities, or profits whatsoever as should be 
obtained or gotten in the voyage '. The Society was therefore 
founded on a joint-stock basis. The proceeds of the subscriptions 
were to be spent upon the Plantation. Any surplus was to be 
divided among the adventurers or funded for seven years, during 
which period the settlers were to be maintained at the charge of 
the Company. At the end of that period every shareholder was 
to receive a grant of land in proportion to the stock he held. 
Membership was also offered to emigrants, who, on taking the 
Oath of Supremacy, became entitled to shares according to the 
estimated value of their services. 2 

During the years i<5op-io no less than three expeditions were Bad plight 
dispatched with emigrants, among whom some women are for the * the 
first time mentioned. 3 But some of the ships of the first fleet 
were lost in a storm, yellow fever broke out on the remainder ; 
and this, with the plague which was conveyed to the Colony, 
caused great havoc among the earlier emigrants. The troubles 
with the natives increased, while the character of the settlers was 
enough to ruin any Colony. Sir Thomas Dale, the Lieut. Governor 
and High Marshal of the Colony in io"i i, declared that they were 
4 so profane so notorious and so full of mutiny, and withal so 
diseased and crazed that not sixty of them could be employed upon 
labour '. Unruly gallants, it was said, were sent to Virginia to 

1 For a specimen of a Bill of Adventure, cf. Brown, Genesis of the United 
States, vol. i, p. 47 1 ; Clode, Memorials of the Merchant Tailors Company, p. 1 46. 

2 Kingsbury, Records, p. 75. The apportionment of these lands was very 
complicated. No interest appears to have been paid, nor can I find evidence in 
the Drapers' Accounts either of interest being paid or of lands being granted to 
them. Brown quotes several statements as to there being c no hope of profit ', 
vol. ii, pp. 581, 619, 661, 789. 

3 Osgood, vol. i, p. j i. 

1603-3 1 

5-8 Relations of the 'Drapers Company to 

escape ill destinies, and parents thus disburdened themselves of 
lascivious sons, masters or bad servants, and wives of ill husbands. 
Lord De la Warr, the first Governor, described the emigrants as 
' Men of such distempered bodies and infected minds, whom no 
examples daily before their eyes, either of goodness or punishment, 
can deter from their habitual impieties, or terrify from a shameful 
death '.' 

Sir Thomas Under these circumstances, Sir Thomas Dale supplemented and 
Dale's Laws, put into force a code of Laws, which had been previously drawn up, 
and which was only fitted for a penal settlement. Not only were 
blasphemy and treason punishable by death ; but to speak against 
the Articles of the Christian Faith ; to calumniate the Company, 
or any book published by its authority ; to traffic with the natives 
or with any ships touching at Jamestown ; to kill cattle or 
poultry without permission of the Governor, or maliciously root 
up any crop, were all declared capital offences; while any one 
* giving disgraceful words ', or committing an act to the disgrace 
of any person in the colony was to be tied head and feet together 
upon the ground every night for a month. To be absent from 
service on Sunday incurred a death sentence, and to be absent 
from daily service, for which a ' Praier ' of nearly 3,000 words 
was provided, was punishable by six months in the galleys ! '' 
Meanwhile the settlers were treated like convicts. They worked 
in gangs under overseers, lived in common barracks and ate at 
common tables. 3 But experience has shown that such Draconian 
legislation as this rarely answers, and with such colonists as these 
there was little hope of success. Moreover, supported as they 
were from the common store, and with nothing to gain from an 
increased output, they had no inducement to work their best. 
Failure caused disappointment at home. Many of those who had 
been engaged as servants declined to go out; adventurers became 
remiss in paying for their shares ; 4 funds ran short, and the 
Company appeared on the very verge of ruin. 

It was clear that if the Colony was to survive, the Company 

1 Cf. Doyle, vol. i, pp. 1 80, 1 8 1 ; Scott, vol. ii, p. 2^4, who give the authorities. 

2 Doyle, vol. i, p. 8* ; Brown, vol. ii 3 p. 530. 

3 Osgood, vol. ij p. 64. 4 Scott, vol. ii, p. 251. 

^Public Events in Reign of James I 5-9 

would have to be reconstructed, and more money raised. Accord- The third 
ingly another Patent was granted in 161 2,, and a vigorous attempt Charter, 

j L -L T ! /"-I- r iT March 1612. 

was made to attract new subscribers. In this Charter none or the 
London Companies appeared in their corporate capacity, but eighty- 
three citizens, mostly merchants, as well as 2,42, subscribers of 
other denominations, five corporate towns, and the Corporation of 
the Trinity House are also found. 1 

Judging from the number of Drapers mentioned in this Charter, 
their enthusiasm in the Venture had apparently cooled. No 
member, who was at the time in an influential position in the 
Company, is on the list of the Incorporators. Ed. Baber only 
entered the livery in the very year of the Charter, while Harper 
was not called till later. Besides these there were at most four 
freemen ; while Richard Edwards, an incorporator of the Company 
of the Bermudas or Somers Isles, and Master of the Drapers' 
Company in 1630-1, joined the Virginia Company at a later 
"ate. 2 

It is not improbable that one reason for this remarkable falling- 
off is that it was just at this time that pressure was being put 
upon the members of the Company to pay up their subscriptions 
towards the Ulster Plantation. 

By the Charter of 1612- the Bermudas or Somers Islands were 
added to the lands already ceded. Regulations were also made for 
the better management of the Company. Four General Courts 
were to be held yearly, and meetings of the Council once a week. 
Special provision was made for the expulsion of defaulting 
adventurers, and for punishing servants who failed to fulfil their 
contracts. At the same time the Company was freed from all 

1 Viz.: Peers, zj ; Knights, in j Esquires, 66; Doctors, Ministers, &c., loj 
Gentlemen, 30. Some 120 were at some time members of the House of 
Commons. About izj subscribed 37 TO/, orf. each; 83 less than 3 7 ios. od.; 
117 nothing. Of those who subscribed and took bills of adventure, about one- 
third settled in Virginia, about one-third sent their agents or their relations, while 
the rest sold their shares to settlers. The cities mentioned were Chichester, 
Dover, Ipswich, Lyme Regis, and Sandwich. Brown, Genesis, vol. ii, 
p. 541. 

2 Cf. Appendix VII A. Ed. Baber was called to the livery during the year 
1611-13 Harper in the year 1613-14. 





60 Relations of the Drapers* Company to 

export or import duties, and was empowered to increase its funds 
by establishing lotteries. 1 

'The Kings Majestic', says the chronicler Howes, 'in speciall 
favour for the present plantation of English Colonies in Virginia 
graunted a liberal Lottery, in which was contained r,ooo in 
prizes certaine, besides rewards of casualty, and began to be 
drawne in a new house at the West end of St. Pauls the ipth June 
1612.. Out of which lottery, for want of filling up the number 
of lots, there were then taken out and throwne away three score 
thousand blankes without any one prize, and by the twentieth of 
July all was drawne and finished. This lottery was so plainly 
carried and honestly performed that it gave full satisfaction to all 
persons. Thomas Sharplisse a Taylor had the chief prize which 
was 4000 crown in fayre plate.' 8 It is evident from the with- 
drawal of 60,000 blanks from the lottery that the results had 
been disappointing. Accordingly in 1614 another lottery was 
started on more favourable terms. 3 To both these lotteries the 
Drapers contributed 30 in their corporate capacity 'besides any- 
thing any brother may like to venture '. No record survives of 
any tickets being taken by individual Drapers, and apparently the 
Company did not succeed in drawing any prizes. 4 Finally the 
Company in 1610 twice subscribed the sum of i6s. $d. towards 

1 Brown, vol. ii, pp. 541 ff. 

2 Howes, Chron., quoted Brown, vol. ii, p. 570. Cf. Original Letter from the 
Privy Council to the Drapers signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, 
Appendix VII B. For the part taken in the lottery by the Goldsmiths, 
cf. Prideaux, vol. i, pp. i [9, 113. 

3 The conditions of this second lottery are interesting. Any shareholder who 
ventured twice the amount of the arrears due by him was exempted from all 
suits for a recovery of such arrears, and any person might exchange his chance 
of a prize, or the prize itself, for a share or shares in the Company. Prizes were 
also offered to some of those who drew blanks ; e. g. to those who drew the first 
three blanks, and the last blank, and special rewards to those who took up 
many lots. Cf. Brown, Genesis, Advertisement, vol. ii, p. 760 fly-page. There 
were several lotteries held subsequently, but in these the Drapers apparently 
took no part. The total profit of the Lotteries was 38,000; Scott, vol. ii, 
p. 158. 

4 Rep. + 13 i, fos. 83 b, 10 1 ab. The members of the Goldsmiths' Company 
also declined to subscribe individually, though the Company did. Prideaux, 
Goldsmiths, vol. i, pp. 119, 113. 

"Public Events in Reign of James I 6r 

the charges of transporting one hundred vagrant boys and girls to 
be there industrially employed. 1 

As this is the last important reference to the Plantation of 
Virginia which is found in the Drapers' records, and neither the 
Company nor its members appear henceforth to have taken much 
interest in the concern, 2 it would be without our province to 
pursue the history of the Colony in any detail. We must there- 
fore confine ourselves to a brief sketch of its future fortunes. 

After the grant of the Charter of 1612, the prospects of the 
Colony had become somewhat brighter. In the April of that 
year Pocahontas, the daughter of Powhatan, the most influential 
of the Indian chiefs, was taken prisoner. She was shortly after 
baptized, and married to one of the principal settlers, John Rolfe. 
Her father became reconciled to the English. Peace was also 
made with the Chickahominies, the most warlike of the neighbour- 
ing tribes, while the attempt of the French to make a settlement 
in the neighbourhood was defeated, although it must be confessed 
that the way it was done cannot be defended. The proceeds 
of the two lotteries had also improved the finances, and an 
experimental consignment of tobacco in 16 13 had been very 

In the Parliament of 1614 the Virginia Company indeed came 
into conflict with the House of Commons. The incident is 
interesting because it is the first instance of a colonial question 
being debated in the House. The occasion was, however, some- 
what trivial. One Middleton, though a member of the Virginia 
Company, attacked the tobacco trade which was the chief source 
of profit to the Company. This he said had led to increase of 
smoking, * infinitely to the prejudice of the Commonwealth '. 
4 Many divines ', he said, ' now smell of tobacco, and poor men 
spend ^d. of their days wages at night in smoke.' He therefore 
wished that the patent might ' be damned ' and an Act passed for 
the better plantation of the Colony, and supply thereof 3 The 

1 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. ?i j Renters' Accounts, 1617-18, fo. zo j 1619- 
10, fo. 1 6. 

2 Besides the members of the Drapers' Company already given, fifteen are 
mentioned in the Drapers' books as having settled in Virginia between 161 J-f4. 

3 Brown, vol. ii, pp. 689-90 ; Doyle, vol. i, p. zoo. Mr. Doyle identifies this 

The later 
history of 
the Virginia 
up to 1624. 

Question of 
the Charter 
raised in 

tion of the 
of the 
161 f. 

Division of 
lands, \6\6. 

6^ Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

Company in defence petitioned that they should be heard by 
counsel. Unfortunately their counsel, Mr. Martin, 1 was indiscreet 
enough to lecture the House on its neglect of the Colony whereby 
it imitated the thriftless parsimony or Henry VII in rejecting the 
offers of Columbus ; and if we may believe one authority, he 
alluded contemptuously to the youth of many of its members. 
* Formerly ', said he, * it was the custom of old men to make laws 
for young ones ; but now nature is inverted, seeing young men 
enact laws to govern their fathers/ 2 Martin had to make humble 
submission for his indiscretion, and the Act might have passed had 
not the Parliament, known in history as * The Addled Parliament', 
been shortly afterwards dissolved by the King owing to a quarrel 
over taxation. 

In the year 16 15- the Somers Isles or Bermudas were separated 
from the Virginia Company and incorporated under the title of 
'The Governor and Company of the City of London for the 
plantation of the Somers Islands '. In this venture the Drapers 
again took a considerable part. Morris Abbot, Abraham Cart- 
wright, Thomas Church, Allan Cotton, Richard Edwards, Nicholas 
Exton, W m . Garway and Cleophas Smith, all of them connected 
with the Virginia Company, were incorporates of the new 
Company, and five other freemen were probably members. 3 

In the following year the Company of Virginia was able to 
proceed to the division of the lands. All owners of shares of 
iz IQJ-. were to receive 100 acres, and if they settled on the 
land themselves another 100 acres, with an addition of 5-0 acres 
for each person whom they transported and settled on their 
estates. Henceforth the individual owner and not the Company, 
as hitherto, would be responsible for the outlay on their estates 
and receive the profits. 5 The position of the smaller settlers had 
also been improved. Allotments of 3 acres were leased to them, 
and they were relieved from all labour for the community save for 

Middleton with Sir Thomas, then Mayor of London. But this is probably 

1 Richard Martin was one of the leading lawyers of his day. He became 
Recorder of London in 1618. 

2 Brown, vol. ii, p. 694. 3 C f Appendix VII A. 
4 Records of the Virginia Company, vol. i, p. 75. 

"Public Events in Reign of James I 

one month a year. The labourers, while they had still to work 
on the ' common garden ' for eleven months in the year, had a 
month at their own disposal, while artisans, though they had to 
till the common land in return for their support, had more time 
at their own disposal. 1 Six small settlements had by that date 
been started along the James river. The total population of the 
colony was, however, only 381, including women and children. 
Of these, 81 were farmers with small allotments. No plough was 
yet in use, but there was a fair supply of cattle, goats, pigs and 
poultry, as well as 6 horses, while the tobacco industry had been 
definitely started. 2 

Sir Thomas Dale, who had been the Marshall or Governor 
since 1611, resigned in the same year. He was shortly followed 
by Samuel Argal (itfi^-ip) who 'recklessly exploited the 
lands and the trade of the Company ', 3 but he was fortunately 
removed when Sir Edwin Sandys, one of the party of reformers Sir Edwin 
in the House of Commons, succeeded Sir Thomas Smith as treasurer Sandys 
in England. His appointment was followed by a long and con- T *' easm ' er 
fused struggle between Sandys and his opponents. On the merits 
of the quarrel authorities differ. 4 Some maintain that Sandys re- 
presented the party of progress and freedom as opposed to the 
autocratic and corrupt policy of the King. They point out that 
under his administration a scheme for endowment of the Governor, 
a college and the Church out of unoccupied lands was planned ; 
that the joint system of land ownership was being gradually 
replaced by the increase of the number of tenants farming their 
own allotments, and that the number of adventurers, who ex- 
changed their shares for land, grew. At the same time further 
colonization was promoted by the grant of sub-patents to private 
societies. 5 Having thus formed a strong body of substantial 

1 Osgood, vol. i, p. 75. These improvements were probably introduced in 1614. 

2 Ib., vol. i, p. 76. 3 Ib., p. 77. 

4 Cf. Doyle, vol. i, pp. zo8 ff. ; Scott, vol. if, pp. 267 ft.-, Osgood, vol. i, 
pp. 80 ff. j Egerton, Brief History of English Policy, p. 34. The records of the 
Company under Sir Thomas Smith were lost, and Sandys' version is the only one 
that has survived. Some valuable information may be found in the Historical 
MSS. Commission, Report 8, pt. n, Manchester MSS. 

5 By the close of the year 1619 six such patents had been granted, one before 
the rule of Sandys. Osgood, vol. i, p. 84. 

(>4- Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

settlers, the deputy Governor, Sir George Yeardley, with the 
approval of Sandys, summoned the first Assembly of elected 
* Burgesses ', who from that time till the revocation of the charter 
sat at regular intervals to legislate for the colony. Serious attempts 
were also made to convert and civilize the natives. Moreover, 
Sandys is represented as the supporter of a policy of greater freedom 
of trade and as the opponent of a monopoly of tobacco, which 
had been granted to certain patentees in nfoo. And if he subse- 
quently secured another monopoly for the Company, this they 
declare was less harmful than one in the hands of private 
individuals, who had no connexion with the Company. The 
supporters of Smith, the representative of the old merchants, while 
not attempting to deny that Smith left the finance of the Colony 
in much disorder and that progress was made under Sandys, dispute 
his claim to be an apostle of freedom of trade. Representing as he 
did the new men, he was no doubt opposed to those who wished 
to continue along the old lines of trade regulation and who were 
in possession, but if Sandys procured the dissolution of the joint- 
stock enterprise, which had since 161 6 enjoyed the monopoly of 
the trade of the Company, he very shortly re-established a new 
one, and, as before mentioned, again revived the tobacco monopoly. 1 
If this be so the quarrel was not an isolated one, but only one 
more example of a struggle which was then being waged in many 
other directions. 2 In any case the King, who had his own reasons 
for disliking Sandys, sent a strongly-worded message forbidding 
his re-election. ' Choose the devil if you will ', he is reported to 

1 Osgood, vol. i, p. 88 ; Scott, vol. ii, p. 170. The system on which the trade 
of the Colony was conducted was a curious one. Till \6\6 the trade, both 
import and export, had been in the hands of the Company. But as this was 
a financial success, a private Association known as the Society of particular 
adventurers for traffic with the people of Virginia in joint stock' was formed, 
which divided the profits of trade amongst its subscribers. This was often called 
the Great or Old Magazine. Other subsidiary Joint Stock Societies were also 
started later. Scott, vol. ii, pp. 156, 188. 

2 See, for instance, 1613-17, The New Company of Merchant Adventurers 
and Cloth Merchants against the Old. The Interlopers against the Old East 
India Company, 1617-30. Cf. Scott, Joint Stock Companies, vol. ii, pp. 105 fF., 
and the struggle for free trade within the Company of Spain and Portugal, 
Selden Soc. 18, XXIV. 

Tubltc Events in Reign of James I 65- 

have written, * but not Sir Edwin Sandys/ The King indeed 
succeeded in excluding his chief enemy but Henry Wriothesley, 
the Earl of Southampton, the patron of Shakespeare, and one of 
the supporters of Sandys, was chosen, and since he took little part 
in the affairs of the Company, Sandys remained the controlling 
spirit. 1 In revenge, the King in 162,1 forbad any further lotteries, 
which were c the real and substantial food ' of the Colony, while 
a serious rising of the natives in 162,2,, and the persistent efforts of 
Spain to ruin the Colony, added to its difficulties. 

Meanwhile the quarrels of the rival factions continued both at 
home and abroad. In Virginia the feuds were compared to those 
of the Guelfs and Ghibellines of Italy, and their meetings were 
declared to be cockpits rather than courts. 2 In England the con- 
troversy was fanned by the heated condition of home politics, 
and finally in 162,3 the Company was summoned before the Privy 
Council to answer the charges brought against it. A Commission The 
of Inquiry, upon which many enemies of the Company sat, 3 re- Com P an y 
ported that the administration of the Colony under the Chartered tSTthe 
Company had been loose and inefficient, and the Privy Council p r i vy Coun- 
decided, in spite of the remonstrance of the Colonists, to recom- cil, 16x3. 
mend the resumption of the Charter and the transference of the 
Government in England to a Council appointed by the King, 
who should also appoint the Governor and the Colonial Council. 
In vain the Company attempted to appeal to Parliament. Although 
their Petition was favourably received, further action was pre- 
vented by a message from the King forbidding any interference. 
And on the 2,4th of July 162,4. t ^ le charter was revoked in an 1614 
action Quo Warmnto. By this measure the whole control of the Revocation 

Colony was transferred to the Crown, and the Company was f, the 


1 It is interesting to remember that Nicholas Ferrar, who subsequently founded 
the remarkable religious community at Little Gidding, and who at this date was 
a member of the Council of Virginia in England, was a supporter and indeed 
the chief adviser of Sandys. Cf. Diet. National Biography under Ferrar's name. 

2 Chamberlain to Carleton, quoted in Brown, vol. ii, p. 1006. The names of 
Morris Abbot and William Essington are found in a list of adventurers who 
c dislike ye present proceedings of business in ye Virginia and Somers Islands 
Companys ' ; ib. p. 981. 

3 Miss Kingsbury says that the statement of Sandys c that accusers and judges 
were one' is proved. Cf. Records of Virginia Company, p. 65. 

66 Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

reduced to the position of a mere trading society, dependent for 
its position and privileges on the royal favour. Nine months 
later James died. 

It can hardly be questioned that the revocation of the Charter 
was an arbitrary act, the justification for which must be found on 
grounds of policy rather than of law. The argument of the 
Crown that the Charter of 1612, was bad on account of its 
unlimited character, and that under the clause permitting the 
transportation of as many loving subjects as were willing to go it 
would be possible to denude England of all its inhabitants, was 
surely puerile. James no doubt disliked the * popularness ' ' of 
the Virginia Company, and the proceedings of the Colonial 
Assembly went far to justify his dislike, while his antipathy to 
Sandys and his parliamentary party in England naturally coloured 
his views. It does not, however, follow that the transference of 
the government of the Colony to the Crown was not the best way 
out of the difficulty, or that the interests of the colonists were 
thereby injured. It must be confessed that the previous history 
of the Colony had not been happy. The warning of Bacon as to 
the danger of starting a colony through the agency of a financial 
company, whose primary aim is to make a profit of the concern, 
is as applicable to the Colony of Virginia as it was to the Ulster 
Plantation. Nevertheless it should be remembered that without 
the impulse, which the commercial spirit gave, it is doubtful 
whether any of our colonies would have been founded, since the 
Crown was unwilling and indeed unable to incur the financial risk 
involved. 2 Moreover, the poor success of the enterprise was due 
in a great measure to want of experience in the matter of coloni- 
zation at the time, and to the difficulty in procuring the right 
kind of settlers. 

It may also be claimed for the Company that it had lived 
through its worst difficulties, and was on the way to a more 
prosperous future. Whether, if it had been allowed to develop on its 
own lines, it would have succeeded in founding a great Empire as 
the East India Company, in spite of many mistakes and short- 

1 Nethersole to Carlisle. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Scries, 1574-60, 


2 Cf. Osgood, The American Colonies, vol. i, p. i. 

Tublic Events in Reign of James I 

comings, did, is a question of academical interest to which there is 
no definite answer to be made. Be that as it may, the change in 
the relations of the Colony to the Home Government is interesting 
as being the first indication of an Imperial policy, the advocates 
of which found themselves hampered by the independent action 
of a chartered company and thought that the general interests 
both of the Colony and the Home Government would be best 
secured by more effective control from home, a policy which was 
to triumph in the later part of the seventeenth century. 

With one more adventure which was attempted in the reign of The Com- 
James I, members of the Drapers' Company were also connected. P an y ^ tfie 
Some bold spirits hoped that a way might be found to the East '" ' as ~ 

1 r i -WT i TT? T r. 111 r ^ Sage, 1611. 

through the icy regions or the North- West. Ir it could be round 
it would at least be free from complications with any European 
power. Accordingly in 1 6 12., the Company of the N.-W. Passage 
was incorporated by Charter, and among these incorporators are 
found six or eight members of the Drapers' Company, all of whom 
had, however, taken part in the Virginia Company or that of 
the Somers Isles. 1 

Throughout the reign of James I the system of corn money was Corn 
continued, and the assistance of the Livery Companies invoked, mone y- 
with the hopes of thereby regulating prices. 2 The amount to be 
provided by the Drapers varied, but after the year 1618 the usual 
quantity was "768 quarters of wheat or rye, out of 10,000 demanded 
of the fifty-five Companies of London. 3 In the year 1604, owing 
to the complaint of some Companies that their assessment was too 
high, the rate was altered, but this did not affect the Drapers, 
who stood fifth as before. 4 In the same year, it being found that 
the Company suffered a yearly loss by having to buy and sell the 
corn at a moment's notice, it was decided that in future this should 
be done whenever a favourable opportunity presented itself. The 
Renter accounted for the corn money, but paid over the proceeds 

1 Cf. Appendix VII A. 

2 For the earlier history of corn money, cf. vol. ii of this work, Index and 
Appendix xxv, p. 413. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 4 b, zi a, 36 a, 81 a, 913, 1^43, 167 b, 1913. Mayors' 
Precepts +371, PP- 3 b > 7 a. 

4 Rep. + 1 3 r, p. 1 7 b. Cf. Clode, Merchant Taylors, vol. i, pp. 319, note j, 405. 

Act for 
better relief 
of creditors, 

tion to build- 
ing Schools 
tion at 

68 Relations of the Drapers' Company to 

to 'the chest whereby to defray the cost of future purchases, instead 
of raising the money in whole or part by assessment on the 
brethren, as had been the earlier custom ; x and in 16 ip the Mayor 
issued a Precept stating that the very low price caused great 
inconvenience to farmers and husbandmen, who were thereby 
unable to find a market, and ordering the Companies to buy 
because the price was too low, instead of letting it be provided by 
chandlers and bakers ; 2 2.7*. was considered a low price. Some- 
times when prices were down, or in anticipation of a good harvest, 
they had to sell it at 2,6>., but generally a profit was made, except 
for the loss from weevils, or because tlie corn had become musty. 3 
In 162.0 the Mayor issued a Precept ordering the Company to 
bring six quarters of wheat to Leadenhall market every Monday 
till further notice, and to sell it to poor people in small quantities 
at 4</. the bushel below the market price. 4 

Mr. Heath says that in 162,2, corn was demanded from the 
Grocers' Company for the royal household, because, owing to the 
neglect of the royal purveyors, it was short of wheat, but of this 
there is no notice in the Drapers' books. 5 In i6op new garners 
were built at Bridewell at a cost of if$ I2.J". ; of which $$ izs. 
was paid out of the money which had been received for corn 
lately sold. 6 

Of other contributions made to public objects by the Drapers 
during the early part of the reign, two are worth mentioning. In 
the year 1604 tne y took a share in the expenses of promoting the 
Act for the better relief of creditors against such as shall become 
bankrupts, a measure in which, as business men, they would 
necessarily be interested; 7 and, in April 1617, 4.0 was given at 
the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and others towards 
erecting public schools of disputation at Oxford. 8 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 45 b, ?8 a, 74 b, pz a. Wardens' Accounts, 1607, fos. 46-7. 
If there was a good balance it would at times be devoted to other purposes ; cf. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 35. 

1 Mayors' Precepts +371, p. 7a. 3 Rep. + 13 i, pp. 9 a, 40 b, 50 b, 148 a. 

4 Mayors' Precepts +371, p. 8 a. 5 Heath, Grocers, p. 6%. 

6 Rep. -f i 3 r, pp 63 b, 64 b, 70 a. 

7 Cf. Stat. i James I, c. xv ; Rep. -f 13 I, p. 178. 

8 Rep. +131, p. iz7b. These schools still exist. They are 'on the ground 
floor of the north-west and south sides of the Bodleian Quadrangle. They were 

TuUic Events in Reign of James I 69 

Although the demands of King James for loans from the City 
were frequent, the great majority of them were raised by the 
Mayor on the citizens in their wards, and not on the Companies. 
They therefore find no place in the records of the Drapers. There 
was, however, one loan and two Benevolences or ' gratuities ' 
which were levied partly or wholly on the Companies. To the 
loan of ji$-,ooo demanded of the Companies in 1604, the Drapers' 
share was 1,1^2,. For this loan 18 members of the Court, 5-7 
of the Livery, one Widow, Mrs. Jayes, and yy Yeomen were 
assessed. 1 As certain of them refused to pay, their names were 
sent to the Mayor. One Sivedale subsequently came to terms, 
but we are not told whether they all did, or how they were 
punished. The loan was repaid by the King in the year 1606. 

In lo'oS-p they contributed 10 ifs. towards a gratuity or aid 
to Prince Henry; 2 and in 161^, James, being 'disappointed' of 
his expectation of financial relief by the sudden dissolution of the 
Parliament of 1614,3 turned to his loyal citizens and prayed them 
to help him in his necessity with the loan of 100,000, reminding 
them that he had repaid all the loans raised either by his late 

commenced in the year 1613, and were not completed till the year 1619. To 
these schools the Mercers contributed 66 131. 4^., the Goldsmiths ao, the 
Haberdashers 50, and the Skinners 40. Anthony a Wood, History of Oxford, 
in English, by Gutch, vol. ii, p. 790 fF. ; Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 117. 

1 The rates at which the Companies were assessed were the same as those 
agreed upon for the loan to the late Queen in 1598. The amounts at which 
each member was assessed are only given in the case of a few members of the 
Court. It appears, however, that the total sum thus raised was only 91 8 6s. Sd. 
Accordingly a Committee was appointed to reconsider the matter. Eventually 
100 was found by Thomas Wicken, the Renter, and 194 borrowed from the 
trust for the children of Alderman Barneham, who had died in 1576. This 
brought the amount raised to i 3 zn 6s. 8d. 3 which was 60 6s. Sd. too much. 
Some of the surplus was spent in incidental expenses. Thus 6s. id. went towards 
c a repast to the Master Wardens, when they sate about the Collection ', and 
is. was paid to the Lord Mayor's officer for attendance when those who refused 
to pay were committed. Presumably the balance would be handed back to the 
Renter. Cf. Rep. +131, pp. 143, ifb, i6a, 17 b, zia. Wardens' Accounts, 
1604-?, fos. 35, 41, 43, 49 j ib. 1606-7, fo- 37. Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 13, 
tells us that other Companies were also remis's in paying. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, 1608-9, & f * 

3 This was called the AddJed Parliament because it was dissolved without 
passing a single Act. 




The loan 
of 1604. 




of the 
Years War, 


Provision of 

70 Relations of the 'Drapers' Company to 

predecessor or himself, and promising ' such sufficient securitie as 
shall be voide of exception.' ' The City, while refusing to grant 
the loan, offered a gratuity of 10,000, half of which was to be 
found by the Chamber of London, half by the Livery Companies. 
Of this sum the share of the Drapers was 384, which the Com- 
pany proposed to raise by a loan on interest from individuals, the 
loan to be repaid in January of the following year. 2 

In the year 1618 the country was agitated by the outbreak of 
the war in Germany, which was to devastate that country for 
thirty years. On the death of the Emperor Mathias, the Protestant 
nobility of Bohemia deposed his successor Ferdinand and offered 
the crown to the Calvinist Frederick Elector Palatine, the son-in- 
law of James I, whereupon the Elector appealed to his father-in- 
law for advice. James, distracted as he was between his desire to 
maintain peace and yet to further the interests of his son-in-law, 
delayed to give any definite answer, and Frederick rashly accepted 
the dangerous offer. Forthwith the Catholic powers rose, and in 
the autumn of the year 1620 a Spanish army not only drove the 
unfortunate * Winter King ' from his newly-acquired Kingdom, 
but threatened the Palatinate itself 

The first indication of the coming trouble is found in several 
precepts of the Mayor concerning the provision of gunpowder and 
matche by the Livery Companies. 3 In May lo'ip we learn that, 
as the Company had lately been obliged to buy as much as forty 
barrels at dear rates * upon ye late sudden suspicion of fear of use 
thereof, and were more to have a great quantity put upon them 
by order of the Mayor ', all but ten barrels of the said gunpowder 
should be sold at the best price obtainable. 4 In July i6ip the 
Company was ordered by the Mayor to provide 2, ,6 ip Ibs. of 

1 Cf. Precept of Mayor, quoted Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 188. 

2 300 of this was lent by Anthony Clowes. In the following January it was 
repaid to him out of the Bachelors' money in the hands of Richard Champion, 
the Renter Warden, the same to be made up again by such other moneys as 
should come into the Renter's hands. It would appear that the balance of 84 
was found by the House, as no other person is mentioned in the Accounts as 
lending money. Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1613-14, fos. 19 3-143; Rep. + 131, 
p. 1 02, b. 

3 Cf. Mayors' Precepts + 37 1, pp. 43, 73. 

4 Rep. +13 i, p. 1493. 

Public Events in Reign of James I 7! 

powder, at n<^. the lb., towards a total contribution o 
demanded of the Livery Companies, and ip bundles of matche at 
pj. 6d. a bundle, towards 2.66 bundles provided by the Livery 
Companies. 1 Some of the powder was apparently * Hamburgh ' 
powder, which the Company was expected to buy of the City, 
although it was not considered so good as English powder. This 
they neglected to do till warned by a peremptory injunction 
from the Mayor, and shortly afterwards they ordered it to be tried 
and sold or exchanged if found deficient.* 

Meanwhile the danger that the Palatinate would be lost had at 
last aroused the King. He summoned Parliament for the follow- 
ing year, and again appealed to the City. In response the Mayor 
addressed the Alderman of each ward. But as subscriptions were 
to be purely voluntary, enough money was not raised. It was Loan for 
hoped that the balance might be obtained from the Mayor and the defence 
those who had been fined for refusing to accept the post of Alder- p a f at ^ nate 
man or Sheriff; 3 but even then there was a deficit, and accordingly refused^ but 
resort was had to the Livery Companies, who agreed to grant a gratuity 
a gratuity of ^,000. The Drapers' share was to be 384*. offere d, 
The question as to whether this sum should be met by the * 10 ' 

1 Mayors' Precepts + 37ij pp- ? b, 6 a. 

2 Rep. + 1 3 i, pp. I J i a, 1 59 b ; Precepts + 37 1, p. 6 a. We find no instance 
during the reign of James I of a demand from the Livery Companies for men. 
The City trained bands were raised from the citizens in their wards, and even 
those do not appear to have been used for foreign service, but the Drapers still 
continued to have their armoury, which was kept supplied, and to supply an 
armourer. On the trained bands cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, 
p. 64, Appendix to vol. iii. The arms kept by the Company were muskets (which 
had now taken the place of culivers), swords, pikes, halberds, corsetts, moryons, 
black armour. Cf. Rep. + 13 i, pp. 33 ab, j/ a, 135: b, 181 a. 

3 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, pp. 75, 77, 78. In the reign of Elizabeth it had 
been difficult to get the office of Sheriff filled (cf. vol. ii of this work, p. 215), 
and the Government now made use of the unwillingness to serve for the purposes of 
raising money. Thus ten who were elected Sheriffs in 1614, and eleven in 1615, 
refused to serve and most of them were fined. City Letter Book E (at the 
Guildhall), pp. 240 b, 241 a, FF p. 85 b j City Rep. 3 1, pt. 2, pp. 348 b, 362 b, 
369 b, 422 ; ib. 32, pp. 104 b, 1 1 o, 112, 125 b, 129 a b, 132 b, 133 a b, 134 b. 

During the reign of James I three Drapers declined the office of Sheriff, and 
seven that of Alderman. Cf. Appendix, XLII B. 

4 Mayors' Precepts +371, p. 8. 

Relations of the "Drapers' Company to 

assessment ofindividual members or by the House was debated by 

a meeting of the Court and of the Livery. 1 But ' the brethren 

showing themselves unwilling to contribute in respect of many 

former assessments, benevolences and impositions lately laid upon 

them, and the House not being able to bear it in respect of the 

Expedient great debt it oweth ', it was decided that the money should be 

for raising borrowed ; a and that to repay it * there should be a cessation of 

the money, ^j feasting for the clothing (livery) and yeomanry ' until it had 

been met. The Wardens, the Stewards and the Master Bachelors 

were to hand over to the House the sums they usually expended 

on dinners. The Company accordingly gave up most of their 

dinners or reduced the expense of them until the year 162.3, by 

which time 34? had been saved. 3 

No notice is found in the Drapers' records of a refusal of the 
City authorities to make an advance of 2,0,000 on the security of 
the two subsidies, which the Parliament of 1611 had unwillingly 
voted, 4 but the two subsidies were paid, the Drapers being assessed 
at 4 pj. o</. for each subsidy. 5 

Meanwhile the King betook himself to an idea he had previously 

entertained of making an alliance with Spain, an alliance which 

was to be cemented by the marriage of Prince Charles and the 

Spanish Infanta. Spain he hoped might thereby be induced to 

mediate between the Emperor and the Protestants in Germany, 

Riot of and bring about a peace. At once the English hostility to our 

Apprentices, old enemy Spain was aroused, the Spanish ambassador was insulted, 

April 1611. anc i a r i ot or apprentices took place. 6 As however no reference 

1 Rep. + 13 i, p. 160 a. 

2 300 was borrowed from Elizabeth Hubbersteed, a widow. The rest was 
apparently found by the House. Wardens' Accounts, i6zo-i, fo. 19. 

3 Rep. +13 i, p. itfoa. In 162,0 the livery were to be entertained on the 
election day, but the dinner was not to be of that ' largeness as hath been 
accustomed ' j ib. p. \6i. Wardens' Accounts, 162,0-1, fos. 35, $6 ; 1611-3, fo. 
33. The remainder was found by the House out of allowances usually made for 

4 Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 83. 

5 Renters' Accounts, +468, i6zo-i t fo. 16; i6ir-z, fos. 15, 16. The rate 
of the subsidy was at 4*. in the pound on the annual rents of their lands. These 
only amounted to 46. The fines for renewals of leases, which were high, were 
not included. 

6 Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 79. 

Tub He Events in Reign of James I 73 

to this riot is found in the Drapers' records, we must assume that 
their apprentices took no serious part in it. In spite of this and 
other signs that England was deeply stirred by the prospect of 
the Spanish alliance, James, with his usual inability to gauge the 
public sentiment, or to fathom the designs of the Spanish Govern- Failure of 
ment, which was merely playing with him, persisted in his the Spanish 
impossible project until it finally broke down on the occasion Marriage 
of the Prince's visit to Madrid. The return of Charles was hailed The^arlia- 
with extravagant joy, and James was forced to summon Parliament, me nt of 
only to find that, while he wished for a war against the Emperor 1614- 
for the defence of the Palatinate, Parliament desired a war with 
Spain. At length, however, a compromise was arrived at, and the 
Commons agreed to grant the King two subsidies, on the under- 
standing that all negotiations with Spain should be broken off. 
To each of these subsidies, the Drapers were called upon to con- 
tribute 18. 8s. o^. 1 This is the last reference to the foreign 
policy of the King to be found in the Drapers' records. 

James had changed his mind, and was now eager for the 
marriage of the Prince with Henrietta Maria, the sister of 
Louis XIII of France, in the hope that the French would assist 
in the recovery of the Palatinate. In September 162,4., Count 
Mansfeld, a German adventurer who had offered his services to 
France, visited London, and the City was asked to help in 
furnishing soldiers for an expedition which he proposed to lead. 
The men who were pressed were a mutinous set of men, * tapsters, 
ostlers, vagrants and idle persons '. Many absconded ; the rest, 
who were landed at Flushing, were soon decimated by sickness 
and want of food. 

At this moment James died. His reign ended, as it had begun, Death of 
in a serious outbreak of the Plague, in which, according to the James I, 
chronicler Howes, there perished 41,313 in the cities of London Marcl1 Z 7 3 
and Westminster and their suburbs during the twelve months 
between December 162^-2, ?. The mortality among the Members 
of the Company was great. The Master, Dannet Poyntell, three of 
the Assistants, and fifteen liverymen succumbed, and to prevent 
infection the Hall and Sir W. Garway's house were ' aired ' with 

1 Renters' Accounts, 1613-4, fos. i6 y 17 j 1624-5, fos. if, 16. 
1603-3 L 

74- The Drapers' Company 

frankincense and juniper. 1 Nor was this the only calamity 
suffered. In the November or December of the previous year 
there had been a ' great and terrible ' fire near Drapers' Hall.* 
It is probably owing to the Plague that there is a gap in the 
Minutes of this date. The last notice is of February 162,5*, when 
it was decided to provide the usual dinner on the 2,4th of March 
to commemorate the * Coronation ' of James. There is no mention 
of James's death, which occurred on March the 2.7th, nor of the 
accession of Charles I. The next minute is that of a Quarter Day 
Court on June I, 162, 5-.* Had we no other records than those of 
the Drapers we should have little conception of the seething dis- 
content caused by the home and foreign policy of the first of the 
Stuarts, whom the witty King Henry IV of France described as * the 
wisest fool in Christendom '. But, as we have often had occasion 
to notice, the Drapers troubled themselves but little with politics 
unless the interests of the Company were concerned. 

1 Howes, Chronicle ed. 1631, p. 1041 j Livery Lists +301, fb. 185 Renters' 
Accounts, 1614-5, fo. 16. Others put the deaths from the Plague at 37,417 
only, but say the mortality from other diseases was double the average j cf. Dale 
Ingram, Account of Several Plagues, 17 jf, p. 2. Sir Wm. Garway died 
16 September 1615, aged 88. 

2 Howes, p. 1035. It was in Broad Street. Rep. +131, p. 183 b: 'New 
buckets and ladders and other necessaries to be provided in the place of those 
destroyed in the late great and terrible fire, which happened near this place.' 
Fires were common in London at that time, but this coincidence of the Plague 
and a fire is interesting in view of the Great Plague and fire in 1665-6. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 1 92 a, 193 b. March 24 was really the day of the 
proclamation of James. But it is usually called the Coronation Day in the 
Drapers' Books. James was not crowned till the 2 jth of July, 



AMES the First's reign is of con- The Charter 
siderable importance in the history of of 1607. 
the Drapers' Company. It was from 
that King that they received their 
last Charter. 2 It is therefore worth 
while to see in what respects it 
differs from that granted by Eliza- 
beth. All reference to the prayers 
for the souls of members of the House 
of York and for the souls of the 
brethren and sisters of the Fraternity 
departed, which were retained in 
the earlier charter, are omitted. 
Nor are the two chaplains men- 
tioned. The annual value of manors, 
messuages, lands, rectories, tithes, rents, reversions, and other here- 
ditaments, which the Gild may purchase without a license to hold 
in mortmain, is increased from 10 to 2,00 ; 3 but a proviso that 

1 The initial comes from the Charter 9 James I. 

3 It was only after some hesitation that the Company decided to apply for this 
Charter, perhaps because they knew that the royal confirmation could not be 
obtained without considerable expense. Rep. H, pp. \6<) b, 19 j b, Rep. + 131, 
pp. 4, 6 a, a 8 b. They paid 38. j s. i od. for ' suing out ' the charter j 7. i o r. od. 
for the 'lyming' of the same ; 200 to the Attorney General, and 10 to his 
attendant; ten angels (or 5) to the Recorder of London for a certificate that 
there was nothing in the proposed charter prejudicial to the ancient customs of 
London. Rep. + 131, pp. 43 a, 45 a ; Wardens' Accounts, 1606-7, fos. 45, 46. 
For the Charter cf. Appendix IV. Charles II indeed granted a new charter after 
the proceedings Quo U'arranto, but this was disregarded after the Revolution j 
cf. infra, pp. z<)6 ff. 

3 For lands of higher value a licence had to be obtained. It should however 

7 6 Internal History of the Company 

the said lands, &c., must not be held immediately of the Crown nor 
by Knight's service is inserted, which did not appear in the Charter 
of Elizabeth. The same privilege is also for the first time extended 
to those who may wish to grant, demise, or sell lands, &c., to the 
Fraternity. At the same time the Fraternity is definitely confirmed 
in its possession of all lands, chattels, liberties, &c., which it now 
lawfully holds. 

With respect to the government of the Society, which is still 
called * The Gild or Fraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the 
Mystery of Drapers of the City of London ',' whereas in the 
earlier Charter the Fraternity * may ' have a Master and four 
Wardens, the words now run ' shall have '. Further, the Court of 
Assistants is for the first time mentioned, and it is ordered to be 
constituted and to be composed of not less than twelve ; the names 
of the existing Master, Wardens, and Assistants being given as 
appointed by the Charter. 2 The Master and Wardens are also 
granted powers to change and break their common seal. For the 
rest, many of the Ordinances, which the Company had made for 
themselves in the past, and which had been legalized under 
Elizabeth, 3 are now inserted in the Charter. The Master and the 
Wardens are to be elected every year on the first Monday in 
August and to take an oath to well and faithfully fulfil the dudes 
of their offices ; but whereas in the Charter of Elizabeth the 
election was nominally in the hands of the ' men of the Gild or 
Fraternity ', it is now to lie with those members of the Court of 

be remembered that by the custom of London citizens might always leave 
lands within the city to any Corporation by will without any licence to mortmain, 
but this privilege did not extend to lands without the city. Money to any 
amount might be granted or left by will to any Corporation so long as it was not 
given to Superstitious, or illegal uses '. But if it was invested in land a licence 
had to be obtained. Cf. Rep. +131, p. zn, where the Company apply for 
a licence in mortmain to invest 1,400 left by J. Kendrick to charitable uses, 
1617. The mortmain law with regard to lands was, however, evaded by granting 
lands to certain persons, as feofees for charitable uses. Cf. Rep. + 131, p. 50 a. 

1 They had thought of altering the name of the Corporation j cf. Rep. H, 
p. 19? b. 

1 The number of the Assistants who were appointed was twenty-four, besides 
the Master and the four Wardens. 

3 Cf. Ordinances of 1576 confirmed by the Chancellor and others, vol. ii of 
this work, p. 304. 

during the Reign of James I 77 

Assistants who have held the office of Master or Warden. The 
same body is also to fill up vacancies should they occur. The 
Master and Wardens, with the Court of Assistants, are empowered 
to pass regulations for the rule of the Fraternity, so long as 
they be not repugnant to the laws, customs, or rights of 
England, and to enforce them by pains, punishment, amercements, 
or imprisonment, such punishments to be enforced by the Masters 
and Wardens, who are also given powers to admit apprentices to 
the freedom. Lastly, the right of search is definitely authorized. 
The Master and Wardens are given powers ' to enter into all 
houses, shops, cellars, booths, and other places, now or hereafter 
used or appointed for the keeping or exposing of cloths, of every 
person or persons, as well free of the Fraternity as free of any 
other Society, and also those of foreigners using the art or mystery 
of Drapers within the city or the liberties thereof; to search, view 
and measure by a sealed standard ... all yards, ells, godes and 
other measures whatsoever ; and to forfeit all such measures as are 
found to be short or deceptive, and to impose a fine of 6s. 8</. on 
the offenders, the said fines to be distributed among the poor of 
the Fraternity/ 

The granting of the New Charter had necessitated a search for New 
all former Charters, and of special records in the Guild Hall latjon j with 
concerning the Company, 1 and the occasion appeared to be a fit conductor 
one to put their affairs in order. In January 1605- it pleased the Business, &c. 
Court to appoint that, according to the accustomed order, the 
clerk should read to the Assistants the orders which only con- 
cerned them ; * and then to call in the Livery to hear the orders 
which concerned the Assistants and the Livery, and lastly the 
yeomanry to be called in and the orders to be read which in 
general concerned the Company.' Which being done, the clerk 
was to proceed * to read the gifts and legacies of the memorable 
and well disposed benefactors of the Society, to the ende that the 
same might be an encouragement to others to do likewise, for the 
maintenance of the poore of the Company '. 2 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 18 a. 

2 Ib. pp. 10 a, ^6 a, 77 b, i ro a. The dates of Quarter-Days, of which there 
were now generally two, were settled every year, and at one of these the 
Regulations were read. In 1618, and in 1620, it was further resolved that the 

78 Internal History of the Company 

This was supplemented in September by the following resolu- 
tion: ' ' Whereas this courte was this daye enformed that many 
thinges concerninge the state and good of this House at this present 
are farre out of order, and for many yeares past have bene 
neglected, viz. that the view Booke of all the defects of reparacions 
have not bene kepte by the space of eighteen yeares past, whereby 
divers of the Companye's houses have gone to ruine, and the 
parties never called in question, for that due warninge hathe not 
bene geven them accordinge to the covenauntes of their lease to 
repayre the same. Item, that there are a great many wills of 
divers good benefactors to this Companye, which have geven 
landes and other legacies, which lye scatered in lose papers and 
are not recorded as they ought to be in a Booke to be kepte for 
that purpose. Item the guiftes of divers good benefactors beinge 
inserted into the last two leaves of the Booke of Ordinances, some 
guifts are yett to be entered ' (as Mr. Thorogood's and others) 
. . . 'and no more leaves left to insert them.' 'Item that the 
Booke of Ordinances is so confusedly engrossed, that the Orders 
concerninge the Assistance only, are intermingled with suche as 
belonge unto the Liverye, and those which appertayn to the 
Assistance and Liverye only, are engrossed amongst suche Orders 
as are to be reade unto the Yomanry, so as they cannot be reade 
on Quarter Dayes without muche trouble.' 2 It is therefore ordered 
that ' An exacte breviat be made of all the leases and of the 
allienacions from tyme to tyme graunted.' Item, that ' A Booke 
be kepte of the yearely distribution of Mr. Clune's Legacye, as 
also of the monethely distribution of all other legacies and to 
whome.' 3 Item that 'Severall accomptes be kepte of the money 
belonging to the children of Mr. Barneham, and Mr. Lambard, 
and of the money belonging to Queen Elizabeth College Greenwich 

statues or pictures of benefactors, and especially those of Sir J. Jolles, Sir Thos. 
Russell, Mr. Dummer, and Mr. Buck, should be set up in places appointed; so 
that their memories and charitable deeds should be remembered. Ib. pp. 138 a, 
169 bj Wardens' Accounts, i6io-i,fo. 37. This became the usual custom after 
this date, of other Companies as well as the Drapers. 

1 Rep. +131, p. 18 b. 

z The Book of Ordinances here referred to are those of 1576 j cf. vol. ii of 
this work, p. 304. 

3 The book still exists, numbered + 103. 

during the Reign of James I 79 

founded by him.' ' 'All which severall business the Court, deminge 
very requisite to be performed and done, and well consideringe 
that the same will ask e much time of the clerk ', it was decided to 
give him the loan of 2,00 gratis for three years, upon good 
security, and for longer if the Court should subsequently direct: 
the said 2.00 to be provided out of the funds belonging to 
Mr. Barnham's and Mr. Lambard's trusts. 

Nothing very definite appears to have resulted from this 
resolution. The wills of benefactors are indeed collected together 
in a separate book. 8 We find some of the ordinances put together 
in another book, but it is of the date of Charles II. 3 If the clerk 
did draw up a ' breviat ' of all leases and alienations it has not 
survived. Indeed, inasmuch as all these matters had been, and 
were in the future, most carefully recorded in the Renters' 
Accounts, such a ' breviat ' seems to have been hardly necessary. 4 
As for the reparations, these would no doubt be looked after on the 
view days, which were evidently constantly held. 

As during the preceding reign, 5 it was found difficult to secure Irregular 
adequate attendance at the Quarter Day Meetings, at one of which, attendance 
generally that held in December, these ordinances and list of ?! QiL aiter 
benefactors were read. We have indeed only one complaint of ays ' 
the remissness of the Assistants, 6 and none with regard to the 
Wardens, who had been charged with this offence in the reign of 
Elizabeth. 7 In their case the remedy then resorted to of offering 
a dinner to those who were punctual and the provision of extra 

1 For the will of Lambard, Wills +418, p. 6b; and for Queen Elizabeth 
College, vol. ii of this work, p. ij8. Barnham's Trust was a family one. He 
was Master 1591-3 and 1598. From this date the accounts of the College at 
Greenwich were kept separate, though audited by the two senior Wardens, who 
were paid fees j cf. Wardens' Accounts., 1608-9, & s - 4$> 49- A book giving 
Lambard's will, a schedule of the lands bequeathed, and records of meeting of 
the Manor Court, &c., still exists, numbered +356. But the earliest accounts 
which remain are those of 1660 numbered +416. 

2 +418. This book appears to be of this date, although it is continued up 
to 1688. 

3 Cf. +79^j p. 41. 

' The accounts both of the Wardens and the Renter for this period are most 
detailed and in excellent preservation. 

5 Vol. ii of this work, p. zi8. 

6 Rep. + 1 3 1, p. 57 b. 7 Cf. vol. ii, p. a 1 8. 

8o Internal History of the Company 

beer and ale ' seems to have been effective ; and it is evident from 
the Minute Book that the business of the Court was most carefully 

The Livery and the Yeomanry, however, appear to have been 
very irregular in their attendance, and many attempts were made 
to abate this abuse. In 1608, since it was represented that 
servants often forgot to inform their masters of notices of summons, 
the clerk was ordered to distribute c tickets of summons ' to the 
Assistants and the Livery for all Quarter Day Meetings and burials; 
and this rule was extended to the Yeomanry in itfu. Meanwhile 
the Beadle had been ordered to look after the matter; and in 
i6iy, because it was held that he could not be sufficiently 
acquainted with the persons of all the Yeomanry, an under Beadle 
was appointed to assist him, who was to receive id. out of every 
fine For non-attendance. In TO'II the Master Bachelors were 
ordered to collect the fines; while in lO'oS the Wardens had been 
instructed to refuse the freedom to the apprentices of those who 
had been remiss in their attendance without reasonable excuse, and 
had not paid their fine. 2 These measures failing, a resort was 
made in 1618 to the methods which had been successful with the 
Assistants. All the Yeomanry who answered their names on 
Quarter Days and paid Quarterage should, so runs the resolution, 

* before they depart be made to drynke, if he please ' and be given 

* a bunde (? bun) of spice breade to dispose or, or carry with him 
awaye '. And for defraying of this charge it was provided that, 
' whereas the four Wardens of the Yeomanry had heretofore kept 
their home dinner or supper for themselves and their assistantes 
and others and all theire wyves, for which there arose a charge 
of^'io or more to every particular Warden (of the Yeomanry), 
hereafter they the said Wardens shall equalie amongeste them paie 
and defraie the chardge for the said bundes and drincks on ye two 

1 Rep. + 13 I, p. it b : 'Ordered that the clerk provide beer and ale for the 
Court of Assistants, and have yearly 40^. for the same.' The attendance of 
Assistants at the courts varied from 19 to 10 : the usual number being from iz 
to if. This was out of a total number of 18 to 19. The Master and the four 
Wardens were almost invariably present. The Merchant Taylors also experienced 
the same difficulty as to non-attendance j cf. Clode, Merchant Taylors, pt. i, 

p. ny. 

* Rep. +131, pp. 38 b, 57 b, tf;b, 673, loob, 1673. The fine was is. 8</. 

during the Reign of James I 81 

Quarters dales, in lieu of ye said home made dinners or suppers, 
which by estimation will not amounte unto above a fbwrrth parte 
of theire former chardge '.* Besides this the Yeomanry were 
always invited to the December Quarter Day dinner. 

We have no definite evidence as to the numbers of the Livery 
and Yeomen who subsequently attended the Quarter Day Courts, 
but it is evident from the constant efforts to find some remedy 
that the abuse continued. 2 The complaints with regard to scant 
attendance at funerals are not so frequent, possibly because, by the 
bounty of the deceased, money was usually left to pay for a funeral 
repast, though we may readily believe that the old brotherly 
feeling would be evoked on such occasions. 3 

It was also found difficult to get those Yeomen who were Disinclina 
appointed Master Bachelors to serve ; at least there are four tion of 
instances of their petitioning to be relieved of their office. Of 
these one, John Edwards, was fined 10, but offered the Livery ; j ors 
and one, James Franklin, whose excuse for not serving was that he 
was shortly to go beyond the sea, was fined 20 marks (i 3 6s. 8d.) 
with an option of being received into the Livery on payment of 
another 2,0 marks. 4 One other Master Bachelor, Francis Martin, 

1 May 1618, Rep. + 131^. 138 b. 

2 Cf. Rep. +131, pp. 32 b, 53 b, 99 b, 103, 120 b, 181 b. 

3 Thus 

in 1606 R. Bowdler leaves 20 for his funeral repast. 

E. Barton 


U. Babington 15 

in 1607 H. Smythe 20 " " 

W. Cotton 20 

in 1610 Warden Jay e 10 for funeral dinner of his wife, 
in iSi 4 Mr. Campe 14 

In 1620 the son of J. Hall, sometime Master, gave a gilt salt because the 
funeral dinner of his father, for which 20 marks had been bestowed, could not be 
conveniently held. Cf. Rep. +131, pp. 34 a b, 413, 44 b, 463, 49^ 713, 
i oo a, r J9b. 

4 Rep. + 13 i, p. 24 b, r i6b, 1313; Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fo. 6. The fine 
of 20 marks was the usual fee paid by Yeomen called to the Livery by the Wardens ; 
and 40 marks the fee paid by those called on their own petition. Cf. vol. ii of 
this work, p. 193. James Franklin accepted the offer. But I cannot find the 
name of John Edwards in the Livery Lists. I presume therefore that he declined 
to enter the Livery. Of the other two, one was fined 20 without option of 
1 6 3' 3 M 


of Aldcr- 

8x Internal History of the Company 

was removed from his office for refusing to bear his share of the 
election dinner. 1 

Regulations Some trouble was also experienced during the reign with regard 
as to Legacy to the money left to be lent out to young freemen of the Company, 
money on a orm o f cna ri t y which was very popular at the time. 8 Since 
some of these loans were in danger of being lost or forgotten, an 
order was made in 1608 that the names of those who held these 
loans should be publicly read, so that notice might be given if any 
were dead. 3 This was followed in 16 16 by a further regulation. 
All who retained their loans beyond the time for which they had 
been granted were to be charged 10 per cent., until the money 
was refunded. Proper security for repayment of the loan was also 
insisted upon, 4 and in i6op a defaulting surety had been arrested. 5 
These measures appear to have attained their end for the time, 
since we hear of no further complaints from the year 1616' to itfij-. 
A few other matters touching the internal affairs of the Com- 
pany were decided during the reign. In February i6ia the 
Lords of the Council decided, on the petition of the Lord Mayor, 
that Aldermen should take precedence of all knights, commoners 
who were freemen of the City, and such other citizens or commoners 
as might be hereafter made bachelor knights. 6 Of the sixteen 
Drapers who were Aldermen in the reign of James I, eight were 
however knighted. 7 

The following resolution passed in April 1613 with regard to 

being received into the Livery j what the fine of the other was we are not told. 
From these instances we gather that the amount of the fine was at the discretion 
of the Court, the usual fine being 10. 

1 Rep. +131, p. 98 b. 

2 Sometimes these loans were to be lent out { gratis ' ; sometimes on interest, 
which was to be devoted to charitable purposes, generally among the poor of the 
Company. During the reign 1,880 was bequeathed for this purpose, 970 to 
be lent 'gratis', 910 at interest. Sometimes persons -entrusted money to the 
Company for this end for a limited period, on condition that the interest should 
be paid over to the benefactor a curious mixture of charity and investment ; 
cf. Margaret Lambard, Rep. -f- 131, p. j+b. 

3 Ib. p. 63 a. 4 Ib. p. 1 13 b. 5 Ib. p. 70 a. 

6 Rep. + 1 3 i, p. log a. Bachelor Knights are the lowest order of Knights. 

' Sir R. Goddard, Sir T. Hayes, Sir J. Deane, Sir J. Jolles, Sir E. Barkham, 
Sir M. Lumley, Sir A. Cotton, Sir C. Hackett. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, 
vol. i, p. 341. 


during the Reign of James I 83 

dress is humorous : ' * Whereas divers brethren sometimes wear at Regulations 
Court and dinners night gowns of sundry fashions and colours, and as f o dress, 
some in falling bands, not seemly in so grave and worshipful 
a Society, the Court, willing to have a decency used and ancient 
order kept, ordain that assistants and the livery shall not wear 
falling bands at dinner; that Aldermen shall wear gowns and 
tippets appointed for the season of the year, as agreed upon by the 
City. That the Master, if he be a commoner, the Wardens and 
the Assistants shall, at all Courts from Michaelmas to Easter, wear 
gowns faced with budge ; such as have been fined for being 
aldermen or for the shrievalty, 2 fbynes, 3 and that from Easter to 
Michaelmas the Master, Wardens and Assistants shall wear gowns 
faced with satin, and the livery gowns faced with damask, on 
penalty of a fine to the Common Box of T>S. ^.d. without forgive- 
ness.' Whether the order was complied with by the Drapers we 
are not informed, but certainly the carelessness was not confined 
to them. In i6ip the Mayor issued a precept to all the Companies 
to much the same effect. The livery of companies were enjoined 
'to face their gowns properly with fur instead of several stuffe in 
much disorderly manner as of late hath been used, whereby that 
ancient estate and gravity of the City hath received much 
disgrace.' 4 From this date the colours of the gowns and hoods 
to be worn by members of the Court and the Livery of the 
Drapers' Company, which had been varied from time to time, 
remained unaltered. 5 

Apprentices on the contrary appear to have been over-extrava- Extravagant 
gant in their dress, since in 1611 the King ordered the Mayor to dress of \ 
issue a precept to the Masters of the various gilds on the subject. A PP rentlces - 
The facings of their hats were not to exceed three inches in 

1 Rep. +13 1, p. 95 a. 

2 i. e. fined for refusing to serve. 

3 For meaning of foynes and budge cf. tufra^ p. 7. 

4 Mayors' Precepts +371, p. 6\>. The precept is accompanied with a note of 
the rates of several sorts of furs for facing of livery gowns c according to their 
goodness', (i) Faces of budge from zjj. to 3. (ii) Faces of Foyne 'poutes' 
from (,-L to $. (iii) Faces of Martens c of the which the Cheife Companies do 
were ' from 7 to 10. (iv) Martens poutes ' from 4 io/. od. to (.6. c Poutes ', 
I believe, mean ' heads '. 

5 Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. i, p. 440, 

Grant of 

tion of all 

84- Internal History of the Company 

breadth, which with the band was to be destitute of lace, to be 
made of linen not exceeding $s. the ell, and with no other work 
than a plain hem and stitch ; the ruff band was not to exceed 
three inches in height, nor more than two inches in depth. The 
collar of the doublet was to be made close and comely without 
poynte, whalebone or plaits ; the breeches to be only of cloth, 
kersey, fustian, sackcloth, canvasse, English leather, or English 
stuflfe, and of not more than is. 6d. the yard; the stockings 
of woollen, yarn, or kersey. They were not to wear Spanish 
shoes with polonia heels, nor have their hair with any tuft or lock, 
but cut short in decent and comely manner. 1 

Having obtained a new Charter, the Company decided to ask 
for a fresh Coat of Arms. 2 In view of the fact that the worthy 
William Segar, Garter King of Arms, so completely misunderstood 
the meaning of the * three Imperial Crowns ' of the Deity as to 
give them arches, as in royal crowns, his claim to have ' corrected 
the same ', though ' without impeachment to the judgments of 
earlier Kings of Arms ' or 'arrogation ' to himself of ' more know- 
ledge than he can avow ', is amusing. 

During the reign of James I the Drapers also obtained a final 
confirmation of certain defective titles and a settlement of the 

1 Cf. Heath, Grocers, p. 90; Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. i. p. 166. 
I, however, find no reference to this precept in the Drapers' books, nor to the 
riot of Apprentices in 1611 mentioned by Dr. Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 80. Indeed the 
apprentices of the Company at this time appear to have been orderly folk. See 
also the resolution of the Ironmongers' Company passed in 1638: 'Because 
many young men doe take unto themselves a liberty in their apprentishipe, by 
their M r . his conivence, to weare their hayre unseemly overlong, more like to 
ruffians than citizens apprentizes, and after their terms of their service ended, 
come to demand their freedome ... in that disguised manner; for remedy 
thereof, it is now ordered that hereafter, if any master shall make free any of his 
servants before he have orderly cutt and barbed his hayre, to the liking of the 
Master and Wardens ... for the tyme being, the M r . of the apprentice shall 
paye ... for every such neglect xxs for a fine '. Nichols, Ironmongers, p. 140. 

2 Cf. Appendix VI of this volume and vol. i, No. XI, p. ii\. The ram and the 
helmet, as well as the two lions as supporters., are borrowed from the arms of 
1571 ; but the motto, 'Unto God only be honour and glory', is new. The 
Charter gave the Company the power to change the Seal, and the idea was 
entertained; cf. Rep. +131, p. 195 b. But this does not appear to have been 
done till 1771 ; cf. vol. i of this work, p. 118. 

during the Reign of James I 85- 

lengthy dispute as to the ' concealment ' of knds, whether held to defective 
religious uses or no. This however was a prolonged and T " le$ and 

expensive affair, during: which the Crown behaved in a petti- ? f concealed 
c r . T ^ ^ -A lands, 

logging and grasping manner. In 1000-7 a private Act was 

passed for the 'confirmation of lands heretofore mentioned in the 
Letters Patent of Ed. VI.' * For this the Drapers had to pay 
1*91; while their solicitor's fee came to io. a In itfop a 
Proclamation was issued concerning other defective titles, under 
which a fine of 66 i^s. ^ct. to the Exchequer was extorted. 3 In 
the following year a further claim for $$ ^s. o</. was made in 
return for a new Patent for the Hall. 4 The matter however did 
not end here. In January 1619 a further sum of <5,ooo was 
demanded from the Livery Companies, as a composition for arrears 
of superstitious charges claimed by the King. 5 The Drapers' 
share of this was 166.^ The King in return issued Letters 
Patent to each Company (July 2,0, itfip), securing them in the 
quiet possession of their lands against any question of defective 
title whatsoever. 7 Nevertheless in 162.0 the Drapers were asked 
for an additional payment of 100, and, when they demurred, they 
were reminded that they had been rated much lower than the other 
Companies, especially the Goldsmiths, who had been rated at 
1,000. Eventually they escaped with 5-0, plus 11 as a 
gratuity to the Recorder. The Crown however was not yet 
satisfied. Shortly after, the Letters Patent of 1619 to the City 
were annulled, on the ground that the Attorney General had 
corruptly and without warrant introduced certain clauses exempt- 
ing the City from serving at muster without the walls and granting 

1 4 James I, c. 10, Appendix III B. Cf. Autograph Letters A. viii, 338, 
No. 18, Appendix III A. Cf. also Livery Commission Report, 1884, vol. i,p. 335, 
for the statement of the Recorder to the Clothworkers* Company. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, 1606-7, fos. 45, 47. 

3 Ib. 1609-10, fo. 43. 

4 Ib. 1610-11, fos. 44-?. 

5 The original claim was for iz,ooo, but the Attorney General finally 
compromised for 6,000. 

6 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1619-13^. 4, no. 38 ; Mayors' 
Precepts +371, June, 1619, p. 4bj Wardens' Accounts, 1618-19, fo. 48. 

7 Cf. Appendix VI. 

8 Rep. + '3'j P- J $3 b; Wardens' Accounts, 1619-10, fo. 40. 

86 Internal History of the Company 

it all forfeitures for treason; 1 and it was not till the year 

that an Act was passed for the general quiet of all subjects against 

all pretence of 4 Concealment '. This Act finally secured the 

Company from all attack on the ground of * Concealment ', 

whether as to superstitious uses or no. The tedious and vexatious 

proceedings had cost the Company ~lfi os. ^d., a sum which, 

considering the moneys they had paid in the previous reign, was 

preposterous. Can any unprejudiced person, with the whole case 

before him, maintain that the Company had not fully freed these 

lands from all claims on the part of the Crown, or that henceforth 

they held them in trust for any purpose whatsoever ? 3 

Size of the In August 1603 the Livery consisted of eighty-three members, 

Livery and O r, including the Master, the four Wardens, and the Assistants, who 

the . Court numbered twenty-eicht, n<5. In consequence of the Plague in 

ofAssis- . i i i 

tants tnat y ear tne num bers were certainly very much reduced, for in 

spite of the fact that in 1605- many were called to the Livery, 4 
there were only seventy-three Livery men in the August of lo'ro. 5 
In the April of the following year (1612,) there was a further fall 
to seventy-one, 6 but this is the lowest point touched during the 
reign. Henceforth there was little variation in the list of the 
Assistants, but the Livery men gradually increased, although with 
some sets back. 

In 1614 and 1615-, according to custom when a Draper filled 
the office of Mayor, more were called to the Livery in order that 
their fees might be applied to meet the charges of * the solemnities 

1 Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 88; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1619-13, p. 191. 
On the treatment of the Goldsmiths cf. Prideaux, vol. i, p. 129 ; and on that of 
the Merchant Taylors, Hopkinson, History of the Site of Merchant Taylors Hall, 
p. 51. The Letters Patent to the Companies were not however annulled. 

2 ii James I, c. i. 

3 For similar proceedings with regard to the Goldsmiths cf. Prideaux, 
Goldsmiths, vol. i, pp. 104, 107-9, I1 9- F l J h e earlier history of concealments 
cf. vol. ii of this work, p. 201 ; and for the effects of these Acts and Letters 
Patent cf. Lord Cottenham's Judgement in the case of The Attorney General 
M. The Fishmongers (Knesworth's will), 1841 ; Mylne and Craig Reports, vol. v, 
pp. 1 1 FT"., especially pp. 18, if. 

4 Rep. -t- 13 i, p. 28 b. 

5 Master and four Wardens, Assistants 13, Livery 4$. 

6 Master and four Wardens, Assistants 23, Livery 43. 

during the Reign of James I 

of the Lord Mayor.' 1 Accordingly in August 1616' the total 
number had risen to 12,2,. The four years following were marked 
by a slight relapse, but because Edward Barkehatn had been 
Mayor in 162,1, the Livery reached the unprecedented size of 
136 in the following August (Master and four Wardens, Assis- 
tants 2,4; Livery 10*7). 

In consequence of a renewed visitation of the Plague in 1624-5- 
the number had, in August 162,5-, again fallen to 130; and of 
these the Master, three Assistants, and fifteen Liverymen are 
marked as being dead. This would leave us a total of in, or 
four less than there had been at the opening of the reign. 2 

It is evident that the Yeomanry or Freemen were getting out Loosening 
of touch of the Company. Hitherto no proper list had been kept ^ the ^i 1 " 
of them, of their place of abode, of their attendance at Quarter nexl " 

TX r i r /^ r 1 . . . , the Yeo- 

Days, 3 or their payments or Quarterage, nor or their antiquitie . manr y O r 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 103 a, n6a, 182 b. The Draper Mayors were, in 1614 
Thomas Hayes, and in 1615 John Jolles. For the method of calling to the 
Livery and of charging fees and fines see vol. ii. of this book, pp. 74, 193 j cf. 
Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, p. 22; Rep. + 131, p. 53 a b. The question of 
admission and of precedence on the Livery was left to the discretion of the 
Wardens. Sometimes admissions were at the request of an influential person or 
for some special reason ; e. g. in 1614 Richard Daniell, who had been abroad, 
was called on account of his ' antiquirie, discretion and sufficiencie ' cf. Rep. +131, 
pp. 8 1 a, 103 a, 1 10 a, r 16 a. 

2 See Livery Lists, +301. 

The fluctuations will be best appreciated from the following table : 
Masters and 

Wardens Assistants Livery Total 

1603-4 5 18 83 1 16 

1610-11 5 23 45 73 

1612-13 5 23 43 71 

1614-15 5 25 6l 91 

1615-16 5 23 81 no 

1616-17 5 22 95 nx 

1618-19 5 13 89 117 

1620-21 5 25 '88 118 

1622-3 5 24 107 136 

1623-4 5 24 105 134 

1624-5 4 22 85 111 

3 On the irregularity of attendance at Quarter-Days cf. supra, p. 79. The 
Quarterage of the Freemen alone was collected by the Wardens of the Bachelors. 

with the 

Difficulty of 



number of 
the Free- 

88 Internal History of the Company 

All this it was said was ' in the breast ' of the Beadle. Accord- 
ingly in 1606 it was ordered that a book should be kept of the 
Yeomanry ; that all Quarterages and arrears of Quarterage paid 
should be placed in the Common Box of the Yeomanry on every 
Court Day in the presence of the Wardens, and that the Beadle 
should keep an account of the same. In itfop an under Beadle 
was for the first time appointed partly to look after these matters. 1 
In 1 6 1 1 two at least of the Master Bachelors were ordered to 
keep a court in the ladies' chamber once a month for the purpose 
of collecting the Quarterages of the Yeomanry. 2 In i6lS we 
hear of * many journeys in gathering quarterages ', and of the 
extra fees paid to the officers. 3 These measures appear to have 
met with some temporary success. For in the following year, 
1 6 ip, the number of Freemen who paid Quarterage was (Lj-4, or 
i5"7 more than those recorded to have contributed in the year isi^- 
(in the reign of Elizabeth). 

We do not know the total size of the body of Freemen in 
Elizabeth's reign, but in all probability this increase in those 
paying Quarterage is to be partly accounted for by the growth of 
the Society, which in the year 161 7 included no less than 2,106' 
Freemen, the largest number attained up to the year i688. 4 In 
any case there is good reason for believing that the actual numbers 

That of the liverymen was paid to the Wardens and went towards the dinners. 
It was not accounted for. 

1 Rep. +131, pp. ?8 b, 67 a. 2 Ib. p. 80. 

3 Bachelors' Accounts, -f 178, fos. 9, 13 : i. io/. 4^. instead of ios. 

* The evidence for this statement is to be found in the Quarterage Books, 
which give the names of all the Freemen, and indicate those who paid Quarterage. 
These Quarterage Books begin in 1603, and are arranged alphabetically. In 
the earliest one, which runs from 1603 to 1618, the letters T to Z are wanting, 
but in the one which commences in 1617 the list is complete. Cf. Quarterage 
Books, +159, ^6l. The conclusion has been thus arrived at. As the book 
begins in the year 1617, the list of all those who had entered up to 1617 
presumably contains all the Freemen then living, especially as their names are 
written in the same hand. We are thus reminded that the figure given for the 
reign of Elizabeth in vol. ii of this work, p. 195, is misleading. 487 paid 
Quarterage in the year 1574* but how many more had omitted to do so we 
cannot say. Probably, to judge from the evidence which first becomes available 
in 1617, they were numerous, since in that year, of 1,106 Freemen only 617 paid 

during the Reign of James I 89 

had been steadily growing of late. The inducement to enter 
the Company on the part of the poor increased with the growth 
of charities ; while the admission of persons belonging to all 
kinds of trades and professions (a question with which we shall 
shortly deal ') loosened the bonds of the Society, and caused the 
poor members to be less willing to pay their annual Quarterage, 
small though it was. 2 

That the Drapers took no interest in the notorious monopoly Functions of 
granted to Alderman Cockayne 3 for the finishing and dyeing of cloth, the Drapers 
and the prohibition of the export of all unfinished or undyed cloth ; at 
nor again in the several Acts passed during the reign forbidding 
fraudulent practices in the making of cloth, need cause no surprise, 4 
since, as we have already shown, the drapers of London had never 
taken a serious part in the cloth manufacture, and had long since 

1 Cf. infra, p. 93. 

2 As usual, by far the greater number of admissions was through apprenticeship. 
Those by Patrimony or Redemption were few. Now and then, however, persons 
would be especially admitted after the Election dinner, sometimes with, sometimes 
without paying any fee. Cf. + 301, fos. 55, 78. 

3 For the monopoly of Cockayne cf. Hyde Price, English Patents of Monopoly, 
pp. 103 ff. Cockayne held the lease of one of the Drapers' houses in Austin 
Friars ; Rep. +131, p. 98 b. 

4 Cf. 4 James I, c. 2 ; 21 James I, c. 18. There is in the City Reports at 
the Guildhall, 42, fo. 298 b, a reference to a petition of the Company of the 
Drapers of London of the year 1628, which led to the formation of a City 
Committee to view Acts of Parliament prohibiting the use of the ' Hot Press ' j 
cf. 21 James I, c. 18, xi. The hot press was used to close up the marks of the 
4 tenter % and to thicken the outside ends of the cloth, when it had been over- 
stretched. Cf. Estate of Clothing, by John May, deputy aulnager ; Bodleian Lib. 
4 D. 1 8 Art. p. 27. I can find no reference to this petition in the Drapers' 
Books. Among those entering apprentices in the reign of James the First, 
I have, however, come across two who are described as c hot pressers' (January 161 1, 
November 1623). This, indeed, proves that a few members of the Company were 
engaged in the finishing of cloth, but when we remember the very great number 
of the members who belong to other trades, the existence of a few men who 
were finishing cloth does not prove that the Company was any longer closely 
connected with the business. In the Clothworkers' Court Book of 1620 there is 
also a passage which seems to imply that the Drapers did employ the artisan 
clothworkers, who are said to be c at the devotion of Drapers for labour', but 
this 'may mean that they sold to Drapers the cloth they had finished, not that 
they were employed by the Drapers to finish it. Cf. Unwin, Industrial 
Organization, pp. 233 and 112. 

1603-3 N 

90 Internal History of the Company 

The Com- practically abandoned it. It is, however, more surprising to find 
pany little t jj at ^ c om p ari y concerned itself but little with questions affect- 

queVtbm ^ in g t ^ ie tra( k in c ^ ot ^ a P art fr m tne ma king thereof. The 
affecting the insistence on the right of search for short measures in the Charter 
Cloth Trade, proves indeed that the Company was still interested in the buying 
and selling of cloth, and valued its privilege of seeing that all 
cloth measures should be according to the legal standard. Every 
year the Wardens visited the three great fairs of St. Bartholomew, 
Southwark, and Lady Fair for this purpose. 1 The Company is 
also interested in the aulnage. When, in December i5i8, the 
Mayor informed the Society that the City had, for the good of 
the citizens, leased the office from the Duke of Lennox, who had 
been appointed aulnager both of Old and New Draperies, 2 but that 
unless the Merchant Taylors, the Cloth workers, or the Drapers, 
would discharge the City's rent for the same, it would have to 
surrender the lease to the Duke again, it was held that, if that 
should happen, it would tend ' to the great trouble and prejudice 
of many or this Company ', and a Committee was appointed to 
confer on the matter and report. 3 

It would appear, however, that though the Drapers still 
bought and sold at Blackwell Hall, 4 they no longer searched 
there, nor were they concerned with the appointment of the 
keeper. 3 Nor again do the Drapers search for faulty cloths and 

1 Cf. Rep. -f 131, p. ? a ; Wardens' Accounts for each year, e.g. 1603-4, fo. 
4V; 1613-4, fo. 37. 

3 c There be many sorts of cloth, or stuffes, lately invented which have 
got new godfathers to name them in fantastical! fashion, that they who weare 
them know not how to name them ; which are generally called " New Draperie'V 
Declaration of Estate of Clothing now used within the Realm, by John May, 
deputy aulnager; Bodleian, 4 D. 18 Art. p. 11. 

3 Rep. + 13 i, p. 145 b. 

4 This is implied in the account of an Act of the Common Council of London 
(itfzo), already mentioned, which restrained clothworkers from buying woollen 
cloths in the Hall; cf. Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 133. 

5 The Quarterage Book describes John Mackereth as ' a clarke of Blackwell 
hall'. An almost illegible scribble follows, which is probably Gloster' Hall. 
We know that there were at this date several Halls, and that he was keeper of 
Gloucester Hall, and of others. Cf. Domestic State Papers, James I, vol. cxxviii, 
fos. 73-77- But the post of keeper of these separate Halls, or rooms, was a very 
inferior one to that of the old Keeper, which was coveted by leading Drapers. 

during the Reign of James I 91 

seal them. This they had never done, and by the * Act for the 
true making of Woollen clothes ' this duty was definitely entrusted 
to overseers specially appointed. 1 

In the Parliament or 1604, a Bill had been brought forward 
to withdraw the monopoly of trading which in the previous reign 
had been accorded to the members of the Merchant Adventurers, 
the Levant Company, the Russia Company, and others. It was 
supported by clothiers and merchants from all parts of England. 
They urged the natural right of all to the free exercise of their 
own industry, and argued that the abolition of these monopolies 
would promote the better distribution of wealth, the greater 
increase of shipping, and the augmentation of the revenues of the 
Crown. The opponents, among whom the merchants of London 
were prominent, tried to prove that privileges granted to a Com- 
pany stood on a different footing from a monopoly granted to an 
individual, a distinction which had been made by Bacon in the 
reign of Elizabeth. 2 They also declared that, if the Bill passed, 
these Companies would fail for want of apprentices, and that the 
Crown would have difficulty in collecting the customs. In spite 
of the opposition the Bill was carried in the Commons by a large 
majority, but was thrown out in the Lords. When we remember 
that many Drapers were members of these privileged Companies, 
it is strange that we find no reference in the Drapers' Records to 
the controversy, which evidently caused much stir. 3 Nor have I 
found any notice in the books of the Drapers' Company of the de- 
mand of the ^Drapers of Kngland'toi the suppression of interlopers, 
inexperienced clothmakers and hawkers, who sold directly to the 
consumer ; 4 nor of the opinion of the Merchant Adventurers, 

Mackereth was the son of the Mayor's porter, and was not on the Livery. Cf. 
+ 2J9, fo. 85 5 + 179, fo. 124. For the earlier relations of the Company with 
Blackwell Hall cf. vol. ii of this work, pp. 18, 79, 177. The site of Blackwell 
Hall is now occupied by Gresham College, or by buildings near it, 

1 Stat. 4 James I, c. 2., xxii j 21 James I, c. 18, iii, iv. 

2 Cf. vol. ii of this work, p. 214, note 4. 

3 Cf. Sharpe, vol. ii, pp. 10 ff. } 68, quoting from the Journal of the House of 
Commons. He, however, tells us that no reference to the controversy is to be 
found even in the Records of the City. 

4 Domestic State Papers, James I, vol. cxxx, Nos. 140, 141. 

91 Internal History of the Company 

that the decay of the cloth trade was due to the prohibition 
of the export of undyed cloth ; ' nor of the opposition of the 
Drapers of Shrewsbury against London Merchants, who, by 
sending their agents into Wales to buy up white cloths, interfered 
with the cloth-finishing industries of the town; an agitation 
which ended in the Act of 1622 allowing free trade in cloth. 2 
Nor, lastly, of the Act of the Common Council, restraining Cloth- 
workers from buying in Black well Hall, already mentioned. 3 
Difference All this goes to prove that by this time the Drapers of. London 
between the h ac j not on ly practically abandoned the making or finishing of 
Drapers of ^^ but were no longer very closely concerned even in the 
thoseelse- special business of buying and selling cloth alone. The truth is 
where. mat, as before mentioned, we must be careful to draw a distinction 
between the London Drapers and those of the country. In those 
districts, more especially in the West, in Yorkshire, and in East 
Anglia, which were becoming the chief centres of the cloth 
manufacture and trade, 4 the Drapers were still makers or finishers 
of cloth, and traded chiefly in cloth. 5 The rich London Draper 

1 Domestic State Papers, James I, vol. cxxx, No. 39. 

* Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 100, quoting Privy Council Register; 
Guildhall Rep. 31, pt. 2, fo. 259 b ; Domestic State Papers, James I, vol. cxxxi, 
No. 10 ; 1 8 James I, c. ix, Private Act. 

3 Unwin, p. 233, quoting from Clothworkers* Court Book, 1620. 

4 Cf. Domestic State Papers, James I, vol. cxxviii, fos. 73-77. 

5 The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided in 1619 that c the 
course of buying of cloths at Oswestry raw and undressed, and working and 
dressing them, is, and hath been, the greatest part of the diapers trade '. 
Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 99, quoting Privy Council Register. It was, 
however, the 'Clothier' who for the most part superintended the making of the 
cloth ; cf. 7 James I, c. 7, Preamble. This speaks of ' Weavers who are set on 
work by the Clothier ' ; cf. also 2 James I, c. 6, vii ; 4 James I, c. 2, xxv ; 
21 James I, c. 18, 2. In the Declaration of the Estate of Clothing by J. May, 
deputy aulnager, it is the Clothier who is accused of resorting to many fraudulent 
devices in the making of cloth ; cf. Bodleian Library, 4 18 Art., p. 21. Cf. also, 
for a later date, the manifesto of the printers, 1663, 'Without the Clothier, 
what were the draper ' quoted Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. in. So 
again Stow distinguishes between the Drapers of London and the Clothiers of all 
England, who repair to St. Bartholomew's Fair (ed. Kingsford, vol. ii, p. 27). Still 
more important evidence for our purpose is to be found m the Drapers' own author- 
ities. In a book dealing with Queen Elizabeth College at Greenwich ( +3f6, 
p. 2 9 a) w<? find it stated that the manor of Breuchely, or Criels in Kent, which 

during the Reign of James I 93 

had on the contrary long ago extended his business. He traded 
in all kinds of commodities, and, as we have seen, took ventures in 
all kinds of Companies and in every clime. As for the smaller 
Draper, he continued as before to be a retail dealer, more especially 
in cloth. 1 Many also worked as handicraftsmen in making up 
clothes or as tailors. In evidence of this we may note that not Change in 
only did John Tatton's benefaction to young handicraftsmen the charac- 
occupying the needle and the making of hosen continue, but that j5J a C r S ' C 
Sandbrooke left money in 1605- to two handicraftsmen making Company, 
and selling doublets and hosen." 

We have moreover indisputable evidence in the Quarterage 
Book, and in the record of those entered into the freedom at this 
date, that by far the larger proportion of members were no longer 
even remotely connected with the c mystery of Drapery '. 3 Thus, 
of 528 Freemen, who were paying quarterage in 1624, only 2,5- 
are described as Drapers, or Woollen Drapers ; 4 as Clothworkers ; 
i as a clothmaker, and i as a * hot presser '. On the other hand, 
there are as many as 116 tailors; 46 engaged in silk-weaving, or 
other industries connected with the making or selling of silk ; 
1 8 hosiers; 16 upholsterers, and 6 merchants. The rest of the 
Freemen are engaged in numerous occupations, none of which 
have anything to do with the making or selling of cloth, and 
some which are not even of a trading or industrial character. 4 

belonged to the College, would be a very commodious dwelling for a clothier, 
c fbrasmuche as it hath wood and water aboundantly and is situated in a country 
where the art of drapinge is much exercised '. It is curious that in a State Docu- 
ment of 1638 the Drapers' Company is called 'the Mistery of the Clothiers of 
London/ cf. Appendix LVII. 

1 Cf. Rep. + 1 3 i, p. 164 a, A. D. 1631, where a person is only allowed to enter 
by redemption, on his undertaking not to sell cloth by retail to the hindrance of 
many of the Company. 

2 Cf. Appendix, vol. ii, No. XXXII of this work. Cf. also the number of 
members of the Company who are described in the Quarterage Book as Tailors. 

3 This had been the case for some time in the Drapers' Company, and in 
others. The admission of others than those pursuing the craft of Drapery was 
not contrary to the Charters of the Drapers; while the Charter to the Merchant 
Taylors expressly says that others than Merchant Taylors may be admitted to the 
Gild, and as early as 1399 only nine are described as taylors. Members of ten 
other crafts are found, as well as one abbot, one parson, and two esquires. 
Cf. Clode, Early History of Merchant Taylors, pt. i, p. 197. 

4 Cf. Appendix X. This change in the character of the Company had 

94* Internal History of the Company 

If we turn to the Liverymen the same feature presents itself, 
only that the larger proportion appear to be Merchants. 1 In 

begun as early as the reign of Elizabeth, and may have commenced earlier, 
although of this we have no evidence. It may be noted that in the freedom 
list, +179, fo. 16, we hear of a freemason Reginald Bennett. But what the 
meaning of that term was at that date is much disputed 3 cf. Oxford English 

1 On this point we have not such definite evidence. Yet of the zj7 members 
of the Livery, including Masters and Wardens, during the reign of James I, 
51 were Merchants. Of these, 33 are so described; 3 are termed Mercers, who 
were wholesale dealers; and ij were members of at least one of the following 
trading Companies : the Merchant Adventurers, the East India Company, rhe 
Levant Company, the Russia Company, the New Guinea Company and the 
Company of Spain and Portugal. Besides these, one described as being in Spain 
and another said to be 'beyond the sea' were probably both Merchants. One 
more is called a Broker, and another is said to keep Merchants' accounts. Of 
the rest, 

13 are described as Woollen Drapers. 
4 j, o Drapers, 
i Linen Drapers, 

ii,, Silkmcn. 

I is a Silk throster (maker of silk thread). 
4 are Tailors. 
is a Chaundler. 
an Upholster, 
,, a Stocking seller. 
an Inn holder (innkeeper). 

a Soapboiler. 

a Hosier, 

i are gentlemen (one rich). 
I is a Master Porter at the Tackle House. 
4 are Aldermen. 
J is of the Custom House, 
i in the King's Bench. 

From the Quarterage Books we also learn that a considerable number of the 
members of the Company were seeking their livelihood abroad, either as 
merchants or in the employment of merchants. Thus during the reign of 
James I we find : 

Liverymen Freemen 

In Turkey i 3 

At Zante r 

In the East Indies 7 

In the Canaries i a merchant 

In Spain ^ i of them 'factors' 

In Newfoundland i 

during the Reign of James I 95- 

a word the Company is rapidly coming to be composed, as it is 
to-day, of a motley group of men of numerous professions and 
callings, whose only bond of union is to be found in their common 
association in one Fraternity a Fraternity, or Company, which 
is rapidly assuming the character of a mere Friendly Society. 
Moreover, if the statement of Stow's continuators is correct, we are 
driven to the conclusion that there were already men carrying on 
the trade of Drapery who were not even members of the Company, 
as we know was the case by the year 

Liverymen Freemen 

In Greenland 
In Poland 

In Antwerp 
In Holland 

a merchant, rich, 
married there. 

In the Low Countries 

The following leading Drapers also held high office in some of the great 
Trading Companies. For the offices held by Sir Morris Abbot see supra p. 30, 
note r. Sir H. Garway was on the Committee of the East India Company 
1614-43; Deputy Governor 1636-95 Governor 1641-3; on the Court of 
Assistants of the Levant Company 1614-28; and Governor in the succeeding 
reign, 1635-43 ; Governor of the Russia Company 1643. 

The Goldsmiths were also undergoing the same change, although not to such 
an extent. Thus in James Fs reign we find the following entered as Freemen of 
the Company : z leathersellers, i armourers, a founder, a horner, a barber 
surgeon, an ironmonger, a cook, an apprentice to a c comfit maker ', a e godly 
preacher', the chief Baron of the Exchequer, a clerk of the House of Commons ; 
and in the first year of Charles I, the son of a doctor in physic. Cf. Prideaux, 
Goldsmiths, vol. i, pp. 104, 106, 107, 118, 119, 114, 141. I believe that this 
transformation had occurred more especially in those Companies in which the 
trading element was predominant. In any case we learn from the Drapers' 
Repertory that it had not affected most of the Companies, even as late as 1650 j 
cf. Rep. +132, p. 105 a. In that year the Goldsmiths ordered that no one 
should be admitted to the Livery unless he was a Goldsmith by trade, lest the 
government of the Company should fall into the hands of those ignorant of the 
mystery. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 272. 

1 The continuators of Stowe's Chronicle, A. Munday and H. Dyson, ed. 1633, 
pp. 264, 391, say that at that date the chief residence of c Wealthy Drapers, 
retaylers of wollen clothes both broad and narrow' was Watling Street. If by 
this is meant that they were members of the Drapers' Company as well, the 
statement is not borne out by the evidence to be found in the Drapers' Books, 
for I have only found nine Drapers, who were entered into the freedom between 
1767-161$, living in that street, and two whose trades are not given. Of other 

96 Internal History of the Company 

We further gather that the larger number of the members 
were of the middle or poor estate. A certain number rose in the 
world, and remained true to the Society as long as they lived. Of 
these a few took up the freedom for their sons, either through 
apprenticeship or by patrimony ; others bought their freedom/ 
Thus there always existed a group of wealthy men composed of 
something between one-fifth and one-sixth of the members, who 
monopolized the government of the Society ; a group which was 
ever being recruited from below, and was certainly not in any 
sense a close caste. Meanwhile the majority never reached the 
Livery, and the only benefit which they received was a share 
in the charities of the Society should they fall on evil times. 

Although, then, the Company is no longer an exclusive Society 
of Drapers, they are for the most part still business men who, if 
we may judge from the number of their apprentices * and the large 

trades there are living in the said street : Silkman one, Taylor one j cf. Freedom 
List, + 179. In all probability, however, some Drapers did not belong to the 
Company, as was certainly the case in 1650, when we are told that * scarce one 
Draper in ten within London, using the trade of Drapery, were free of the 
Drapers' Company', but were members of the Merchant Taylors, Clothworkers, 
and other Companies, and that the Drapers' Company ' doth consist of men of 
several trades and professions and not men of the same trade of Drapery 'j cf. 
Rep. + 131, p. i of a. 

1 During the reign the admissions into the Freedom were: 1,171 through 
Apprenticeship; 117 by Patrimony j 61 by Redemption. It is noticeable that 
there were as many as five who were admitted by the mandate of the Mayor, 
one of them, J. Burgess, being a Doctor of Divinity. They all paid an entrance 
fee, varying from 31. $d. to its. Two were admitted on the day of election and 
paid nothing. Sir Lionel Tollemache was also elected gratis. Cf. +301, fos. 
10, n, ii, 13, 40, 55, 78, 80. In 1 6 10 Cyprian Milles asked that he should 
be made free of the Drapers because, though never bound as apprentice, he had 
served a Draper seven years. He was instructed to petition the Mayor that he 
might be made free by redemption (Rep. +13*, p. 73 b), but was eventually 
entered by apprenticeship and paid 3*. +d. He was a stocking-sewer and seller. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 30; Freedom Lists, +178, fo. 130} +297, 
fo. 1 18. 

* The question as to apprenticeship is dealt with at page 195 of this volume. 
In I 04 the Court, at the request of the Chamberlain, ordered that the indenture 
of apprentices should be in English, so that both master and apprentice might 
understand the terms of their contract. As this increased the labour of the 
clerk, his fee was raised from lid. to is. lid. Rep. +131, p. 13 b. Of the 
apprentices about one-third were usually entered into the freedom at the end of 

during the Reign of James I 97 

amount of money bequeathed to be lent out to young Freemen 
starting in business, 1 are actively engaged in the pursuit of their 
calling, whatever that may be. 

We have often had occasion to mention 'The Custom of 
London '. According to that Custom every Freeman was allowed 
to pursue the trade or craft he preferred, without having to 
belong to any particular gild. 2 The custom was fundamentally 
opposed to the theory of mediaeval industry, as organized under 
the gild system, a theory which was based on the principle that 
each gild should have control of those who were using its trade 
or mystery. But, as has been noted before, few if any gilds had 
completely succeeded in establishing this monopoly, and, now 
that the whole system was breaking down, and many of the 
greater Companies at least were composed of members pursuing 
various industries and professions, we find a more frequent appeal 
to the ' Custom '. 

When we remember the character of the Drapers' Society we Transla- 
cannot be surprised to find that they were in favour of the 
4 custom ', and that there is no instance during the reign of 
James I of their insisting on the * translation ' of members of 
other Companies who were pursuing the ' mystery' of Drapery. 3 

their term, not however necessarily by the master who had originally taken them 
as apprentices. 

1 The amount so left was 1,880, bequeathed by thirteen benefactors. Only 
400 was left for this purpose in the reign of Charles I. Under the Common- 
wealth there were no bequests of this kind. Under Charles II the practice 
was resumed, and six benefactors bequeathed 1,060. Cf. Appendix. Bene- 
factions XLVII. 

2 Cf. vol. ii, pp. 167, 171, 174. 

3 Humphrey Clare is described as having been entered into the freedom 
e per Merchant Taylors Hall' in 1598. Rep. + z6i, p. 24b ; +278, fo. 93. 
This seems to imply that he had served his apprenticeship with a member of that 
Company on condition that he should become free of the Drapers after serving 
his term. Cf. vol. ii, p. 168 of this work for other examples. The only two 
instances of c translation ' to the Drapers during the reign of James I were for 
other reasons : John Walter, translated from the Girdlers 1616, because he had 
been appointed Clerk of the Company j and Alderman Barkham, translated from 
the Leathersellers :6ai, because he was about to be elected Mayor, and had, 
according to custom, to belong to one of the greater Livery Companies. 
Freedom List, +178, fos. 156, 173 ; Beaven, Aldermen, vol. i, p. 331. 

1603-3 O 

98 Internal History of the Company 

Other Companies, however, still fought for their exclusive 
privilege by insisting on such 'translation' from the Drapers' 
Company. Seven instances occur during the reign. Of these, 
three were translated to the Vintners, three to the Stationers, and 
one to the Barber Surgeons. 1 With the exception of the Vintners, 
who were always jealous of their privileges, these gilds were 
composed chiefly of handicraftsmen, and it was these gilds, rather 
than the ones in which the trading element predominated, which 
throughout the seventeenth century tried most strenuously to force 
all using their craft to belong to their gild. 2 One reason for this was 
no doubt because they feared that, owing to the superior attractions 
which the wealthier Companies could offer in the way of relief 
and otherwise, their gilds would find difficulty in keeping up their 
numbers. But if in this matter the Drapers were less exclusive 
than many of the other Companies, they still shared the jealousy 
of all Londoners to ' foreigners '. 3 

Comparison Since the accession of James I the Company had received fresh 

of Financial g rants o f l anc [ an( J tenements on trust for charitable purposes from 

lonm , Mr. Buck and Sir John Jolles.< These brought in rents to the 

1601-3 and _ . t r -/!_/ J J j\ 

. amount or 114 (or 112, 12-j. ^a. with Quit-rents deducted). 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 140, 3/b, 440, 45 a, 48 b, 533, 713. Two more 
petitioned to be translated : one to the Goldsmiths and one to the Wood- 
mongers, but whether their petition was granted we are not told. When, 
however, in 1603 Leonard Gale, a member of the Drapers' Company, was fined 
by the Painter Stainers for using their trade, the Company supported him and 
paid half his fine. Rep. + H, 1603, fo. 195 a. 

2 Miss Martin kindly informs me that there are references in the Court 
Minutes of the Merchant Taylors' Company, vol. viii, fos. 81, 8z, 307 (1613 
and 1617), to a petition by the Weavers' Company demanding translation to 
their Society of all Weavers apprenticed to members of other Companies, and 
that the said petition was opposed by the Merchant Taylors, the Haberdashers, 
the Clothworkers, and the Drapers. I have not found any notice of this in the 
Drapers' Books. 

3 Rep. + 13 i, fo. 1133, July i6i{ : Certificate read to the Company made 
in answere to the precept from the Mayor touchinge the inconveniences to this 
Citie and freemen of the same, by strangers and forriners inhabitinge in this cittye." 

4 They had also received 100 from H. Butler, to be spent in the purchase of 
land, but this, till the year 1630, was applied to the Plantation in Ulster. 
Kendrick's bequest of 1,400, dated 1614, to be spent in the purchase of land, did 
not come into operation till the reign of Charles I. 

during the Reign of James I 99 

Meanwhile the rents of the other property had increased. 1 The 
total receipts in rent had therefore risen by nearly 100. The 
Company had also its lands in Ireland, and its shares in the Irish 
Society. But the receipts under this head were intermittent. In 
the year 1 62,4-5* they received ^'n8. 2 The rents alone are how- 
ever a fallacious guide, because, according to the custom of those 
days, the majority of the leases were what is called l beneficiary *; 
that is to say, a fine was charged at the commencement and 
renewal of the lease, and these were often raised, while the rents 
might, remain the same, or nearly the same. Moreover, as the fines 
were only levied on the grant or renewal of the lease, the annual 
value of revenue from lands was liable to considerable fluctuations. 
In the year 162-4-5- the money received for fines was only 
about one-half of what it had been in i<5o2,-3, and yet the total 
revenue from lands in England, including rents and fines on 
renewal of leases, came to 91*7 ~]s. 8</. as compared with 848 
in i6o2,-g. In the year 1 62,4-5- the Company also received 
;n 8 from their tenant in Ireland, so that the total revenue 
derived from land in that year came to 1,045- "-js. 8d. 3 

1 Thus on the House and Clonnes' lands the rents had risen from 396 in 1603 
to 468 us. od. in 1625. 

2 This item is found in the Wardens' Accounts. 

3 Thus: 1602-3 

s. d. 

Rents* 606 6 8 

241 13 4 

Fines on renewal of leases 

s. d. 
805 14 4 
in 13 4 




9*7 7 8 

118 o o 

1,04? 7 8 

*That is without deducting the Quit Rents payable by the Company and which 
amounted to 19 jj. zd. in 1602-3 and in 1624-5 to 22 I2S. qd. 
There were also the following arrears of Rents and Fines 

s. d. 

Arrears of rent paid . . o o o 
unpaid . . o o o 
Fines unpaid . . . . 145 o o 
Cf. Renter's and Wardens' Accounts, 16023, vo ^ " ^ 
ditto, 1624-5, Appendices XV, XVI A. 


s. d. 

28 8 4 

67 i 4 
292 6 8 
this work, p. 4995 

ioo Internal History of the Company 

Apart from the rents, the revenues of the Renter came -from 
corn sold, and from the balance of the preceding year, and these 
items brought up his receipts in the year 1624.-^ to a total of 
/i, 3 68 i6s. A^. 1 as compared with 1,32- 3 14^. 3^. in 1602-3. 
Of this sum 973 $s. i</. was expended, leaving a balance of 
3 95- 1 1 J. 2,</. The receipts of the Wardens came to i,pi 3 p-r.jV., 
and the disbursements to 1,967 17.5-. 6</. 2 On their account there 
was therefore a nominal debit balance of 5-4 8j. i</. No doubt the 
very heavy expenditure was due to the exceptional measures of relief 
undertaken by the Company in this plague year. Three hundred 
and ten pounds was spent, by the express order of the Mayor, in the 
purchase of corn over and above the normal amount, and a much 
larger sum than usual was dispensed in chanty by the Wardens, 
independently of money given or bequeathed for that purpose. 3 

But a more important reason for the increase in the disbursements 
of the Wardens is the loan of 800 at interest to the East India 
Company, which should be looked upon as an investment. Then, 
again, no notice is taken in the balance-sheet of other moneys owing 
to the Company, which were considerable. The Wardens, like 
good business men, frequently lent their balances and those of the 
Renters out at interest, either to Companies, especially to the East 
India Company and the Merchant Adventurers, or to important 
members or the Company, and others. They did the same with 
money left to them on trust for infant children, the capital of 
which was due when the children came of age. When heavy 
claims were made on them by the Crown, they were forced 
either to borrow themselves or to call in their loans. Of these 
lendings and borrowings the transactions of the year alone are 
entered in the balance-sheet, which it must be remembered only 
deal with the actual receipts and expenditure. Fortunately, how- 

1 Of his receipts 28 8j. 6d. was arrears of rent. 

2 The Legacy Moneys are not taken into account. They were not revenues, 
but moneys lent out. 

J Thus : 1601-3 1624-5 

s. d. s . d. 

To the poor of the Company . . . 19 o o 156 7 6 

To the poor not of the Company . 1 IO O 90 o o 

Besides this, in 1624-5 the Renter dispensed 67 us. <(d. to the poor of the 


during the Reign of James I lor 

ever, a record is kept in the Wardens' Accounts of the debts 
owed to the Company. In the year before us the Wardens 
were owed as much as 1,5)46' 5- J\ 6V. 1 , as compared with only 
8^7 $s. 6V. in 1 6*0 1-3. And, if we consider that sum as pros- 
pective receipts, instead of a deficit the Wardens' Accounts would 
show a balance of i,8pi 17^. $d. Finally there remained the 
balance of gp^ iiJ". i<d. on the Renter's Account, and a debt 
owing for rents of 6$ u., which would bring up the total 
prospective balance on the two accounts to 2,, 3 $6 $s. 7</., 
irrespective of the balance on the Bachelors' Account, or with 
that balance to ^6^ ipj-. 8 

Of the moneys belonging to the Yeomen or Bachelors, which The Bache- 
were kept separately, the first detailed account which survives is lors ' Box - 
that of itfiy-io'. 3 The ordinary receipts consisted of the Quar- 
terage of the Yeomen, the fees of those received into the Livery, 
and the fines of those who declined the office of Master Bachelor. 

Owed by Chamber of London . . 
by the E. I. C 

. . . 712. 
. . . 800 




by individuals 
by Fines on leases unpaid . 
by tenant in Ireland 

... 54 











Debts owed to the 



s. d. 

/. d. 

s. d. 

s. d. 

s. d. 

Bachelors . 
Wardens . 

1,368 16 4 
329 19 5 

W3 9 J 

973 * * 
13 10 o 
1,967 17 6 

395 ii 2 
316 9 5 
Less debit 
balance on 

For rents . 69 i o 

464 122 

316 9 5 
1,891 17 * 

To Wardens 1,946 5 6 



54 8 i 

3,612 5 2 

2,954 12 8 

657 12 6 

2,015 6 6 

2,672 19 o 

3 Cf. Rep. +178, p. 2. For a specimen of an ordinary Bachelors' Account 
cf. that of 1614 given in the Appendix XVI B. 

iox Internal History of the Company 

At exceptional times, when a Draper was Lord Mayor, these 
revenues were swollen by the fees of those who served on the 
Lord Mayor in foynes and in budge, and those who ' fined ' to 
be free from attendance ; while the number called to the Livery, 
and therefore the fees, were much increased. The ordinary dis- 
bursements were for the Great Dinner of the Bachelors at election 
time ; for the search dinners, when the Bachelors went to collect 
the Quarterage ; the fees of the Beadle, and a few other small 
items. But when a Draper held the position of Mayor, the larger 
part of the expense was borne by the Bachelors' Box. 

In the case of the Pageant of Sir John Jolles in 16 15- these 
exceptional receipts and charges were included in the general 
accounts of the Bachelors ; subsequently they were kept separate. 
As has been shown above, these Pageants were very costly affairs. 1 
If we omit the exceptional years of 1615-, 162,1 and 162,3, when 
the Mayors were brethren of the Society, the receipts and the 
disbursements of the Bachelors' Box did not vary much. Since, 
however, the Quarterage was somewhat more efficiently collected 
in the later years, there is on the whole a steady rise in receipts 
and therefore in the baknce from 162, i8s. in 1616-17 to 
^'316 pj. $d. at the close of the reign. 2 On exceptional occasions, 
as, for instance, to meet the expenses of a Pageant when a Draper 
was a Mayor, the balance would be appropriated. At other times 
it was lent out, often to the Master Bachelors themselves, who 
gave a bond for the same, the interest being sometimes distributed 
to the poor, but generally credited to the next account. 3 

1 The cost of Sir J. Jolles' Pageant was 6Bj 4 s. 'it/.; that of Sir 
Ed. Barkham's 548 4*. ; and that of Sir Martin Lumley's 6zg 101. j 
cf. Bachelors' Accounts +178, fos. i, 3, 11-30, and Appendix XL 

2 Thus: 

Receipts Disbursements Balance 

s. d. s . d. s. d. 

1616-17 180 18 o 1800 161 18 o 




114 7 10 19 o 6 195 7 4 

ij8 31 zz f o 135 18 2 

33 I0 3 13 10 o 280 o 3 

3*9 \9 f 13 I0 3 l6 9 5 

For a specimen of the receipts and expenditure when a Draper was a Mayor, cf. 
Appendix XI, The Pageant of Martin Luinley. 

3 Rep. + 131, pp. ii a, 25 a, 133 b; cf. also +178, Bachelors' Accounts. 

during the Reign of James I 103 

In connexion with the financial position of the Company, it 
is of some interest to note that the coinage was still somewhat 
debased. Thus in i5ii we hear of ?s. being paid to a Goldsmith 
to change 10 into bullion, which means that the coinage was 
depreciated by 2,J per cent., 1 while in 1613 the premium had 
risen to 6s. Sd. 2 

It would be interesting to know how much of the property in 
land and money belonging to the Company was held on trust, 
and how much was at its free disposal. Unfortunately, as there 
is no schedule of property arranged under those two heads, no 
definite statement is possible. We know indeed the total amount 
of money left to be lent out to young Freemen of the Company, 
and the whole of that sum may be considered as trust money. 
We know also the price originally paid for the Irish estate and 
the amount of the Company's interest in the Irish Society. All 
this was held free from trust, as well as the annual receipts of 
fees and fines from members. The grants or bequests of money 
tell us the amounts originally bestowed and of the trusts imposed, 
but most of the benefactions were from the first in land, and 
any money bequeathed was usually speedily invested in land. It 
is here that the difficulty conies in. The Renters' accounts give 
lists of the lands owned by the Company, 3 and records the 
annual rents received. Since, however, they do not state the 
capital value of such lands, we are left in the dark. I have, how- 
ever, attempted to make an approximate estimate in the following 
way : From the total receipts I have deducted all payments 
made in pursuance of trusts, and have taken these to repre- 
sent rents or moneys received on trust; the balance I have 
considered to represent rents and money free from all obli- 
gations. Finally I have capitalized the rents on a 6 per cent. 

1 Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1610-11, fo. 44. 

2 Renters' Accounts, 1613-14, fo. 118 : c Paid to the Wardens to dine with 
the Mayor 10, and 6s. Bd. to change it for gold.' Cf. also Renters' Accounts, 
1614-1 j, fo. i6o ; 1614-5, fo. 10. Stow, ed Kingsford, vol. i, p. 56. 

3 For the possessions of the Society in lands and tenements cf. Transcript 
of the Letters Patent of James I of July zo, 1619, Appendix VI, but their 
value is nowhere given. Some plans of the Society's landed property are also to 
be found at Drapers' Hall, PI. 6j. 

tion of the 

Amount of 
Trust and 

Leases of 

IO4- Internal History of the Company 

basis. 1 If my calculations are correct, we are brought to the con- 
clusion that while the total trust capital came in the last year of 
James I to some 10,683, of which 8,134 was invested in land, 
and some 2,5-49 was in the form of cash, the capital value of 
lands free of all trust held by the Company came to 10,800 and 
the money to /,'7'73 i^-r. i^. 2 

The leases of important houses were as before in much re- 
quest, even before they fell vacant, and on one occasion the 
Crown intervened in the interest of a certain Dorothie Speckart, 
a servant of the Queen. 3 Four great houses deserve especial 
notice : The Herber, to which we shall return ; the Chequers at 
Dowgate, which after much negotiation was leased to a Mr. 
Holingshead, brother of a Draper, who was then on the Court ; 4 
the House at St. Austin Friars, adjoining Drapers' Hall, which 
had been in the tenancy of Mrs. Lambard, the widow of the 
founder of Queen Elizabeth's College, and was in 161 3 granted to his 
son, Sir Multon Lambard, for 2,1 years ; s and the Old Hall in St. 
Swithin's lane, which was at this date in the tenancy of Alderman 
Randall Manning, a Skinner. 6 Smaller houses in the neighbour- 
hood of the Hall were generally occupied by the officers of the 
Company, sometimes without payment of any rent. 7 

1 Thus 100 rent would, according to this calculation, represent land of the 
capital value of 1,666 13.1. 4^. 

* Cf. Appendix XXXIV. 

3 Rep. + 1 3 1, p. 71 b. In consequence of the King's letter, the house, c The 
Black Raven ', was granted to her husband on very favourable terms ; ib. pp. 71 b, 
7? a, 74 b. Cf. also recommendations of applicants for leases by The Privy 
Council, Lord Burleigh and others about this time. Autograph letters A viii. 
338 Nos. x-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 19. 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 563, 8? a. 

5 Ib. pp. 91 b, 99 a b. 

6 Ib. p. 5 b; Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 49. This site is now occupied by 
shops and offices, Nos. 18-13. It is opposite Salters Hall. The vaulting of some 
of the cellars is made of chalk blocks, and is probably of Roman origin. Besides 
these, Alderman Cockayne, the famous monopolist and future Lord Mayor, was 
tenant of the chief messuage at St. Austin Friars; Rep. +131, pp. 96 b, 98 b. 
For a list of the leases granted during the reign cf. Rep. + 1 1 8 ; Index to 
Rep. +131. 

/ E.g. the Beadle (Rep. + 131, p. i68b) and the Renter, who had a house 
opening into the garden (Rep. + 13 1, p. 177). 

during the Reign of James I 105* 

As owners of many houses in London the Company were, as Disputes as 
was only natural, often involved in disputes. In some cases, to tides to 
their title to the houses was challenged, more especially with Houses and 
regard to the Hall and the Herber. In one year they spent *" 
over 81 in Law Costs. 1 Their title to the Hall was, however, 
finally confirmed in lo'ii. 2 Between the years 1609-12, the old 
question of the title to the Herber was revived. A certain 
Mr. Radcliffe, the lessee of Edmund Neville, brought an action 
against P. Banninge and another, to whom Sir Francis Drake had 
sub-let for 71 years in the days of Queen Elizabeth, although 
contrary to the conditions of his lease. 3 On the petition of 
Mr. Banninge, the Company agreed to pay one half of his Law 
Charges. But when Banninge had won his case, he not only 
declined to pay his share, but asked leave to alienate his lease to 
Alderman Barkham. After some negotiations it was agreed to 
submit the matter to arbitration, and finally his request was 
granted. 4 

Questions of controversy also occurred between the Company 
and their tenants with regard to leases, and fines on renewal of 
the same. These were decided sometimes by the arbitration of 
individuals specially appointed, or, as in the case above, by the 
Wardens ; 5 sometimes by reference to the Mayor or his Court, 
and in the last resort to the Courts of the realm. 6 

On the other hand, the Company were but little troubled with Disobe- 
quarrels between the members, or with acts of disobedience. Of ence . 
disobedience to the orders of the Court we have only met with 
one instance, and of serious quarrels only three. In 1604 Jeremy 
Loggins was summoned before the Court of Assistants for having 
contemptuously disregarded several orders in a matter of dispute 

1 8 1 I7/. 4</., Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fo. 43. Probably chiefly over 
the disputed title of the Herber. 

2 Re-grant and Confirmation of the Grant of Cromwell's House, ch. xx, 
framed at Drapers' Hall. 

3 For earlier history of the Herber cf. vol. ii of this work, Index. The nature 
of RadclifFe's claim does not appear. 

4 Rep. +131, pp. 70 b, 71 a, 943, 963. 

5 e.g. Rep. + 131, pp. 106 a, 145 a. 

5 e.g. Rep. + 131, pp. 79 a, 91 b, 101 b, ro8 a, 126 a. 
1603-3 P 

106 Internal History of the Company 

between him and another Draper. 1 In 160^ Stephen Lea 
petitioned the Court * to take some order ' in a matter of con- 
troversy between him and another brother. The Court advised 
him to address himself to the Chancellor, promising to give him 
' their lawful assistance to testify what them concerned in the 
equity and truth of the same/ 2 In 1610 Stephen Cundy com- 
plained that he had been stricken by Lott Sivedale. As Sive- 
dale pleaded that it was his first offence, his fine of 10 was 
reduced to 3 ox. in hope of his * better demeanour '. Apparently 
the quarrel still continued, since Sivedale was shortly after com- 
mitted to prison, and half of the fine of 2,oJ. imposed on Cundy 
for * miscalling ' his opponent was remitted. 3 Cundy it would 
seem was a quarrelsome person, for in the following year he is 
again found complaining that one Nevill 'had given him evil 
speeches and broken his thymb with a spurne '. Neville was 
fined 10, but on his alleging that Cundy had much provoked 
him, his fine was reduced to ioj\, which was to be given to the 
poor. 4 

St. The living of St. Michael's was, as usual, much sought after. 

Michael's. i n IO 'ii the Company managed to evade the request of the Prin- 
cess Elizabeth that the reversion should be promised to her Chap- 
lain, Mr Peacock, by passing a resolution that no reversion 
should be granted during the life of the existing incumbent, 
Dr. Wm. Archbold ; although a few years later it was granted to 
a Mr. Gary (or Carew). 5 On that occasion it was resolved that 
the Wardens should have power to appoint a preacher, or lecturer, 
besides the rector, 6 and that the bell should be rung for two hours 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 10 b. 2 Ib. p. 2 fa. 

3 Rep. +131, p. 75 a; Wardens' Accounts, 1610-11, fo. 42. Sivedale was, 
however, subsequently raised to the Livery ; + joi, Livery List, fo. 8. 

4 Rep. +131, p. 773. For one or two settlements of disputes between 
masters and their apprentices, cf. List of Livery and Court, +301, reverse 
fos. 63, 64 ; and for adjudications with regard to debts, fos. 69, 8y, 86, 96. 

5 Autograph letters, A. viii. 338,^0. 20; Rep. +131, p. 1343. In 1622 
Archbold died and Carew was admitted, ib. p. 172 b. In 1615 Carew was 
succeeded by Wm. Brough, ib. 191 a. It appears that in the sixteenth century 
the living wss held during the pleasure of the Company ; cf. the dismissal of 
Willoughoy in 1554. Rep. B. +254, p. 51. 

s Thus in 1621-3 we find a Mr. Shute being paid z for preaching and 

during the Reign of James I 107 

on election day; while in 1617 it was decided 'that for the 
better encouragement of such as are, or shall be, Drapers ', free- 
men of the Company, or their sons, or Scholars of the Company 
at the Universities should, if fit and suitable, be preferred for 
presentation to all others. 1 

Several improvements were made in the Hall. In 1604 the The Hall, 
ceiling of the Great Parlour was renewed in fretwork. In 1607 
the wainscot iri the Hall was painted in sad colour, and the 
portraits of the King, the Queen, and Prince Henry were set up. 
In 1609 the glass of the ' lorfer ' was repaired. The total cost of 
these repairs came to 83 17^. ^d? We are reminded also that 
* cotton candles ' were used for the lanthorn at the Gate. 3 Of 
carpets we have more frequent mention than before, and the 
notice of a large and fair Persia carpet, the gift of Mr. Garway, is 
especially interesting. 4 But these were not apparently used for 
the floor, which was still strewn with rushes or mats, but for 
covering the tables. 

The garden, too, was as ever a matter of considerable interest. The Garden. 
In February 1606 complaints were made against the gardener, 
Walter Coates. It was devoid of trees and was not properly set 
forth with flowers, c nor otherwise kept for the delight of 
members '. Too many were allowed to enter, and there was too 
much gaming. It was therefore decided to put another in election 
for the post of gardener, and the superintendence of the garden 

Mr. Gittens lot. for reading in St. Michael's on August ?, while Mr. Carew was 
paid i aj. for his sermon on August 4. Wardens' Accounts, 1611-3, ^- 3 8- 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 135 a. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 23 b, 46 b, 6? b ; Wardens' Accounts, 1604-5, fb. 46$ 
Renters' Accounts, 1609-10, fos. 16 ff. 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1610-11, fo. 41. They cost 6d. a pound. This was 
an annual charge. 

4 (<t) A green broadcloth for a carpet for the table in the ladies' chamber. 
(Z>) A carpet left by Sir James Deane. (c) Two new carpets for the side-tables 
in the Hall. A fair green carpet of broadcloth bordered about with needlework, 
of the gift and work of Mrs. Elizabeth Bonde, widow of Charles Bonde. 
Rep. +131, pp. 78 b, 83 b, H9bj Wardens' Accounts, 1609-10, fos. 40, 415 
1610 11, fo. 43 ; Renters' Accounts, 1603-4, fo. gbj i62i-z, fo. ij. As late 
as 1656 we hear of green broadcloth to make a 'carpet' for the long table in 
the parlour, and of rushes even later. Wardens' Accounts, i65J-6j fo. 39 j 
1658-9, fo. ir. 

io8 Internal History of the Company 

was entrusted to the Clerk, who was paid 2,1 a year. A lock 
was to be put on the door, of which the Master, the Wardens, the 
Assistants, the Clerk and the porter alone were to have keys. 
No one except a member was to be admitted on Feast Days, 
on Quarter Days, or days when the Court met, or other meetings 
were held, and at other times only strangers of credit. No one 
was to play by candle-light. No clothes except those of the 
House were to be dried or * whited ' in it, since the driers picked 
the fruit, herbs and flowers. Meanwhile the summer-house was 
repaired, fruit trees planted, and in zo'ii the wall was raised to 
stop Sir Thos. Hewett's lights. 1 

Charity. As noticed above, the amount of charity dispensed by the Com- 

pany in the reign of James I had reached a high figure. It may 
be conveniently arranged under two heads. First, the moneys, or 
gifts of coals and bread, given to the poor of London or elsewhere, 
who were not members of the Society of Drapers ; and secondly, 
those distributed among distressed brethren or sisters. The con- 
tributions under the first head were in ordinary years chiefly due 
to private benefactions, and of these there were a great many 
during the reign of James I. 2 It was only in years of exceptional 
distress, such as the plague year of 162,4.-^, that the House came 
to the rescue. It should not be forgotten that, besides these sums, 
the Company was annually rated for the poor of the Parish of 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 13 b, 33 b, 35 a, 39 ab, 403, 483, 493, itfia j Renters' 
Accounts, 1611-3, f- X 3' Coates was given a pension of 10, but was no 
longer to intermedle '. Rep. + 13 r, p. 41 b. The Clerk, however, subsequently 
handed over the superintendence to Humphrey Downes, the Renter, with the 
fee, to whom a house near by was also given. Rep. + 13 i, p. izz a. Renters' 
Accounts, 1613 4, fo. it. 

2 The total amount of benefactions bequeathed or given during the reign of 
James I were : 

s. d. 

A. Lands producing a nett rent of . . . 104 13 4 

B. An annuity . 

C. Money to be lent to young men of the Company i,?8o o o 

D. Money to be spent in chanty . . . 565 6 8 

E. Money to be spent in plate . . . . 1 1 j o o 
The large amount left to be lent out to young men of this Company starting life 
is noticeable. Cf Appendix, Benefactions XLVII. 

if o 

during the Reign of James I 109 

St. Peter le Poor, in which Parish the Hall stood, 1 and that at 
times they contributed towards the maintenance or refurnishing of 
the church of the said parish 2 and of other churches in which they 
had some interest. 3 

It was, however, to the c decayed ' brethren and sisters of the 
Company that their largesses chiefly went. The support of the 
poor of the Fraternity had, as with all other gilds, always been 
a primary object, and the liberality of the House grew as its 
wealth increased. The relief fell under two heads. First came 
the permanent cases, which were met by the Almshouses at Tower 
Hill, in Beech Lane and in Queen Elizabeth's College at 
Greenwich ; 4 and the pensions and annual gifts, generally of 2.0, 
at Easter and again at Christmas. 5 Secondly, the casual doles 
granted as occasion demanded. The charge of most of the 
ordinary charities did not fall on the corporate revenues of the 
Company. They were generally defrayed either from the 
bequests or grants of individual members, which were administered 
by the Company, or from the interest of the funds left to be lent 
to young members of the Society when starting life, and of the 
money belonging to the Bachelors' Box, which was lent out from 
time to time to the richer members of the Society. It was only 
when no sums were available from these sources, or when there 
was a deficiency, that the House contributed directly. 6 In the 
granting of the pensions, or occasional doles, the position of the 

1 To the collectors of the Poor for the Parish of St. Peter le Poor, 6 Jot. 
Renters' Accounts, 1613-14, fo. zzo j ib. 1622-3, fo. 10. 

2 10 towards finishing pews in the Church of St. Peter le Poor, 1616 ; 
Rep. + 13 I, p. 121 b. 24 for repairing the said church ; ib. 1624, p. 187 a. 

3 e. g. (a) Towards the restoration of the Chapel of John Norman, a famous 
Draper, in the Church of All Saints, Honey Lane; ib. 1624, p. 188 a. 
(6) Towards a window in the new Church in ye Duke's Place, with the 
Company's arms, at a cost of 14 zj. Rep. +131, p. 173 a j Wardens' 
Accounts, 1622-3, ^ a 4 1 - 

* The college at Greenwich was not, however, confined to members j cf. vol. ii 
of this work, p. 158. 

5 The sum varied. Sometimes it was only given once a year, sometimes the 
amount was left to the discretion of the Wardens. Cf. Rep. + I ? i, pp. J b, 1 2 a, 
44 a, 6z b, 64 b, 77 b, 1 84 a. 

6 e.g. in 1606 the sum distributed to the poor of the Society was thus 
made up : 

no Internal History of the Company 

applicants was taken into account, and the Company often found 
their continued petitions somewhat irksome. Thus in 1608, 
Sir Thos. Pullison, who had thrice served as Master, and had also 
been Mayor, was granted a pension of 30 on account of 'his 
antiquitie and charges passed in this Company and in the City '. In 
May 1 6 1 5- his request that the pension should be paid in advance 
for three years was granted, on condition that he gave up house- 
keeping and sojourned with his daughter, or in some other con- 
venient place ; and that any one preferring any further suit on his 
behalf should be fined 10. In 1616 his pension was reduced 
to ^2.0.' In 1613 a pension of 2.0 was granted to John 
Langley, once a Warden, ' because of his long service and 
great charges and small means to sustain his estate'. 2 In i6ip 
Fcrdinando Clutterbuck, 'once Warden (in iypo-i6oo) but now 
for a long time in Ludgate ', was granted a yearly pension of 
jio. In the following year this was changed to a present of 
^20, on his promise of ' never more being troublesome'. His 
promise was not kept, for in 162,1 he was given 5-, ' this to be the 
last '. He then somehow obtained his release from prison, for in 
May 16.14. he was given 10 on condition that he lived with his 
brother in the country, and was no longer chargeable on the 
House. 3 In lo'ip Edward Leaminge, twice Warden (1604.-? and 
-io), was given a pension otjfao, while Sir Wm. Garway 

10 if 8 From interest of the money lent out of the Bachelors' Box. 

1 o o Use of Alderman Barneham's legacy money, lent to Mr. Garway. 

3 if o Also due by Mr. Garway for interest on money lent. 

940 Given by the House. Rep. + 13 I, p. 443. 

In 1609 it was thus made up : 

10 o o Due for use of Lady Ramsay's Legacy Parcel. 

* Mr - Jaye's 

z 10 o }j>,,, Mr. Sandbrooke's 

ifo Mr. Cotton's 

4 5 o Contributed by the House. Ib. p. 64 b. 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 56b, nza, 1143; Renters' Accounts, 1614-1?, fo. ir. 
He also held a pension of 40 from the Court of Aldermen (Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 173). He had been Master in 1578-9, 1581-3, 1586-7, 
and Mayor in 1584-5. He was also a member of the Eastland Company, and 
that of Spain and Portugal. Cf. vol. ii of this book, pp. 153, 181-4, 188-9. 

2 Rep. + 13 i, p. 98 b. He had been Warden in 1604-5. 

+I3'> PP- i? J -i, i*4 a , 1*93, 1643, 1 86 a. 

during the Reign of James I in 

promised him another 10; and in 162.1, on his surrendering the 
lease of a house, which he held of the Company, he was given 30, 
while his pension was increased to 40. He also asked for a 
return of the money he had subscribed towards the Ulster Planta- 
tion. This was declined, but an additional $ was given to 
his wife. 1 

Besides these pensions granted out of the corporate revenues, 
the Company frequently accepted money on trust to pay pensions, 
not only to members, but to others. A curious case of this is that 
of one Verzalim, who does not appear to have been a Draper. 
A sum of money had been left to the Company by Sir J. Deane, 
somewhere about 1608, on condition that a pension or 'portion* 
should be paid to Verzalim yearly. When in ic'io the money, 
which the Drapers themselves had put out at interest, produced 
more than was necessary to pay the portion, the ' increase ' was 
distributed among the poor of the Company. 2 

We have no instance of a member of the Court, other than 
those mentioned, applying for relief during the reign, but in 162,1 
an allowance of 6 i^s. ^d. was made for three years to Thos. 
Bland, * once a Master Bachelor, but now impoverished by surety- 
ships ' ; and in 162,4 t ^ ie allowance was raised to 10 for a further 
three years. 3 Nor were their servants neglected. Thus ? was 
granted to Richard Barnard, their Beadle, because of his infirmity 
in his leg, whereby ' he had spent much money and gained little ' ; 
the porter was given 3 oj*. when sick ; the butler, Richard Trott, 
was also granted five marks towards the apprenticing of his son. 4 
Many widows, too, of important members or the Company, as well 
as the widow of Warner, their Clerk, received relief. In their 
cases, however, the Company were not so generous. Even the 
widow of G. Cullimore, aged seventy, was only granted an annuity 
of 4, though her husband had served twice as Warden 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. i? 3 b, i66b, 167 b, 168 b, 169 b, 170 a b, 174 b. 

2 Ib. pp. 71 a, 131 b; Legacies Cash Book, 1606-13, + 103, Letter Vj 
Wardens' Accounts, 1618-19, fo. 44. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 1363, 1633, 185 b. The suretyships were for the loans 
granted to young members of the Society. I have only come across one instance 
of a loan which was not recovered ; cf. 4 3^4j P- n6- 

4 Rep. 4 131, pp. 130 b, 139 a, i8oa. 

of Alms- 

in Internal History of the Company 

).' Less important brethren were relieved in various ways. 
Some were lent money without any interest being charged ; 2 some 
were given the means of gaining a livelihood. Thus R. Brooke 
was granted $ ' to furnish him to sea as a purser ' ; 3 another was 
given 6 igj-. 4^. towards purchasing ' two hackney horses for 
his better means of living'; another $s. for the burying of his 
wife, 4 and another IQJ. to redeem his clothes out of pawn. 5 Others 
received grants to release them from prison. 6 Widows of poorer 
brethren also received assistance. One, after much debate, was 
granted 10 of her husband's pension and i a year as long as she 
remained unmarried, on the grounds that 'she is not likely long 
to continue a widow.' 7 Another received i?s. 'for the placing 
forth of her children ', 8 while a third was remitted part of a fine 
on the renewal of a lease. 9 

It would be wearisome to give further examples. Suffice it to 
note that, as will be seen from the table below, the amount of 
charity dispensed steadily increased until, in the last year of the 
reign, no less than 4.02, i6s. $cl. was distributed among members 
of the Society, and '2,85* JJ. 6V. to those who were not members. 10 

As was the case in the reign of Elizabeth, the poor in the Alms- 
houses continued to give a good deal of trouble. In April 

1 Rep. + 1 3 1, pp. 96 a, 1 09 b. 
3 Ib,, p. i j 3 b. 4 Ib., p. 1 7 1 b. 
7 Ib., p. 79 a. 8 Ib., p. I4ob. 

10 This year was however a plague year. 


To the Pooroftht Company. 

Ib., pp. 763, IZ7 a. 

6 Ib. 3 p. 17 f b. 

Ib., p. 147 b. 
9 Ib.. p. 1143. 

A. By gift or bequest 

B. By the House 

To Poor not of the Company. 

A. By gift or request . 

B. By the House 

J. d. 
144 8 o 
78 9 6 




I do 

I8 3 



r i 











496 3 8 

688 i ii 

For more detailed information cf. Appendices XV. XVI A. 

* In the year 1610, 138 men and 76 widows were in receipt of doles. We 
cannot be certain that all these were of the Company, but most were. Cf. Rep. 
+ 385, fos. 54-65. 

during the Reign of James I 113 

the parson, the churchwardens and the parishioners complained of 
the extraordinary number of the inmates at Tower Hill and Beech 
Lane ; of their * unquietness ' both among themselves and towards 
the neighbours, and of their importunate begging. Accordingly 
the following orders were made : No reversion of pensioners' 
places was to be granted. No one was to be admitted, who was 
not a Draper or a Draper's widow ; and no man and wife, until 
they were past child-bearing. The bachelor almsmen were for- 
bidden to marry any one under fifty years of age, and no widow 
was to marry a man under seventy. No inmate was to keep 
a tiplinge house or practise pettyeostrye. 1 Finally, all the 
pensioners were, on admission, to find sureties in 10 that they 
would comply with these orders. 2 When the pensioners alleged 
that the custom of ' pettyeostrye ' was in part occasioned by the 
poverty of the inmates, and that prices had trebled since the 
foundation of the Almshouses at Tower Hill, it was decided to 
double the pension of each inmate, which was then but 2-r. 6d. ; 
the said pensions to be paid out of the rents of the lands given by 
the benefactor. 3 This measure put an end to the * pettyeostrye ', 
but we meet with two further cases of ' unquietness ', and these, as 
is so often the case, on the part of women inmates. 4 Of Queen 
Elizabeth College we also learn that the Cook was expelled ' for 
much and often disorder ' and for the unruliness and contentious- 
ness of his wife. 3 In 162,2, all the almsmen and women were 
ordered to wear openly the badge or arms of the Company. 6 

The school at Barton in Staffordshire, which had been founded The Schools 
in the reign of Elizabeth by Thomas Russell, also caused the Com- a 
pany some trouble. In 1618 complaint was made that the Master 
had ill-treated the children, and, by beating some of them on the 
head, had made them deaf. Further, that he had withdrawn him- 
self from the performance of his duties ; that he had employed 
himself in the ministry, contrary to his engagement ; that he spent 
much time in frequenting alehouses and places of disorder ; and that 
he was generally a factious, contentious person, and a breaker of 

1 c Pettyeostrye ' means taking in lodgers. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 60 a, 94 a b. 3 Rep. -f 1 3 1, p. rol a. 

4 Ib., pp. 1 37 b, i j i a. 5 Ib., p. 60 a. 6 Ib., p. 169 b. 

1603- 3 Q. 

H4- Internal History of the Company 

the peace. As a result of this conduct the school, which but 
seven years previously had been well supplied not only * with very 
many gentlemen's sons from the neighbourhood ', but with some 
from London, had now only about ' thirty poor little barefooted 
boys ' * slenderly learned ' in English and some Latin, while the 
eldest of them, a boy of about fifteen or sixteen, was acting as 
usher. The Court, having assured themselves of the truth of these 
complaints, removed the offending Master, and when appointing a 
successor increased his salary to 10, on the understanding that 
he was not to undertake any other work which might interfere 
with his duties. At the same time certain necessary repairs were 
made, and the arms of the Company cut in alabaster were set up 
on the school wall. 1 

One member of the Company, Sir John Jolles, was not deterred 
by these troubles from promoting education. In i6"2.o he left 
money to increase the salary of the master and usher of the school 
at Stratford Le Bow, which he had founded during his life-time 
for the education of thirty-five boys of Stratford Le Bow and 
Bromley ' in the fear of God and good manners '. They were to 
learn to write and to cypher, grammar and the Latin Tongue. 2 

1 Rep. +131, p. 141. 

3 Rep. +418, p. 13 j + 131, p. 189 fK, where the orders for the tegiilation of 
the School are also given. 




HARLES was no more happy in Accession of 

the date of his succession to the Charles I, 

throne than his father had been. March Z7, 

The Plague, which had been ] 

raging in the last year of Tames, f , 

t j i XT a i , . of the 

had not abated. 2 No doubt this 
was a sufficient reason for the 
postponement of all meetings of 
the Court of Assistants till June, 
and for the absence of all refer- 
ence to the proclamation of the 
new King, or to the arrival of 
Henrietta Maria,and her marriage 
with Charles on June ig. 3 In 
June the Parliament was removed 

to Oxford, because London was not considered safe. It was said 
that one thousand persons died daily during the month of November 
162.? within the circuit of a mile from the centre of the City. 
4 The citizens fled as out of a house on fire, they stuffed their 
pockets with their best ware and threw themselves into the high- 
ways, and were not received so much into barns, and perished so, 
some of them with more money about them than would have 
bought the village where they died.' In the City nothing was 

1 This letter comes from Charter II, f License to hold Irish Lands in 
Mortmain '. 

2 Hamon Lestrange, the author of the History of King Charles I, ed. 1655 , 
p. 7, says that the two outbreaks of the Plague in 1603 and in 1614-5 originated 
in the parish of Whitechapel, and from the same roof. 

3 The King had been married by proxy in Paris in the preceding May. 

u6 Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

seen but * trophies of death. Here was nothing but groaning and 
crying and dying and burying. Carts were the biers; wide pits 
the graves; men s clothes their coffins, and the very exequies of 
friends were murderous, and, if some infrequent passenger crossed 
the streets, it was not without his medicated posy at his nose.' 
All trading ceased. 'The rich all gone, house keepers and 
apprentices of manual trades begging in the streets, and that in 
such lamentable manner as will make the strongest hearts to 
yearn.' 1 During the year August 162,^ to August 1616* two 
Wardens of the Drapers died: Thomas Andrews, elected in August, 
before he was sworn, and Robert Stubbs in April, as well as one 
Assistant and one Liveryman. Under these tragic circumstances 
all dinners were dispensed with, and the usual allowances of the 
House, as well as the charge of the various officers towards these 
dinners, were ordered to be distributed, partly among the parishes 
which suffered most, partly among the poor of the Company, 
especially among those ' whose houses had been most visited '. 
Even at the meeting of the Court for the election of the Master and 
Wardens for the ensuing year, we are told that 4 by reason of the 
extreame pestilent sicknes ' all that could be gotten together were 
the Master, two of the Wardens, and six of the Assistants, two of 
Ceremonies \vhom were to act as deputies for the two absent Wardens. 3 And 
a /,f lec " on of although Allan Cotton, a member of the Society, was elected 

AllanCotton ^.r ,. i J , 

1(J muc j 1 Mayor tor the year zoiy-o, there were no pageants; the expenses 
restricted,as of attending him when he went to take his oath were compara- 
well as those tively small, and none of the other Companies were present at the 

at the Coro- ta ]ung O f his oath. 4 


1 Dr. Donne, Dean of St. Paul's, Court and Times, i. 46, quoted by Sharpe, 
vol. ii, p. 95 j Bp. Hall, Sermon, quoted Jupp, Carpenters, p. 84. 

2 Rep. + 13 i, pp. 194 b, 1993$ +30 1, p. 19. We are not, however, definitely 
told that the Plague was the cause of their death. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. I93ab, 1943, 195 b. The parishes most visited were: 
St. Mary, Whitechapel ; St. Leonard's, Shoreditch ; St. Sepulchre's ; St. Olave's, 
St. Saviour's, St. Mary Magdalen, St. George, Southwark ; St. Botolph's, Aldgate j 
St. Giles, Cripplegate j St. Catherine at the Tower } St. Botolph, Bishopsgate ; 
St. James, Clerkenwell. 

4 Rep. + 131, p. 195 a ; Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fos. 4-6. The expenses 
were only 191 9*. 4^. j a remarkable contrast to those usually incurred on such 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 117 

As with the opening of the year 162.6 the mortality somewhat 
declined, the Coronation of the King was solemnized on Candlemas 
Day (Feb. 2). But the Companies appear to have taken no 
direct part in it, satisfying themselves with paying their quotas to 
the sum demanded by the Mayor. 1 At the election of Sir Cuthbert Election and 
Hackett in the same year the Drapers also dispensed with their pageant of 
election and Quarter Day dinners. 2 They were, however, unwilling 
to abandon the pageants on this exceptional occasion, when a 
Draper for the second time in two successive years filled the office 
of Mayor, especially as he was Master of the Company. An 
appropriate subject, ' The triumphs of Health and Prosperity ', was 
prepared by Thomas Middleton, a member of the Company, and 
the expenses, though not so high as they had been in the time of 
Sir John Jolles, amounted to ?^f igJ". 8</. 3 After the year 1616 Later Visita- 
there was a further abatement of the Visitation, but the City was ns of the 
never free during the reign of Charles, and we have special men- p l a g ue - 
tion of renewed attacks in 1630, i6g6, and i637- 4 In that year, 

1 The Drapers were asked for 330 4*. 9^. as their rateable proportion of 
4,300 spent by the City for making pageants and beautifying the Cross in 
Eastcheap. Rep. +131, p. 2.33 b. They also held a dinner j ib. i^6\>. 

2 Rep. + 131, p. U9b. 

3 Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. i, p. 460 j Bachelors' Accounts, +178, 
fos. 54, jf. The charges were met in the usual way out of the Bachelors' Box 9 
cf. Appendix IX on the Pageant of Sir Martin Lumley. Middleton was assisted in 
making the Pageants by Garrett Christmas, a carver and statuary of reputation ; 
cf. Diet. National Biography. There was some question as to the payment, 
in regard that the Pageant had been c ill performed', but they eventually 
received 135. Rep. +131, p. 101 a j Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fo. yz. 
For the text of the Pageant cf. Works of Middleton, by Rev. A. Dyce, ed. 1840, 
vol. v, pp. 319-30, or his works by A. H. Bullen, vol. vii, pp. 397-411. For 
Middleton, cf. supra, p. 10. 

4 Rep. +131, pp. i36b, i39b, i4oab, 1413, 141 b, 297 b, 3033, 3043, 
307 a, 3 10 a, 3 1 z a. In 163 J the reason given for dispensing with some dinners 
and reducing the scale of others was the extreme dearth of victuals. In 16^6 all 
' public ' marriages and burials were forbidden for fear of infection, and the 
money was not to be distributed among the poor in the Hall for the same reason. 
Usually, where dinners were dispensed with, the charges to which the officers 
would have been put had the dinners been held, and sometimes the allowances 
of the House, were distributed among the poor of the Company, and sometimes 
among those not of the Company. But in 1630 the money saved by forbearing 
from the Yeomanry dinner was to go to the Bachelors' Box toward the charges 

n8 Relations of the Drapers to the 

however, it was decided to have two banquets at election time as 
in former times. 

But if the times were * not fitted for feasting but for fasting and 

Other causes prayer to Almighty God to avert His Judgment', 1 there were 

ofdiscon- probably other reasons for this besides the Plague. 2 We know 

that the country was much agitated during these years owing to 

the foolish foreign policy of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, 

and the dissolutions of Parliament whereby Charles attempted to 

save his favourite. 3 

And yet of all this turmoil there are but faint references in the 
Drapers' records. I confess that this reticence, which is maintained 
down to the execution of the King, has been very disappointing. 
I had hoped that the Drapers' books would have thrown much 
new light on the attitude of London during this momentous 
period ; but at least it would be a crave mistake to attribute this 
silence to the apathy of the City, for we know from other sources 
that London was much stirred. 4 Rather it is to be explained by 
the very seriousness of the discontent, and the deep divisions which 
were preparing the country for civil war. The Company, as we 
have shown, had become a motley assembly of all sorts and 
conditions of men ; and any raising of these questions would have 
divided the Society into hostile factions. They were, moreover, 
becoming more and more a friendly society, and one of their 
more important functions was that of relieving the poor, and 
more especially the poor of the Company, without any distinction 
of party. It was therefore a sign of their wisdom that they left 

4 when it should happen that a Draper was elected Mayor, and at other times 
the money was to be disposed of as the Wardens might direct'. In 1635 the 
Wardens were brought to task for having spent too much on the dinners, and 
were ordered to pay j apiece towards the support of the poor. Rep. +131, 
p. 3oob. 

1 Precept of Mayor, Rep. + 13 I, p. 303 a. 

2 Later on at least 'the present troubles and those to be feared in future ' are 
definitely given as reasons. 

3 Parliament was twice dissolved in i6*f and i6z6. An impeachment, 
being a trial by the House of Lords on the prosecution by the Commons, was 
quashed by a dissolution. For all this consult Gardiner, History of England. 

4 Cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, ch. xxi. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 119 

politics aside. It was only when financial and trading interests 
were at stake that the Company took action ; and even here the 
Society obediently followed the wishes of the King until the 
year 1640. 

Of the many loans ' which King Charles extorted from the Loans to the 
City when he failed to receive support from his hostile Parliament, K ^ n 8 
those only are mentioned in the Drapers' records which were 
levied on the Livery Companies, or those to which they indirectly 
contributed. In December 162, 7 the Mayor and the Court of 
Aldermen had agreed to provide a loan of 12,0,000 at 8 per cent., 
to be raised by two instalments of 60,000 on the security of the 
royal lands, which were to be mortgaged to the City. 2 Of this 
first instalment the proportion of the Drapers was 4, 608, which 
they lent to the City at 6 per cent. Some of the money was 
raised by loans from important members ; the rest was lent by the 
House. 3 The Masters and Wardens of some of the smaller 

1 For the various loans levied on the citizens, or on the Wards, cf. Sharpe, 
vol. ii, ch. xxi. 

2 Lands of the annual value of f.i 2,496 61. were conveyed to the City 
upon trust, to sell the same, and out of the proceeds to refund the moneys thus 
lent, as well as a loan of 60,000 raised by Charles in i6zj, and also of 
100,000 borrowed by James I. Subsequently the City was accused of 
fraudulently selling these lands at a lower price than might have been obtained. 
Cf. Hopkinson, Records of Merchant Taylors, p. if. It is interesting to note 
that, whereas the King had to offer 8 per cent., the City obtained the money 
from the Company at 6 per cent., and that the Company paid 7 per cent, to its 
members, who found most of it. 

3 The contribution of the Drapers was as usual based on their corn assessment, 
and was the fourth highest. Above them stood the Merchant Taylors (6,300), 
the Grocers (6,000), and the Haberdashers (4,800). Below them stood the 
Goldsmiths (4,380), the Mercers (3,720), the Fishmongers and Clothworkers 
(3>39)> the Vintners (3,110). Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 104 note. The sums lent 
by individual members to the Company were to be repaid within the year with 
interest at 7 per cent., the Company entering into Bonds to that effect. Most of 
the lenders were formed of groups of three. Thus: 

The Master, Alderman Garway 
500 from -j Wm. Clarke 

Wm. Garway 

Sir M. Lutnley, 
f oo Alderman Chamberlen (Chamberlain) 

Nich. Colcjuite 

no Relations of the Drapers to the 

Companies were committed to Newgate for neglecting to collect 
their quota, and some of the members of the Vintners' Company 
were committed to prison on the complaint of the Master and 
Wardens as being recalcitrant. 1 The Drapers, however, and most 
of the greater Livery Companies, appear to have paid theirs with- 
out opposition. In July, 2.0,000 of the second instalment was 
demanded. To this the Drapers contributed l 9 f$6' The two 
instalments of this loan were repaid with interest in lo'ip. 3 
The City Meanwhile the growing indignation against the royal favourite 

fined for the h ac [ l ec j to t h e mu rder of a certain Dr. Lamb, an astrologer and 
Dr" "mb *3 uac k doctor, who was called 'the Duke of Buckingham's devil ' 
June 1618. an d credited with having supplied him with love philtres, where- 
with he corrupted women. ' Could they have seized the Duke ', 
the murderers were reported to have said, * they would have so 
minced his flesh that every one should have had a bit of him.' 
Charles, after threatening to forfeit the City's Charter if the 
murderers were not discovered, had to content himself with a fine 

500 from 


Sir Ed. Barkham 
Warden Withers 

Clement Underbill 
Alderman Cotton 
Rich. Archdale 
Rich. Trott 
Sir Morris Abbott 
Rich. Edwards 
Rich. Trimnel 
j J. Ranye 
500 -j Warden Goodyear 

( Th. Meade. 

100 Sir C. Hackett 

The remainder was borrowed from money which the Company held in trust for 
the children of a brother, Mr. Chapman. Cf. Rep. +131, pp. 113 b, n6b, 
1173; Wardens' Accounts, 1617-8, fos. 33 ff. 

1 Cf. Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 105, The Founders, Glaziers, Plumbers, and Sadlers. 

2 Of this 1,100 was to be received * from divers the petty farmers ', who had 
borrowed money from the Company, the rest being furnished by the Renter 
Warden. Rep. + 131, p. 118 b. 

3 First instalment 4,608, plus interest at 6 per cent. = 5,168 is. 6d. plus 
3 loj. fee to Clerk of the Chamberlain. Wardens' Accounts, 1619-30, 
fo. 37. Second instalment 1,536, plus 8 per cent, interest = 1,658 6s. $d. 
Rep. + 131, p. 13 ob, Wardens' Accounts, 1618-9, fo. 37. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I in 

of 1,000. Towards this the Drapers had to pay 76" i<5>. 
The Mayor had ordered that the fine should be raised by poll on 
all the members, but, at a meeting of the Yeomanry as well as the 
Livery, it was decided that the sum should be found by the House, 
and saved by forbearing certain dinners. 1 Before the fine was 
paid, Buckingham had been assassinated (August 23, 1618 2 ). To 
this there is no reference to be found in the Minute Books, nor to 
the Petition of Right and the dissolution of Charles's third Parlia- Dissolution 
ment, which occurred in ifop. Eleven years of personal rule of the Par- 
followed, but here again the silence of our authorities on the li ament ^ 
political situation is only broken by a reference to the famous 

question of Ship Money. So far as London was concerned, the O f personal 
right of the Crown depended on two questions: firstly, whether rule 
the King could demand ships from maritime towns in times of 
war, or when the country was threatened by invasion ; and 
secondly, whether the City of London could be considered a sea- 
port. In spite of attempts to prove the contrary, there can be 
little question that the King had such a right, and that London 
had been frequently treated as a port. 3 The writ, therefore, which 
asked for seven ships properly furnished with munitions and men, 
though protested against, was complied with. 4 Dr. Sharpe tells us 

1 Viz. one quarter-day dinner, and the Yeomanry dinner on Election Day. 
The officers surrendered part of their charges, and the sum thus raised came to 
8 1 6s, Bd. The balance was spent in giving some contentment ' to the beadle, 
the butler, the cook and the porter in lieu of the loss they would suffer. 
Rep. +131, pp. i68 b, ^6<) a b. 

2 Felton, the murderer, declared that he had no accomplices, and that he had 
murdered the Duke in consequence of a private wrong he had suffered at the 
Duke's hands. Gardiner, History of England, ed. 1884, vol. vi, p. jyz. 

3 Thus, not only had the City been called upon to furnish five ships in 
January \6i6 for the defence of the ri-ver, but, in July \6^6^ a further demand had 
been made for twenty ships for service abroad. In their remonstrance the City 
authorities especially stated that they were ready to share with the rest of His 
Majesty's subjects in a matter which touched the State defence of the whole 
Kingdom ; but that they objected to this charge being imposed on the City only. 
The demand had, however, been pressed, and the money was apparently raised 
on the parishes, for in the Renters' Accounts, i6zj-6 fo. 17, 1616-7 fo. i j, we 
find z6 and 8 13*. 4^. paid to the Churchwarden of St. Peter le Poor (in 
which parish Drapers' Hall stood) by the order of the Mayor. Cf. also the 
frequent demands for ships in the reign of Elizabeth, vol. ii of this work, p. 4 3 6. 

4 For the writ cf. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents, ed. 1899, p. 105. 
1603-3 R 



Relations of the "Drapers to the 

The second 
Writ for 


that the demand was made on the Wards, but the evidence of the 
Drapers' Minutes proves that at least the cost of furnishing the 
ships fell on the Companies, for we find that the Drapers were 
assessed at the sum of TO towards the setting forth of the said ships. 1 
In the second writ, which appeared in August itf^, the King 
called not only on seaport and maritime towns, but upon the nation 
to contribute to the defence of the realm. 2 The right of 


the Crown to thus extend the demand was disputed by Richard 

Chambers, a London merchant. The Judges, however, would not 
allow the legal question to be argued. Justice Berkeley said 
* that there was a rule of law and a rule of government, and that 
many things which might not be done by rule of law might be 
done by rule of government '. 3 Meanwhile the writ had been 
enforced, and the City had to furnish two more vessels of 800 tons 
apiece. To this the Drapers contributed 60 . 4 

In addition to these exactions the Drapers had, in common with 
the other Livery Companies, been called upon almost every year 
to supply the markets with corn. At moments of especial scarcity 
the amount they had to furnish was high. Thus, in December 
1630, they had been ordered to provide a double weekly propor- 

The pretext was the danger to be feared from l robbers of the sea as well as 
Turks'. No doubt there was much piracy at the time. Thus, in June 1631, 
Baltimore was sacked by Algerine pirates. Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 
1 61 $-31, p. 617. In the same year we find suggestions for building a special 
fleet for suppression of sudden depredatibns and landing of Turks and renegades 
upon the coast of England and Ireland; ib. 1625-60, p. 168. Cf. also the 
constant references to captives in the hands of the Turks. The piratei included 
English and Irish renegades. The real purpose, however, was to prepare a fleet 
against all emergencies, and, as was so often the case with regard to the exactions 
and arbitrary measures of Charles I, his action was unwise rather than positively 
illegal. It was an attempt to evade the necessity of summoning Parliament, and 
was resisted on that account. 

1 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 113 j Rep. +131, p. 19? a, 
January 1635 ; Renters' Accounts, 1634-5, p. 7 a. 

2 In the previous July they had also bought a few barrels of powder in response to 
the Mayor's precept to provide a reasonable quantity. Rep. +13 i, pp. 198 b, 299 a. 

3 Cf. Gardiner, History of England, ed. 1884, vol. viii, pp. 84, 9i~95 > 103. 
The right of the Crown to thus extend the demand to the country at large was 
much more questionable. Charles, however, obtained a verdict in his favour by 
a narrow majority in the famous case of Hampden (1637) j ib. pp. 170 fF. 

4 Renters' Accounts, 1635-6, fo. 10; 1636-7, fo. 12. 

"Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 115 

tion, and, in June 1^38, they were instructed to purchase 768 
quarters, an amount which had not been exceeded in the reign 
of Elizabeth. 1 As, however, this was a long-established burden 
imposed upon the Livery Companies, we do not meet with any 

In itfgi we have an interesting notice, which throws some 
light on the commercial policy of the Government. In that 
year the members of the Eastland Company had imported a 
large amount of rye, for which they could not find purchasers. 
The Mayor therefore, at the order of the Privy Council, issued 
a precept instructing the Livery Companies to buy of the said rye 
' as well for the relief of the merchants and the encouragement of 
future speculators '. The price, the Mayor said, was only <5.r. 6V. 
a bushel, which was 8</. less than cost price. With the precept 
the Drapers indeed complied, possibly because some of the influ- 
ential brethren would, as great merchants, be inclined to favour 
the importer, even if they were not actual members of the East- 
land Company. Nevertheless they undertook to buy ^o quarters 
only, at the rate of ?s. the bushel, instead of 3 8^. quarters at 6s. 6d. 
the bushel, as they had been required to do by the Mayor. 2 Both 
the Goldsmiths' and the Grocers' Companies prayed to be excused 
altogether. The reasons as alleged by the Grocers were that, 
notwithstanding the great scarcity and dearth, the poor would 
not use rye or barley meal alone, nor yet with the mixture of 
two-third parts of wheat with it ; and that they already had met 
with difficulty in selling the mixture which they had on hand. 
They further said that other merchants, Dutch and English, 
were offering it at js. the bushel, and that they could not be 
responsible for this overloading of the market. 3 


The attempt of the Company to develop their estate in Attempts to 
Ireland had met with such .little success during the early years i^sh Estate. 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 143 b, 3103. 

2 Ib. p. 249 b. They appear to actually have bought two parcels of East 
country rye during the year October 1630-31 : (i) 50 quarters at 41. 9^., and 
(i) 80 quarters at 4*. 6d. a bushel. 

3 Cf. Heath, Grocers, pp. 69 fF. } Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 151. 

H4- Relations of the Drapers to the 

of Charles I's reign that they must have regretted ever having 
undertaken the venture. Although the plan of letting the 
whole Proportion to one tenant had not succeeded, and was pro- 
bably not to be commended, since it tempted him to rack-rent 
his under-tenants, and relieved the Company from direct respon- 
sibility, it was at that time favoured by the Court, because 
thereby the endless troubles which direct administration of the 
estate involved would be avoided. Accordingly, since the lease 
to Sir Thomas Roper had been revoked in i<$2,x, owing to his 
unwillingness, or inability, to pay the rent, they had been seeking 
for a suitable person. Meanwhile, in January 162.6' Harrington, 
their agent, reminded them that some of their tenants were sail 
charged a double rent for six and a half town lands, which the 
Company had purchased of two royal patentees, Price and Corne- 
wall. 1 On this point no redress was obtained. The Company was 
also pressing its agent to complete the * castle ', to place locks 
on the inside of the doors, and to find a sufficient man to dwell 
therein and protect it and the town from natives and rebels; 
to pave Drapers' Town and furnish it with a good water-supply, 
and to set up * a reasonable bell in bigness ' in the chapel where- 
with to rally the inhabitants to prayers. 2 

The whole After negotiations with sundry persons, 3 the Court succeeded 
.portion j n l ett j n g t he whole Proportion, with the exception of any free- 
Pet'erBarkcr holds which had been granted, to Mr. Peter Barker, a drover 
January ' of Ballybantrom, in County Antrim. The lease was to be for 
i6iS. sixty years from January i6"i8, the rent 2,00, and the fine 

1 That is, one rent for their lands within the county of Londonderry, in which 
the town lands lay, and another reserved by the Crown in the patent granted to 
Price and Cornewall. Rep. +131, fo. 197 a. Cf. sufra under James I, p. $6 
of this volume. Cornewall had been sheriff of Tyrone when the Earl fled. Hill, 
Plantation, p. zy f. 

2 January \6i6. Rep. + 131, pp. 197 a ff. 

3 In August \6i6 Ralph Whistler, of Dublin, agreed to take a lease for forty 
years, but threw up his agreements because his request for a reduction of the 
rent by f o ' for so long time as the present trouble and charges imposed by the 
State shall be upon the Proportion ' was refused. Rep. + 131, pp. loz b, 104 a. 
In 1617 a Mr. Lathom and their agent Harrington made offers, which were not 
considered good enough. Ib., p. 104 bj Letter Book + 383, letters beginning 
fos. 1 06, 107, 109. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 115- 

Barker, however, proved to be as unsatisfactory as Sir 
Thomas Roper had been. In spite of repeated promises, he failed to 
pay his rent ; a re-entry was therefore made in February i6go, and 
the Manor leased temporarily to R. Goodwin, the Steward of the 
Company. Then, however, Barker paid 140, and gave a bond 
for the remainder of 60 necessary to make up half his arrears. 
Upon this, in the following September the lease was renewed. 2 
Barker no doubt could plead as an excuse for falling into arrear 
that there were many vexatious questions to be settled, which had 
been dragging on for some time, and the Court had told him to 
expect crosses from those who had been disappointed in their 
hopes. 3 Of these the most troublesome arose out of the claims of 
Robert Russell and Wm. Rowley. 

R. Russell, the son of their first agent, asked that a freehold of Claims of 
the town land of Gortatawry, which had been promised to his R - RUSSC ^J 
father, should be handed over to him ; intending to aliene the R j 
said freehold, when granted, to one Sir William Windsor, who at ant i others. 
that time held a third of the Company's estate. 

As, however, Sir William Windsor had done nothing in the 
way of building or planting, it was decided that no grant should 
be made until security was given that he would fulfil these 
obligations. 4 Sir William himself caused no little trouble to the 
Company, and fell into arrears with the rent to the amount of 
^138 $s. \o>d. He, however, died early in 1628, an event on 
which the Court congratulated Mr. Barker because * it was likely 
to prove a great means of good to him '. s Finally, the freeholds 
of Gortatawry and Cloughfin in Ballyravenny were granted to 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 235 b. 

2 Ib., pp. 2ija, 131 a, 23$ a, 241 ab, 247 bj Letter Book +383, letters 
beginning fos. 114, uf, izj, iz6 y 117. 

3 Letter Book +383, letter beginning fo. in. 

4 Rep. + 1 3 1, p. 197 b. In 1630 he also asked for a renewal of a lease of the 
town lands of Carimony, Lismony, Caltrum, and Drombeabut, which had been 
granted to his father according to a pretended promise of Barker. The Company 
declined, unless he could show further evidence of any promise from Barker. 
Rep. +131, p. 2443. Carimony and Lismony were also claimed by Wm. 

5 Letter Book, letters beginning fos. 106, 107, in. 

Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

Russell, 1 as well as a lease of the two and a half town-lands of 
Carimony and Caltrum.* 

The claims of William Rowley of Tubbermore gave greater 
trouble. He persisted in his right to the freeholds of the two 
town-lands ofMonishenare and Brackaleslea, which he averred 
had been promised to his brother Nathaniel, who before his 
death had assigned this promise to himself for 2.0. He further 
demanded a renewal of the leases of fourteen and a half other 
town-lands for three lives or thirty-one years, which, according 
to his statement, he had purchased of the original leaseholders ; 
as well as certain allowances for services performed by him. To 
his last demand the Court answered that any services he had 
rendered had been done for his brother John, the late agent of 
the Company, whose widow had already been recompensed ; that 
as to the town-lands, most of them had been only held at will 
by the previous tenants, who had therefore no power to assign 
their interests ; and that he had wrongfully taken possession of 
the said town-lands for the last thirteen or fourteen years. 3 It was 
further asserted that he had paid no rent to Barker, nor done any- 
thing towards planting, hedging, enclosing, building and the like; 
but had cut timber to his own great profit and to the prejudice 

1 June 1619. B. 1741, M.A. Dr. \^6. * B. 175, Ma. Dr. n. d. 

3 The disputes had been going on since January i6z6 ; cf. Rep. -f 1 3 i, p. 1 96 b. 
The names of these fourteen and a half townships are given in Barker's first 
Bill (cf. B. 46.11). The claims of William Rowley were : (i) The town-lands of 
Monishenare and Brackaleslea, which he said had been assigned to him by Nathaniel 
his brother, (ii) Those which William Rowley claimed by virtue of a lease granted 
to him in 1617 by John Rowley his brother, who was then agent of the Company : 
Tullaninge (Tullanye or Tullnagee), Dromconreddy (Drumconready),Dontebrian, 
half township (Duntybryan), Clohey, Clowan (Cloughog). (iii) Those which he 
claimed, as having purchased the remainder of a lease of three lives, which had 
been granted to John Rowley : Terersen (Teressin), Ballymoyle, Anna Aule 
(Annahavil). (iv) Those he claimed as having purchased them from John 
Newton, to whom he declared a lease had been made : Donmurrawry 
(Donamurre), Carnemony (Carnamoney, Carimony), Ballinure (Ballynure), 
Dunloan, half town-land (Denloan, Dunlogan), Cullinesillagh (Coolnasalagh), 
Moydawlel (Moydonlaght), Ballocloan (Balliloan, Ballyloghan). (v) Wm. 
Rowley in his answer also claimed the township of Brackaugh, as having been 
among those leased to him, and the townships of Moydoenan and Silmody, the 
lease of which he said had been made to another brother, Ralph, and assigned to 
him. Cf. B. 88. For a genealogy of the Rowleys cf. tt/nc, p. 376. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 117 

and discredit of the Company. 1 Barker also complained that 
Rowley had sub-let these lands to Irishmen on easy terms, so that 
they should keep the said tenancies by force, and had raised a 
confederacy to resist the payment of rents on other lands. Rowley, 
he asserted, was in such friendship and alliance with all the 
gentlemen-freeholders of the county of Londonderry that he, 
being a stranger, could expect * no indifferency ' in a trial at the 
Common Law. 2 No doubt Wm. Rowley had hoped to get the 
lease of the whole Proportion himself Indeed, he offered to take 
it with Lieut. Thursby, when the quarrel with Barker was at its 
height. 3 This explains his persistence on his claims, which appear, 
however, to have been unrounded. 

As to the freeholds of Monishenare and Brackaleslea, the 
Company denied that Nathaniel Rowley had any right to assign 
his interest, inasmuch as he had not received livery of seisin 
before his death, and further declined to give the freehold to 
Wm. Rowley, because he had been an evil tenant of the said lands 
for the time he did enjoy them. They also stated that he already 
held another freehold on the Vintners' Proportion, and it was 
contrary to custom that one man should hold two freeholds. 
They therefore wished to grant the said freeholds to Mr. Nathaniel 
Goodwin, the brother of Robert Goodwin, who had long looked 
after their interests in Ireland. The controversy dragged on 
for several years. Finally a decision on the matter of the free- 
holds of Brackaleslea and Monishenare was given against Rowley 
by the Star Chamber, and they were granted to Goodwin on 
condition that he repaid William Rowley the 2,0 he had given 
to his brother for the original assignment of the freehold. 4 The 

1 The wood was made into pipe-staves and shingles, and sold. 

2 B. 46. 6. Cf. Rowley's answer, B. 88. The names of the Irishmen to whom 
Rowley had sub-let were : Donnell O'Hogan, Toole Me. Vaughe, Hugh O'Neale, 
Shawe O'Keogh Me. Quilliam, Phillonny O'Donnell, Hugh O'Moyligan, Patrick 
Roe Me. Quilliam, Donogh OLogan, Cullum Me. Quilliam, Murtaghboy 
Me. Quilliam. 

3 CB. 88. 

4 Rep. +131, pp. I96b, 248ab, 265 b, 16735 Letter Book+jSj, letters 
beginning fos. 118, 1145 B. 46. 21 (12, 13)5 B. 236, Ma. Dr. 1632, 149: B. 
33, Ma. Dr. 141 j State Papers Domestic, Car. I, vol. 257, No. 134'. 

n8 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

question of the other fourteen and a half town lands, after having been 
heard before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was left by Rowley's 
consent to the decision of the Company, who, following the verdict 
of the Chancellor, gave him a renewed lease of the four town- 
lands and the half town-land which he claimed to hold from his 
brother John. The possession of the remainder, with the excep- 
tion of the half town-knd of Anna Aule (which was leased to 
William Woodruffe), was granted to Mr. Barker. 1 

Other dis- Harrington also reported that Mr. St. Lawrence had received 
putes. the promise of a freehold of the town-land of Killibarnes from 

Sir Thos. Roper, and that he desired to be estated. For this, leave 
was granted on condition that he proceeded to build and fulfilled 
the other obligations which had been imposed by Sir Thomas. 
Owing to delay on the part of St. Lawrence to do this, the 
grant of the livery of seisin was postponed, and, when it had been 
completed, he proceeded to claim the rents due from the tenants 
on nis freehold before he had been estated. The Company 
declined, and ' marvelled at his unthankfulness ', but the Court of 
Chancery took a different view when appealed to by St. Lawrence, 
and ordered that he should receive fell, as well as ^10 for the 
costs of the suit. [August 1632,.*] 

Report as to On the state of the Plantation at this date we have a descrip- 

condition of t i on j n tne Report presented by the Drapers to the Governor and 

Tomf^nd Committee for the City's Pkntation in Ireland (Irish Society) 3 in 

Moneymore, March i5g i. Besides the ' Castle ', which had been duly supplied 

March 1*31. with arms and munitions, the mill, brew-house and smithy, there 

were twelve fair dwelling-houses, eight other substantial houses and 

twelve cottages. The repair of the Church had been commenced 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 1972, Mia, 141 b, 1443, 1473, 148 a b, 2493; Letter 
Book +383, letters beginning fos. 105, 1 08, 113, 118, 124; B. 46(1, z, 7, 8) } 
B. 88; B. ny. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 1973, 261 b; Letter Book +383, letters beginning fos. 
127, 137 a j B. 241. I have selected these cases to illustrate the difficulties of 
the Company. There were many more, which can be found in the Letter Book 
+ 383. As late as 1631 we are told that several persons who claimed freeholds 
had not been estated because they had not fulfilled the necessary conditions. 
Letters beginning fos. 135-5. 

3 Cf. Appendix LIII E. 

Tolttical Events of the Reign of Charles I 119 

nine years ago, but the work had, by order of the King's Com- 
missioners, been stopped, because of the danger that might happen 
to the town of Moneymore while the inhabitants were at Church 
which was a mile away, and resort had been made to the * Castle ' 
chapel instead. The town itself was paved. The number of 
British tenants was now about fifty, of whom five were at 
present freeholders (three being resident). 1 They also intended 
immediately to ' estate ' Nathaniel Goodwin ; which was shortly 
afterwards done. To the native Irish they had neither granted 
any estate, nor made any lease. 2 Finally they declared that, 
besides the original sum of ^V,ooo subscribed to the Plantation, 
they had spent on theirown Proportion no less than ^",073, 1 is. I*/., 
over and above any money disbursed by their tenant, Mr. Peter 
Barker, which they understood had been a * good sum '. To these 
expenses we may add 100 marks (66. igj. 4</.) paid to the Trea- 
surer of the Irish Society in 163 /, to be expended on such 
'necessarie and unavoydable occasions' as mentioned in the Mayor's 
warrant or request. 3 They had also been asked for a loan towards 
soldiers in itf^. To this they had answered that they saw no 
cause ' why the Company should bear the cost as it is a general 
charge laid on the Country', and is ' unreasonable and dangerous ' 
. . . ' lest it prove a thing hardly to be removed ' ; whereas if it 
be paid by particular men, ' great hope there is that the grievance 
of the generality will sooner cause alteration ' ; yet ' in this time 
of extremity will do as other Companies do.' 4 I do not, how- 
ever, find any evidence that the loan was made. 

1 The resident freeholders were : John Elcock, who held Ballygone ; Robert 
Russell, who held Gortatawry and Cloughfin ; Sir F. Cooke, who held Monisholin 
and Annah (Anugh Longe). Nathaniel Goodwin's freeholds were Monishenare 
and Brakisleah. (Brackaleslea) 

2 We are told incidentally that a fine of <$s. a year was imposed on every 
native, man or woman, for leave to reside on the lands belonging to the City, 
and that there was about eight couple on every town-land ; so that there appears 
to have been some 232 native Irish on the lands of Moneymore. B. no. 

3 Rep. +131, p. 295 a. 

4 Letter Book +383, fo. 106; cf. B. 161, * Instructions for the maintenance 
of jooo foot and Joo horse in Ireland '. That there was some apprehension of 
an Irish rising appears from a letter of Thursby, one of the Company's tenants, 
December 1615. He warns them of the danger of leaving the Castle at 
Moneymore empty j tells them there is enough lead on the roof and elsewhere 

1603-3 s 

Sir J. Clot- 
tenant of the 
whole Pro- 

The for- 
feiture of the 
Estate in 

i go Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

In September 1631 Barker died, and his executors asked leave 
to assign his lease to Sir John Clotworthy, who was recom- 
mended by the Earl of Cork. 1 After much negotiation the 
Company agreed to grant him a new lease for sixty-one years 
from November i, 163:1, on the same terms as those in the lease 
to Barker, which he surrendered. Sir John was also to pay 
^4.2, i^-r., a sum which represented the arrears owed by Barker, 
less 17 6s, quit rent of ^2, 17^. 8</. for six years owing to 
the Crown, Sir John being given power of attorney to recover 
the said sum from Peter Barker's executor. At the same time the 
Company sealed the leases to three under-tenants. 2 

The agreement with Sir John Clotworthy had scarce been 
signed when the Company became involved in the trouble with 
the Star Chamber, which ended in the confiscation of their Irish 
estate. Although an excuse for this high-handed act was found in 
the disturbed condition of the country, and the failure of the Irish 

'as would suffice the enemy to annoy the whole Kingdom' ; that c more rebels 
was not known these many years ', and that c they were encouraged by the rumours 
of a Spanish invasion, which was much to be feared'. B. 97, Ma. Dr. 1625, 
1 88. It should be remembered that the proposed Spanish marriage of Charles 
had been broken off in 162,3, anc ^ war w ' r ^ Spain declared March 1614. 

1 Sir John Clotworthy was a large landed proprietor in Antrim. He was 
a Presbyterian, and enemy of Strafford. After a chequered career he was 
created first Baron Masereene by Charles II. Cf. Diet. National Biography. 

2 Letter Book +383, letters beginning fos. 140, 141 ; Rep. + 131, pp. 25 2 b, 
2633,2733,27?^ 278ab, 3053. The leases signed were: (i) G. Birkett, 
a stonehouse and 15 acres in Drapers' Town for 80 years at f.^. IQJ. a, 
if he or either of his two sons should live so long j and the half town-land of 
Turneface for 90 years, at a yearly rent of ^ \6s. 8rf., if he and either of his 
two daughters should live so long. (2) The half town-land of Ternebracken to 
J. Bodkin, on the same terms as the last, if he or either of his two sons should 
live so long. (3) To the widow of Robert Russell, and her son, a house and 
i ? acres of land, a croft, and the two town-lands of Carimony and Cultrum, held 
by her late husband for 28^ years at a rent of 18. B. 36, Ma. Dr. 1633, i 57- 
In 1627 the town-lands of Killiecrinagh and Killetanie had been leased to 
Anthony Hall for 21 years. B. 20, Ma. Dr. 202. In 1628 the town-lands of 
Moneygogan, Moykerran, Moykellen and Moy Begge Kerley had been leased to 
Thos. Thursby for 21 years. B. 19, Ma. Dr. 207. A house with if acres in 
Drapers' Town, the town-lands of Ballcloghan, Tawneymore, and Nart, and the 
two and a half town-lands of Tullawee and Annah Awley to Wm. Woodruffe for 
21 years. B. 21, Ma Dr. 1627-8, 197 j Rep. + 131, p. 3263. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 151 

Society and the Companies to carry out the conditions of the 
grant, it was mainly the imperative need of money to carry on 
the government, without having recourse to Parliament, which 
led the King to this fatal step, whereby he completely alienated 
the sympathy of the City. 1 

In 1 63 2, Sir Thomas Wentworth, better known as the Earl of The Irish 
Strafford, had been appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland. 2 His Polic y of 
avowed object was to make the King absolute in that island, and 
to raise the royal revenue there to ' a fair improvement ', so that he f or d. 
should not only pay off the King's 'debts of ^'100,000, but settle 
a revenue of 2,0,000 more than his Majesty had '. 3 Obsessed 
with the conviction that all private interests should be sacrificed 
to reasons of State, he not only proceeded to raise the old question 
of ' concealments ' and defective titles, 4 and flagrantly violated the 
' Graces ' in Con naught, 5 but, considering that the Plantations 
were ' the best subjects to work upon ', proceeded to question the 
patents of private undertakers, especially those in Ulster. 6 The 
undertakers came to terms and received confirmations of their 
estates upon paying a fine of ^'30 for every 1,000 acres and 
consenting to pay a double rent. Even then Strafford was not con- 
tent. ' The King,' he said ,' hath suffered abominable frauds ', and 

1 Cf. State Papers, Ireland, vol. 141, Order of Council September 2, i6t$. Sir 
T. Phillips : c His Majesty may thereby increase his royalties and revenue in an 
ample . . . manner '.* State Papers, Domestic, Car. I, vol. 172, No. 72. 

NB. The references to the State Papers, Ireland, and to Patent and Close 
Rolls, are to the original documents in the Record Office. They have not been 
publicly published, but are given in Mr. Freshfield's, City Companies' Irish Estate, 
Statement of Facts, privately published 1898, to which I am much indebted. 

2 Sir Thomas Wentworth had been a leading opponent of the Duke of 
Buckingham, the King's favourite, until the death of the Duke in 1628. He 
then abandoned the cause of Parliament ;md became the chief adviser of the 
King. In December 1628 he was created Viscount Wentworth, and in January 
1640 the Earl of Strafford. 

3 Stratford Letters, vol. i, pp. i5o, 273. 4 Ib., p. 92. 

3 The 'Graces' were certain promises made by Charles, that the landowners 
should have their titles to land confirmed against any future inquiry into defective 
titles. Stratford, in pursuit of his scheme of recolonizing Connaught, violated 
the promises in several cases. Cf. Gardiner, Hist, of England, ed. 1884, vol. viii, 
pp. 13, 17,46- 

6 Strafford Letters, vol. i, p. if 9. 

Relations of the "Drapers to the 

Report of 
Sir Thomas 

tion of 
Rents, Sep- 

* if the business were again, in any managing, free of these grants 
of confirmation I could make it six times as profitable to the 
Crown, and yet use the Planters honourable and well/ x Although, 
no doubt, there was a good deal of truth in his allegations, 2 the 
high-handedness of the whole transaction naturally made him 
many enemies. 

Strafford was, however, regardless of this, and now proceeded 
to attack the Irish Society and the Livery Companies. It does not 
indeed appear that the idea originated with him, but, as he himself 
acknowledged, Sir Thomas Phillips of Limavady was the ' Father ' 
of the scheme. 3 Sir Thomas had been an adventurer in Ulster 
and governor of Coleraine before the lands had been offered to the 
City, and had conducted the Londoners when they came to 
survey the country. When the City received its grant he had 
been forced to surrender part of his estates, although the grant of 
Limavady and Castle Dawson was probably a fair compensation. 
Henceforth he appears as a most hostile critic. 4 In his report of 
1 62,2, s he had accused the Londoners of remissness in the matter 
of the Plantation, declared that unless some speedy course was 
taken * it would be a lost country ', and from that date he had 
persistently urged the Government to take further action. 

The new King, Charles I, w r as only too ready to listen to his 
advice, and, as the answer of the City sent just after his accession 
was not considered satisfactory, the sequestration of the rents and 
profits of the Irish lands belonging to the Irish Society and of the 
twelve Livery Companies was ordered, September 16^5. Here, 
however, the Government met with unexpected though tacit 
resistance. The agents of the Irish Society collected the rents and 
dispatched the proceeds to London by means of Bills of Exchange, 
while the Companies declared that the sequestration did not affect 
them, since they held their Proportions from the Irish Society, 
and that they left the Society to sue for redress on their behalf. 

1 Stratford Letters, vol. i, p. 40?. 

2 Cf. Gardiner, ed. 1884, vol. viii, pp. 33, 44, 61. 

3 StrafFord Letters, ed. 1739, vol. i, p. 496. 

4 Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1611-14, p. 340. 

5 Cf. jpra } p. 41. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 133 

Some of them, to make matters sure, made haste to collect their 
rents before the sequestration could be effected. 1 

Meanwhile the Mayor, the Commonalty of London, and the 
Masters and Wardens of the several Companies presented another 
petition in 1616' against the sequestration. 2 They repeated their 
previous protestations, and attributed the eagerness of Sir Thomas 
Phillips to his desire to raise his fortunes thereby. After some 
hesitation the Government changed its mind. The sequestration 
was revoked in August 162,7; and a new enquiry ordered. 3 It 
may be that the King was influenced in taking this course by the 
opinion of Lord Falkland, the then Deputy, who was opposed to 
the sequestration. 4 Sir Thomas, however, did not relax his efforts, 
in which he was supported by Strafford, 5 and shortly after the 
King proceeded to more violent methods. 

Finally in the year lo^o the Attorney-General filed an 
information in the Star Chamber against the Irish Society on the 
suit of Sir Thomas. 6 It was charged with having deceitfully 

1 Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, pp. 87, iof, ioj Mercers' Minutes, Feb- 
ruary 23, 162? j I find no proof that the Drapers' Company did this. 

2 Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-31, p. 187. The month is not given. 

3 Patent and Close Rolls, Ireland, Car. I, p. 308 ; Irish State Papers, vol. 247. 
It is to this date that the letter of the Drapers' Company to Harrington, their 
agent in Ireland, belongs. 'We heere there is a Commission under the Great 
Seal of England to enquire of performances of London's Plantacion. We pray 
you see that the Castle be kept in safety from any danger as may come to yt ; 
and if it be inhabited, as wee hope it is, that the municion of powder and arms 
heretofore sent over maie in safety and order be placed and kept therein, for 
the better defence of itself and toune and places neere thereunto.' Letter to 
Harrington, Letter Book +383, September 14, 1627, fo. 107. 

4 ' In my opinion it were meet the Londoners were cherished for so much as 
they have already done well, and that they receive comfort and encouragement 
to finish what is yet to do.' Cf. Irish State Papers, vol. 242, under date 
January 26, \6i6. 

5 Wentworth was not appointed Lord Deputy till January 1632, but he had 
supported Sir Thomas since his defection from the Parliamentary cause in 1628. 

6 Sir Thomas accused the Londoners of intimidating witnesses, but he naively 
remarked, f Whatsoever witnesses they shall produce contrary to the truth I shall 
be able to control them '. Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1625-3 2, pp. 63 r, 66$ ; 
State Papers, Ireland, Bundle 252, under date September 22, 1631. Sir 
Thomas's suit, we are told, brought him into such extremity that he could no 
longer subsist without relief. StrafFord suggested that a sum of ?oo should be 
given him, it being held desirable to encourage all men to serve the Crown. 

134- Relations of the "Drapers to the 

procured its Charter from King James, and with wilful breach of 
the trust which had been imposed upon it, especially with regard to 
the building of houses and the allotting of lands. The Governor and 
Assistants were accused of having neglected to remove the native 
Irish and to plant with British. 'They had indeed preferred 
the Trishe before the Englishe, because as they pretended they 
were more serviceable, and paid higher rents ', and had even 

* invited and drawne the Irishie out of other parts to be their 
tennants '. Further, instead of preserving the timber for the 
purposes of the Plantation, they had cut and merchandized it. 
Lastly, instead of ' planting the true religion ', the Romish religion 
was continued, inasmuch as there was a ' Popish priest beneficed and 
maintained in every parish.' 1 

The campaign once started, StrafFord eagerly took it up. ' His 
Majesty ', writes Secretary Coke in December 1634, ' doth so much 
take to heart the business of the London Plantation now depending 
upon the Star Chamber here, that he hath pleased to write his own 
letters to you. . . . Mr. Attorney and the rest of the Council 
are confident that it will prove of great service and happily bring 
into the King's hands the better disposing of those countries, 
wherein your Lordship may expect such employment as shall be 
worthy of you, and it is fit for none but him that really advanceth 
the service of the State in whom his Majesty is so confident.' 2 

* I hope ', wrote Laud, when sentence had been passed, * that your 
Lordship is to take care of the Plantation.' 3 Sir Thomas 
Phillips was most energetic in pressing the case against the 
Londoners. 4 As for Charles he was so careful of the business that 

StrafFord's Letters, vol i, pp. 137, 4.96. Eventually he received 5,000 out of 
the fine decreed in the Star Chamber (Hist. MSS. Commission, Earl Cowper's 
MSS., vol. ii, p. 99) ; ' a princely reward ' says Strafford, Letters, vol. i, 
p. 496. 

1 Cf. Case of Counsel for the Crown, Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-60, 
pp. 193, 103, 205, 2 to. The answer of the Merchant Taylors' Company I owe 
to the generosity of the Merchant Taylors' Company. That of the Drapers is 
not found in the Drapers' Archives. 

2 StrafFord Letters, vol. i, p. 340. 3 Ib., p. 375. 

4 There are numerous letters of his in the original Irish State Papers. Cf. 
especially vols. 274, 276, 277. They are given in Mr. Freshfield's 'City Com- 
panies' Irish Estate ', printed privately, 1898. 

Tolittcal Events of the Reign of Charles I 135- 

* he stayed from going to Newmarket ' till it was finished in the 
Star Chamber. 1 

In May 1635- that Court pronounced judgement. The Irish Judgement 
Society was ordered to pay a fine of ^'70,000 ; their charter was f the Star 
cancelled and their property sequestered. 2 Forthwith Stratford r 

was given a warrant to put the decree into execution. 3 The 
Livery Companies were not parties to the Bill, and were not at 
first liable to the decree. The Attorney-General therefore pro- 
ceeded to prepare a * particular information against them and their 
tenants ' so as to bring them within its scope, 4 in the hope that the 
process being at once issued to levy the fine on the Irish Society 
they might be * induced to conform \ 5 

The matter was much debated by the Court of the Drapers. 
On the reception of the information from the Attorney-General 
that a decree had been issued against the Company, 6 the Court 
answered that, whereas the Company held the lands in trust for 
divers their Freemen, they would, if they obeyed, be chargeable to 
them ; and therefore they must be consulted. They further 
appointed Sir John Hooker to appear as their attorney, and John 
Banks as their general attorney 7 (March to November 163^). 
Shortly after the Court consented to leave their case in the hands' 
of the Common Council of the City, ' conceiving that the Council 
would do their best so as the tenants may enjoy their estates ', and 
that ' the Drapers would be discharged of any future charges '. 
The same course was adopted by the other Companies. In answer 
to further questions, the Court gave the terms of Sir John 

1 StrafTord Letters, vol. i, p. 369. 

2 As this Judgement has never, I believe, been publicly printed, I give it in 
the Appendix LVI. 

3 StrafFord Letters, vol. i, p. 414. 

4 Copy of Bill in the Star Chamber against the Twelve Companies and others 
for alleged misconduct in the management of their estates. B. 43, Ma. Dr. 

5 Secretary Coke to StrafFord. StrafFord Letters, vol. i, p. 431; Historical 
MSS. Commission Reports, July z8, 163 z. 

6 Summons to the Master and Wardens to appear before the Court of 
Chancery to show cause why the Plantation granted should not be annulled. 
B. 57, Ma. Dr. 1 60. 

7 Rep. +131, pp. 196 a b, 301 b. 

Relations of the "Drapers to the 

Clotworthy's lease, but said that they could not estimate what the 
annual value of the lands would be at the termination of his lease. 1 
In May 1636" the Common Council appointed a Committee to 
deal with the King's Commissioners. 

They had originally demanded a fine of 12,0,000. The King 

however, probably became alarmed at the serious ferment caused 

by his high-handed conduct, and, after prolonged negotiations, 

October a compromise was reached. The City and the Companies sur- 

1638. Sur- ren( l ere( l their titles to the Irish estates and consented to pay the 

Irish&tates com p arat ively small sum of 12,000, over and above the 70,000 

imposed on the Irish Society by the Star Chamber, in return for a 

pardon and Letters Patent confirming their other.ancient privileges. 2 

The share of the Drapers of this sum was 600* Mean- 

while Sir J. Clotworthy had in February 1636 agreed to pay 

his rent, on condition that the Company 'undertook to save 

him harmless in regard to the sequestration by the Star 

Chamber', and gave him a power of attorney to recover 

from the executor of Thomas Barker, their late lessee of the 

whole Proportion, the debt he had owed for arrears. 4 He 

further demanded that the Company should grant to him in fee 

farm the six and a half town-lands which they had purchased of the 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 308 b, 309 a. For the same procedure on the part of the 
Goldsmiths, cf. Prideaux, Memorials, vol. i, pp. 171, 187. 

2 For petitions of the Mayor and Commonalty and the negotiations, cf. State 
Papers, Domestic, Car. I, vol. 309, No. II ; 346, No. 92 j 349, No. 122 j 361, 
No. 92; 362, No. 31 } Common Council, 12 Car. I, Jan. 23, 1636-75 City 
Journal, February 29, 1636-7, 37, fo. 288} March 9, fo. 29<>b} March 21, 
fo. 307 b (Bromfield Mayor)} Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, pp. 171, 185, 187. 
The titles were not surrendered till 1639 under a writ of Scire facias. Petty Bag 
Office, Chancery, Hilary Term, 1638-9. Among the Papers were the original 
grants by the Irish Society to the Drapers' Company and Indentures to the 

* freeholders and leaseholders at various dates. For the Pardons cf. Guildhall 
24th and 2jth Patents in the I4th year of Charles I. Appendix LVII. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 323 bj Wardens' Accounts, 1638-9, fo. 39. Besides this 
their expenses in the matter had been eighteen guineas. Wardens' Accounts, 
1635-6, fo. 51. Dr. Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 116, says the total sum demanded was 
: 1 2,000, and this is the amount given in the Goldsmiths' Book ; cf. Prideaux, 
vol. i, p. 185, and in the Mercers' Minutes, p. 141. In the Drapers' Books, 
12,500 is given. 

4 Rep. +131, pp. 302 b, 3053. 

ToKtical Events of the Reign of Charles I 137 

patentees Cornewall and Price, and leased to him. These town- 
lands, he maintained, had been originally given to the said 
patentees, and therefore were not included in the forfeiture of the 
lands of the Company ; he had paid the quit-rent due to the King, 
and would do so in future. Although the Court declared that 
they had not the power to comply with his request, they repeated 
their letter of attorney for procuring a new grant from the Com- 
missioners for defective titles. 1 I have not succeeded in discovering 
whether Sir John was successful, but he shortly after became 
a candidate for the whole of the lands which had been forfeited 
from the Irish Society and the Companies, offering the sum of 
^'p,ooo a year for the same. The Lord Deputy, however, did not 
approve of his proposal, although it was supported by Archbishop 
Laud ; 2 and before anything further was done, the judgement of the 
Star Chamber was voted illegal and unjust by the House of 
Commons in 164.1. 

In dealing with the justice of the treatment of the Ulster The injustice 
Colonists, it is necessary to distinguish between the individual d mex P e - 
ad venturers, who had received their grants direct from the Crown forfeiture * 
and were bound by the original orders, and the Londoners, who 
maintained that they were only bound by ' the Agreement ' made 
between the Government and the Irish Society, and that they 
were purchasers and not undertakers. 3 Of the former it must be 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 3143, 3193. 

2 Straffbrd Letters, vol. ii, p. 111. The Lord Deputy himself was also an 
applicant ; cf. Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, p. 101. 

3 So it is definitely stated in the petition presented to Parliament in January 
1641 (cf. Appendix LVIII), and also the protest of Beresford (cf. supra under 
James I). The chief point of disagreement was with regard to the removal of 
the Irish. Sir Thomas Phillips and the Crown insisted that in this matter they 
were bound by the original orders. Thus the Privy Council, when asked by the 
Deputy in 161 1 whether the Londoners were to retain their natives, as their agents 
presumed they could, answered that * they were to plant as other undertakers 
do, excepting the special privileges expressed in the Articles of agreement between 
the Government and the City'. Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1611-3?, P- 3?- 
Cf. also State Papers, Ireland, vol. 176, c Strong reasons to shew that the Londoners 
were obliged to plant with British and not with Irish ', written by Sir Thomas 
Phillips, and his answer to the petition of the City, Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 
161 f-6o, Addenda, p. 107. Unfortunately the c Articles ' are silent on the point, 
and the Companies, maintaining that they were only bound by these Articles 
stoutly asserted that they were under no engagement to remove the natives 

1603-3 T 

i?8 Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

allowed that many were unscrupulous and even fraudulent, but as 
far as I can discover, and I have spared no pains, there is no 
proof of such conduct at least with regard to the Drapers. Yet, 
while the private adventurers had only to double their rents and 
pay a fine, 1 the whole property of the Londoners was forfeited. 
It must be admitted that the Plantation had not been a success, 
and that the expectations of James I had not been realized. Nor, 
to judge from the evidence given us in the Drapers' books, do the 
tenants on their lands appear in a favourable light. On the other 
hand, it is doubtful whether the failure is to be laid to the charge 
of the Companies. Of the trouble the Drapers took in this 
unfortunate Irish business, the Minutes of the Court meetings, and 
especially the Letter Books, are a convincing proof The expendi- 
ture was on a most generous scale, the dividends which were 
received gave but a poor return for the money subscribed; 2 and, 
if they and the other Companies had not succeeded in planting 
many British settlers, the difficulty of finding good men, who 
would make the venture in the unsettled condition of the 
province, as well as the practical impossibility of removing the 
Irish, 3 must be remembered. Moreover, whether the Companies 
were bound to remove the natives and plant only with British 
was doubtful, and as to the provisions for defence, the Companies 
maintained that they had fulfilled the conditions. 

It is possible that the area actually handed over to the 
Londoners was considerably larger than it was supposed to be 
(although this was denied in 1641), and this might perhaps have 
justified the withdrawal of a certain part of their Proportion. 
But the error was due to the ignorance of Government officials 

Here, as so often, the difficulty has arisen from want of definiteness in the Articles. 
Nevertheless, inasmuch as the main object of the Plantation was to settle it with 
English and Scotch, it would appear that the Companies were in the wrong. 

1 Cf. Petition of the City, January 1641, Appendix LVIII. 

2 Cf. supra, p. 45. Besides, it must not be forgotten that the Company were 
asked from time to time to subscribe to the Irish Society, and had not received 
any profits from them till 1610. Cf. Rep. +131, p. 195 a : 100 marks paid 
to the Irish Society c to be expended on such necessarie and unavoydable occasions 
as in the said warrant are mentioned', January 1635. They also had in 1617 
contributed to a loan for soldiers. 

3 On this point Charles I had himself been forced to make concessions. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 139 

and the absence of any proper survey. So again if, as was alleged, 
the Attorney-General had granted privileges for which he had 
no warrant, that was a matter between him and the Crown. But 
there is no evidence whatsoever that the Londoners were, guilty 
of any fraud, or that by indirect means they had procured these 
privileges to be inserted in the Charter without due warrant, ' to 
the prejudice and deceipt ' of the Crown. Under these circum- 
stances all but the most prejudiced will surely agree that there 
was no case, either in law or equity, for the wholesale forfeiture, 
and that any breach of covenant there may have been was not 
a sufficient cause. 1 What then shall we think of the wisdom of 
such a step ? 

No doubt we should most of us accept Strafford's general 
principle that private interests should not stand in the way of those 
of the State ; but the whole question depends on the exact appli- 
cation of this general and somewhat dangerous principle. The 
Tudors, indeed, had thus justified many acts of spoliation ; but the 
times had changed, and the faults of Strafford lay chiefly in his 
failure to realize this, or the character of the English people, 
whom he attempted to dragonnade. Moreover, the policy of 
Charles differed in one material point from that of his father. 
James had at least intended to spend the sequestered rents on 
furthering and perfecting the Plantation. Charles, intent on 
filling his coffers without having to apply to Parliament, not 
only appropriated the fine of 12,000, but, as if to add insult to 
injury, gave it to the hated foreign and Roman Catholic Queen 
Henrietta Maria. 2 Charles was soon to learn that the Londoners 
did not forget. 

By the autumn of the year 1638 matters in England were 
rapidly becoming serious. The misguided attempt of Archbishop 
Laud to force the use of the English Book of Common Prayer on 
Scotland had led to the signing of the Covenant in March, and 
the Scots were now preparing for the war, which broke out in 

1 Cf. infra p. if i, Reasons why judgement of the Star Chamber was voted 
illegal and unjust by Parliament in 1641 '. 

2 Sharpe, vol. ii, p. i \6. 

140 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

Sir Morris the following February. It was just at this date that Sir Morris 

Abbot and Abbot, the Master of the Drapers' Company, was elected Lord 

Ganw* 3 ' Mayor (September 1638), to be succeeded in the following year 

Masters' of ^ n both offices by Sir Henry Garway. 1 The union in one person 

theCompany of the office or Mastership of the Company with that of the 

and Mayors Mayoralty of the City, which had not often occurred before, 2 and 

1638-40.' tn j s j n two consecut i ve years, was of the greatest importance 

because of the critical character of the times and the Royalist 

leanings of the two Mayors. Nor is this all ; the two Draper 

Masters and Lord Mayors were followed by two more Masters, 

Thomas Adams 1640-1 and George Garrett 16.4.1-2,, both of 

whom also leaned to the King's party. This unbroken succession 

of four Royalist Masters leads us to the conclusion that the 

majority of the Court of Assistants at least were Royalist in 

sympathies, and explains some points which would otherwise 

be obscure. 

At the elections of Sir Morris Abbot and of Sir Henry 
Garway, substantial Pageants were performed at the charge of 
the Company. The Pageant for Sir Morris was entitled 'Porta 
Pietatis, or Harbour of Piety, exprest in sundry Triumphs by 
Thomas Heywood dramatist '. 3 Hey wood again contributed the 
Pageant for Sir Henry Garway. This was somewhat inappro- 
priately termed 4 Londini Status Paccatus ' or London's Peaceable 
Estate; the triumphs being executed by John and Mathias 
Christmas, 4 the two sons of Garrett Christmas. 5 Sir Morris had 

T The election of the Master was on the ist of August, that of the mayor on 
September 19, Michaelmas Day, although he did not assume office till October z8. 
Sir Morris Abbot was brother of George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury 
1611-31. For his commercial activities cf. under James I. 

2 There are five previous instances of the Master of the Drapers holding the 
position of Mayor at the same date: Wm. White, 1489-90; Sir Wm. Roche, 
1^40-41; Wm. Capel, 1509-10; Sii Rich. Champion, ij6j-6; Sir Cuthbert 
Hackett, 1616-7. 

3 The cost of Sir Morris Abbot's Pageant was 747 u. ; that of Sir H. 
Garway 787 31. qd. ; Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fos. 90, 91, 101. 

4 Fairholt, Percy Publications, vol. x, pt. ii, pp. j j fF. Heywood, Collected 
Works, ed. 1874, vol. i, pp. 355 ff. 

5 For Garrett Christmas cf. j/>nr,p. 1 1 7 note 3. For the life of Heywood cf. Diet. 
National Biography. These Pageants were the last Lord Mayors' Pageants held 

"Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 141 

in his earlier days opposed the financial policy of the King. 
Although he then held a lease of the customs on wine and 
currants, he had actually refused to pay an additional tax on 
currants in the year 162.8, and had broken into the Government's 
warehouse, where currants belonging to him had been stored. 
In 1637 he was charged with remissness in fitting out the ships 
which had been demanded under the writ of 1636. The charge 
was, however, dropped, and from that time he appears to have 
been a supporter of the King. 1 It is therefore questionable 
whether his election Pageant was received with much enthusiasm 
by the City. Certainly the Pageant performed immediately after 
his election, on the visit of Marie de Medici, the mother of the 
Queen met with little response. For * the English people 
hated her, or suspected her, for her own, for her church's, for 
her country's, for her daughter's sake : and having shifted her 
residence in other courts, upon calamities and troubles which 
still pursued her, they thought it her fate to carry along mis- 
fortunes with her, and so dreaded her as an ill-boding meteor, 
wherever she appeared,' 'for it was observed that wherever this 
miserable old Queen came there followed immediately after plague, 
war, or famine.' 2 

In November lo'gS, Charles, having obtained a decision from Renewed 
his Judges in favour of his right to levy Ship Money on the demand for 
whole country, made another demand, and the City was ordered 
to furnish one ship of 5-00 tons, the cost of which was estimated 
at 1,000. A precept was accordingly issued by the Lord Mayor, 

for sixteen years. The next one was in i6jf, on the election of John Dethick, 
a Mercer. Percy Society Publications, 1 844, vol. x, pp. 61-4. 

1 Cf. Diet. National Biography and authorities quoted there. When Charles 
went North in March 1639, on account of the Scotch war, he was appointed the 
King's lieutenant within the City and suburbs, with powers to arrest all suspected 

2 Quoted from Kennet, Complete History and Treatise of the Monarchy, in 
the Introduction to P. de la Serre, Histoire de 1'entree de la Reine Mere dans la 
Grande Bretagne, who gives an account of the Pageants, with woodcuts. The 
object of Mane de Medici in visiting England was to solicit the good offices of 
Charles with Richelieu, who had driven her from France. Charles had tried to 
prevent her visit, but gave way to his wife. She was forced to leave England 
in 1641. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 

A loan of 
refused, but 
a free gift 
of 10,000 
June 1639. 

Sir Henry 
May or 
1 63 9 , 

instructing the Aldermen to ascertain how the money might best 
be raised. On the 2-pth of January IO^P, a Committee of the 
Court of Aldermen declared that the City was not in a position 
to comply with the royal demands, and eventually the money 
was found by the Livery Companies, the Drapers with six others 
contributing 100 and the others 60 apiece. 1 

Nor was this the end of the royal exactions. No sooner had 
the c Bishops' War ' with Scotland commenced than a further 
request was made for a loan of 100,000 (June 1635)). The 
Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen declared that they could 
not find the money, but in the following July they voted him 
a free gift of 10,000. Even so the sum was only raised by 
appointing sixteen men as Sheriffs, who paid their fine rather 
than accept office. 2 

It was at this critical moment that Sir Morris Abbot was 
succeeded as Master by Sir Henry Garway, and in September 
Sir Henry was elected Lord Mayor. 3 We find, however, no 

1 So says the City Journal, Guildhall 38, fo. 1143. I have only found 
evidence of 70 being paid by the Drapers. Renters' Accounts, 1637-8, fo. 13 } 
1638-9, fo. ioj 1639-40, fo. 30. 

2 This practice was very common at the time. In the reign of Charles I, 
nine or ten Drapers declined the office of Sheriff, and five the office of 
Alderman; cf. Appendix XLII. In December 1647 it was decided that no 
member who declined the office of Alderman or Sheriff should be admitted as 
an Assistant until he paid a fine of 50 j and that any one, who was on the 
Court as an Alderman and subsequently resigned his office should retire, unless 
he paid a like sum j the reason given being that, by virtue of their being 
chosen Sheriff or Alderman, they escaped the necessity of serving as Warden 
with the charges to the said office appertaining. It was further ordered that, 
among those who declined either of the said offices and who paid their fine, those 
should have precedence, who had been on the Court first, and not those who 
were first fined. Rep. + 131, pp. 81 a, 149^ Another question of precedence 
was also settled in the year 1640 ; namely, that the Master for the time being 
should, when dining with the Mayor, take precedence of all members of the 
Company who had filled the office of Mayor. Rep. + 131, p. 3. 

3 Sir H. Garway was a member of a family that had been connected with the 
Company since the reign of Elizabeth, and continued to be so for many years. 
He lived in Broad Street. In i6z8 he took the lease for seventy years of another 
house adjoining the Drapers' Hall, which he rebuilt at a cost of over 1,000. 
The connexion of the family with tbt Company will be best seen from the 
following genealogy. 

" c ut>\2T ft<rt 

P^ ii 



J? -" * "* G <~a j 

c 5 * -vT ^ " * skg 

ci w i- i r~~ r-. ! ^_^. > ". 

OH t/i 
- 1 





E -n-| * 3r| 

"" J'a^ o 

+ rt 




S T3 . J; "^ 

8 M 

X ' G "C 



i? " g 

.i ^ ^?H cT 

*S -5* , a, 



'c ^o i u u 
G O >-, O- 

| B | ^ 

"rt .- K O oo Q 




V I 1) I . 

y JHC *> 



-2^S.E Q 

JS eu c {^ J3 

C '"* \^~ w 





Sir William Garway. 
Master of the Drapers, 
f, iy99-i6oo; Membei 
Levant and East India 
panics ; Farmer of Cus 
Will proved Jan. 18, i 

2 i- i. o o . 

w a ^ - ^- 

rt o f^lo ^ 
^pr; O j rr* j_, ^3 

"^ '" E' ^ " "d 
E J> e o g t^ ^- 

T* M *- C T2 n 1 


a-^.S ' o" 

's E-SOO 

\O ' H -^ l '~'>s>'* M 
" U-l g 

. 1> 

t.^ "i 

~ ti i* 

3 O k" 1 


3 .5 j 









identify John Garway, ad 

^^ ^*oo O " *^ 




* *j 1 U 4> ^ 

J u A 




V. s '1 ^ s"-^ ^ 


p*3 v s U 




^ M S'S 5:2 

H '3 " 

^ c 



^ g c - C - "c 

n r_i ! 



O . T> o * 

II --5 ~a O T3 

rh ^ 


>- i_ w i u S 
o .1: S ^f-O _. S 

SI ^ SS 

B *v y 




^^ W n3 "" ^ ^ J5 

- j^ ^ *V_ C "^ 

5 i 


<J *J- ^ cr\ to ^ 

.S^.s < J 

I 1 



i i 

W o^ o^ 


o^o-oojo ^wja^ 


^** U 



5 o 5 -S ri 

d.Jj yJ'.S "H 

2 ^S 



rt t> r* J Ut 

^ -> ^H -f M , 

. o L. " n) 

o ^ S ^ 



H oj2 " 

2 {. J? 

6-9 gO 



PS C-t aj M ^ 

~~ S o .S 




E fa j? g 

**^~ U 0) " 



T3 " _!. 

0.00 -g 
" >^ " 

O tJ . O 

h o 'S E 

M -S ^ 




X *i c > 



~~ c -d e *^~ -a ^ 

._ dl M <0 

:S M 



^j= I " 

2 J | *2 t; " 

o" C - ' . 





fe 'E'5-a ^ 

I'll If 

S 2 



_5-SoJ g 

i Ls; 

~ 1 ,r 1 ^ a 

8 1 


S v 

V, O O\ 


O PM \o 2- 



>-^ c 



M 00 M C 


S g 

_. U 



^ t &< rTu 

S 5 5 

n3 a* ^ "o> 

^G <j 



,o i'*! "c o 

1) t^ 3 
~oo G "V, 


u. ^ '" o-, 

h. fc g {^ 

>,"" ^ g 


O "O *^ S ^* 

"o pij S ^ ^ 

S^ <U 13 



o v 

4; "^ O -^ 

<55 jf ^ ti 

^"e 'i 1 



_ g c c ' O 


~<3'^ ^^ 

^1 s- 


> Q - 

H^trt,,, aj CjS^ 1 -.^ 

if - c ^ -S 

" I 

^ &.? S - ^"3 ^ o 

'S * 1-1 " 

>s ^ 

3 O- 

_2 S x ""'^ T 

a* . "-C 

T! o x* = 


14-4 Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

reference to public affairs in the Drapers' Records till we come 
to the following May. Then Charles, having quarrelled with 
the Parliament, which he had called in April, 1 and being in 
serious straits for money wherewith to renew the war against 
The loan Scotland, 3 turned to the City and repeated his request for a loan. 
a 8 al " *" The patience of the City was at last exhausted, and when, on 

May iVo t ^ ie Court of Aldermen demurring, Charles insisted on twice the 
amount, and threatened that if they did not comply he would 
have ^300,000, the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen refused to 
furnish him with a list of the rich citizens. Although Charles 
did not follow StrafFord's advice to hang a few of the Aldermen, 
he committed four to prison 3 and threatened to depose the Lord 
Mayor, Sir Henry Garway. Warned, however, by a serious riot, 
the King shortly released the Aldermen, and attempted to gain 
his end by a demand for Ship Money, which was no more 
successful. The Draper Lord Mayor, who from this date supported 
the cause of the King, was ordered to distrain the goods of the 
recalcitrants, and went, accompanied by the Sheriffs, from house 
to house to demand the money. As only one man in the whole City 
consented to pay, the Lord Mayor bade the Sheriffs distrain the 
goods of those who refused. When they told him that this was 
his business, and not theirs, the Lord Mayor entered a draper's 
shop and seized a piece of linen. The owner insisted upon 
measuring the stuff before he parted with it, and, then naming 
the price, said he should charge it to his Lordship's account. 4 It 
is remarkable that of all this there is no mention in the Drapers' 
Minutes, possibly because the Royalist leanings of Sir H. Garway 
were not approved by many of the Company. 

J The Short Parliament, April 15 May 6, 1640. 

2 In June 1637 a truce had been made with the Scotch, but disputes arose at 
once, and Charles was again preparing for war. 

3 Nich. Rainton, a Haberdasher, Mayor 1632-3 ; Th. Atkins, a Mercer, 
Mayor 1644-7 j J. Gayer, a Fishmonger, Mayor 1646-7 ; Thomas Soame, 
a Grocer, Sheriff 1635-6; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, p. iff. It is 
noticeable that Rainton, Gayer, and Soame were, subsequently at least, of Royalist 
tendencies and were deprived of their Aldermanries by the Parliamentarians. 
Atkins was a bitter Republican. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, pp. 178, 180. 

4 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, p. 306, No. 3 6. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 14,5- 

In July, hearing that the Scots were threatening the border, Renewed 
the King tried once more to obtain his loan. He promised that, demand for 
if the citizens would comply, he would abandon the project he a loan > J ul ^ 
had entertained of issuing a debased coinage, and declared that he "' ! 4 
wanted the money, not to prosecute the war, but only in order 
that he might make an honourable peace sword in hand, and pay 
off the soldiers, so that they should not take to pillage at their 
disbanding. 1 The Lord Privy Seal was, however, unwise enough 
to tell the Aldermen and the Lord Mayor that the City was the 
rather beholden to his Majesty for taking their money on loan, 
than the King would be beholden to the City if it were granted 
to him. 2 Nevertheless the Lord Mayor and Master of the 
Company, Sir Henry Garway, succeeded in inducing the Court of 
Aldermen to approve of this loan ; 3 but the precepts which he 
issued in pursuance of the royal order met with opposition from 
his Company. 

At the meeting of the Court held on July 2-p a letter was The Drapers 

read demur, and 

finally refuse 

sent from his Majestie to ye Lord Maior and Aldermen and Common the loan. 
Counsel of this Citty of London as also to such of ye severall Companies, July 19-30. 
or Corporacions, of this Cittie of London, as should be thought fitt to be 
called uppon, touching the loans of 100,000 to his Majestie for his 
highnes' necessary imploymentes about his present army, with his Majes- 
ties promise in ye said letter that, if ye said monies shalbe furnished, 
that then ye coine intended to be sent forth by his Majestie of a meane 
alloy shall not be sent abroad, as otherwise it is entended it shalbe. And 
thereuppon, and uppon intimacion given to this Court by ye said Lord 
Maior that his Lordshipp yesterdaie in ye afternoone, having a meeting 
at ye Guildhall of ye Masters and Wardens of ye most of all ye severall 
Companies of this Citty, hee declared unto them the contents of ye said 
letter, and his Majestie's greate necessitie for ye use of ye said monye. 
And that his Lordshipp had caused searche to be made how a some of 
about 5-0,000 or 60,000 which was lent to his Majestie by ye severall 
Companies of this Cittie touching ye land's business, granted by his 
highnes to diverse feoffees for ye Cittie's use, was then proportioned 
uppon ye said severall Companies. 4 And thereby found that according 

1 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, pp. 46?, 500, 513, 535, 

2 Ib., 1640, p. 31. 

3 State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol. 469, No. zi 

4 Cf. supra, p. 1 19. 

1603-3 U 

Relations of the "Drapers to the 

to ye same disbursement this Companies proporcion of monies now 
required to be lent to his highnes as parte of the some of ^0,000 or 
60,000 doth amount to ye some of 4.^00. And thereuppon his 
Lordshipp advistd this Court, as well for his Majestie's said accomada- 
cion, as for prevention of dangers which otherwise might hereafter 
happen to this Company uppon a displeasure to be taken by his highnes, 
to condescend to ye lending his Majestic of ye said some of +,^00, 
uppon securitie of his Majesties Customes by ye farmer's bonds, to be 
given in that behalfe for ye paiement thereof at ye limited tyme together 
with ye allowance of 8 per cent, per annum, for ye forbearance of ye 
same. And after this Courte had debated of ye said busines and had 
alleadged diverse causes of their disabling in performance therein. In 
fine ye particular members of this Courte for ye most parte made knowne 
to this Courte that they could not so well advise and resolve of a business 
of this nature and aidment at this present sitting . . . neither were they 
willing to deliver their opinions and resolucions in ye said business 
without further constderacion and advisement in that behalfe, which they 
desired his Lordshipp to afforde unto them. And thereuppon it was 
appointed by ye honourable ye said Ld Maior our Master that this Court 
shall here meet againe tomorrow to resolve and determine touching the 

At the meeting held on the following day, c after divers 
speeches and allegations made touching the premisses ', the 
question was put to the scrutiny, and ' by ye voates of ye greater 
number it appeared that ye same cannot be lent to his Majcstie as 
is required V Sir Henry, however, did not give up the struggle. 
On August 3, the Election Day, he acquainted the Court 

4 of his Majesties high displeasure against this Company in denying his 
gracious request for ye loane . . . imposed uppon this Companie for 
their rateable parte . . . and withall, that his Majestic tooke ye Com- 
panies deniall ye more offensive, conceiving ye same became exemple to 
other Companies, whereby they have made ye like refusall. And there- 
uppon his said Lordshipp desired this Court to take further consideracion 
of ye premisses and to condescend to ye said loane for obtaining his 
Majesties favour, ye furthering his highnes designs, and preventing those 
evils and dangers as may hereafter happen unto this Companie by his 
Majesties displeasure against them. And withall his Lordshipp produced 
and read to this Companye A letter sent ... to him from ye right 
Hon. Lord Vayne His Majestie's Secrttary,* which was written ... by 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 339 b, 3403. 2 i. e. Sir H. Yane the elder. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 147 

His Majesties speciall command, whereby is declared That His highness 
is much moved for this Company's deniall of ye said Joane, considering 
ye lardge priviledges this Company hath enjoyed from his highnes. 1 And 
withal that there is none other required from them than ye company hath 
granted formerly in ye like. And if his highnes shall please to question 
ye company they cannot be free from some excepcons which may be taken 
against them. . . . Whereupon this Courte, taking consideracons of ye 
premisses, desired further respite to advise thereof as being as yet unre- 
solved to alter their former opinions in ye busines. And thereupon ye 
said Lord Maior apointed a meeting to be here had to-mori owe morning 
whereby to take ye further resolucons of this court. . . .' 2 

No meeting was however held, and so the question was left for 
the moment. The attitude of the Drapers' Company, an attitude 
which was followed by most of the Livery Companies, 3 is most 
significant. Although we have met with several cases of opposi- 
tion to the royal demands for money from the Lord Mayor and 
the Court of Aldermen or the Common Council, we have 
come across no previous instance of a refusal on the part of the 
Company to comply. It should also be remembered that Sir Henry 
Garway, the Lord Mayor, who was their Master as well, was 
known to be Royalist in his sympathies,, and evidently wished the 
Company to give way. Doubtless the refusal is partly to be 
attributed to resentment at the way in which the Drapers had 
been treated over the Irish estate ; indeed, many of the Companies 
pleaded as an excuse that the Plantation had 'consumed their 
stocks'. 4 The King, on hearing that his demand had been 
rejected, seized the bullion which had been deposited at the Mint 
by merchants, and treated it as a loan. 5 

The Drapers,, however,, did not altogether persist in their refusal The Drapers 
to meet the financial needs of the King. The City had been contribute 
somewhat conciliated by the confirmation of its right to levy *3j7Jo*> a 

* J reduced loan 

of 50,000, 

1 This is a somewhat bold assertion in view of the forfeiture of the Irish Oct. 7, 1640. 

2 Rep. +131, p. 340 b. 

3 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, 1640, p. 554. I have, however, 
found no actual statement to this effect in the Drapers' Minutes. 

4 Whitlock, Memorials, Oxford, 185:3, vol. i, p. iai. For the conduct of the 
Goldsmiths cf. Prideaux, vol. i, pp. 194, 195. 

Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1640, pp. 451, 5-44. 

14-8 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

tolls ; and by the news that Charles intended to come to terms 
with the Scotch ' and to call a Parliament. Accordingly, although 
by the retirement of Sir Henry Garway from the post of Lord 
Mayor and the election of E. Wright, a Grocer, 2 in September, the 
King had lost a valuable supporter, yet the Common Council was 
prevailed upon to agree to the raising of the reduced sum of 
'5-0,000. To this sum the Drapers consented to lend their quota 
of 3, 7 jo. 3 

The money was to be found partly out of the balance of the 
Renter's Account, partly by a loan from the members or others. 4 
Ten Peers agreed to stand security for the repayment of the loan, 5 
and a Committee was formed of one representative from each of 
those six Companies whose contribution was the highest. The 
Committee was to hold the pledge of the Peers in trust for all the 
Companies. Of this Committee, John Withers, one of the Court 
of Assistants of the Drapers, was a member. 6 

1 The Treaty of Ripon was signed on October 21, 1640. 

3 The King and the Privy Council were anxious to procure the re-election of 
Sir H. Garway, or at least the election of Sir Wm. Acton, Bt., a Merchant Taylor, 
who was known to be favourable to the royal cause. After a stormy meeting 
Edmund Wright, a Grocer, was chosen. Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 
1640-1, p. 1 1 5. Dr. Sharpe incorrectly says that Acton was elected, but 
discharged by Parliament. This is not mentioned in the State Papers, and 
Parliament did not meet till November. 

3 Of this loan only 37$ was repaid in September 1644, and 375 in July 
1646. The rest was never repaid. Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1647-8, fo. 15. 

4 Of this sum 750 was supplied by the Renter out of his balance ; 1,000 was 
borrowed from Alderman Adams, and the same amount from John Harvey, Esq., 
and James Ingram, Esq., both of London, these sums being repaid by the 
Company before August 1641. Wardens' Accounts, 1640-1, fos. 31, 38. The 
Merchant Taylors raised their quota by a loan from the Merchant Adventurers 
and the East India Company j the Grocers from three Grocers and two others, 
not of the Company. Clode, London during the Rebellion, p. ii. The 
Ironmongers got 400 from the East India Company which was owed them; 
500 they borrowed from Sir J. Cambell, who had been Lord Mayor in 1618-9 
and was Master of the Company in 1641 ; and the rest by a sale of their plate. 
Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 249. 

5 Cal. of State Papers, 1640-1, pp. 101, 133, 134. 

6 Rep. +132, pp. 23, 3ab. The six Companies were: the Mercers, the 
Grocers, the Drapers, the Goldsmiths, the Merchant Taylors and the Haber- 
dashers. Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 128. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 149 

From the opening of the Long Parliament, in November 1640, Meeting of 
to the outbreak of Civil War in August 1642,, all direct mention the Long 
of public affairs ceases, and we must go elsewhere for information Pai 'li am e nt j 
as to the events which finally culminated in that catastrophe. 1 ^ m Q C 
We have, however, a few indirect references which are interest- 
ing. In June 1641, the Wardens were instructed to view the 
armoury and see what munitions were fit to he altered, and what 
should be supplied, so that the armoury might be complete ' if 
tyme of necessitie, or use thereof shall be required '. 2 

In July 1641 the presence of the two armies, that of England Th . e friendly 
and of Scotland, ' in the bowels of the Kingdom ', now that peace sslsta " ce > 
had been made with the Scotch, was considered dangerous, 
especially in the view of the King's intended journey to Scotland 
and of rumours of army plots. It was therefore decided to disband 
them. To meet the expense of paying off the soldiers, Parliament 
ordered a poll-tax to be raised, and the Masters and Wardens of the 
Livery Companies were called uponby a preceptofthe Mayor to make 
a return of their Liverymen and Freemen, with a note of all those 
who had filled the office of Master or Warden, Sheriff or Alderman , 
or had paid their fine for declining the said offices, so that they 
might be assessed according to their position, as ordered by the Act. 3 
The Aldermen were likewise enjoined to furnish a list of all the 
inhabitants in their respective wards ; of every merchant, whether 
English or stranger, and of every Popish recusant. The House of 
Commons, who had promoted the idea, called it c a friendly 
assistance and relict ' for the Scots ; and so eager were the citizens 
to rid the country of the Scottish forces, lest the King might 
make a party among them, that it was difficult to find tellers 
enough to receive it; 4 while the Drapers presented a fee of f to 
the Beadle and the under-Beadle for their * extraordinary pains 

1 Cf. Gardiner, Hist, of England. The best account so far as London is 
concerned is, as usual, to be found in Dr. Sharpe's London and the Kingdom. 
He bases his information chiefly on the City Records. 

2 Rep. -f- 1 3 i, p. 6 b. 

3 1 6 Car. I, ch. ix. The assessments were : for the Mayor, 40; Alderman 
or Sheriff, 20 j Masters of the twelve greater Livery Companies, 10; 
Wardens, 6 13*. 4^.; Liverymen, 5 ; Yeomen, $. 

4 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1641-3, p. 76} cf. Appendix XIX, Poll 
Tax Return. 

The Parlia- 
of the 

Alteration in 
the wording 
of the Head- 
ing to the 
10, 1640. 

G. Garrett 
elected Mas- 
ter, August 

15-0 Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

about the poll money' and i to the clerk for writing out a list 
of the Yeomanry. ' 

The ease with which this poll-tax was collected forms an 
instructive contrast to the late opposition to the King's demand 
for a loan, and we have another indication that, although Thomas 
Adams the Master for the year 164.0-1 was a Royalist, a good many 
of the Company leant at this date to the Parliamentary side. 
This is to be found in a significant change in the heading to the 
Minutes of the meeting of the Court of Assistants held on 
December 10, 1640. Hitherto the heading had run * Anno 
Regni Domini nostri Caroli Regis Angliae, Scotiae, Franciae et 
Hibernice fidei defensoris ', but in December the words ' Domini 
nostri ' and ' fidei defensoris ' are omitted, and though the words 
* Domini nostri ' occasionally recur, Charles is never again called 
the * Defender of the faith ' in the Drapers' Minutes. 2 It would 
appear that this alteration was the result of the growing strength 
of the Puritan party in the City. For on November 2.8, Prynne 
and Burton, two victims of the Star Chamber, had entered London 
in a veritable triumphal procession. 3 On December n, a 
petition for the abolition of Episcopacy ' root and branch ' was 
presented to Parliament signed by 1,5-00 Londoners, and on 
the 1 8th Archbishop Laud had been impeached. If, however, 
the Company, then under the Mastership of Thomas Adams, was 
influenced by the outburst of popular enthusiasm, the election of 
another Royalist in the person of G. Garrett, the Sheriff, to the post 
of Master in August 1641 seems to show that a majority of the 
Court had not abandoned the King. In any case, the Company 
remitted their customary festivities. No public Election dinner 

1 Rep. 4-131, p. ix ab; Bachelors' Accounts, + 178, fo. 104. 40,000, 
half the amount required immediately, was raised in London in July. The 
reason why we are not told how much was contributed by the Drapers is, 
I presume, because the money was paid directly to the Chamber of London, and 
therefore did not come into the accounts. The Goldsmiths' Minutes, however, 
mention the certificate of the Wardens that they have paid over 106 j 
Prideaux, vol. i, p. 204. For the actual precept cf. Nicholl, Ironmongers, 
p. 152. Herbert's statement,!. 177, that it was paid unwillingly is incorrect. 

2 Cf. Rep. -f 131, pp. z a, 43, loa, zi a. 

3 They had been condemned to the pillory, and to have their ears clipped, for 
their puritanical writings. 

'Political Events oftto Reign of Charles I 15-1 

or Quarter Day dinner was given, and, although it was decided 
to have a Stewards' dinner on the Lord Mayor's day if he held 
his feast, and one on the j-th of November // he should go to 
St. Paul's, one of the Stewards, who refused to undertake the 
charge, was not fined according to the usual custom. z 

It is certainly strange that no mention is made in the Drapers' Resolution 
Minutes of the petition of the City to the House of Commons for of theCom- 
a restoration of their confiscated lands in Ulster, nor of the I "" sa S mst 

i. r i TT c /^ A i i the forfeiture 

resolution or the House or Commons in August 1641 declaring O f the Irish 
that the action of the Star Chamber in 163? had been illegal and .Estates, 
unjust. 2 But the probable explanation is that, although Charles, August 
in his anxiety to win over the City on the return from Scotland, '^f 1 * 
is said to have declared his intention to restore the Irish lands, the 
matter went no further. 3 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. lob, 123. The Court of Assistants, however, held 
a private dinner on Election Day at the cost of 13 zj. 4^., as well as four 
others at a total cost of 38 141. 

The Lord Mayor apparently did hold his Feast, and also attended at St. Paul's on 
the 5th of November, as Stewards' dinners were held on both those days, as well 
as a Quarter Day dinner in December. How much they cost we cannot be 
certain, as the items are illegible, though they look like 20 for each dinner. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1641-2, fb. 47. 

2 Cf. Sharpe, vol. ii, pp. 143 fF., quoting from the City Journal 39, fos. 164 fF. ; 
Journal of House of Commons, ii. 272. The resolution declared that in the 
opinion of the House the citizens had been solicited and pressed to undertake 
the Plantation ; that James I had not been deceived in the matter of the grant, 
and that more lands had not been granted than was intended ; that there was 
not sufficient proof that the citizens were tied to perform the printed articles 
(i. e. the original orders issued to individual undertakers), and consequently were 
not bound to plant with English and Scotch, nor restrained from planting with 
Irish, nor to estate any definite number of freeholders ; that the breach of 
covenant (if any such there were) was no sufficient cause for forfeiture, and no 
crime, which was not triable in ordinary courts of justice ; that the Star Chamber 
had no power to examine freehold, nor determine breach of covenant, and that the 
forfeiture was therefore 'ultra vires'. That the citizens and all those against whom 
judgement had been given should accordingly be discharged of the judgement, 
and be reinstated. This resolution had indeed no legal force. The House 
could not constitute itself a judicial tribunal, nor pass an Act ; but the case 
was heard judicially, and there can be little doubt that the opinion was 
a correct one. 

3 Concise View, p. 36; Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, Car. I, 1641-3, 
p. 177, November 25 ; Hushworth's Collection, ed. 1721, vol. iv, p. 430$ City 
Journal 40, fo. 96, November 30, 1641, Gurney Mayor. 

The Irish 

Provision of 
corn and 
artillery for 
the Relief of 

Return of 
the King 
from Scot- 
land, No- 

15-1 Relations of the Drapers to the 

Nor again is there any direct mention of the outbreak of the 
Irish Rebellion of 164.1, although it began with the c Ulster night ', 
and we know that the district planted by the Londoners suffered 
most severely. 1 The letters of the Company to their agent, if 
there were any, have not been preserved, and the Minutes of the 
Court meetings are silent. Presumably the Company felt no 
special interest in Ireland, now that their Proportion had been 
taken from them, and there was little prospect that, amid the 
troubles afoot they would speedily be restored. Nevertheless, in 
January 164.1 the Company were not unwilling to assist the 
Protestants in Ireland. In answer to a Precept of the Lord 
Mayor asking for some good proportion in corn and bread or 
otherwise for the relief of Londonderry and of the Protestants in 
Ireland, ' who through the inhumane and bloody cruelty of the 
rebels, were likely to be utterly destroyed ', the Court agreed to 
send TOO quarters of wheat either ground or unground or baked in 
* biskett ', or money, if it be more needed, and promised more from 
time to time as the Wardens should see fit. They also purchased 
^5-0 quarters, their proportion of 10,000 quarters, 'as their stock 
was lower than it ought to be ', and in the following March 
promised to provide guns and ammunition to the value of 40 
marks for the relief of the said City. 2 

That Charles was well received by the City on his return from 
Scotland we learn from other sources, 3 but, although we have 
a notice of the expenditure 4 of the Drapers, there is no reference 

1 Two of William Rowley's sons were slain in an encounter with the Irish, 
1641, and all the houses on the Drapers' Proportion burnt, including the Manor 
House. Hill, Plantation, p. 404., note 3 ; Rep. + 131, p. 25 i b. I do not know 
which William Rowley is meant. There were two living at the time. Cf. 
genealogy, infra, p. 176. Cf. also infra, p. i<j6 note 2. 

2 Common Council, March 2, 1641-2. Rep. +132, pp. 14 ab, ifab. For 
this they were thanked by the House of Commons. Journal, January 29, 1642, 
vol. ii, p. 402. Cf. also Prideaux, Goldsmiths, pp. 201, 202. The Mayor, in 
asking for money to be spent in artillery, said that it was to the interest of the 
City to provide it. 

3 Strype's Stow, ed. I?HJ v l- 'j Bk. I, p. 334. Sir R. Gurney, a Royalist, 
was Mayor at the time. 

4 Wardens' Accounts, 1641-2, fo. 51. As the page is unfortunately torn our, 
we do not know how much was expended. But we learn that the Company 
helped to line the streets at the royal procession to Whitehall, and gave a dinner 
to the Assistants and Livery when the King and Queen dined at the Guildhall. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 15-3 

in the Minutes to the ceremony on his entry into the City ; 
whereas in the Goldsmiths' Minutes there is a fairly detailed 
account. x It is not improbable that the silence may, as before, be 
explained by the divisions of opinion in the Company. Again, 
there is no allusion to the stirring events which followed the 
King's return. Neither the Grand Remonstrance of December, 
nor even the attempted seizure of the five Members in the 
following January, an act which finally lost Charles the 
sympathies of the Londoners, find any place. 2 We know, 
however, from other authorities that Charles, after his stormy 
reception in the Guildhall on January ^, 1641, when he 
attempted to justify his attack on the five Members on the 
ground that they had been acting treasonably, dined with George 
Garrett the Master. 3 

When in June 1642, there seemed but little hope of a recon- June 164*, 
ciliation with the King, especially as it was known that he was Parliament 
collecting forces, the Parliament sent a deputation to a meeting of a PP^ es * or 
the Liverymen of several Companies, assembled at the Common 
Hall of London, with a demand for a loan of 100,000 for a year 
at 8 per cent. The ostensible object of the loan was * the relief and 
preservation of the Kingdom of Ireland ' and * the speedy supply 
of the greate and urgent necessities of this Kingdom '. Pym 
declared that the money was voted with alacrity, but according 
to the Royalist Lord Mayor, Gurney, the Common Hall insisted 
that Parliament should take the responsibility of raising the loan by 
passing an ordinance, before the Companies were asked to raise the 
money according to their corn assessment. 4 The King, on 
hearing of this, wrote from York to say that, if the Companies 
should pay any money, either for the relief of Ireland or the 

1 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, p. 199. 

2 Cf. Forster, Arrest of the Five Members, pp. if 8 ff. We learn from 
Dr. Sharpe that some of the Minutes of the Common Council of this date were 
expunged in 1683, and that there is no notice in the City Archives of the 
stormy meeting, when the King presented himself at the Guildhall on January y, 
two days after the attempted arrest. Sharpe, vol. ii, pp. if 5-7. 

3 Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion, ed. Oxford, 1849, Bk. IV, p. 157. 
Clode, London during the Rebellion, p. 19. 


15*4- Relations of the Drapers to the 

payment of the Scotch, he would take it as an acceptable service; 
but that, if under general pretences the money should be lent to 
raise a guard, he would look upon their action as raising a force 
against him in contempt of his authority, and would then be 
compelled to question the Charter of the City. The letter was 
to be communicated to the several City Companies. 1 Inasmuch 
as it was realized that the Companies would require careful 
handling, it was decided that they should be summoned to meetings 
in groups, at which some members of the Commons should be 
present, and that the Mercers, the Grocers, the Fishmongers and 
the Drapers should be first summoned, possibly because it was 
thought that they were likely to be the most amenable, and that 
their decision might influence the others. 2 Having obtained the 
consent of this meeting, and fortified by the ordinance of 
Parliament, the Lord Mayor addressed a Precept to the Drapers. 
On this being considered at a meeting of the Company, held on 
June 10, 1642, a meeting at which divers of the Livery and the 
Yeomanry, as well as the Assistants, were present a somewhat 
hedging resolution was passed, to the effect that * although they 
do not know how the said loan may concerne ye good and safety 
of ye King and this City ', yet in view of the necessity they * do 
not deny, but condescend ' to the furnishing it, and ' doe with 
a free and loving respecte for ye satisfying of ye desires of ye said 
Lords and others of both Houses of Parliament, and for the 
preservation and good of both Kingdoms, consent and thinke fit 
that the said some of ^"7,^00, proportionately imposed on the 
Company, shall be forthwith raised and lent '. 3 While, however, 
the Court declared the willingness of the Company to contribute, 
they entered a protest declaring that the Common Hall had no 
authority to bind the Company in the matter of finance ; and that, 
in voting the loan, they were following the order of Parliament, 
not that of the Common Hall, and this, because the said Common 

1 Cal. of State Papers, Domestic, 1641-3, p. 339, June 14. Prideaux, Gold- 
smiths, p. zo4, says this letter was read before the Court of the Company. I have 
not found any notice of it in the Drapers' Minutes. 

2 Cf. Clode, London during the Rebellion, p. 19, 

3 This loan was never repaid. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 15-5- 

Hall, * consisting of ye Liverymen of all ye severall Companies, 
amongst which ye greatest number being of ye inferiour 
Companies and men of very poore estate, are careless of what 
they graunted, in regard they were neither willinge nor able to 
bear any considerable parte of ye said chardge ; and that the 
Common Hall hath been in the past used only for the election of 
the Lord Maior, Sheriffs, and other like offices, and such like 
occasions^ but never to graunte monies or chardge the Citizens or 
Corporacions thereof with any chardges or paiements.' 1 

From this time onwards the Company ceased to concern them- Later Refer- 
selves much about Ireland, but there are a few more references. ^ n . c " * . 
Clarendon tells us that among other expedients for raising money 
to put down the Rebellion in Ireland, Parliament made certain 
propositions to encourage men to be ' adventurers in that traffick ' 
by promising them lands out of the estates to be forfeited from the 
rebels; and that the King consented to a Bill presented to that 
effect, without considering ' whether this policy might not retard 
the reducing of that Kingdom by exasperating the rebels and 
rendering them desperate of being received into grace', a design 
which, he maliciously suggests, was one of the reasons why 
Parliament had moved in the matter. 2 We learn from Mr. 
Prideaux that although the individual members of the Goldsmiths' 
Company did subscribe nearly ^400 to the relief of the 
Protestants and to subdue the rebels, they declined to subscribe as 

1 Rep. +131, pp. i5b, 17 ab. For similar conduct on the part of other 
Companies, cf. Clode, London during the Civil War, p. 19 j Prideaux, Gold- 
smiths, vol. i, pp. 103-6; Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. Z57. The Drapers provided 
the money, partly from the rents of the lands belonging to Queen Elizabeth's 
College, Greenwich, partly by loans from members of the Company and others. 
The Common Hall was the old Folk Moot of London, and apparently any Free- 
man could at that date attend. This explains Clarendon's statement (ed. 1849, 
Bk. VI, ziz) that the meanest persons were admitted. But for the purposes 
of electing the Mayor, the Sheriffs, the Chamberlain, the Bridgemaster and other 
officials, and the Burgesses, it was limited to Liverymen of the Livery Companies 
presided over by the Mayor of the past year. The Common Council was com- 
posed of Aldermen and Councillors elected out of those who were Liverymen of 
the Companies by the Freemen of the Wards paying scot and lot. 

2 Cf. Clarendon, Hist. Rebellion, ed. 1849, vo '- i P- 3$?- The Bill was 
actually presented in 1640. Cf. Stat. \6 Car. I, c. 3? j Prideaux, Goldsmiths, 
p. ziz, June 30, 1643 5 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 163. 

15*6 Relations of the 'Drapers to the 

adventurers, a course of conduct which we should expect, con- 
sidering the way in which the Livery Companies had been treated 
with regard to their Irish estates. As nothing is found about the 
matter in the archives of the Drapers, we may presume that they 
were not even willing to subscribe. In November 1645-, on 
a petition being received from the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of 
Londonderry for a supply of spades, pickaxes, powder and other 
things for the defence of the town, it was ordered that, after 
inquiry as to what other Companies had done, the Wardens 
should do as seemed fitting. 1 The only other entries in the 
Minutes refer to charity conferred on members and others who 
suffered from the rebellion. 2 

The Petition But, if there .are signs of hesitation in the conduct of the 
of the City, Court just described, there is no doubt that, after the indecisive 
January battle of Edgehill (October 164.2,) and the unsuccessful attempt of 
Charles to seize London, there were many within the City who 
were anxious to come to terms with the King. These opinions 
found expression in a petition addressed to him at Oxford on 
January 10, 1643, by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons 
of London, and presented by a deputation, of which Sir G. Garrett, 
the Draper Sheriff, was a member. The petitioners declared that 
they were pierced with the great divisions between the King 
and the Houses, and deeply wounded by the misapprehension 
which the King seemed to entertain of the love and loyalty of 
the City. They assured him that they abhorred all thoughts of 
disloyalty, and were resolved to the last drop of their dearest blood 

1 Rep. + 1 3 i, p. <Jo b. 

2 1641, March. 10 to their tenant Wm. WoodrufFe, because his lands had 
been wasted and ' for aught he knew his children and wife slain '. Ib., p. \6 a. 

10 to G. Oliver, a merchant, who has lost all and had to fly, for the purpose 
of 1 making him a stock to begin again with '. Ib., p. Z3 b. 

1643, February. 10 to the son of the late Renter, H. Downes, who has lost 
all he had from the rebels and is now a poor soldier in great want in London- 
derry. Ib., p. ^7 a. 

November. 10 to John Rawson, one of the Livery, in respect of his great 
losses in Ireland. Ib., p. 34 b. 

1644, February. 5 to Thomas Francis, who hath lost all his estate by the 
rebels. Ib., p. 413. 

May. i6 1 3*. 4</. to Widow of Wm. Rowley and her children, * being cast 
out of all means '. Ib., p. 44 b. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 15-7 

to defend the Protestant Religion, the King's Royal person, honour 
and estate, as well as the powers and privileges of Parliament and 
the lawful rights and liberties of the subject. They therefore 
besought the King on their bended knees to return to his Parlia- 
ment, accompanied by his ' Royal and not martial attendance ', 
to the end that whatever was amiss in Church and Common- 
wealth might be reformed, and such a peace be obtained as 
should be for the Glory of God, the Honour of his Majesty, and 
the welfare of his loyal subjects. To this the King replied by 
saying that he did not entertain any misapprehension of the love 
and loyalty of his City, but that they should consider what 
confidence his Majesty could have of security therein, while the 
laws were being notoriously despised, and while Alderman 
Penington, 1 'their pretended Mayor, the principal author of the 
calamities which threatened the realm ', and other persons, more 
especially Venn, Foulke and Col. Manwairing, 2 notoriously guilty 
of schism and high treason, were oppressing, robbing and 
imprisoning all such his subjects ' whom they are pleased to 
suspect of wishing well to their King ', and openly countenancing 
Brownists, Barrowists and all manner of Sectaries. Further he 
declared that if they would manifest their power to defend him 
from all tumults, affronts and violences, and apprehend the 
persons above mentioned, he would speedily return without his 

1 Isaac Penington had been elected Mayor on August iz, 1642, after the 
removal of Sir R. Gurney. Charles declined to acknowledge him Mayor because 
he declared Alderman Cordell had received the majority of votes, and because 
Penington had not been presented to his Majesty. Cf. Rushworth, ed. 1711, 
Part III, vol. ii, p. i z i. J. Wollaston, who like Penington was a Parliamentarian, 
though not so prominent a politician, was the other presented by the Common 
Hall. Cordell, though his senior Alderman below the Chair, was passed over 
at this and at the next five elections. We have no record of the voting at this 
date. Probably Charles meant that he had the majority on a show of hands, 
but that is not a conclusive proof. 

2 John Venn, Warden of the Merchant Taylors at the time, and M.P. for 
London in 1641, was a leading Puritan, and subsequently one of the regicides. 
John Foulke, or Fowke, was Master of the Haberdashers three times : in 1641-3, 
in 1671-3 (when he was also Mayor), and in i6^<j-6. He was named one of 
the Judges to try the King, but refused to attend, and took some part in the 
Restoration. Cf. Diet. National Biography; Beaven, Aldermen, vol. i, p. 276 j 
vol. ii, p. 66 j Clode, Merchant Taylors, Pt. II, pp. 346, 347. 

15*8 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

martial attendance, and labour with all the faculties of his soul to 
advance the Protestant Religion, the laws of the land, and the 
just privileges of Parliament. Meanwhile he threatened with 
condign punishment all those who took up arms against him, or 
contributed to the support of the army of the Earl of Essex. 
Charles gave special injunctions that this uncompromising answer 
should be read in the Common Hall, but he had miscalculated the 
strength of his party. Pym, who with the Earl of Manchester 
attended to represent the Houses of Parliament, had little difficulty 
in showing from his letter that the King had no intention of 
coming to terms, 1 and the Assembly broke up with the cries, ' We 
will live and die with Parliament' (January 13). 

The opinion of the City was, however, evidently in a condition 
of much uncertainty. Four days afterwards (January i^) Sir 
H. Garway, the Draper and late Mayor, is said to have addressed 
another meeting in the Common Hall. Although the speech is now 
acknowledged to be spurious, its contents may be taken as represent- 
ing the views of the Royalist party. In it complaint was made that 
Pym and other Members of Parliament had wrongly attended and 
addressed the late meeting ; the conduct of the King was vindicated ; 
the merchants trading to foreign ports were warned of the danger 
they would incur if the King withdrew his protection ; the 
citizens were urged to refrain from contributing to the Parliament- 
ary Army and to comply with the King's command for the 
apprehension of the Mayor and others. A tumult followed, and 
the Assembly broke up amid cries of ' No money ; peace, peace '. 
On the same day Charles, hoping to find support among the 
Livery Companies, addressed another letter to the Sheriffs. He 
reiterated his charges against Penington and others, and requested 
them to circulate his original answer among the Masters and 
Wardens of the Livery Companies, with instructions that it 
should be read before their respective freemen and apprentices, 
* whose hopes and interests were so much blasted in these general 
distractions '. The Committee of the Houses for the safety of the 
Kingdom forbade this to be done, conceiving the whole 
conduct of the King to be 'evidently tending to sedition' and 'a 

1 Rushworth Collections cd. 1711, vol. v. pp. iioff. 

Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 15-9 

bloody design to destroy the City and Parliament '. Further, they 
took into custody the Masters of some of the Companies that were 
the chief promoters of the business. 1 

It is disappointing that of this interesting episode, in which two 
important Drapers, G. Garret and Sir H. Garway, both took part, 
the Drapers' documents give no information. Indeed, the refer- 
ences to public events from the autumn of the year 1642, to the 
close of the first Civil War in the spring of the year 1646 are 
almost entirely confined to loans and taxes, the provision or arms 
and of corn, and the dispensing with dinners. 

From a financial point of view at least, the Company did not 
benefit from the change of masters. On July 12,, 164:1, the Demands of 
Parliament at Westminster had voted that an army should be the 
raised 'for the defence of King and Parliament' under the Earl me 
of Essex. Forthwith the Lord Mayor instructed Sir Henry anc j m 
Garway, who was Alderman of Broad Street Ward, in which the 
Drapers' Hall stood, as well as the Aldermen of other Wards, to 
make a view of the arms and munitions both of the Company and 
elsewhere within the Ward, and to furnish all that could be 
spared. To this request the Company answered by providing 40 
corslets, 40 pikes, and <5o muskets, ' as the fishmongers had done '. 2 

1 Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, Oxford, 1849, Bk. VI, zioff. ; 
Rushworth, ed. 172,1, vol. v, pp. 1 10-22 ; Journals of the House of Commons, 
vol. ii, p. 941 ; Parl. Hist., vol. iii, pp. 59 ff. ; State Papers, Domestic, 1641-3, 
p. 438. For Garway 's supposed speech, which was subsequently published under 
the title, 'The loyal citizen revived', cf. Harleian Miscellany, ed. 1810, vol. v, 
pp. 179 fF. ; Diet. National Biography, revised version. Garway, the Master and 
Wardens of the Merchant Taylors, and the Grocers were summoned to appear 
before the Houses. Journals of House of Commons, vol. ii, p. 943 j Clode, 
London during the Rebellion, p. 30. The summoning of the Merchant Taylors 
was no doubt because Venn was one of their Wardens at that date, while 
G. Clarke, the Royalist Sheriff, was a Grocer. This may account for the heavy 
sum of 9,000 assessed on the Grocers for the loan of June 1642, the reason for 
which Mr. Heath (p. 111) says he is at a loss to discover. Clode is wrong 
when he says Gurney was the Mayor summoned. It was Penington who was 
then Mayor, and he came of his own accord to clear himself of the charges 
brought against him by the King in the letter mentioned above. Cf. Journal of 
the House of Commons, vol. ii, p. 946. The Ironmongers were ordered to 
forbear publishing the said documents. Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. z6i. Of the 
other Companies I have no direct information. 

2 Rep. +132, p. 223. The King had been refused entrance into Hull on 

160 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

This was folio wed in May 1643 by a demand from the Mayor, 
Isaac Penington, the strong Parliamentary man, 1 for a loan of 
all their arms for the forces then being raised by the City. 
The Company complied, saving however what might be held 
necessary for the safety of the Hall. 2 Meanwhile, in the previous 
March an assessment of ,2,3 a week was imposed on the Company 
in pursuance of a Parliamentary ordinance. 3 This, says the 
Royalist historian Clarendon, was the first general tax levied on 
the people by the Parliament, ' who had not hitherto ventured to 

April 13. This was an act of war, which was thus begun by Parliament. It 
was not till August ^^ that the King raised his standard at Nottingham. The 
explanation of the reference to the Fishmongers appears to be that the Drapers 
were grouped with that Company, as well as with the Mercers and Grocers, for the 
purpose of these requisitions. Cf. Rep. +131, p. 173; Prideaux, Goldsmiths, 
p. 103. The Company eventually only furnished yo muskets. The arms, valued 
at iai, were lent, not given 5 cf. Rep. +131, p. 151 a. This compliance of 
Garway did not save him. In April 1643 the House of Commons dismissed him 
from his office of Governor of the Turkey and other Companies, and in May he 
was expelled from the Court of Aldermen. In November he was arrested for 
various misdemeanours, and was then ' tossed from prison to prison and his estate 
conveyed from one rebel to another*. In 1644 he was deprived of his Governor- 
ship of the Russia Company and imprisoned in Dover Castle. He was sub- 
sequently released, died in July 1646, and was buried in the church of St. Peter- 
le-Poor, in which parish Drapers' Hall stood. His three sons succeeded to his 
large estates in Northumberland, Westmoreland, Kent, Sussex, and Devonshire. 
But the Commissioners for sequestrations raised difficulties about his property in 
Cornwall, declaring that he died a delinquent in prison, and that all his family 
were enemies of Parliament, a statement which two of his sons declared to be 
scandalous and untrue. Cf. Diet. National Biography j genealogy of the Garways, 
supra, p. 143. 

1 All the subsequent Mayors till 1645 were Parliamentarians. Penington 
was Colonel of the White Regiment of the Train Bands which did such good 
service for the Parliament cf. Raikes History of the Honourable Artillery 
Company, ch. v. Archaeologia 1890, vol. ii, p. 119. 

' Rep. +131, p. 17 b. 

3 Ib., p. zy b. This was the Drapers' share of 10,000 a week assessed on the 
City. The weekly assessment for the whole kingdom would have come to 33,518 
a week, or over one and a half million of pounds in the year. But of course it was 
only levied on the counties held by the Parliament. It appears that three-fifths of 
the first month's assessment was to be repaid. Cf. Rep. +131, p. 151 b. For 
a succinct account of the taxes and loans demanded by Parliament from August 
1641 to August 1650, cf. Appendix XXII. The total amount was: Taxes, 
1,308 i6s. 9</; Loans, 1 1,750. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles 1 161 

inflame them and inform them how they meant to invade their 
liberty and their property, with the jealousy whereof they had 
blown them up to all those swellings and seditious humours 
against the king '.' To meet the new imposition and also to pay 
the debts they had incurred in providing loans, the Court resolved 
to sell all their plate except the spoons. In place of the plate, 
handsome earthen salts and Venice glass were to be bought ; 
it being further resolved that, when the Company should be in 
a position to do so, the plate should be made up again in thankful 
remembrance of the donors. 2 

In August 1643, on receipt of the news that Bristol had been 
taken by the Royalists and that the King was thinking of march- 
ing on London, the Court agreed to furnish ^3,7^0 towards a loan 
ofjfo,ooo at 8 per cent., which the Common Council had asked 
for from the City Companies towards the defence of London and the 
nation ; the money being once more borrowed by the Company. 3 
In February lo'^, the Clerk reminded the Court that since 
the year 164.0 a total sum of ,1^0,000 had been lent; 4 as well 
as arms to the value of ip8 $s. and exclusive of the monthly 
assessments. Of this total sum, 3,7^0 had been lent on the 
security of divers peers and only 37? had been repaid ; of the 
7,5-00, for which Parliament had made itself responsible, nothing 
had yet been received; while, of the last item of 3, lent to 
the City itself, only 50 interest had been paid, and an instal- 
ment of 1,300 was due in March. In the following April the 
Court of Aldermen, while acknowledging their indebtedness, 

1 Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, ed. 1849, Bk. VI, 315. These assess- 
ments, which were generally monthly, took the place of the old subsidy which 
had been levied once a year or in some cases half-yearly. They were, however, 
assessed more carefully than the old subsidy had been. Cf. Dowell, History of 
Taxation, vol. i, p. 196 j vol. ii, p. 4. 

2 They had been obliged to borrow money of their members at 8 per cent, to 
meet the loan of 7,500 in 1641. Rep. + 131, pp. ^^ ab. The gilt plate sold 
at 5-r. zd., the white parcel gilt plate at 4/. lod. the ounce. The total sum 
realized was 571 ys. nd. Wardens' Accounts, 1641-3, fo. 18. Other Com- 
panies also disposed of their plate at this date. Cf. Heath, Grocers, p. nzj 
Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 175 j Jupp, Carpenters, p. 96. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 31 b; Wardens' Accounts, 1643-4, fos. 35-7. 

4 Viz.i 3,7*0 in October 1640; 7,500 in June 1641 j 3,750 in August 

1603-3 Y 

Relations of the Drapers to the 

pleaded the command of Parliament that 1,000 of this sum 
should still be left on loan, in respect of the necessity of furnish- 
ing Sir Wm. Brereton, who was then besieging Chester, with the 
necessary supplies. To this the Court demurred, but finally 
agreed to leave ^5-00 on loan, which was to be repaid when 
Parliament by ordinance should order. 1 At the same time a sum 
of 17. loj". was assessed on the Company for strengthening 
the defences of London, 2 and this was followed by further 
assessments in 1647 and 1648 for military purposes. 3 

"We find the Goldsmiths' Company complaining of these 
frequent impositions, on the special ground that their Hall had 
been used for Parliamentary Committees more often than those of 
other Companies. No such complaint is found in the Drapers' 
Minutes, although their Hall was also frequently used for meetings 
of the Broad Street Wardmoot, the Ward in which the Hall stood, 
and in July 1643 a Quarter- and a View-day dinner were forborne 
because the Hall was occupied by the Committee which sat touching 
the * reducing ' of the City of Newcastle then held by the King. 4 
In addition to these contributions, the demand for Corn Money 
Corn Money was continued almost every year. In 1643 the Drapers had to 
still con- provide as many as 7^0 quarters; 5 while in 1647 a precept of 
the Lord Mayor ordered them to sell $ quarters of wheat meal to 
the poor in small quantities at the price of 6d. a bushel, but not 
to sell more than half-a-bushel to any one person. 6 The large 
accumulation of corn, which resulted from these purchases, led 
to great waste. The corn became infested with weevils ; it rotted 
from damp and want of proper turning, and had often to be sold 

1 Rep. 4 132, pp. 53 ab, 543. The 500 was repaid, with interest of 30, 
in the course of the year 1645-6. Wardens' Accounts, 1645-6, fo. 29. But 
this was all that was ever repaid of this loan. The total amount of these loans 
not repaid and declared 'desperate* in 1678, was 11,885 J J - Cf. Rep. 

+ i33>P-9*b. 

2 Rep. 4 131, p. 54 b. 3 Ib., pp. 81 b, 81 b, 84^ 

4 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, p. 247 j Rep. 4 13*3 PP- 163,293. The Ironmongers 
also protested against these frequent demands because of their poverty, and raised 
the question whether they were liable to assessment in their corporate capacity. 
Cf. Nicholl, Ironmongers, pp. 279, 282. They were also ordered to pay to the 
Committee of Revenues all that they owed the King. Ib., p. 272. For use of 
other Halls see Clode, London during the Rebellion, p. 3 i. 

5 Rep. 4 1 3 2, p. 26 b. 6 Ib., p. 80 a. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 163 

at a serious loss. In the autumn of 164.3 the plan was tried of 
paying a fixed fee of 20 a year to the store-keeper, who was to 
be entirely responsible ; ' but, as this arrangement did not prove 
satisfactory, it was abandoned, and other measures were resorted to. 
The store-keeper was forbidden to take in the corn of other 
persons, as he had done; the corn was to be more equally divided 
between their two store-houses at the Bridge House and at 
Bridewell; the trees near the granary at Bridewell were to be 
cut down because they caused damp, and the Lord Mayor was 
petitioned to do away with the bakehouse and the still-house at 
the Bridge House, for the purpose of reducing the danger of fire, 
and also because the corn got heated. 2 Although we are not 
told how far these expedients proved satisfactory, we at least have 
no more complaints. 

From the scanty information vouchsafed us as to the proceed- 
ings of the Drapers during the first Civil War, it would appear 
that, whereas in the critical days before the actual outbreak of the 
struggle there was much division and hesitation as to the course to 
be pursued, they had, when the sword had been drawn, adhered 
to the Parliament. They, however, showed no enthusiasm ; and it 
should be remembered that any expressions of loyalty to the 
King would have been dangerous. 

The election of Thomas Adams, an important member of the Thomas 
Company and once Master, 3 to the Mayoralty in the autumn of ^ ms ' 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 343, 40 b, 433. \6tf-6. 

2 Ib., pp. 60 b, 6435 cf. p. io4b. The granary at Bridewell had been 
lately made. Ib., p. 9 b. We learn incidentally that the granary of the 
Drapers at Bridewell was on the ground floor, that of the Fishmongers on the 
first, and that of the Ironmongers on the second floor. Ib., p. 139 b. The 
danger of fire here and at the Hall and of provisions to meet with it are 
frequently mentioned j e.g. ib., pp. 15 b, 2,6 b. In 1638 'divers butts of sacke ' 
stored in the cellar under the Hall by Warden Bewley, whether belonging to him 
or to the Company we are not told, were ordered to be removed because the 
custom is considered dangerous in view of the lights used by the coopers, and 
because of the noise of carts, &c. Rep. + 131, p. 314 ab. 

3 This was the fourth time that a Draper held this high office during the reign 
of Charles I. But Cuthbert Hacket was translated from the Dyers, cf. 
Appendix XLJI B. Adams was Col. of the Blue Regiment, the largest one 
of the Trained Bands. But unlike most of the commanders of those troops he 
was a strong royalist and we are definitely told that he was not at the Battle of 
Newbury 1643, cf. Archaeologia 1890, vol. ii, p. 137. When the King fled from 

164- Relations of the Drapers to the 

1645- may be taken as an indication that there was a temporary 
reaction, in the City at least, and perhaps in the Company, since 
he was subsequently accused of being a Royalist. But the evidence 
Dinners and so far as the Company is concerned is not conclusive. All that 
displays dis- we can sa y ^th certainty is that matters were taken seriously, 1 
pei *"* since the Court determined to dispense with the public election of 
the Master and Wardens for the ensuing year, 'as had been done 
by divers Companies '. Instead of the Great Dinner, one only 
should be provided for the Assistants after the private election ; 
and the Wardens should, in lieu of their usual charges for the 
Great Dinner, pay fines which were to be distributed among the 
poor of the Company. 2 The Company also reduced their 
expenses by declining to send any of their members as ' benevo- 
lent guests ' to the dinners of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, 
because of ' the miseries and extremities of the times, and the 
necessities of money for want of trading', especially as the Lord 
Mayor ' hath much abated the charge of his housekeeping and 
put off many of his officers from their daily attendance, while the 
Sheriffs have altogether left off their housekeeping, and the 
Mercers and Grocers, who precede the Drapers in rank, have 
decided so to do ', December 

Oxford in April 1646, there were suspicions that he had taken refuge in London, 
and Adams's house was searched. In September 1647 Adams was accused of 
treason and committed to the Tower. He, however, was subsequently released, 
and was one of the deputies sent by the City to accompany Charles II from 
Breda. He was created a' Baronet in 1660, and founded the Professorship of 
Arabic in Cambridge ; cf. Diet. National Biography and authorities quoted there. 

1 As early as July 1641, that is before the outbreak of war, it had been resolved 
that * in regard of ye present troubles and distractions in Church and Common- 
wealth, and the great fears and dangers, which are shortly likely to be within 
this City and Kingdom, if ye Lord in mercy prevent it not, the times are and 
will be more fit for fasting and humbling our soules before God, than for feasting 
and rejoicing.' 2 Rep. + 131, pp. i/b, I9b. 

3 Ib-, p. zf b. In 1638-9 the allowance to the Wardens, which went towards 
their presents to the Mayor and Sheriff, had been increased from 10 to 14. 
Rep. + 131, p. 337 a. In 1640, a request on the part of divers of the Assistants 
that they too should have an allowance on the same occasions had been rejected, 
because it was thought undesirable to add to the charges of the House. Rep. 
-1-131, p. 33. In 1641 only 8 had been given to the Wardens (Renters' 
Accounts, 1641-3, fo. 8) ; and now the allowances were stopped altogether, and 
were not renewed till 1645. Cf. Renters' Accounts, 1645-6, fo. 9. 

Totitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 

Although, when Adams was elected, the Court presented him 
with the usual present for beautifying his house, it was decided 
that inquiry should be made as to the procedure at the election 
of the preceding Lord Mayor, and to do accordingly, and 
no special festival was given. 1 Indeed, throughout the period 
from 16^.1 to the death of the King, no public election or election 
dinner was held, and though sometimes stewards' dinners on Lord 
Mayor's Day and on the 5-th of November were ordered, it was 
generally with the proviso noticed above, that they should only 
be held if the Lord Mayor made his public processions on those 
days. Quarter-day and View-day dinners were usually held, but 
at these, and at the private dinner of the assistants on the Election 
Day, the fare was to be at a moderate cheer in respect of the 
times. In August i<%f it was decided to reduce the allowances 
made by the House towards dinners, in respect of the misery of 
the times and the great debts of the Company; 2 while in the 
November following it was ordered that there should in future be 
no * seconde ' (course) at any dinner, and only eight or nine 
dishes of meat, except when the Lord Mayor dined, when the 
usual allowance of 6 i%s. ^.d. for the * Mayor's Messe ' should be 
granted. 3 This regulation was followed by another in 1647, 
which ordered that, unless the Court decided otherwise, no 
strangers should in future be invited to the dinners of the 
Assistants, c for better order and freedom in business ' ; and that at 
the Stewards' dinners, to which all the Livery were invited, the 
Stewards should only be allowed to invite two guests apiece. 4 
The Yeomanry dinners were also usually dispensed with. The 
charges thus saved were generally devoted to the poor of the 
Company, and sometimes to the poor of London ; but in November 

1 Cf. Bachelors' Accounts, -f 178, fo. 113; Rep. + 131, p. 57 b. The Com- 
pany attended in their two barges, but the expenses were under 19, being 
chiefly for ribbons for the bargemen. The other charges were for wine, cake, 
&c., 4 zj. 4^., and the sum of 8 for c izo chambers charged and shot* 
besides four barrels of the Company's powder! They also spent 6 13*. $d. for 
1 the Mayor's Mess ', when he was a guest at the Stewards' dinner. Cf. Wardens' 
Accounts, 1645-6, fo-35; Renters' Accounts, 1 645-6, fo. 10. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. 56 a. They had been raised in 16393 because of the 
increase in the fare and of prices. Rep. + 13 r, p. 33<?b. 

3 Rep. + 1 3 1, p. 6 1 b. 4 Ib., p. Sob. 

1 66 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

1643, the allowance of the Company was to go towards paying 
interest on the money they had taken up to meet their loan to 
the City, 1 and sometimes the charges of the Master Bachelors were 
placed to the credit of the Bachelors' Box. 2 The Company, how- 
ever, generally held dinners on the thanksgiving days kept to com- 
memorate Parliamentary victories. This does not necessarily prove 
that the sympathies of the Drapers were strongly on the side of 
Parliament, since to have refrained might have brought them into 
trouble. 3 

Reticence of On the conclusion of the first Civil War, London, as well as the 
the Drapers rest of England, was much divided as to the proper course to 

dur - m ? ^ e P ursue -'* N sooner had the Scotch handed over the King to 
tw"en tlie Parliament, on January lo^, than that Assembly, then consisting 
close of the almost exclusively of Presbyterians, made attempts to come to 
first Civil terms with Charles and to rid themselves of the army. On 
War and the March io a day of humiliation was held, when Divine Protec- 
IT M t * on was i m pl re d against heresy and schism, in other words 
i646-Jan. against the Independents. In the preceding autumn Sir John 
30, 1649. Gayer, a Fishmonger of Royalist sympathies, had been elected Lord 
Mayor, and various petitions were now (July 164/7) addressed to 
the Houses by apprentices and * divers others well affected 
citizens'. 5 The agitation ended in a riot, the impeachment of 
Sir John Gayer and of Thomas Cullum the Draper Sheriff, and 

1 Rep. +131, p. 343. 2 Ib., p. 300 b. 

3 Thus they gave a dinner on the thanksgiving days held for Marston Moor 
and Naseby, when the dinners cost 6 los. and 18 3 J - 1 1^- Cf. Wardens' 
Accounts, 1643-4, fo. 4 j Renters' Accounts, 1645-6, fos. I r, n. For the like 
conduct on part of the Merchant Taylors see Clode, London during the 
Civil War. 

4 Charles I surrendered to the Scotch, May f, 1646. On January 30, 1647, 
the Scotch handed him over to Parliament. On June 4 he was seized at 
Holmby House by the Army. 

5 One petition was presented by apprentices asking for the King's restoration. 
Two others, one from ' divers well affected ' citizens, and one from ' divers young 
men apprentices ', protested against an ordinance which had been passed to 
substitute a militia selected by the army for the old militia, and in consequence 
of this the ordinance was withdrawn. Clode, London during the Rebellion, 
p. 34. There is a good account in the Fairfax Correspondence, ed. 1849, vol. i, 
pp. 379 ff. Cf. also Rushworth, ed. 1721, Pt. IV, vol. i, pp. 614, 616, 618 j 
State Trials, ed. 1809, p. 959. 

'Political Events of the Reign of Charles I 167 

the election to the Mayoralty, for the remaining days of September 
164.7 and for the next year, of Alderman Warner, a man of more 
popular sympathies. It is curiously significant that the only 
reference to this period is found in the following entry in the 
Renter's Account, 'spent upon an humiliation day at the three 
Tonns as per bill 7*. %d. V Either the Company was too much 
divided, or the Court too prudent to raise contentious matters at 
the Meetings. 

When, however the second Civil War had broken out, the The second 
apprehensions of the Drapers as to what might happen is expressed Civil 
in the resolution of May that the Summer Quarter-day Dinner 
should be put off ' in respect of the fears of what may happen to 
the state ', and in the order of July, that there should be no ring- 
ing of bells on election day, nor music, nor open shewe of the 
Company in the streets. 2 

Cromwell's victory at Preston in August finally ruined the 
Royalist cause, but no notice is taken of it with exception of a brief 
entry of a sum of igj. 6V. 'paid to officers in going to Paul's a 
thanksgiving ', 3 nor of the struggle, which shortly ensued between 
the Parliament and the army, ending in the march of the troops 

1 Renters' Accounts, 1646-75 fo. 7. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 843, 85 a. We learn that on Coronation Day, March 27, 
1 648, more bonfires were lit in the City than at any time since the return of Charles 
from Spain after the failure of the Spanish marriage in 1613, and that those 
passing through the City were forced to drink the King's health, while on 
April 9 and 10 there were serious riots, accompanied by the cry c Now for 
King Charles '. On June i the City asked for a personal treaty with the King, 
and on July 29 sent a petition to the Houses asking for an immediate cessation 
of arms. On the other hand, a thanksgiving service for the victories vouchsafed 
to the Parliament was held at St. Paul's on July 27, and a savage sermon 
preached against Malignants '. At this service the Livery of the Drapers 
attended, and spent over 10 in refreshment at the Three Tuns. Gardiner, 
Hist, of Civil War, ed. 1893, vol. iv, pp. 94, 97, 143, 173; Clode, London 
during the Rebellion, p. 37 ; Renters' Accounts, 1648-9, fo. 11. 

3 Renters' Accounts, 1648-9, fo. 12. The following entry certainly shows 
that there were some on the Court who sympathized with the Royalist revolt at 
Colchester: Paid to Richard Minors the Company's porter towards great 
charges in releasing and relieving his son Capt. Minors out of Heref. Castell, 
taken by the Lord Fairfax in Colchester, to accomodate him upon his voiadge to 
the East Indies 10.' Wardens' Accounts, 1648-9, fo. 49. 

1 68 Relations of the "Drapers to the 

on London and Pride's Purge, December 6. This act of high- 
handedness on the part of the army at last aroused the supporters 
of Parliament, and even of the King, in the City. In September 
1648 two humiliation services, sure signs of a revival of the 
Presbyterian party, were held at St. Paul's on September 12, and 
15, at which the Company was represented; and on the 2-pth, 
Abraham Reynardson, a Merchant Taylor of Royalist sympathies, 
was elected Lord Mayor. A struggle followed. The Rump, now 
completely in the hands of the army, passed an ordinance 
declaring any one who had subscribed to an engagement for 
a personal treaty with the King incapable of either voting or 
being elected to the Common Council, December 2.0. The 
Lord Mayor answered this order by refusing to allow any 
Councillors to take their seats unless they took the oath of 
allegiance. The army, however, was determined to have its way. 
The Lord Mayor was instructed to postpone the taking the oaths 
of allegiance till further orders ; all who had taken up arms or 
assisted the King were enjoined to leave the City, and forbidden 
to return within a month on pain of being treated as prisoners of 
war ; the chains were ordered to be removed from the streets, so 
, that the soldiers and cavalry might the more easily sweep the 
streets in the event of a riot ; and a violent petition to the Houses 
demanding justice against the capital contrivers of, and actors in, 
the late wars against the Parliament was sent by the approval of 
this purged Common Council. Nevertheless the Mayor stood 
firm. He refused to have the petition considered, and after 
a stormy scene, which lasted from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., he left the 
chair, accompanied by two Aldermen. The petition was then put 
and confirmed. 1 

We may no doubt detect a fear of the army in the resolution of 

1 Sharpej London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, pp. 197 fF. The names of the 
two Aldermen are not known } but among the six Common Councillors who 
were subsequently degraded we find Thomas Adams, the Draper. No Draper 
sat on the High Court of Justice which tried the King. At a Special Court of 
Aldermen held on April a, 1649, when, in obedience to an order of the House, 
Abraham Reynardson was deposed from the Mayoralty, Thomas Cullum and 
Christopher Pack, both Drapers 3 were present. Clode, London during the 
Rebellion^ vol. ii a pp. 43 ft. 

Tolitical Events of the Reign of Charles I 169 

January i&fp, that General Fairfax should be applied to for 
a warrant that no soldiers should be allowed to enter the Hall as 
they had 'in other like places' 1 ; and possibly the warrant was 
obtained because Christopher Pack, a strong supporter of Cromwell, 
was Master at this date. But this is the last allusion to the tragic 
days which ended in the trial of the King and his execution on 
January 30. And of these days again the Drapers' books only 
record the money spent on the Humiliation days, 2 although we 
know that one prominent member of the Company, Thomas 
Adams, was on the side of Reynardson, the Royalist Lord Mayor, 
and was subsequently degraded with him ; and that two more 
members, Thomas Cullum and Christopher Pack, were of the 
adverse party. A careful reader might, however, guess that the 
Monarchy had fallen from the omission of the King's name in -the 
heading of the next meeting of the Court in March, which runs: 
* Quarto die Aprilis anno Dom: millimo sexcentesimo quadregesimo 
nono.' 3 

1 Renters' Accounts, 1648-9, fos. I r, 125 Rep. +132, p. 893. The 
Wardens were authorized to give allowances to those persons by whose means 
the warrant was obtained, ' having respect to the worth of the parties and the 
honour of the Company ', and 20 was accordingly given to Ed. Gravenor, 
Master General to Fairfax, as a gratuity for granting a protection to the 
Company against the quartering of the said soldiers in their Common Hall. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1648-9, fo. 49. Cf. Clode, London during the Rebellion, 
p. 41, for similar conduct on the part of other Companies. When Fairfax 
marched on London in the previous November he declared his intention of 
billeting his soldiers, not in private, but in great and void houses ; very likely to 
avoid any fraternizing of the soldiers with the citizens, although he offered to 
refrain from this, if the City would pay a sum of 40,000 out of the arrears of 
the assessments. From June 4, 1648, to January 15, 1649, there is a continued 
expenditure on c souldiers ' 3 generally four, night and day. These were no 
doubt to guard the Hall. 

2 Renters' Accounts, 1648-9, fos. 1 1, 12: c Spent on an Humiliation Day 
1 2th Sept. 1 2x. ^d. Paid to officers upon an Humiliation day at St. Pauls.' 

3 Rep. +131, p. 893. In October 1649, Thomas Foote, the Lord Mayor 
elect, issued a precept to the Ironmongers, reminding them of the order of 
Parliament to remove the arms of the late King from the things they were to 
use in attending him to Westminister. Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 285. This 
precept was probably issued to all the Companies, although it is not found in the 
Drapers' archives. 

1603-3 2 



HEN we turn to the 
internal history of the Com- 
pany during the reign of 
Charles I, our difficulty no 
longer arises from the scanti- 
ness of our information, but 
in selecting the items of 
importance from the mass 
of detail which crowds the 
Repertory and the Accounts. 
At first sight one is aston- 
ished to find the Company 
so deeply engaged in trivial 
business affairs at such a 
crisis of the history of the 
City and the country. 2 Yet, as we are constantly reminded, the 
times were those of stress, and brought with them many troubles 
and anxieties. 

Owing to the dislocation of all business, which resulted from 
the repeated visitations of the Plague, the agitation which 
preceded the outbreak of war and still more from the war itself, 
many who had been rich became impoverished, while those who 

1 The initial letter comes from Rep. + 133, p. n6b. 

2 For instance, in June 1641, when civil war seemed inevitable, the Court was 
discussing whether water should be brought from the New River to their alms- 
houses, and whether they should make a new passage into the garden. Rep. -f- 
i 3z, p. 1 8 a. 

notices with 
regard to 
the internal 
affairs of the 

General dis- 
location of 
business and 
increase of 

ness to serve 
as Master, 
Warden, and 

I7X Internal History of the Company 

were poor were reduced to great extremities. Under these 
circumstances there was a general disinclination to undertake the 
responsibilities of office ; and many were unable to pay their debts. 
We have already drawn attention to the numerous instances of 
refusal to serve on the part of those who had been elected Sheriffs. 
In some cases this is to be attributed to the deliberate policy of the 
municipal authorities, who chose those whom they believed would 
rather pay their fine to the City than undertake the irksome 
responsibility, in order that their fines might go to meet the loans 
and gifts made to the King and Parliament. This, however, would 
not apply to the Masters and Wardens of the Company, and yet 
no less than fifteen persons declined the office of Warden during 
the reign of Charles I. Sometimes illness or infirmity, sometimes 
absence from the City, sometimes important employment else- 
where was the pretext. The usual fine for this offence was 20. 
In some cases a smaller fine was imposed, and in a few instances, 
where there was a reasonable excuse, it was wholly remitted. 1 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 194 b, 199 b, zfia, z6z b, 163 b, 2,64 b, 1763, 299 b, 
311 b ; Rep. + 131, pp. 4? b, 46 b, 47 a, 80 a. In the case of Simon Adams, 
who in 1631 could not be found, his son-in-law refused to give the requisite 
information, lest it might be to his father-in-law's prejudice In 1644 J. Walker 
pleaded that he was serving on the Committee for the county of Essex for the 
Parliament, and was not able to travel owing to sickness. Robert Saythe, who 
was chosen in his place, gave as an excuse that he was Deputy Lieutenant and 
Justice of the Peace in the same county. Rep. +131, pp. 164 b, 16? a. In 
1644 Richard Davis was excused because he had been appointed Comptroller of 
the Customs at the Port of Dover. In all these cases the fine was remitted. 
But in 1636 George Thorogood paid his fine to be excused being one of the 
younger Wardens. In 1638, however, his fine was remitted because he had served 
in 1637-8. In 1646 E. Ashe paid his fine, although he had been elected 
a Member of Parliament. Rep. + 13 i, pp. 305 b, 313 b ; Rep. + 132, pp. 67 b. 
Besides these Wm. Geere, who was chosen in 1641, did not serve because he was 
c in parts beyond the sea '. He was elected youngest Warden in the following 
year. Walter Coventry, who was chosen in 1643, only attended one meeting of 
the Court, and was represented by a deputy for the rest of the year, probably 
because he was ill. Rep. + 131, pp. 14 b, 153, 31 b, 35 a, 44 b, 463. 

The general rules with regard to the election of Wardens were as follows : 

(a) The fourth Warden and the Renter Warden or third Warden were elected 
from persons who had never held the office of Warden. 

(/>) Any person elected Sheriff or Alderman or who c fined ' rather than accept 
office was forthwith called to the Court. Such persons were also eligible for the 
post of junior Warden, but were, if they wished, excused holding this office without 

during the Reign of Charles I 173 

But if any person not specially excused did not pay his fine, he 
would at the request of the Court be apprehended by the Sergeant- 
at-arms. In itfgp some of those who had served as junior 
Warden declared that, owing to the heavy expense incurred for 
the dinners, the fare of which had of late increased, and which 
exceeded that of almost any Company, persons were deterred from 
entering the Fraternity, and chose the Mercers, the Goldsmiths, 
the Fishmongers, the Salters, or even one of the inferior 
Companies; whereby not only did the Company lose many who 
would have been useful and profitable members, but that, owing 
to these heavy charges in their life- time, the said Wardens were 
unable to leave money for the use of poor members. It was 
therefore decided to raise the allowances for the dinners. 1 

That there are only three instances of Masters declining to 
serve 2 during the reign may be explained by the fact that they 
had not, like the Wardens, to bear the charges for dinners, 3 and 
that the office generally entailed less labour. Of refusal on the 
part of Yeomen to serve as Wardens of the Bachelors I have only 
noticed two cases, that of Mr. Knevitt in 1630 and Mr. Swynnocke 
in 163 3 4 . But, in December i<%r, the Wardens of the Bachelors 

paying a fine. Aldermen had precedence in the Court. For changes on these 
points cf. infra, p. 316. 

(c) The second Warden was elected from those who had held the position 
of one of the two youngest Wardens. 

(d) The Master or Upper Warden from those who had held the post of second 

(e) No person was elected to the office of Warden two years running. 

These rules were occasionally departed from under special circumstances. Cf. 
Rep. +131, p. 1393; Rep. + 131, p. 67 b. 

In 164? it was ordered that the election of the Wardens and the Master 
should be by ballot, c whereby the choice might be with more freedom and less 
exceptions \ Rep. + 131, p. Sob. 

1 Rep. + 13 r, p. 336 a b. This order was, however, revoked in August 164?, 
when it was decided that the dinner should be moderate in respect of the great 
misery of the times and the greate debts the Company is engaged to pay'. 
Rep. +131, pp. -)6 a, 6\ b. 

2 In 1638 John Withers, and in 1647 G. Thorogood and Walter Rogers. 
Rep. + 1 3 i, p. 3 zzb; Rep. + 131, p. 79 b. 

3 It was, however, the custom for the Master to present a buck for the election 
dinner. Cf. Rep. + 13 i, p. 313 a. 

4 Rep. +131, p. z^zz-y Letters + 183, fo. 146. Swynnocke was fined 

money not 
lent out, or 
not easily 

174 Internal History of the Company 

for the year prayed to be dispensed from paying their fines in 
lieu of the Bachelors' dinner to the support of the poor, since 
' times are hard, trade decayed, and monies hard to be come by ', 
or at least be spared until they should be called to the Livery. 1 
The petition was, however, resented by the Court of Assistants. 
They resolved that those Wardens of the Bachelors who refused 
to pay the said fines, or charges, should not be called to the Livery, 
and even raised the question whether, since the said Wardens had 
been so remiss of late in collection of quarterage, and generally 
had been of such small service to the Company, it would not be 
well to cease having any Wardens of the Bachelors at all. 2 

One of the most significant indications of the general slackness 
of business and general insecurity is to be found in the large 
amount of legacy money left to be lent out to young Drapers on 
starting life, for which either there was no demand, or for the 
repayment of which the Company could not find adequate 
security. This is especially noticeable after the year 1640. In 
164.3 ^2,800, and in the last year of the reign as much as 3,782, 
ifo. 6V., had found no borrowers. 3 Moreover, the Company 
found great difficulty in recovering the money which was lent 
out. In December 1632 the Court, being informed that as much 
35 r 33 I 5" J - f legacy money was in danger of being lost 
owing to the death or poverty of five sureties, it was decided that 
part of Mr. Sandbrooke's legacy money should be applied to meet 
the deficit, and that the balance should be paid by the Renter out 
of the Company's revenue. 4 Besides this there were as many as 
nine instances of those who had enjoyed the loans and six sureties s 
and were defaulters during the reign. 6 Usually the sureties were 

13 6s. : Wardens' Accounts, 1633-4, fo. 40. His reason was probably 
absence, as he is called c of Maidstone '. 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 60 a. 2 Ib., pp. 6^ a, 643. 

3 In 1614-$ the amount not lent out was only 225 j and in 1634-? 
/2 1 1 7s. lod. Cf. Abstracts of Wardens' Accounts 1614-5, 1634-5, 1643-4, 
1647-8, Appendices XVI A, XVII, XXI, XXIII c. 

4 Rep. +131, p. 193 b. 

5 In 16356 the debt of 113 l8/. owing by four persons was declared to 
be 'desperate'. Wardens' Accounts, 1635-6, fo. 24. 

6 The references are too numerous to give. But two instances are worth 

during the Reign of Charles I 175- 

only asked for. repayment of the principal without the interest 

due. 1 In a few cases a portion only of the principal was 

recovered, and that often only after a legal process. To stop 

this abuse the Wardens were enjoined in the year 164 5- to be 

more careful in the future as to the sufficiency of those who 

became sureties, 2 and in this way the evil appears to have been 

abated. 3 The same difficulty was found with regard to loans 

made to the Wardens of the Bachelors' Box. 4 We are therefore 

not surprised to find serious arrears both of rents and fines, Rents and 

whether they were due by members of the Company or by Fmes m 

others. It was not, indeed, till the year 1642, that this difficulty airears - 

became a serious one, but from that date till the end of the reign 

there are numerous instances. 3 In some cases the petition of the 

special notice. In 1637 the Court had great difficulty in recovering 60 from 
John Clarke, the creditor of Richard Carrier, one of the Wardens of the 
Yeomanry, who had died without repaying a loan of Yeomanry money. 
Eventually it was recovered, and 10 was paid to Carrier's widow. Rep. +131, 
pp. 311 b, 317 a. In 1637 Charles Leaminge procured a person to impersonate 
one of his sureties for a loan of legacy money. He was prosecuted, and the 
Renter ordered to be more careful in the future that no impersonation took place. 
Rep. +131, p. 3i7b. 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. ijpb, 311 bj Rep. + 132, pp. f b, 23 a b, 28 b, 48 a, 
J2 a, 63 a. In 1643 A. W. Baker, who owed foo, asks for respite 'in regard 
that little monies are now to be come by ', and undertakes to repay the debt 
with interest, even if divers silks which he has deposited with the Company for 
security of the debt be seized or plundered. Rep. +132, p. 26 b. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. $6b. 

3 In 1647-8, however, the following legacy money was still owed: z by the 
sureties of Richard Longe, deceased. 18 if/, by Ed. Salisbury. 40 because 
the borrower, A. Throgmorton, is poor, and all his sureties are dead except 
a Mr. Potter, who has protected himself against a judgement in the Sheriff's 
Court on the ground that c he is an officer to some Committee of Parliament '. 
And the following amounts had been remitted or lost : f in respect of the 
party's poverty. zj lost because both borrower and sureties were dead. 
Wardens' Accounts 1647-8, fos. I, 2, 6, 14. 

* Rep. +13*, P- 49 b - 

5 The references are too numerous to give. Suffice it to say that we have 
met with at least twelve fines amounting to over 486, and nine rents amounting 
to over 222, which were in arrear at various dates during the reign. In the 
last year, fines to the amount of 69 4*. zd. were long overdue, as well as 796 
due for that year, and rents to the amount of 187 i ?j. which were old arrears. 
See Renters' and Wardens' Accounts, 1647-8, in the Appendix XXIII A, B. These 

IT 6 Internal History of the Company 

parties to be given more time, or to have their rent or fine 
reduced, on account of the evil times, was granted ; ' in others 
the defaulters were proceeded against, or their leases were 
forfeited ; the Renter being given powers of attorney for the 
purpose. 3 In 1645- the Renter is ordered to be more careful in 
collecting rents, and to deliver the names of those in arrears 
speedily, and, because he is old, he is given a subordinate to help 
him. 3 Even the tenant of the Great House of Lothbury, 
Mistress Elizabeth de la Fontaine, asked for delay in accepting an 
offer to renew her lease on higher terms. She pleaded the 
distractions of the times and her being separated from her son, and 
finally assigned her lease to Mr. Lowther, a Draper, to whom 
eventually the lease was renewed on the old terms; 4 while the 
tenant of the Herber, Sir Edward Bromfield, became a bankrupt. 5 
Inasmuch also as tenants were continually under-letting, or 
assigning their leases without leave, and quarrelling concerning 
lights, watercourses and the like, resolutions were passed that for 
the future clauses should be inserted in every lease forbidding, on 
pain of a fine, any alienation or under-letting ; and that in cases of 
disputes the parties should abide by the decision of the Wardens 
for the time being. 6 

Charity. The most convincing proof of the general distress during the 

reign is, however, to be found in the great increase in the charities 

sums must be multiplied at least six times to realize what this would mean to-day. 
Cf. the continued complaints against the Renters for allowing rents to fall into 
arrear, e.g. Rep. + 131, pp. 210 a, 229 b, 279 bj Rep. + 132, pp. 62 b, 
63 a. 

1 In 1640 Thomas Shalcrosse had his lease extended on promise of a fat buck 
yearly for the election dinner. Rep. + 131, p. 338 b. In 1645 a Freeman of 
the Company got his rent reduced in memory of his kinsman, R. Buck, a bene- 
factor and late Master of the Company. Rep. +132, p. f j a. For Buck's will 
cf. Rep. + 436. 

2 Rep. 4- 1 32, p. 24 a. 3 Ib., pp. 58 b, 59 a b, 6^ a. 

4 Ib., pp. 28 a, 51 b. 

5 Sir Edward Bromfield, a member of the Fishmongers' Company, had been 
Mayor 1636-7, and was Governor of the Irish Society 1637-8. The lease had 
been assigned to him by Sir E. Barkham, and he was succeeded as tenant by 
Alderman Chambers, the famous merchant who had opposed the Ship Money 
levy. Rep. + 131, p. 300 bj Rep. + 132, p. 5? b. 

6 Rep. +131, p. 238 aj Rep. + 132, p. 83 b. 

during the Reign of Charles I 177 

dispensed by the Company. Of these charities quite an 
exceptional number were granted, either to persons who had 
once been of good estate, or to their widows, children, or 
kinsmen. Besides Edward Leaminge and Ferdinando Clutterbuck, 1 
who had been receiving assistance during the reign of James I, 
five more brethren 2 who had once been prosperous, and two 
relations of such persons, received charity. 3 

1 Edward Leaminge had been granted a pension of 20, and also an annuity of 
10 for himself and his wife for twenty-seven years, with remainder to be 
disposed of according to his will. In 1628 his widow was given an additional 
sum of 2. down ana 8 a year, in respect of her many children. On her death, 
which apparently occurred in 1633, his annuity, which had eleven years to run, 
was distributed according to his will, and 20 was also given to his children on 
condition c that they never be again suitors to the Court '. The Court however 
relented, for in 1634 his two daughters were given z ios. a year, and in 1635 
Thomas, his son, received a pension of 5. Rep. +131, pp. 195 a, 218 b, 270 a b, 
271 b, 291 b, 2983. These Leaminges were troublesome people j cf. the case of 
Charles Leaminge, who got a person to impersonate a surety, supra, p. 174, 
note 6. Clutterbuck was holding a pension of 10 in i6z6. In 163 t he received 
a further gratuity of i. In 1632 his daughter Mary Lee, then a widow, was 
given 6 i$s. 4^. to apprentice her son, and the same amount in 1634 to help 
her to set up as a chaundler. Rep. +131, pp. 1993, 249 a, 256 b, 293 b. 

2 1629. 6 i$s. Ofd. to Richard Langeley, once Bridge Master, son of 
a member of the Court. He had been in Virginia. Rep. +131, p. 2285 +259, 
p. 78. 

163 r. Pension of 8 to Thomas Tuesley (Teusley),aFreeman,andonce Mayor of 
Guildford. Rep. +131, p. 245 a; + 279 3 p. ioo. 

1634. 20 to be paid quarterly to Richard Trimnell, a woollen draper, who 
had been twice Warden, 1630-1, 1632-3. In 1635 he was appointed Renter. 
Rep. +131, pp. 191 a, 295 b. 

1640. House let at nominal rent to Philip Careles, a woollen draper, once 
with Richard Trimnell ; in the Livery. Rep. + 132, p. i a } Quarterage Book 4- 
259, p. 28 ; Livery List +301, fo. 22. 

1631. iz to Edward Snowden, a Freeman, an upholsterer, who in his better 
state had borne charges for the Company, to pay for transportation of his son to 
the Island of St. Christopher. Rep. 4-131, p. 246 bj Rep. 4-259, p. 120. 

3 Philip Quarles, grandson of John Quarles, sometime one of the Assistants, 
then in the debtors' prison. John Quarles, the grandfather, was an Assistant in 
1602. He was the son of John Quarles the Benefactor, and twice Master, 
1570-1, 1575-6. Jane Coventry, widow of a liveryman, was given 4 for 
placing of her daughter in service, and the promise of the next vacancy in 
Beech Lane Almshouse, 'in regard that she is descended of citizens of worth, 
and the widow of one in the clothing, of honest, religious, painful life, and of 

1603-3 A a 

178 Internal History of the Company 

In 1535- j was granted to Thomas Jarves, a Freeman of the 
Company, towards supplying his wants on going to Virginia. 1 

The Company were also generous to their servants. The widow 
of Humphrey Downes, for many years their Renter, received $ 
towards his burial in 1633. In 162,6' the Beadle, J. Eaton, 
received ^3 'in regard to his present sickness and the late 
visitation'. In 1636 y was given to the son of Richard 
Barnard, the next Beadle, who was shut up by reason of the 
Plague; and in 1638 his widow got a pension of 6* In 1636 
Richard Minors, the porter and under-Beadle, was granted 10 
towards the apparelling and setting forth of his daughter on her 
marriage, and although Minors' petition for an increase of his 
salary in 1643, on the ground of the important duties he had to 
perform, was by the Wardens adjudged to be ' frivolous ', yet ' in 
respect of his charge of children, and for his better encourage- 
ment of painstaking hereafter, and utterly to take out of his 
mind the conceit or questioning of the fbresaid things claimed as 
any way belonging unto him ', his salary and allowances were 
raised from 7 to 10; while in the following year a further 
gratuity of ^10 was given to his son, who was going to India in 
the service of the East India Company. 3 In 1631 the Butler, 
R. Trott, was lent 30 wherewith to pay his debts, and in 1646 
his widow was given a gratuity of j-. 4 

Further details would be wearisome. Suffice it to say that, in 
addition to the charities which were the result of benefactions, 
the Company made the following contributions out of their 
corporate revenue : The usual 2,0, distributed every year at 

such humble mind as she desireth to be admitted ' to an almshouse. Rep. + 
131, p. Z4j b; Rep. + 131, pp. 55 a, 71 a. 

1 Wardens' Accounts, 1634-5, fo. 63. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 100 b, 1553, z/^ b, 3043, 3103. 

3 Rep. +131, p. 3043; Rep. + 131, pp. 30 b, 503. The office of under- 
Beadle, 01 Porter, had only been established in 1615 (Rep. +131, pp. 67 a, 
loob); and the Wardens evidently thought that Minors exaggerated his 
importance. He certainly was 3 good beggar, for in 1647-8 the Company gave 
yet another gratuity of 10 to the same or another son to relieve him from 
prison. Minors' son had joined the Royalist revolt at Colchester, and wss anxious 
to go to the East Indies- Wardens' Accounts, 1647-8, fo. 49. 

4 Rep. -f 131, p. 255 A; Rep. +131, p. 66 b. 

during the Reign of Charles I 179 

Easter and at Christmas, was increased on exceptional occasions; 1 
at least eight poor brethren and one poor sister were personally 
relieved ; seven brethren and four sisters were given money 
wherewith to meet the charge of apprenticing their sons, or 
starting their daughters in service; the son of one had his fee on 
entry by redemption returned, and seven other children of 
freemen received gratuities. 2 

The reasons given for some of these charities are quaintly 
expressed. Benedict Webbe now in prison, * who setteth nis own 
demerit for and touching the clothing of this kingdom, making 
of rape oil and perpetuanoes ', needs money for recovering his 
right by law. 3 The son of Richard Champion is given a suit 
or clothes, but not money, it being questionable whether he 
would not wastefully spend the money ! A widow seeks help to 
make a stock to keep two infirm children on work in making 
buttons. A daughter of a Draper deceased, having a kind of 
leprous disease, and the physicians saying the only hope of cure 
is ' by the Bathe ', she ' craves help for the journey to the Bath '. 
A poor schoolmaster, brother of the Company, receives $ in 
respect of his poverty in not keeping school. On the petition of 
Jacob Smith, 10 is to be given to the merchant who shall 
transport him and his son to Virginia, when they are shipped ! 
If the son be not shipped, then only 6 is to be paid and the 
remainder spent on apprenticing the son. The pension of one 

1 Thus at Christmas 1617, zf was distributed c in regard to the hardness of 
the times' ; at Christmas 1630, 60 was paid by the Stewards in lieu of their 
charges for dinners forborne, and in 1636 and 1641 the money paid by the 
Wardens for the same reason was added. At Easter 1633 the balance of 
Wm. Terry's legacy money, and at Easter 1646 the fines received from the 
Master Bachelors in lieu of their charges, or imposed for not having collected the 
quarterage, or other offences, were appropriated to the same purpose. Rep. + 
131, pp. iiib, 241 b, 30^ b, 169 b; Rep. + 131, pp. 25 b, 63 b. These 
instances by no means exhaust the list. 

2 Some of these apprenticeship fees were paid out of a legacy of fo left by 
Lady Garway. Others were found by the Company. Rep. +131, pp. lib, 
13 ab. 

3 Rep. +131, p. 301 a. Perpetuano' is a durable wool fabric, something 
like serge. Why the same man should be making two such very different 
things, I cannot say. It should be noted that this man was not a member of the 
Company, as we might expect. 

180 Internal History of the Company 

woman is stopped because she has married a girdler, who is no 
longer a brother and because she is no longer in want. 

Lastly we find the Company acting as an Insurance Society to 
its members, probably on somewhat better terms than would at 
that time have been offered by an ordinary Insurance Company. 
Thus in 164.5* they grant an annuity of 8 a year to a Freeman of 
the Company, S. Smallwood, on his payment of fo, he being 
76 years of age, and pleading that if he lost the 5-0 in any 
commercial venture he would have nothing to live on. 1 In 
February 1646' another annuity is given to a ' citizen of worth ', 
who did not want his name known, on a larger scale. On his 
paying 1,2, 5-0 the Court agrees to give him 8 per cent, for the 
rest or his life, and after his decease to appropriate 4 per cent, to 
the poor of the Company ; 2 while Sarah Cullimore, a sister of the 
Company and daughter of G. Cullimore, receives 4 a year on 
her paying 20 down, she, owing to her infirmity, not being 
able to take that pains and course for her living as she otherwise 
would have done. 3 

The charity given to those who were not members was 
naturally much less. In times of the Plague or of great general 
distress the Court distributed doles to the parishes most visited, 
and now and then gave gratuities to particular persons. Thus in 
1641, 6 i%s. 4</. was granted towards the relief of John Neesinge, 
sometime burgess and councillor of Magdeburg, * after his long 
suffering, misery and sickness, which befell him in his hard usage 
upon the late lamentable bloody and cruel massacre ' at that 
town. 4 As had been the case under James I, assistance was also 

1 Rep. + 13 i, pp. 145 a, 153 3,1903,3063} Rep. +131, pp. 45 3,583, 793. 
Smallwood sppsrently died before receiving sny annuity, ss there is no reference 
to the payment of this annuity in later Wardens' Accounts. 

2 Rep. + I3Z, pp. 55 a b, 64 b, 65 b. This person, we learn from Wardens' 
Accounts 1647-8, fo. 45, was John Smith, who had been Master in 16445. 
He died in 1655. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 71. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 553. She wss probably the dsughter of G. Cullimorcj who 
was only a Freeman, and granddaughter of George Cullimore, a great merchant 
and twice Warden of the Company, 1590-1, 1598-9. Cf. vol. ii, pp. 180, 189 
of this work. 

4 Rep. +131, p. z8ia. The Protestant town of Magdeburg was stormed 
and sacked by Tilly in May 16^1, during the Thirty Years War. 

during the Reign of Charles I 181 

given to those who suffered from the Turkish privateers. The 
wives of eleven persons received moneys towards the ransom of 
their husbands, who were * in most miserable bondage and 
captivitie under the Turke ', and Wm. Steed, a Freeman of the 
Company, $ on behalf of his son, a captive in Argeir ' 

From the table given below 3 it will be seen that there was, with 
the exception of the amount distributed by the Company among 
outsiders, a notable increase in the expenditure on charity between 
the first year of the reign and the year 163^-6, an increase which 
was, however, mainly due to private benefactions. Although, as 
we should expect, there is a marked decrease in the number of 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 197 a, 298 a. In some of these cases the Court, however, 
insisted on security being given that the money should be repaid if the captives 
died before they were ransomed. By the Turks are probably meant the Algerine 
pirates, who were a constant menace to traders of the day. The Council of 
Trinity House reported in 1617 that above 300 English and Scotch ships had 
been taken by Turkish pirates. Hist. MSS. Commission, 8th Report, 1881, 
p. 13?. 

Poor of Company. Poor not of Company. 



Gift of Co. 

By Will. 

Gift of Co. 

i62 4 -f 









Wardens' Accts. 




103 o 








Renters' Accts. 




66 ii 









169 12 








Wardens' Accts. 



93 f 




f J 



Renters' Accts. 




126 10 












219 i$ 




1 1 





Wardens' Accts. 




99 3 








Renters' Accts. 
















220 3 








In 1646-7 a novel expedient for raising money for the poor was tried. The 
leaseholders of the Company were asked to put money in a box. The appeal 
was not very successful. It produced i los. Wardens' Accounts, 1646-7, 
fo. 34. 

Internal History of the Company 

bequests after 1640,' the slight decrease in the item in the year 
1647-8 was mainly due to the fact that in that year part of 
Rainey's charity was then appropriated to a lecturer at St. 
Michael's,* and this in spite of the bequest of John Kendrick in 
1637 of a sum which brought in '12, IQJ. a year. Mean- 
while the charity dispensed by the Company among its members, 
after rising some 5-0 between 1 62,4-5- and 1 63^-6, remained 
nearly stationary, while the amount granted to outsiders steadily 
declined from po to 2,2, i6s. 8</. We are probably correct in 
attributing this decline to the hardness of the times and the 
difficulty of finding money for general charity in addition to the 
claims of members. 

The Alms- The almsmen and women appear to have given less trouble 
men and than they had in previous reigns. The only offences mentioned 
Women. were t h ose o f unquietness on the part of the women, and of 
marrying without consent. Of the latter breach of rules, four 
men and two women were guilty. The usual penalty was dis- 
missal from the house. In 1645- all pensioners were ordered to 
wear badges with the Company's Arms on their breasts, on pain 
of dismissal for disobedience. 3 Daily prayers were read at least in 

1 The total amount of charitable Bequests during the reign were 

A. Money ......... 4060 

B. Lands producing rents of about ...... 96 

C. An annuity of . . . . . . 6134 

D. Loans to young men, the interest to be spent in charity 400 o oo 
Of these bequests only three came into operation after 1640. The decrease 

in the amount of money left to be lent out to young Freemen of the Company is 
noticeable. In the reign of James I no less than 1,880 was so left. Cf. 
Appendix, Benefactions XLVII. 

2 Rainey had left provision in his will that, if there was no lecture at 
St. Michael's, part of his bequest should be distributed among poor members of 
the Company. In 1635-6 no lecturer was appointed, because the Bishop of 
London had refused to accept him j in 1647-8 the lecturer had been 

3 Rep. +131, pp. aoib, 3013; Rep. +131, pp. 13 b, 54b, j8b. By 
a resolution of 1619 the Wardens were charged with the duty of visiting the 
Almshouses every three months, and of deducting from the pensions of the 
inmates the amount of any fines they had incurred. Rep. + 13 i, p. 130 a. In 
164? they were specially instructed to superintend the administration of all 
charities. Rep. + 131, p. j8b. 

during the Reign of Charles I 183 

Milborne's Almhouses. The duty apparently was done by a poor 
brother. In 163 2, one Arthur Stiles, who ' ran up and down on 
the Company's business ', was the reader, receiving a fee of 40^. 
a year. In 1647 he petitioned for admission into the Almhouse, 
but was not successful. 1 

That during the earlier years of Charles I the religious parties 
of the day were represented in the Company is shown by the 
different forms of charity dispensed from both its corporate 
revenues and by individual members. Thus on the one hand 
grants are made for the building and restoration of Churches, a 
work in which Laud> the leader of the High Church party, had 
much at heart. 2 Not only did the Company contribute 10 in 
162,9 to the building or re-building of the steeple of their Parish 
Church, St. Peter le Poor, 3 but in 163 x they responded to the 
request of the Bishop of London by promising 400, in yearly 
instalments of 40, towards the restoration of St Paul's, c if the 
work be continued to the satisfaction of the Court ', 4 and gave 
help towards the repair of six other Churches. 5 In 162, 7 they 
turned a room in their almshouses at Tower Hill into a chapel, 
and made provision for the reading of prayers twice a day by 

1 Rep, + 1315 z6i a; Rep, +131, p. 81 a; Wardens' Accounts, 1^31-3, fos t 


2 Laud devoted the most strenuous efforts to improve the condition of the 
churches both externally and internally. Many had of late fallen into decay, 
owing partly at least to the Puritan disregard, and even dislike, to all such things 
as superstitions. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 32ob. 

4 Ib., p. 25 8 a. Other Companies did the same, e.g. the Ironmongers; cf. 
Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. i$7. Mr. Nicholl reminds us that the nave of 
St. Paul's was at that time the resort of Lords, gentry, e and men of all professions 
not merely mechanic ', who discoursedj some of business and others of news. 

5 1630 jo towards rebuilding of St. Catherine Creechurch. 

10 towards repairing church of St. George in Southwark. Rep. + 

131, p. 2373. 
10 towards new steeple for St. Peter, Cornhill, it being considered 

a work of piety'. Ib., p. 277 b. 
f towards repairing church of St. Mary Matfellon in Whitechapel. 

Ib., p. 284 b. 

2 f towards rebuilding church of St. Alban's WoodStreet. Ib.,p. 293 a. 
20 marks towards repairing church of St. Nicholas Aeon. Ib., 

p. 3033. 

The Com- 
pany not 
to one 


tions towards 
building and 
repairing of 


at Church 



184- Internal History of the Company 

one of the pensioners. 1 It is, however, noticeable that all these 
subscriptions belong to the period before the calling of the Long 
Parliament. After that date the religious and political opposition 
to the Crown became identified, and the City was too deeply 
concerned in the greater issues of the time to think of the repair 
or building of churches. Evidently, however, the Company was 
no enemy to church-going, at all events before the meeting of the 

Attendance Long Parliament in 164.0. In 1657, on hearing that there was 
a poor attendance at the service provided for them by the will of 
John Kendrick at St. Christopher's at six in the morning, a special 
order was made that the Assistants and the Livery should hereafter 
attend * in decent manner in their liveries ' once before, or after, 
Lady Day and Michaelmas Day ; while for their bodily refresh- 
ment cakes and wine were to be provided at the Hall after the 
services. 2 

A more convincing proof, however, that the Company was not 
at that time strongly opposed to the High Church or Arminian 
party is seen in the appointment of Wm. Brough, a follower 

Vicarage of of Laud, to the Vicarage of St. Michael's in February 162,5-. 

Sr.Michael's. There appears to have been some informality in the presenta- 
tion, for in the following March he asked for a new presentation 
in respect * there is some danger of ye Law being taken by 
ye Bishop of London ', 3 ' touchinge ye losse of his benefice if 
ye same be espied, before he shall have a new presentation '. 
This was accordingly done. In 1638 Brough was appointed 
Chaplain to the King and Canon of Windsor, and in Decem- 
ber 1641 he asked to be allowed to surrender his living to 
a certain Mr. Jaggard, B.D. Apparently the negotiation fell 
through, for, in June 1646, we find the parishioners informing 
the Court that there are * great hopes for ye outing of Doctor 
Brough from his benefice, and this me rather because the parish 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 103 b, 133 b, zq.o a. The usual fee was i a year. 

2 Ib., p. 306 b. Kendrick had left 333 year for the service. 

3 This was George Montaigne, who became Archbishop of York in i6zS. 
The reason for the opposition of the Bishop was apparently not because he 
disapproved of Brough's opinions, for at this time Montaigne was a supporter of 
the Arminian party. He was, however, by all accounts a time serving and self- 
seeking man. Cf. Gardiner, History of England, ed. 1884, vol. vi, p. 107. 

during the Reign of Charles I 

by the order of the Committee of Parliament is to allow among 
his children a fifth part of ye profits of ye parsonage, whereby 
there will not be much left for the maintenance of another 
minister ', and asking the Company to join them in petitioning for 
his removal. The Court however declined to intermeddle, and 
advised the parish to do what they thought fit, and as counsel 
should advise. He was apparently turned out of his living shortly 
after, and joined the King, who rewarded him with the Deanery 
of Gloucester in lo^. We hear little more of him till the 
Restoration, though his wife and children were turned out of 
doors by the Parliamentary Commission, and his wife is said to 
have died of grief He was then restored to his deanery and 
apparently regained his living of St. Michael's, which he finally 
resigned in i66^., 1 But wKile thus showing sympathy with the 
Church party, the strong Protestant feeling shared by some of the 
mssistants is well illustrated by the gratuities dispensed to distressed 
Ainisters. Thus no less than twelve ministers received gratuities Relief given 
ranging from ? to 1 during the reign. Of these, one, William to ministers. 
Freak e, was a Freeman of the Company, six others were English- 
men, and five were foreign exiles. 2 

In 1638 they also grant ^'3 to the widow of that famous and 
reverend Divine Ms. William Perkins', 3 and in 1634, 2, to the 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 1913, 193 b j Rep. + 132, pp. 12 b, 14 a b, 66 a j A 32, 
fos. 1 8, 20 ; Diet. National Biography. 

2 English. Mr. Freeman, a Freeman of the Company 3 

John Trebick whose house had been burnt <> 

Peter Hudfield, an ancient divine. 2. 

John Alkis. i 

George Blagbourne, blind. 3 

Mr. Salisbury long sick. 368 

Matthew Page, in a debtors prison. z 

Foreigners. Bartholomew Sykertoe, a Bohemian. i 

John Sictor, a Bohemian. z 

Jasper Flavbennino, an exile. 1 
John de Luna, lecturer in Spanish at St. Bartholomew's 

Church, pension of t 

Lucius Frezzan, D. D. an Italian z 

Rep. +131, pp. 242 b, 243 bj 245 a, 306 a b, 336 a ; Rep. + 132, pp. i b, 


3 Rep. +131, p. 31 8 a. Perkins was a noted Puritan divine of Calvinistic 
1603-3 B b 

186 Internal History of the Company 

son of the minister on their Irish estate, who had lost his legs and 
received wounds in his head at the isle of Rea, to pay for his 
Endowment Passage to Ireland. 1 So again we find several instances of money 
of lecture- left about this time to 'lecturers' or preachers. 2 These lecturers, 
ships. or preachers, were appointed to preach in certain churches with- 

out having any cure of souls. They were in great favour with 
the Puritan party, who strove in this way to propagate their 
principles, and for this reason were much disliked by Laud. In 
1630 he induced the King to issue instructions to the Bishops 
ordering them to ascertain how the lecturers ' behaved themselves 
in their sermons ' and insisting that the lecturers should read 
divine service, properly vested, before their lecture. 3 Rainey 
indeed, who in 1652. bequeathed money for the appointment of 
a preacher at Worsburgh and of a lecturer at St. Michael's, was 
evidently a good Churchman, and left special instructions that 
these rules should be complied with, and that the doctrines of the 
Church of England should be taught. Some difficulty, however, 
arose as to the appointment of the lecturer at St. Michael's. 
The Lee- According to the will of John Rainey, in December 1633 the 

turer at St. Bishop of London, Wm. Juxon, claimed the right of appointment, 
which he declared ' wholly rested in him ', and suggested that, as 
he and the Company could not agree, they should follow the 

views. His opponent was Arminius, the founder of the Arminian or Laudian 
party. Cf. Diet. National Biography. 

1 Rep. +131, p. 291 a. The isle of Rhe. I presume this must have happened 
in Buckingham's disastrous expedition in 1617. 

2 Already in Elizabeth's reign William Parker had left 6 a year to found 
a lectureship at St. Antholins. Cf. vol. ii, p. 486. In 1613 a Society was 
formed, called c The Collectors of St. Antholins ', for the object of buying 
impropriations and advowsons with a view of presenting trusted persons to the 
livings and to endow lecturers : it was dissolved by Laud in 1633. Rushworth, 
ed. 1711, vol. ii, pp. 150 ff. I do not know whether there was any connexion 
between this Society and Parker's Lectureship. In 1593 Th. Russell had left 
i ot. to twenty unbeneficed preachers at St. Paul's Cross. These were diicon- 
tinued in 1641 and not resumed till 165?. Cf. Renters' Accounts for these 
years. During the reign of James I and Charles I there were three more such 
endowments: 1611, Sutton, for a preacher at Bampton; 1631, Rainey, for 
a preacher at Worsburgh and lecturer at St. Michael's, Cornhill } 
Shalcross, for a preacher at Barton. 

3 Rushwotth, ed. 1 711, vol. ii, p. 30. 

during the Reign of Charles I 187 

terms of Rainey's will. This had provided that, if a lecturer were 
not appointed, the fee of 1 should be devoted to the relief of the 
children of Christ's Hospital and the poor of the Company. 1 The 
Court for the time complied. In 1641, however, at the request of 
the parishioners they proceeded to appoint a Mr. Price, who was 
forthwith elected a Freeman of the Company, the Bishop apparently 
giving way. In lo^fj*, on another lecturer being nominated, he 
was instructed to omit the use of the Book of Common Prayer 
according to the Order of the Directory, he on his part under- 
taking to ' conceive fitting prayers ' before the Sermon. 2 The 
justice of this order may be questioned. Rainey, who had died 
not earlier than February 1631, had specially provided in his 
will that the prayers should be those allowed by the Church of 
England, and that the lecturer should urge on his congregation 
the duty of monthly attendance at the Holy Sacrament. But the 
methods of the Commonwealth were as arbitrary as those of 
Charles himself 

The affairs of the College of Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich, QueenEliza- 
which had been founded by William Lambard in the reign of b h Col- 
Elizabeth, and of the two schools at Barton and Stratford at le S e > * nd 
Bowe, 3 are at this time of some interest. We are reminded that strafordat 
the lands belonging to the College were held of the Company as Bowe and 
the Manor of Breuchley or Cryell, and that the lands had been at Barton, 
leased in i6op and in 1618 to Sir Multon Lambard, the son of 
the founder, who was to hold a Court Baron according to the 
founder's will. In 1637 the lease for twenty-one years was 
renewed, and the Manor granted to Thomas the son of Sir Mul- 
ton, the rent thereof being increased by ?.* Some alterations 

1 This in a codicil dated February 30, 1632 ; cf. 4-417, fo. 47. In the copies 
of the Will of February 25, 1632, given in 4- 2, p. 12 a, Rainey directs that, if 
the incumbent of St. Michael will not allow the lecture to be given in that 
church, it is to be given elsewhere. 

2 Rep. 4- 13 i, pp. 180 b, 281 b, 282 b, 283 a, 3133; Rep. 4-132, pp. ? b, 
26 a, 54 a b. 

3 Barton School had been endowed by Thomas Russell in 1593, and the 
School at Stratford at Bowe founded and endowed by Sir John Jolles in the 
reign of James I. 

* Rep. 4- 131, pp, 141 a, 228 b, 307 a ; + 356, pp. 41 fF., 139 fF., 170 ff. A 
Court Baron is a court of the freeholders of a Manor, as distinguished from 

i88 Internal History of the Company 

were also made with regard to the finances of the College. In 
the first place the College was relieved of the expenses of the 
two Upper Wardens' visits. The Company itself undertook to 
pay $ towards these expenses, anything in excess of the said 
sum being thrown upon the Wardens themselves. In 1641 the 
sum contributed by the Company was increased to 6.* In 
1 645- it was ordered that the Master, Goodman Goodridge, was 
in future to enter the sums, which he received from certain 
woods, in the accounts, and not, as he had done of late, distribute 
them as they came in among the pensioners of the College. 2 It 
was the custom for the balance of the account to be borrowed by 
the Company ; the interest being appropriated to the use of the 
pensioners. 3 An interesting resolution that the ground-floors of 
the College buildings should be boarded, because the earthen floors 
were cold and damp, is evidence that there was a rise in the 
standard of living at this period. 4 

The condition of the school and almshouse at Stratford at Bowe 
appears to have been satisfactory. On the resignation of the 
Master in 162.6', his son was appointed to his place, and in 
1641 a * convenient house ' was built for him. 5 It was, however, 
otherwise with the school at Barton. In 1630 complaints were 
made that the Master, Anthony Huxley, had neglected his duties 
and had ' taken to ministry and somewhat to husbandry ' with the 
result * that little profit had come to the scholars '. Huxley at 
first disputed the right of the Company to interfere, declaring 
that the power to dismiss the Master lay with the Bishop of 
Coventry and Lichfield. The Lord Keeper, however, on being 
appealed to, declared in favour of the Company, and Huxley 
resigned, on condition that he was allowed to reap the corn he 
had sown on the school ground ! 6 His successor, Anthony Mason, 

a court Customary or court of the Copyholders. In it the duties and dues of 
the freeholders of the Manor, and petty suits arising within the Manor, are dealt 
with. Cf. Holdings of the Manor Court of Breuchley, +356, fos. 223 fF. 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 149 b, 150 a ; Rep. + 132, p. 1 1 a. 

2 Rep. + 132, pp. 583, 68 b. 3 Ib., p. 68 b, 71 a, 73 a. 

4 Rep. +131, 149 b. 5 Rep. + 131, p. 203 a; Rep. + 132, p. 4 b. 

6 Rep. +131, pp. 242 b, 258 a; Letter Book +383, fos. 15, 16. We hear 
of the same complaint of the Master of Barton neglecting his duties and c taking 
to ministry ' in the reign of James I ; cf. supra, p. 113. 

during the Reign of Charles I 189 

was no more satisfactory. He was also shortly dismissed for 
neglecting the school and spending his time in the * ministry '. 
His excuse was that his salary of 1 2, a year was inadequate, an 
excuse which finds some support in the difficulty experienced by 
the Company in finding any one to take his place. 1 

In spite of these troubles, the interest taken in education by 
members of the Society did not cease. In 1631 John Rainey, 
who had, as already mentioned, founded a lecturership at St. 
Michael's and a preachership at Worsburgh, left an endowment 
to pay the salary of the schoolmaster at the same place. The 
teaching was to comprise writing and ciphering and the grounds 
of religion as established in the realm. 2 

In addition to the maintenance of these Schools, the exhibitions 
at Oxford and Cambridge, with additional sums for books and 
sometimes gratuities to students commencing their M.A., 3 were 
continued, except that during the first Civil War no exhibition 
appears to have been given at Oxford, perhaps because that city 
was in the hands of the Royalists/ For these exhibitions, sons 
of members of the Company had a prior claim. In 1638 the 
petition of Dr. Holdsworth, the Master of Emmanuel College, for 
^'30 or ^ $ towards the endowment of a Fellowship in that College, 
on condition that sons of Drapers in that College and then sons of 
Drapers at other Colleges in the University of Cambridge should 
have precedence for election if they be fit, 5 was favourably received. 

There are a good many references at this date to a somewhat 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 6<> a, 77 a, 83 a, 84 b. 

2 Wills +416, p. 243. 

3 e.g. Rep. + 131, pp. 200 b, 103 a, 278-84; Rep. + 131, pp. 27 a, 67 a. 

4 Oxford surrendered in June 1646. The Oxford Exhibition is again 
mentioned in May 1647. An application for one in the previous October had 
been refused on the ground that there was none to be had ' ; Rep. + 1 3 2, p. 76 a. 
This however may mean that the Scholarships filled up before the outbreak of 
the war were not vacant till May 1647. When in May 1643 an exhibition was 
granted to Gonville and Caius College, the College is, by mistake, said to be in 
Oxford ! Rep. + 1 3 2, p. 2 8 b. 

5 Rep. +131? p. 32,5 a. The Master also petitioned other Companies for 
assistance towards establishing Fellowships, on the ground that there were many 
scholarships, but only twelve Fellowships, by the want of which the students 
received a great prejudice. Apparently the scheme was never carried through. 
The Master of Emmanuel College tells me that there is no record of any such 

at Oxford 
and Cam- 

The Tackle 
House Por- 

190 Internal History of the Company 

curious organization called the Tackle House Porters. 1 They 
were the porters employed at the Company's landing-place on the 
Thames, although they did not work exclusively for the Drapers. 
They were at first divided into three grades, the labourers, the 
under Porters, and ten Master or Fellow Porters, although at later 
date the two first are merged in that of the servants. Promotion 
from one grade to the higher was usual, if the applicant was 
considered to be fit and capable. The Master Porters or Fellows, 
of whom there were four, were appointed by the Court of 
Assistants, and paid an entrance fee of 2, towards the future 
repair of the ' tackling '. The servants were appointed and could 
be dismissed by the Master Warden for the time being. They 
were paid a weekly wage of f s. by the Master Porters, besides 
any fees they might receive from Merchants or others who 
employed them. The receipts of the Master Porters and fines for 
any misconduct were administered by one of the Masters in turn, 
and divided equally. Like all organizations of this kind, the 
Society had its benefit side. Those who were unable to work 
from old age shared in the common receipts of the Society, while 
the widow or children of a deceased Master Porter received 20 

Fellowship in the College archives, which are however very incomplete, and that 
the College is still in the same difficulty with regard to its Fellowships. The 
Company itself often gave its exhibitions to students at Emmanuel College ; e.g. 
Rep. +131, p. 33 a. 

1 On the earlier history of these Porters cf. vol. ii of this work, p. i6j. 
Other Companies had their tackle-house porters, and the Vintners' Company still 
have an association of the kind. Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 365 Hopkinson, 
Ancient Records of the Merchant Taylors' Company, p. 36. They are to be 
distinguished from the Fellowship Porters, which was an Association of Porters 
who loaded and unloaded at the docks, and who, according to Maitland, were 
constituted into a Fraternity by Act of Common Council in 1646, but were never 
incorporated. It is probable that the Master Porters of the separate Gilds 
belonged to this Fraternity. Cf. Hazlitt, Livery Companies, p. 154; Strype's 
Stow, cd. 1755, vo '- iij PP- ? ! 5 ff- Maitland, London, ed. 1756, vol. i, p. 471 ; 
Second Report on Municipal Corporations, 1837, vol. i, pp. 179-81. 

In 1794 the Company petitioned against certain proposals then before the 
Court of Common Council to abridge the rights of these Tackle House Porters j 
and in 1797 the Haberdashers asked the Drapers to join with them and other 
Companies in petitioning Parliament to extend the privileges of the Tackle 
House Porters to the proposed new wharves at Wapping. The Company, however, 
took no action. Records + 137, pp. 138, 311. 

during the Reign of Charles I 191 

on his death from the surviving Fellows, and the successor to his 
place received only servant's wages until he had repaid the sum. 

They appear to have fallen into a somewhat unsatisfactory 
condition at the beginning of the reign, and regulations were from 
time to time passed for their reformation. It 162, 7 it was ordered 
that poor Freemen of the Company should, if fit persons could be 
found, be admitted as servants in preference to strangers, and this 
rule was extended to the Master Porters in 1633. In 164:1 the 
Master Porters of various Companies were accused of entering 
into combinations to raise their fees, and in 164.6 the fees were fixed 
by an Act of Common Council. In spite of these regulations, 
complaint was made in 164? that the Tackle House Porters of 
the Drapers were the worst of all, and that their work was so 
negligently done, that even Drapers would not employ them. 
The only remedy thought likely to be of any use was to insist 
more strictly on the old rule that every Master Porter should on 
admission find adequate sureties to the amount of ^2,0, which 
would be forfeited if in future he or his servants were in any way 
remiss or dishonest. In the reign of Charles II the Orders were 
revised and reinforced. 1 

The number of the Assistants varied very little during the Number of 
reign of Charles I. In the year August 1615-6 it had fallen to the Assist- 
18 ; but it rose again in the succeeding years, till in 1633 there * nts and 
were 34 members of the Court. From that period till the end of lverym 
the reign the variations were slight. 

The fluctuations in the number of those in the Livery were 
more pronounced. In the year August 1615-6 they were fewer 
by twenty than they had been in the previous year; no doubt, 
partly at least, in consequence of the Plague, 2 and the number 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 103 b, 104 b, 1643, 176 b, 331 a b; Rep. + 131, pp. toa, 
13 b, 60 a, 1303 : +133, p. i a. Wardens' Accounts 1659-60, fo. 17 } 1664-5, 
fo. 39. For the Orders of 1676 cf. Appendix XXXVII. 

Court. Li-very. 

1613-4 19 105 

1614-5 .... 30 100 

1615-6 .... 18 80 

The Master, three Assistants, and fifteen Liverymen died between August 
161455 +301, fo. 18. 

5 of the Assistants J. Cotton, Ralph Flower, Henry Garway, Walter 

Number of 
the Free- 


Internal History of the Company 

never rose higher than 4. For the rest the variation in the 
numbers was due to the fact that as a general rule new members 
were only added every fourth year, and sometimes not for five 
years. This however caused considerable discontent among the 
Wardens of the Bachelors, because, by being admitted to the 
Livery, they escaped the charges imposed on them for the Lord 
Mayor's Pageants, when he was a Draper. 1 Those who were 
called to the Livery were usually such as had served as Wardens 
of the Bachelors since the last time when the Livery had been 
increased. To those were sometimes added others, who were 
thought fit in regard to profession, estate and understanding ; 
especially when a Draper was Mayor, in order that their fines or 
fees might go towards the expenses of the Lord Mayor's Day, and 
thus relieve the rest of the Yeomanry or Bachelors. 2 

In the year 1633 we are told that the Beadle and the Porter 
were forbidden to demand fees beyond those allowed by the 
ordinances, for the binding of apprentices and for entering of 
apprentices into the freedom, as they had done of kte, although 
they might accept them if offered. 3 In zo'gjp the Wardens 

Rogers, Michael Warner ; and four of the Livery, Rich: Fenton, Rob: Haley, 
Thos: Walmsley and S. Watkins disappear from the lists at times during the Civil 
War. The reasons are not given. 

1 Rep. +13:, pp. *47b, 331 b, 339 b. 

2 Thus in October 1626, ten besides the Wardens of the Bachelors were 
called, for the better ease of the young men of the Company '. Each one so 
called and accepting was to pay forty marks. The proceeds were to be applied 
to the payments of the shows and triumphs of the Lord Mayor elect, Cuthbert 
Hackett. Rep. +131, pp. 101 a b. Again, in 1639 when Garway was Mayor, 
eleven were taken into the Livery, besides Lewis Roberts, who, having been for 
many years capable of his freedom, was admitted at once into the Livery. 
Rep. + 13 i, p. 331 b ; Bachelors' Accounts + 178, fos. 49, 95. 

For the fees paid on entrance into the Livery see vol. ii of this book, p. 193. 
It appears also that it had been the custom for a buck, or sugar loaves, or a fee 
of 2OJ., to be given in the case of the Wardens of the Bachelors entering, and 
4O/. in the case of others ; and in 1648 it was decided that a fee of zot. should 
be in future demanded in a c loving and friendly way ', and that those who declined 
to comply should not be invited to the election dinner. Rep. + 132, p. 85 b. 

3 Rep. +131, p. 279 b, viz. is. each from every one entering the freedom 
through apprenticeship, and is. from those entering by patrimony, or redemption, 
instead of $d. which the Beadle was allowed to charge for all entering by any 
one of these three avenues. They had also taken $d. each for enrolment of 
apprentices, when no charge should have been made. 

during the Reign of Charles I 193 

declared that people were deterred from entering the Company 
because of the heavy charges incurred by them for dinners, 
charges which were greater than those borne by the Wardens of 
almost every other Company % while in 1 644 the Beadle com- 
plained that ' his gettings ' by presenting apprentices and making 
men free of the Company had fallen off lately. 3 Whereas the 
fear of expense to be incurred when, and if, the person entering 
became a Warden would seem to be too remote to deter many 
from becoming ordinary freemen, it is more probable that this 
decline in the number of the freemen should be attributed to the 
political unrest, and to the fear that membership would make 
them more liable to the financial demands of the Crown. In any 
case the Books of Admissions show that there was a falling-off in 
the numbers of freemen just at this moment, 3 and especially in 
the years 1 62.4-5- and 103:1-3. And although the total number 
of admissions to the freedom increased during the sixteen years 
after that date, 4 we learn from the Quarterage book that in 1642, 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 33<$b. z Rep. -f 132, p. yoa. 

3 Cf. Appendix XXV on admissions to the freedom. It should be remembered 
that only about one-third of those bound as apprentices entered the freedom at 
this date. This is proved by a comparison of the Lists of Binding + 287-8 and 
the Freedom Lists +278-9. 

4 I have in the Appendix compared the number of admissions for the sixteen 
years before and after 1632. It will be found that seventy more were admitted in 
the later period than in the earlier. One person, Wm. Smart, a Doctor of 
Divinity, was admitted in 1633 at the request of Lady Whitmore, wife of 
Sir G. Whitmore, the Mayor of 163 1-2. He paid 6s. Bd. Cf. Freedom List + 301, 
fo. 144 ; Wardens' Accounts, 1632-3, fo. 32. It is to be noted that the number 
of admissions by redemption are few, and that most of those were admitted by 
the warrant of the Mayor for the purpose of attaining the freedom of the City, 
who, unless they were freemen of the City by birth, could only gain that position 
through a gild. It does not appear that it was ever necessary for a freeman of 
the City by birth to be a member of a gild, but in early days every such freeman 
would as a matter of fact be a gildsman. As the gild system broke up, this 
ceased to be the case, and from that time forward there were freemen of the 
City by birth, who were not members of any Company. Liber Niger, Guildhall 
ii Rec. ii: 1387, speaks of the franchise which * always belongs to the soil of 
the City '. Cf. Letter Book G fo. cxlii ( i 364), H, p. 3 i o fo. 218. City Journal 4 b 
fo. 67 , May 9? 1666. On the other hand, it was not necessary for a member of 
the Company to become a freeman of the City. We have found five instances 
of this during the reign of Charles. Cf. Freedom Book -f z66, pp. 39, 40, 88, 
104, 109. 

1603-3 C C 

194- Internal History of the Company 

the body of the freemen had shrunk since the year i6i'7 from 
2,, 1 06 to i, 4.17, of whom 5- 1 6 alone paid quarterage. *That of 
these 1,42/7 only 835- appear in the return of those assessed for the 
Poll Tax of 1641 is to be explained by the fact that in that return 
the names of those are alone given who could pay at least ^i. 1 
The paying Meanwhile it was found increasingly difficult to collect the 
of Quarter- Quarterages. In the year i6ip two resolutions were passed 
age becomes bl am j n g t h e Master Bachelors for want of zeal in the matter, and 
quem. ordering them to keep a more careful record of all, who paid, and 

who were in arrears.* Hardness of the times was alleged as 
a reason for non-payment. 3 In 1638 the Court expressed a wish 
that the poorest, 'who prove disordered and can hardly pay the 
I2,*/. which they allow to the Yeomanry dinner ', be not invited, 4 
and in the last year of the reign only 42, 7 freemen are recorded 
as paying. 5 Nor was the trouble confined to the freemen. 
Inasmuch as some of the Liverymen attempted to escape paying their 
Quarterage by staying away from the sermon at St. Michael's on 
election day ' to the dishonour ' of the Company, and even from 
the election dinner, a practice which led * to wasteful provision of 
banqueting stuff', the Court in 1634 ordered that the Quarterage 
of the Livery should be paid on the Quarter Day held in June, and 
that those who did not pay should be fined. 6 The resolution 
however had but little effect. The conclusion of the whole 
matter is that the Society, in spite of temporary fluctuations, is 
decreasing in size, and the practice of paying quarterage is becoming 
less and less usual. In other words, the poorer are ceasing to be 

1 Quarterage Book +166. Cf. Appendix XIX, Poll Tax Assessment, 1641. 
Although this return does not give the names of freemen who were unable to 
pay ij and is therefore not complete, it is a most valuable document. 
Unfortunately later poll taxes of the reigns of Charles I and Charles II were 
not assessed on the Companies, but on individuals in their Wards. They there- 
fore give us no help. 

2 Cf. Rep. + 131, pp. 11 f a, 139 b } Quarterage Book + 166, p. I. 

3 Other Companies found the same difficulty. The Goldsmiths' records 
attribute it to the fact that ' many have gone for soldiers, many shops are shut, 
and occupiers will not be spoken to. ' Prideaux, vol. i, p. zop, 1643. 

4 Rep. + 13 i, p. 3133. 

5 Besides these there were 1 8 z, who, though not paying in that year, paid 

6 Rep. -f 131, p. 193 b; Rep. + 131, p. 85 b. 

during the Reign of Charles 1 195- 

active members, and the movement has gone far towards the 
present conditions, under which no quarterage is paid by the 
Liverymen, and by the freemen only if, and when, they bind 
apprentices or present .persons for entry into the freedom, or 
come to the Hall to do any business. 1 On such occasions, how- 
ever, the arrears of is. a year since they entered the freedom or 
last appeared are demanded. 

Nevertheless the number of freemen, who have apprentices and Number of 
are therefore masters, is considerable. These, though they have Apprentices. 
no share in the government of the Company, are actively engaged 
in business, although their business is not necessarily that of 
drapery. Since the publication of the ordinances of 1576, the 
only regulations with regard to the taking of apprentices were 
that the master was not to be in receipt of the charity of the Society; 
that he should pay quarterage when he bound an apprentice or 
entered him into the freedom ; and, further, that he was liable to 
a fine if he did not give his apprentice due training. The number 
of apprentices henceforth held in a continuous period of seven 
years by any one master in many cases exceeded the old number 
of three, which were all that had been allowed except by special 
consent of the Wardens. 2 Out of the 12.1 Liverymen and the 
835- freemen given in the Livery List and the Poll Tax return, 
116 Liverymen had 936 apprentices among them, or an average 
of 8 each, while ^71 freemen had had 1,6*71 apprentices, or an 
average of 4! each. 3 This shows that a very large number of 

1 A minute of the year 16^7 tells us that the payment of quarterage was 
already at that date practically confined to those who bound apprentices or 
entered them into the freedom (Rep. + 131, 20 fb) j and, as will be seen below, 
this payment was, after the Restoration at least, confined to Freemen. 

2 Cf. vol. ii of this workj p. 198, and Ordinance of 1560, No. 16, p. 301 ; 
Ordinances of 1576, Nos. 3 i, 38, pp. 310-^4. The Drapers were, like all the 
London Companies, exempt from Elizabeth's Statute of Apprentices, which 
limited the number ; and we are told that the rule was also neglected in 
Yorkshire in the reign of Charles I. Cf. Domestic State Papers, Car. I, vol. 
460, p. 64. 

3 For a complete list cf. Appendix XIX, Names of those assessed for Poll Tax. 
This calculation is based on the assumption that the apprenticeship lasted the 

customary seven years. If however, as I believe, the number inserted after the 
date of the binding indicates the number of years for which the apprentice was 
bound, there are many instances of a much longer apprenticeship. Cf. Bindings 

196 Internal History of the Company 

the freemen were masters, although not in such a big way of 
business as the Liverymen. 1 Mr. Unwin says that the character- 
istic feature of the seventeenth century is the degradation of the 
small masters to the position of journeymen. 2 Certainly our 
evidence, so far as it is based on the Poll Tax Return, which how- 
ever included only the better class of freemen, 3 does not support 
this view. The explanation is probably to be found in the fact 
that Mr. Unwin draws his conclusions chiefly from industrial 
companies, or those which, like the cloth-workers, were composed 
of traders and artisans; whereas the members of the Drapers' 
Company were for the most part traders, though not necessarily 
in drapery. With them, therefore, the journeymen were com- 
paratively few. Their place was taken By an increased number 
of apprentices, who, if they entered the freedom at all, became 
more often retail shopkeepers in their own special calling. If 
subsequently they rose in importance they would betake them- 
selves to wholesale business on a larger scale. It was this 
peculiarity, perhaps, which helped to save the Drapers' Company 
from the struggle, which was soon to trouble many of the 
industrial crafts, and lead to the attempts of the journeymen either 
to obtain separate incorporation as journeyman gilds, or to form 
combinations against their masters: movements which eventually 
developed into Trade Unions. But a more potent reason was no 

Book +^%7 passim; +187, fos. 39, 111 ; Freedom List +179, fos. izi, 187. 
Widows not only continued to keep their husbands' apprentices, but, if they were 
members, bound apprentices and entered them into the freedom ; E. g. 1 find 
nine women, who are not called widows, so doing. None of these bound more 
than three apprentices. Women, however, were never admitted to the Livery. 

Of the apprentices the number who entered the freedom was, as it had been 
in the reign of James I, about one-third } four being entered by other masters 
than those who had apprenticed them. 

1 If we take the 38 Liverymen and the 54 freemen, who had ten or more 
apprentices during a given period, we find that the average number of apprentices 
held by the freemen is higher than that held by the Liverymen. This tends to 
the conclusion that there was little difference, so far as business was concerned, 
between the more important freemen and the Liverymen. No doubt they 
would be the ones who would shortly be called to the Livery. 

2 Unwin, Industrial Organization, pp. 1 96 fF. 

3 As shown above, the total number of the freemen in 1641 was 1,417,50 that 
791 were probably journeymen. 

during the Reign of Charles I 197 

doubt the numerous trades and industries undertaken by members 
of the Company, and the comparatively small number of those 
who devoted themselves to the business of drapery. Under these 
circumstances it would have been difficult for the journeymen to 
form a gild or to combine with any one common object. 

I have attempted to discover the professions or trades of the The varied 
members of the Company, and the results, though not complete, Professions 
are, I think, quite sufficient for our purpose. 1 Certainly the an , , ra es 

j c * i- Eni_ r i c i used by 

evidence, so far as it goes, is startling, i he number or the pro- Members of 
fessions and trades in which the Liverymen were engaged is the Com- 
eighteen, while the freemen are found belonging to no less than P an y- 
140 different occupations. It is noticeable that all the Liverymen, 
and all but five of the freemen, have some occupation or business. 
The Company is therefore still chiefly composed of business men. 

Among the 12,1 Liverymen, the Merchants and the Drapers by 
trade (if we include woollen drapers) head the list with twenty- 
two of each, 2 to which four linen drapers may be added, although 
they are not Drapers in the strict sense. Those pursuing the 
trade of silk-men stand next with sixteen; while mercers, tailors, 
and upholsterers are credited with three each. The remainder 
belong exclusively to the trading professions, with the exception 
of one body-maker, one cloth-worker, one scrivener, two servants 
of important members of the Company, and the Clerk, who, it is 
interesting to observe, has apprentices. 

Among the freemen the tailors are by far the most numerous. 
No less than 161 are so described, while the drapers and woollen 
drapers only number 31; the linen drapers and linen-men 10. 
Next to the tailors come the silk-men with 44 ; to which we 
should add 2,2, silk weavers and 4 silk throsters. Thirty-four are 

1 Thus, out of the izi Liverymen, the professions or trades of Sf, and of the 
835 freemen, those of 751, have been discovered. The information has been 
collected from the Poll Tax Return, which only gives the trades of some of the 
freemen and none of the Liverymen 3 the Quarterage Books, the Freedom Lists, 
and the Livery List. 

2 I have counted Wm. Williams among the Merchants, because, although he 
is not definitely so called, he was at one time Deputy Governor of the Levant 
Company ( 1 657-9) and on the Committee of the East India Company (1643-61). 
Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 80. 

198 Internal History of the Company 

upholsterers, 2,4 salesmen, 14 weavers, 2,1 body-makers. Then 
come the chandlers with ip, the hosiers with 15-, the mercers with 
14, and the butchers with 10. The Mayor and Sheriff's officers are 
found, while we are reminded that the holder of the ancient office 
of the Common Hunt is, 1 as he often had been before, a member of 
the Livery. The Company was certainly not an exclusive one. 
Almost every craft and industry is represented down to the parish 
clerk, the cook, the gardener, the porter, the water-bearer and 
the cobbler. But what is still more significant is the compara- 
tively small number of the members who are pursuing the trade 
of drapery, with which the Company was originally so closely 
The Drapers connected. 2 Under these circumstances it is to be expected that, 
lo not insist as ^^ j Deen ^g case j n t j ie re jg n o f J am es I, the Company did 

not insist that all those pursuing the trade of drapers should enter 
tion. . TH1111 > i j 

their Society. 3 It will be observed that persons * using the trade 

1 For the duties of the Hunt cf. vol. i of this work, p. 141. 

2 The Repertoiy of i6jo +131, p. 10? a, says 'There is scarce one draper of 
ten within London using the trade of Drapery, who are free of the Drapers' 
Company ; but of the Merchant Taylors . . . and other Companies.' 

3 The question of translation to the Drapers' Company was twice raised, but 
the persons were not drapers, and the cases were peculiar, (i) In 1640 the 
Company petitioned the Court of Aldermen to order the translation of Anthony 
Bateman from the Skinners' Company. Cf. Rep. +131, p. 3383. It appears 
that although apprenticed to a Mr. Newman, a freeman of the Drapers' Company, 
and enrolled by him (cf. Rep. + 287, p. 1 77), he had been also unduly made free 
of the Skinners, probably because his father was a Skinner. Their petition was, 
moreover, of no avail. Bateman subsequently became an important member of 
the Skinners' Company and Lord Mayor in 1663-4. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, 
p. 87. (2) According to the City Rep. 40, p. 80, Cuthbert Hackett, the Mayor 
of 1616-7, was translated from the Dyers to the Drapers' Company on January 
24, 1616, in accordance with usual custom. This is probable, as we have no 
notice of his entering the Drapers' Company in any other way. It is, however, 
odd that there is no reference in the Minutes to his translation, especially in 
view of the agitation caused by the wish of Alderman Barkham, the Mayor of 
1621-2, to be translated from the Leathersellers ; cf. supra, p. 9. The first 
notice we have of Hackett is in the list of the Assistants of 1625-6 (cf. Rep. + 
301, p. 29). If he was translated we must suppose that he was admitted an 
Assistant at once, because it was known that he was to be elected Mayor in the 
autumn of 1626. In any case his translation was, not because he was following 
the trade of a draper, but in pursuance of the established custom that the Mayor 
should be a member of one of the greater Livery Companies. He was also 
elected Master of the Drapers' Company in August 1626. Cf. Rep. -f 301, p. 20. 

during the Reign of Charles I 199 

or industry represented by six of the greater Livery Companies, 

and others, whose industry was originally the monopoly of many 

of the smaller Companies, and even the Clerks of two Companies, 

the Saddlers and the Cooks, were of the Drapers' Society. This Translations 

reminds us that many of these Companies, like the Drapers, no toother 

longer demanded that such persons should be of their fold. Some Com P anles - 

Companies, however, still attempted to maintain the old custom. 

Thus there are as many as fifteen instances of translation from the 

Drapers' Company. All these based their petition to be allowed 

to translate on the ground that they were molested and prevented 

from pursuing their industry by the Companies, whose particular 

trade or crafts they were 4 using '. It will be noticed that there is 

no case of a translation from the Drapers to any of the great 

trading Companies, if we except one to the Vintners, and that 

case was a somewhat peculiar one : the man, originally a silk-man, 

had married the widow of a Vintner and wished to carry on her 

business. 1 The remaining fourteen translations, given in the notes, 2 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 55 a. He had to pay a higher fee. 

2 Two to the Cooks : one of them had been brought up as apprentice to 
Sir John Jolles in his kitchen. Rep. +131, pp. 20? a, 3 14 b. 

Two to the Brewers. At first the Company thought of refusing leave for 
these to be translated, and of defending them. Ib., pp. 240 a, 267 a, 3383. 

One to the Plasterers. Ib., p. 260 b. 

One to the Weavers by order of the Lord Mayor, c because he had come unduly 
by his freedom*. Ib., p. .292 b. Miss Trice Martin kindly informs me that 
there is a reference in the Court Minutes of the Merchant Taylors of 1646, vol. 
ix, fos. 239, 143 b, 244, to a petition of the Weavers on the question of transla- 
tion, which petition was opposed by the Merchant Taylors, the Haberdashers, and 
the Clothworkers, as well as the Drapers. We find a reference to this in Rep. -f 
132, p. 69 b, when the Weavers are advised to consult Counsel on the matter. 

Two to the Barber Surgeons. Rep. + 131, pp. 293 b, 309 b. 

One, Servant to the Clerk of the Stationers' Company, to the Stationers. Ib., 
p. 308 a. 

One to the Whitebakers. Ib., p. 320 a. 

One, Constance Wadding, to the Poulters. Ib., p. 308 a. 

One to the Butchers. He had served as an apprentice to a member of the 
Drapers' Company who was a saddler by trade, but, after the death of his 
master, had finished his apprenticeship with a butcher, and yet had been made 
free of the Drapers. Rep. + 132, p. 6b. 

One to the Cordwainers. Ib., p. 6 b. 

One to the Wood mongers. Ib., p. 77 b. 

xoo Internal History of the Company 

were to inferior Companies, whose mystery was of a handicraft 
nature. This controversy, as we shall see, was continued in later 
times. One of the translations, that of Constance Wadding, is 
the only instance I have come across of a woman being trans- 
lated. Presumably the Poulters' trade was much followed by the 
weaker sex. 

Abode of From the table given below it will be seen that the greater 

Members of number of the members who were using the trade of drapers, or 
woollen drapers, were to be found in, or near, the larger streets 
east of St. Paul's Churchyard, although they had not yet abandoned 
the churchyard itself, as they had in the time of Defoe some 
eighty years later. 1 The other members of the Company, 
whether in the clothing or no, lived in various parts of London, 
notably in Cheapside, Watling Street, Gracious Street (Gracechurch 
Street), Lombard Street, Bishopsgate Street, Whitechapel, Thames 
Street, and Fleet Street. 2 Eight Liverymen and four freemen 
are given as living in the country. 3 

the Com- 

1 Defoe says that the Drapers had abandoned St. Paul's Churchyard, and 
betaken themselves to high streets, such as Cheapside, Ludgate Street and 
Cornhill, where customers were more likely to be found. He is, however, 
speaking of all drapers, whether they were members of the Company or not. 
Cf. The Complete Tradesman, ed. 1717, vol. i, pp. 81, 85. 

2 Thus : 

Watling Street 
Cannon Street (Can- 
ning Street) 
Gracious Street 
Lombard Street 
Bishopsgate Street 

Thames Street 
Fleet Street 
Newgate Street 

Livery Men. 
Trades or Profes- 
sions Unl 


4 1 ; of whom 1 1 were silk-men, 6 tailors. 
23 ; of whom 4 were drapers, and 3 salesmen. 
1 1 j of whom i was a draper. 

ii ; of whom i was a draper. 

2 i ; of whom 6 were silk-men, and 2 mercers. 

30 j of whom 8 were tailors. 

30 j of whom 7 were butchers, 3 tailors, 3 

2f ; of whom 2 were tailors. 
2j j of whom 9 were tailors i a draper 
23 j of whom 3 were tailors. 
21 ; of whom 9 were tailors, 2 salesmen. 
21 j of whom 5 were tailors, 2 bookbinders. 

during the Reign of Charles I 101 

Unfortunately the assessment for the Poll Tax of 1641 does Wealth of 
not give us much help as to the wealth of the members of the Member$ - 
Company. 1 Of seventy-five Liverymen the assessments are not 

Livery Men. 

Trades or Profes- 

sions Unknown. 

Birchen Lane 



Long Lane 




Bread Street 








Coleman Street 





of whom 6 were tailors, 5 salesmen, 
of whom 8 were brokers, z salesmen, 

z tailors, z tobacco sellers, 
of whom 4 were upholders, 
of whom 3 were tailors, 3 body-makers, 
of whom z were tailors, z body-makers, 
of whom 6 were silk-weavers, 
of whom z were tailors, z silk-weavers. 
For details cf. Appendix XX. 

3 (p. zoo) Li-very Men. 

Profession or Trade 

not given. 
Bromley, Kent 
Hornchurch, Essex 
Plaistead, Essex 
Oxsted, Surrey 
In the Country 2 

A curious entry is found in the Quarterage Book + 167, p. i r : c John Bowles, 
app. Arthur Swannicke in Sion College Oxford. ' Oxford is evidently the mistake 
of a later hand. There never was any such college in Oxford. A Mr. Bowles 
was tenant of a c chamber ' in Sion College, which at that time let lodgings. 
Cf. Sion College Court Register A, p. 83. 

In the Quarterage Books we find the following freemen abroad : 
In the East Indies ..... 4 

In Turkey ...... 4 

In Greece ...... i 

In Venice .... 

In the Summer Islands (Bermudas) 

In the Barbados 

In Holland .... 

In Hamburgh 






a coach harness maker, 
a gingerbread maker. 

trade not given. 
a musician. 

one described as a merchant, 
one described as a merchant. 

a merchant 

Of the richer merchants, who would be in the Livery, most would probably 
conduct their business from home. 

' The assessments were apparently very loosely dene, as we know they were 
in 1660. Bacon, speaking of the assessments for alJ taxes in Elizabeth's time, 
l6 3-3 D d 

iox Internal History of the Company 

given. The rates to be paid by officials of the Company, by 
the Liverymen and the freemen were fixed by the Act ' according 
to their office or position in the Company, not according to their 

said that the English were c more masteis of their valuation* than any people in 
Europe. Dowell, Hist, of Taxation, vol. iii, p. 81. 

Livery. s. d. 

Wm. Williams . . c as rated in land ' . . . 1 1 o o 

Wm. Middleton . . . . . . . . . 1000 

A. Rickards . . . . . . . . . 1000 

Robert Lowther . . c rated at i o in goods ' . . 6 13 4 

Walter Coventry) .... . 

Richard Hall [' < rated at 8 m goods j 6 8 

3 i paid .......... each 500 

Of 6\ we are told that they had paid their monies ; but no sum is mentioned. 
Of 14 that they were * conceived ' to have paid } but the amount is not given. 

100 are returned, as paying $. 

7 i only. 
171, as alleging they could not pay 3. 
94, as not appearing before the Wardens when summoned. 
The clerk's man and the beadle drew up the lists, and were paid fees. Cf. 
Rep. +131, p. nab} Wardens' Accounts, 164 1-2, fo. 49 j Bachelors' Accounts 
4-178, fo. 104. 

1 The rates fixed by the Act 16 Car. I. c. 9 for the Municipal and Company 
officials, the Livery and the Freemen were as follows : 
The Mayor, 40 
Sheriffs and Aldermen, 20 
Common Councillors, f 

Masters of the Livery Companies, 10, the same as that levied on an esquire. 
Wardens, 6 i^s. $d. 
Liverymen, j. The same as that levied on those who could dispend 100 per 


Freemen, 3. i more than that levied on those who could dispend jo. 
Widows, one-third of that which their husbands would have paid. 
The members of the smaller companies were assessed at a lower rate. 
A Baronet, 30. 
A Knight Bachelor, 2.0. 
The rates according to property were : 

j for those who could dispend 100 a year. 

i 33 33 3J 33 ^ 5 JJ 

$* 33 33 33 33 iO 33 

1 S ' 33 33 33 33 * J 33 

6d. all other persons. 

during the Reign of Charles I 

wealth. All we can say is that a Liveryman was rated on the 
same basis as those who could dispense 100, that is at $ ; and 
thirty-one Liverymen are given as paying that sum, though six 
members of the Livery paid more than this, and are stated to have 
been 4 rated in land ' * or in goods '. The freemen according to 
the Act were to be rated somewhat higher than those who could 
dispense 5-0 a year (viz. at 3, instead of 2). One hundred 
freemen paid this sum. Of one hundred and seventy-eight freemen 
we are told that they could not pay more than 1. This presumably 
meant that their expenditure was about ?o a year. Ninety-four 
freemen did not answer the summons of the Wardens. Of these, 
as well as of the remaining eight hundred and eighty-six, the yearly 
expenditure was probably less than ?o, an d they were not 
assessed by the Wardens because, as was stated in i<56o, they were 
not known, and were to be assessed by their Wards. 

The value of money at that time was at least twice what it is 
now ; but even so, inasmuch as only one hundred freemen pay 
more than those who could dispend ^'5-0 a year, and one hundred 
and seventy-eight at most the same amount as those who could 
dispend ^5-0, it would seem that the majority of the freemen were 
poor men. 

Quis dives sapiens, quis pauper stultus inersque: 

Si sapio ergo brevi tempore dives ero. 
Quis sapiens dives, quis stultus pauper inopsque : 

Ergo si dives non ero stultus ero. 1 

I have already cautioned my readers against the errors into Financial 
which the unwary might fall in dealing with the accounts of the position 
Renter and, more especially, of the Wardens. It is true that du . nn S J h 

, , . , r 1 c reign of 

the Renters Accounts give us a clear presentation or the rents or Charles I. 
the lands and tenements held by the Company. From thence we 
learn that the rents, excluding arrears, were in the financial year 
ending at Midsummer 1648 some 300 more than they had 
been at the accession of Charles I. 2 About half of this increase, 

1 This motto is written on the first page of a Receipt Book i6z?-73, +37*. 

2 The evidence for this will be found in the abstracts of the Renters' and 

1O4- Internal History of the Company 

however, is accounted for by the new benefactions to charitable 
uses received during the reign. 1 It does not therefore appear that 
the actual rental of lands and tenements in London had much 
grown. As I have however already noted, the value of land or 
tenements was not decided by the annual rent alone. Under the 
system of beneficiary leaseholds, which was then customary, fines 
were always paid whenever a lease was granted or renewed, and 
the amount of these fines was, if we take into account the fines 
due as well as those paid, over ^2,700 in the year i6^.8. 2 It 
must not be forgotten that these fines were not paid annually, but 
only on the granting or the renewal of leases, the numbers of 
which varied from year to year. Nevertheless a glance at the 
abstracts given in the Appendix will show that there was a steady 
advance in the amount of the fines. We may therefore take it 
that the value of these lands and tenements had, in spite of the 
evil days, very materially increased. 3 

Apart from the rents, the receipts of the Renter came from 
corn sold, the amount of which varied according to the orders of 
the Mayor. 4 Though the disbursements of the Renter, as was 

Wardens' Accounts given in the Appendix No. XXIII A-B. In 1633 it was ordered 
that no arrears of rents should be brought into the annual account. Rep. +131, 
p. Z79b. 

1 Namely, those of Sir W. Terry and John Rainey. Cf. Appendix XLVII. 
These benefactions added to the trust, and not to the corporate property, of the 
Company, which had apparently not very much increased since the end of the 
reign of James I. Other sums were left in trust to be invested in lands. But 
until that was done these sums appeared in the Wardens' Accounts. 

2 The fines are found in the Wardens' Accounts. 

3 There is a curious notice in 1619 of a relief due by the Company of 
i os. 5<, 3 hens, and 30 eggs, on the death of R. Buck, for lands left by him 
on trust for charitable purposes. Rep. +131, p. 21 rb. In the year 1634 
a claim was made by the Crown for fealty and homage for the Hall and lands 
adjoining, and for the dues arising therefrom. The claim was, however, resisted 
by the Company, and, after a process before the Court of Exchequer, abandoned. 
Rep. +131, pp. 186 a, 3033. In 1639 the Company were ordered to pay 
a rent-charge of 1 71. a year to the Master, Brethren and Sisters of the Hospital 
of St. Katherine's near the Tower for lands in the parish of St. Margaret's, Pater 
Noster, which dated from the reign of Edward II. Rep. -f 131, pp. 32,4^ 3183. 

4 The other variations in the receipts are due to the amount of the balance 
handed over from the previous year, and to the payment of past arrears, which 
in the year 1647-8 amounted to 187 if*. 

during the Reign of Charles I 105* 

natural, tended to increase with the receipts, they were liable to 
considerable fluctuations. This is to be explained by the varying 
sums spent on charity, dinners and other festivities, and on the 
purchases of corn. They reached their highest point in the last 
year of the reign. Nevertheless the Renter, besides handing over 
2,44. to the Wardens, had in that year a substantial balance of 
2.61 ijj. 8</. 

The Wardens' Accounts are unfortunately much more compli- Wardens' 
cated than those of the Renter. We can, however, arrive at Accounts, 
a definite view of the ordinary receipts of the Wardens in each 
year. These are limited to the fees for enrolling of apprentices, 
and for entrances into the freedom and the Livery and the fines on 
the renewal of leases. If to these items from the Wardens' account 
we add the rents from the Renter's account we shall find that the 
total ordinary receipts steadily grew during the reign. 1 

The rest of the receipts of the Wardens and many items in the 
extraordinary disbursements are wholly misleading. Among the 
receipts are found, not only the amount of the legacy money 
repaid, which, as before mentioned, is no index of the financial 
situation, but sometimes also the debts owing to the Company 
which are repaid, and sometimes money which is borrowed by 
the Company. Again, among the disbursements are included the 
repayment of debts owed, and payment of moneys lent, by the 

1 Thus: 


s. d. 

Rents 80 5 14 4 

Fines on leases due 171 13 4 

Fees for enrolling 

Apprentices 16 10 o 

Presentment to the 

freedom 10 \6 8 

Fines for non-enrol- 
ment 474 

Fees for entrance into 

the Livery 27 i 6 

s. d. 


' s. d. 








1 103 

o 4 

13 2 

1 104 







12 6 








6 8 

1 1 






14 8 











Total ordinary receipts 1136 4 2 1776 2 8 2297 7 4 2853 ll 4 

An un- 
Warden and 

106 Internal History of the Company 

Company. 1 The accounts are in short merely a record of the ready 
money which has passed through the hands of the Wardens, and 
of their actual disbursements; the balances being a record of how 
their account stands at the end of the financial year. The only 
way of arriving at the true financial situation is therefore by 
taking into account the debts owing to and by the Company, and 
thereby correcting the Wardens' Balances. 2 If this is done, it will 
be seen from the table below 3 that the financial position would 
have steadily improved, especially between the years 1634 and 
1648, if the loans lent to the King and Parliament had been repaid. 
Unfortunately this was never done, as will appear later. 

The Company had some trouble with regard to their Renter 
Warden and their Renter, which is of importance as illustrating 
the great care taken by the Company in the matters of finance. 
In July 162,8, Goodyear, the Renter Warden, was accused of 'ill 
husbanding ' the money of the Company. He had, contrary to 
custom, kept great sums of money in his house, and converted 
them to his own use, in spite of the great demand to pay ^'4,5-08 
to the Chamber of London for his Majesty's use; which had 
forced the Court to borrow needlessly to meet the said demand. 

1 For the explanation of this system of lending and borrowing cf. supra, p. 100. 

2 The Drapers continually lent money to the East India Company and to the 
Merchant Adventurers. In 1636 they were owed 846 IGJ. by the Merchant 
Adventurers, and 5,180 by the East India Company. Wardens' Accounts, 
1635-6, fo. 22. Very possibly the reason why the East India Company was 
specially favoured was because several important Drapers were members, 
e. g. Sir Morris Abbot and Sir H. Garway, who were both of them twice 
Masters of the Drapers, were also Governors of the East India Company, Abbot 
in 1624-37, Garway 1641-3 ; cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 60. Cf. 
Rep. +1*1, pp. 193 b, 228 b, 272 a, 276b, 291 a j Rep. + 132, pp. 1 1 a, 12 a, 
ifb. Other Companies also lent to the East India Company. Cf. Nicholl, 
Ironmongers, p. 216. 

Balance in Balance of 

favour of Wardens' 

the Company. Account. 

s. d. ,. 

2.071 6 6 Deb. 54 8 

3080 13 o Cr. 13 14 

4199 10 o Cr. 431 8 

14518 15 7 Cr. 315 o 

Of this sum, 17,908 was owing to the Company for loans lent to the King and the Parliament 
with interest accrued, which was never repaid. 


Debts owing 

Debts owing 

to the 

by the 



/. d. 

*. d. 


1071 6 6 


10703 3 o 

7611 10 o 


15781 5 o 

11481 15 o 


11316 17 a* 

6798 i 7 

Balance of 

Total prospec- 
tive Credit 




' d. 

t. d. 


395 n a 

1411 9 7 


117 i 9} 

333 1 9 4-J 

1 'i 

68 6 ii 

4799 5 I0 2 


161 13 8 

15106 9 ic 

during the Reign of Charles I 107 

Goodyear was accordingly asked to pay something to the Company 
to make up for the loss they had thus sustained. As he for some 
time refused, he was removed from his place on the Court. In 
November 163 1, however, he offered to pay ^12,. The resolution 
was accordingly rescinded, and eventually 6 of his fine was 
returned to him. 1 

To prevent such inconveniences in the future, the following 
regulations were suggested by a Committee and approved : 

1. The Renter Warden was to keep a cash book with all the 
payments and receipts duly entered ; the said cash book was 
always to lie on the parlour table, and his account was to be 
examined every quarter by the youngest Warden. 

2. Without the leave of the other Wardens, he was never to 
keep in his custody more than 400, which was the amount of 
the security he had to find on entering office. The remainder 
was to be kept in the Chest in the Book House, and locked with 
four keys, which were to be in the keeping of the four 
Wardens. 2 

The position of the Renter Warden as being the acting Warden 
was so important that, in 1642,, the Court passed a further 
resolution ordering that if any person, who held the office, was 
prevented from coming to town, another Warden should be chosen 
in his stead. 3 In January 163^ the Court in an unwise moment The Renter, 
appointed Richard Trimnell to the office of Renter. He had 
twice served as Warden, but had of late fallen into poverty and 
received the charity of the House. 4 Probably this was considered 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 1253, 227 b, 23 2 b, 253^ 259 b. I have not included 
the Bachelors' Account, because that was kept separate. Cf. infra, p. 209. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. 220 b, 229 b. In future these Cash Books with these 
resolutions were kept; cf. +471, Cash Book 1630-31. In 1644 Mr Geare, the 
Renter Warden, was unable to pay 200 of the balance of the year, and did not 
do so completely till the year 1647-8 ; cf. Wardens' Accounts, fo. 38. 

3 Rep. +132, p. 25 a. One of the duties of the youngest Warden was to 
look after the plate, pewter and linen, and keep an inventory. In 1645 he was 
ordered to give these out by tale, and see that all was properly collected, when 
the dinner was over. More care was also to be taken in selecting the waiters. 
Rep. + 132, p. 58 b. 

4 Rep. +131, p. 295 b. He had been granted 20 quarterly in 1634 j 
cf. Rep. + 131, p. 291 a. 

io8 Internal History of the Company 

a good way of finding him a living and saving the Company's 
purse. The experiment was not successful. In December 1636 
his accounts were considered unsatisfactory, and an order was 
made that they should be examined. 1 In February 164.6' he was 
blamed for having allowed rents to fall into arrear, and ordered 
to keep a careful book of all receipts for perusal at every Court 
Day. He was also forbidden to keep more than .4.0 in hand at 
any one time. This order he neglected, for in October 1646 he 
held as much as ^Ho 8s. Further trouble was prevented 
by his death early in the following year. 2 The history of 
Richard Trimnell reminds one of the danger of appointing an 
impecunious man, who had mismanaged his own affairs, to hold 
the responsible position of Renter to the Company. 

The Bache- A description of the general items of the expenditure of the 
lors' Box. Bachelors' Box has already been given. 3 The four years which I 
have selected for the reign of Charles I happened to be very lean 
ones. Not only was no Draper elected to the Mayoralty in any of 
them, but no one was called to the Livery, and no one was 
fined for declining to serve as Master Bachelor. Apart, therefore, 
from the balances of the previous year, the amount of which 
depended on whether any exceptional demand had lately been 
made on the resources of the Company, 4 the receipts were derived 
exclusively from the Quarterage money, and we know how difficult 
that was to collect. In this item, however, there is during the 

1 Rep. + 131, p. 305 b. Exception was made to his accounts for having 
surcharged 30 in disbursements for the garden, above the usual allowance of 
11, and for having paid the widow of the late Renter for certain fixtures and 
other articles, which belonged to the house in the garden, the Renter's residence. 
It is interesting to note that these items do not appear in the actual account 
preserved, which was not audited till 1618. 

2 Rep. + 131, pp 6i b, 63 a, 68 ab, 75 a. For the contract entered into by 
the Renter on his appointment at this date cf. +301, Reverse, fo. z. 

3 Cf. supra, p. 101. 

4 The balance, which had amounted to 596 js. j</. in the year 1637-8, had 
been depleted by the expenses of the Mayoralties of Sir Morris Abbot and 
Sir H. Garway. In the year 1643-4 it had risen again to over 64, but was 
then reduced by the expenses of the Mayoralty of Th. Adams, with the result 
that the balance at the close of the financial year 1644-5 was but 3 n. 
Cf. +178, Bachelors' Accounts. 

during the Reign of Charles I 109 

reign a continuous though slight rise. The disbursements were 
also much reduced by the omission of the Great Dinner to the 
Yeomanry at election time. 1 

As in the reign of James I the Company, being an owner of 
much land in the City, chiefly building land whether actually 
built on or no, were involved in several disputes with adjoining 
owners, 2 especially in these times of trouble, when, as is often the 


Disbursements. Balance. 




J 9 

20 14 

c 6 
o o 

50 n o 
o oo 

22 11 

42 19 2 

o o o 


12 o 


73 24 

66 ii 

13 10 o 


316 9 5 

2}2 4 6 

,7 4 



1624-5 s. d. 

Balance from last year 298 65 

Interest on the same 14 18 o 

Quarterage 16 15 o 


Balance from last year 212 

Interest on the same 


Balance from last year 



Balance from last year 



2 Rep. + 13 2, p. 553. The most important of these disputes were as follows : 
(<r) An encroachment on the wall of the almshouse at Tower Hill by the 
tenant of Lord Rivers. This was not settled till 1649, when the Company granted 
a lease of the encroachments for twenty-one years at IDJ. a year. Rep. 4- 132, 
pp. 73 b, 76b, 84 b, 983; A. 51 (i) (2). The dispute was again revived in 
1 66 1 ; cf. Rep + 132, p. 256. 

(b) An encroachment of the Plumbers' Company on a wall belonging to the 
Herber. This was compromised by the two companies sharing the expense of 
the necessary alterations and the rebuilding of a stable. Rep. 4-131, pp. 3303, 
334 b > 337 b; Rep. 4- 132, p. 2 b. 

(c) Question of the ownership of a house and a plot of ground, part of 
Wm. Russell's gift, which was claimed by the parishioners of St. Edmund, 
Lombard Street, as a churchyard. Finally settled by the Drapers paying 120 and 
a rent of 4 4*. for the house on a ninety-nine years lease, and receiving a rent of 
13*. 4<f. for the plot of ground used as a churchyard. Rep. 4-132, pp. 20 a, 38 a. 

(d) Question of a house in Lombard Street. This had been granted to the 
parishioners for charitable uses in the reign of Henry VII ; forfeited to the Crown 

1603*3 E e 

iio Internal History of the Company 

case, a litigious spirit appears to have been more rife than usual. 
The Court therefore made an order in 164.5% that all the lands 
belonging to the Company should be carefully measured, and 
the exact limits recorded in a book and inserted in every lease. 1 
The Garden. In spite of the regulations passed in the reign of James I with 
regard to the garden, 3 the abuses still continued. It was the usual 
resort of persons of all sorts and conditions, especially on Sunday 
evenings, when they stayed to gamble till after dark, whereby 
much scandal and inconvenience to the better sort was caused. 
In 1637 this concourse was considered especially undesirable, 
because of the danger of infection from the Plague. New regulations 
were therefore drawn up. No one was to enter on Sundays 
except those in the clothing and citizens of worth and quality. 
Shortly after the privilege was confined to those in the clothing. 
The garden was to be closed on quarter-days. On week-days none 
but those of good quality were to be allowed to * play at tables ' 
or bowls, and all gaming by brethren was to be moderate, so as 
neither to be offensive to God, nor punishable under the statute of 
3 3 Henry VIII. Servants, lodgers, children and maids with 
children in arms were to be rigorously excluded. As the abuses 
still continued, it was further ordered in 164.5- that the gates 
should be locked, and a grating made in the gate, so that those 
who knocked might be seen from within. No one was to be 
allowed to enter except those of quality, and all gaming in the 
morning and by candle-light was forbidden, while on all meeting- 
days the garden was to be closed for greater privacy. 3 

under the Chantry Act, and granted to patentees j and finally devised to the 
Company by John Torkington. Rep. + 13 i 3 p. 319 a. 

1 This book no longer exists. 2 Cf. supra, p. 108. 

3 Rep. +13 1, pp. 179 a j 3043J +*3 2 J PP- 7a, 8 b, 57 b, 58 b, 593. 



F the Company offered no active Attitude of 
opposition to the Government, t ' le Com- 
whatever it might be, during j^e^Con 
the period of the Commonwealth, m0 nwealth. 
its attitude was certainly apa- 
thetic and unsympathetic. 2 Thus 
the decisive victory of Worcester 
over the young King is only 
commemorated by the expendi- 
ture of i i%s. $d. on 'cakes 
and wine '. 3 The Protector 
(Cromwell) is only mentioned 
twice in the minutes of the 
Court of Assistants. His pro- 
cession through the City in 
February 165-^, after his appointment as Protector, is thus coldly 
referred to : 'In regard it is conceived that the Company shall 
be commanded to attend in their standings at the cominge of the 

1 The initial comes from Rep. 4- 133, p. i i6a. 

2 In December 1649, a John Rushworth, probably the historian, was elected 
a freeman, e of love' ; and in August 1652,, Major-Gen. Thomas Harrison was 
admitted freely. This was probably as a step towards the Freedom of the City, 
which, unless a man was a freeman by birth, could not otherwise be obtained. 
Rep. + 266, p. 90 ; + 267, p. 6 1. 

3 Renters' Accounts, 1651-2, fo. 1 1. The victory was on September 3, but 
the thanksgiving day on October 24. Sharpe, vol. ii, p. 341. 

nx External Relations of the "Drapers 

Lord Protector throughe this Citty on Wednesday nexte to dinner 
at Grocers Hall, and that it will be fitt for the Assistants and 
Livery after their long attendance to have a meeting and some 
repast, it is ordered that Mr. William Witherden and Mr. Thomas 
Chandler, according to their course and turne, be sent unto to be 
stewards for a dinner that day to be made by them ' ; ' and the 
measure of the enthusiasm of the Company may be estimated by 
the money expended on the procession, which only reached the 
paltry sum of i i pj. 6d? 

The reticence of the Drapers' Books during the critical years of 
165^-6 which followed is the more remarkable because three 
influential Drapers, Thomas Adams, Theophilus Biddulph and 
Christopher Pack, were the City Burgesses in the Parliament of 
165-6. All of them were also at some time Masters of the Company, 
and Christopher Pack, a great supporter of Cromwell, was both 
Master and Lord Mayor in i6}^-?. 3 Yet there is no reference 

1 Rep. + 131, p. I job. 

2 Renters' Accounts, 1653-4, fo. 9. Chandler was a strong Parliamentarian, 
and became Master of the Drapers' Company in 1658, but died shortly after his 
election. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 86. The Stewards would bear the 
expense of the dinner. The expenses therefore were for their 'standing' at the 
procession. Although the Protector was entertained at Grocers' Hall, it was at 
the expense of the City, and the reference to the procession in the Grocers' 
records is equally cold : * Whereas it was notified that something would be 
expected of this Company among others ' c for the gracing of this entertainment 
in rhcir standing railes V, for which it was supposed some express would be issued 
in writing, it was agreed c that if any express shall come, the managing of the 
said business shall be referred to the care of the Wardens; they to order at the 
charge of the Company whatever shall be required by expresse '. Heath, 
Grocers, p. 19. 

3 Thomas Adams had been Colonel of the Blue Regiment of the London Train 
Bands, 1641-5 ; Master in 1640-1, Mayor in 1645-6, and M.P. for London 
1654-5, 1656-8. He was created Baronet 1660, and was Governor of the Irish 
Society 1 661-8. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 64. On the Train Bands cf. 
Appendix XXII B. Theophilus Biddulph was called to the Court of Assistants in 
1653-4. He was M.P. for London, 1656-8 and 16595 Master of the Drapers, 
1657-8; on the Committee of the East India Company, 1657-61; Deputy 
Governor of the Irish Society, 1661-3 5 knighted May 1660, and created 
Baronet November 1664. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 75. Christopher Pack 
was twice Master of the Drapers, in 1648-9, and again 1654-5, when he was also 
Mayor. He was Governor of the Merchant Adventurers, 1657 ; on the 
Committee of the East India Company, 1657-9. He was knighted by the 


during the Commonwealth 

to the election of Pack as Mayor in the Minutes of the Court. 
There was no pageant, and the charges for his procession only 
amounted to &6i TIS. 8*/., 1 a sum which marks a strong contrast 
to the lavish expenditure on these occasions in the reign of James I. 
One would also have expected some reference to the future conduct 
of Sir Christopher Pack, when he took the lead in petitioning the 
Protector to assume the title of King and to restore the House of 
Lords, of which he became a member. 

The only other time that Cromwell's name occurs is incidentally, Scanty 
in a reference to the restoration of the Irish Estates; a good deed, reference to 
which one might have expected would have evoked some ex- P ubllc 

r 1 i 1 ill 1 f-t f>vpnt< 

pression or thanks ; 2 but, as we shall see, the Company was not 
at first ve*ry eager to resume possession. Even the death and 
funeral of the great Protector are left unrecorded. The solitary 
reference to his son Richard is as follows: September 3. 'Paid 
two souldiers that watched one night and a daie at proclayming 
new Protector, j-j-.' 3 Of the repeated attempts to re-establish 
constitutional rule there is not a word. 

We obtain indeed a little more information from the accounts 
of the Wardens and the Renter. But these give us only bare 
statements of expenses incurred. Thus, in 165-1, we are reminded 
of the license of the soldiery in the following somewhat humorous 
entry: 'To a file of soldiers who came to plunder for it, is.'* 
We hear of the sum of ^i is. ^d. spent when Major-General 
Harrison was invited at some date between July 2,2, and August 
165-3, but to what kind of entertainment, or of the reason, we are 
not informed. 5 The many thanksgiving and humiliation days, 

Protector in September i6jfj was M.P. for London in the first Protectorate 
Parliament, 1656-7 ; and a member of the new House of Lords, 1677, 1660. 
After the Restoration he was deprived of his office of Alderman. Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 68 j Diet. National Biography. 

1 Bachelors' Accounts, +178, fo. 133. The Company, however, paid him 
the usual fee for c trimming his house', lent him their plate, and took measures 
for attending the procession. Rep. + 131, p. i6oa. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. 204 b. 3 Renter's Accounts, 1658-9, fo. u. 

4 Renter's Accounts, 1650-1, fo. 12. 

5 Renter's Accounts, 1652-3, fo. n. Harrison had taken part in the ex- 
pulsion of the Rump in April 1653, and was president of the Council of Thirteen 
that ruled England at the moment. He had been admitted to the freedom of 
the Company in 1652, cf. p, 211, note 2. Cf. Diet. National Biography. 

External Relations of the Drapers 

\vhich were ordered by the Government on everypossible occasion,' 
appear chiefly in the Accounts, but in no one case is the reason 
given, nor are there any expressions either of approval or dis- 
approval. The expenses incurred on these occasions, whether 
festal or not, were for * cakes and wine ' in the mornings to support 
the members in the proceedings of the day which were 'gowne 
carrying days', and rarely exceeded 2, ios. 2 The expendi- 
ture on cakes and wine on Humiliation Days sounds rather inap- 
propriate, but no doubt the proceedings were exhausting .' 
February 2,0, i6.n, having been declared a thanksgiving day, the 
Court decided that if the Company were summoned to St Paul's 
there should be a dinner for the Assistants and the Livery. 3 
It is possible that the reason why the records of the Drapers' 

1 Of these I have counted no less than nineteen thanksgiving and ten 
humiliation days between August 1649-59. 

2 The instances in which this sum was seriously exceeded were : 

Probable reason, though it 


1649. Aug. 29. 

Nov. i. 

Thanksgiving Day 
Dinner at the 
Three Tuns 

Thanksgiving Day 
Dinner at the 
Three Tuns. 

is not gtuen. 

Defeat of Ormond in Ire- 



June 9. 

April 12. 
June 23. 

at Pead's 

Day 5 9 

The acquittal of John Lil- 
burne, which certainly 
caused great rejoicings. 
Cf. Gardiner, Common- 
wealth and Protectorate, 
ed. i 894, vol. i, p. 189. 

Engagement between Blake 
and Tromp in time of 
peace, which led to war. 
Gardiner, vol. ii, p. 118. 

Victory over the Dutch in 
the Channel. 

Victory of June 3 and 4 
over the Dutch j and pro- 
posals of Dutch to nego- 
tiate a peace. Gardiner, 
vol. ii, pp. 337-40. 
Cf. Renter's Accounts, 1649-50, fo. 1 1 ; 165 1-2, fo. 1 1 ; 1652-3, fo. i r. 

3 Rep. +132, p. 1943. The thanksgiving was probably because of the 
rejection of the Militia Bill by Parliament, January 29, which was a great blow 
to the Army. Cf. Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate, cd. 1909, vol. i, p. 125. 

Thanksgiving Day 
Thanksgiving Day 

12 6 10 

during the Commonwealth 


Company during the Commonwealth are of so non-committal a 
nature was that its members were, as before, much divided in 
opinion ; but a more probable explanation is to be found in the 
hostility of the majority towards the rule of the army, a hostility 
which was shared by most of the Livery Companies and the 
greater part of the more wealthy citizens. 

That there was much sympathy, at least, with the Presbyterian Presbyterian 
party among the Drapers seems to be proved by a somewhat leanings of 
interesting notice. In 164/7 Major-General Browne, who, after ^ 
active service on the Parliamentary side, had broken with the 
army and led the Presbyterian party in London, was elected 
Sheriff According to the usual custom, some of the members of 
the Drapers' Company, in common with those of other Companies, 
had invited themselves to his official dinner as c benevolent guests '. 
The dinner, had been prevented by the Sheriff's arrest on 
a charge of confederating with the Scots and the secluded 
Members of Parliament. When, however, the Wardens and some 
others made their excuses in person for not attending, they had 
received a loving and free entertainment from his wife, and had 
assured her on their part that the Company would not be un- 
thankful. Because ' of the danger that might ensue by reason of 
the times and the continuation of the said Mr. Browne in prison', 
the Court had 4 hitherto forborne to make any such expression of 
their intended love and respects ' : but when, in 165*4, the General 
had at last been released, the Court not only voted him a present 
of 60, in respect of his great charge in providing the said dinner, 
but gave a cup of the value of 17 ioj\ to his wife, while the 
General in return sent a present of two-and-a-half dozen gilt 
spoons. 1 

As the hopes of a Restoration began to materialize, more interest References 
was evidently taken in public events. ' In regard to the imminent to tfle 
danger the City was in' at the close of the year 165*5) and the Restoratl( 
opening of the following year, soldiers and others were hired to 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 90 a, 151 a, 15735 Wardens' Accounts, 1653-4, fo. 38; 
1654-5, f' 4' ^ 2, was also paid for e exchange into gold ', and it. 6d. for a purse 
to put the present in. Browne became Lord Mayor in 1660. For his life see 
Diet. National Biography. 

External Relations of the Drapers 

watch the Hall. 1 In September 165-9 Alderman Love, the Sheriff- 
elect for the coming year, in anticipation of his having to make 
4 great entertainments ', was granted the use of the Hall, because 
the guests might perchance be too many for his own house. 2 In 
the following February the Company offered the use of the Hall 
to General Monck, who took up his quarters in the Hall and in 
the adjoining house, which belonged to the Company but was then 
in the tenancy of Alderman Wale. 3 In March, the Court 'unani- 
mously ' agreed that an entertainment should be made for his 
Excellency the Lord General, who had just been put in command 
of the City's train-bands, and was supporting the demand for a free 
Parliament. His lady and son, the Council of State and the field 
officers of the army, the Master's wife and Alderman Wale were 
also to be invited, and the Livery were to have a dinner on the 
same day. The charge was to be borne by the Company out of 
the fines of those to be admitted to the Livery. 4 The entertain- 
ment was held on March 25-; and the large sum of over 

1 Renters' Accounts, 165 9-60, fos. n, 12. 

2 Rep. +13*} p. 2,34 b. Love was Alderman of the Portsoken Ward. He 
was appointed a Counsellor of State in 1660 ; was Master of the Drapers, 1660-1 ; 
Burgess for London, 1661-81 and 1689; on the Committee of the East India 
Company, 1657-61, and Deputy-Governor of the Levant Company, 1661-2. 
Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 89. 

3 Cf. Life of Monck, by Thomas Gumble, one of his chaplains, ed. 1 67 1 , p. 255. 
It is curious that we find no reference to this in the Drapers' Records. But we 
know that Alderman Wale's house adjoined the west side of the Great Hall, and 
that some of his rooms ran over the porter's lodge, and other parts of the Hall. 
Cf. Rep. + 132, p. 240 b ; + I33jp lib. Appendix XLVI. 

4 Renters' Accounts, 1659-60, fos. 11, 12; Rep. +132, p- 140 b. Eight 
were admitted to the Livery in October 1659 ; and eight more between August 
1 660- 1. In each case the sum received by the Company was 213 6s. 8d. for 
entry, and 3 i 3*. 4^. for Livery money. Rep. + 132, p. 240 b; Livery Book 
+ 301, Reverse, fos. 57, 585 Wardens' Accounts, 1659-60, fo. 27; 1660-1, 
fo. 28. Alderman Wale was a Vintner and Colonel of the Yellow and subse- 
quently of the White regiments of the London train-bands (for which cf. 
Archaeologia, vol. Hi, part i, pp. 129, 130 ; Raikes, Hist, of the Hon. Artillery 
Company, vol. i, pp. I36ff.). He was knighted by Charles II in May 1660, 
and became purveyor of wine to the Court. According to Mr. Pepys the Alder- 
man was a somewhat hard drinker, being on one occasion c almost fuddled ' in 
Pepys' company. Diary, ed. Bright, 1875, vol. i, p. 2675 cf. Diet. National 

during the Commonwealth 



which was expended, reminds one of the old days of the monarchy. 1 
When the return of the King was assured, the Company took its 
part. Theophilus Biddulph, who had been elected Burgess for the 
City after the Rump had been recalled, and Thomas Adams, another 
prominent Draper, were on the deputation appointed to visit 
Charles at the Hague. 2 

Meanwhile certain events had occurred, which, as they touched 
the interests of the Company somewhat closely, are dealt with in 
greater detail. 

The question as to the restoration of the Irish lands confiscated Restoration 
by Charles I had been raised as early as January i6jo, when of Irish 
a committee had been called by the Mayor to deal with it. The 
Court of the Company consented to send two representatives, but 
were evidently shy of the whole matter. Considering ' that in the 
then condition of the Company, in respect of the great debts they 
are owed, it was not safe to intermeddle in the plantation ', the 
representatives were forbidden to consent to any proposal without 
previous reference to it. 3 A letter from the Council of State in 
February implies that the other Companies were equally apathetic. 
The Council stated that it had not heard anything of the City's 
claim that it was entitled to the lands or fishings in Ulster, and 
that possibly the City was sick and tired of the business, and 
resolved to look upon their money spent in Ulster as lost. 4 The 

1 Rep. + 131, pp. 140 b, 241 a; Wardens' Accounts, 1659-60, fo. 39. The 
cook was given i ? for his extra expenditure, and $ for his and his servants' 
pains. Monck was also entertained by other Companies. Cf. Bodleian MS., 
Wood 398, for the doggerel verses written on the occasion, termed A dialogue 
between Tom a countryman and Dick a citizen, to the tune of c I'll never love thee 
more ' by T. Jordan. It must be confessed that the loyalty of the author was 
better than his verse. Cf. also a speech made to the General by the same author. 

2 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 379. The 'Rump' was recalled by the army in 
May 1659. In February 1660 the Presbyterian members who had been 
excluded by Pride's Purge were readmitted. In March 1660 the Parliament 
finally dissolved itself, and the c Free Parliament ' then chosen recalled King 
Charles the Second. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 100 a, ioz b. The actual deeds, counterparts of leases, and 
writings concerning the Irish Estate, which had been delivered by the Company, 
by order of the Star Chamber, to Sir Ralph Whitfteld, Serjeant at Law, were 
recovered by the Company as early as January 1649 ; ib., pp. 87 b, 88 a. 

4 State Papers, Domestic, Interregnum, i. 63, p. 618. 
1603-3 F 

n8 External Relations of the "Drapers 

effect of this letter was, however, to reawaken interest in the 
matter. Negotiations were entered into, and the Companies finally 
accepted the offer. 1 In March 165-7 the Protector, on the advice 
of his Council of State, restored the estates to the Irish Society 
by Letters Patent, in the terms of the original charter of James I ; 
and in August 165-8 that Society made re-conveyances of their 
respective Proportions to the Livery Companies. 2 No sooner had 
this been done than the Drapers considered the question of re- 
newing the lease of their Manor to Sir John Clotworthy their 
late tenant. 3 There were, however, three several estates in free- 
hold, which were set out, or intended, for demesne lands of the 
Manor, and these were granted to trustees to hold to the use of 
the Company. 4 At the same time a resolution was passed by the 
Court, which has an important bearing on the case which subse- 
quently arose between the Irish Society and the Skinners' Com- 
pany. The Irish Society, in its original grant to the Companies, 
had reserved all the fishings and woods, as well as the towns of 
Londonderry and Coleraine, with the customs and ferry dues ; it 
being understood that the profits should, after payment of all 
expenses, be divided among the Livery Companies. The Society, 
however, held that it would not be bound by law or equity to give 
an account of the profits arising therefrom, unless there were 
a deed under the seal of the said Society declaring the trust. On 

1 State Papers, Ireland, vols. 18 ?, 286 j State Papers, Domestic, I. 75, 
pp. 193-6, 265-8. 

2 State Papers, Irish, Bundle 286, Lease and release from the Irish Society to 
the Diapers' Company of the Manor of Diapers, August i6f8, B. 1747, Ma. 
Dr. 21 f. They were also granted the estate of Carrenah in Londonderry: B. 
39, Ma. Dr. 211. 

3 The lease was not finally granted till 1664, and then to Mary Clotworthy, 
the sister-in-law of Sir John (who had then been created Lord Massareene), and 
Robert Fitzgerald, who had married her after the death of her first husband, 
James Clotworthy. Rep. + 132, pp. 2jo b, 19335 B. 28, Ma. Dr. August 
1664, 220. 

4 Ib., pp. 202 b, 204 b; B. 41, Ma. Dr. i6?8, 213 ; B. 1748, Ma. Dr. i6?8, 
214. The three freeholds weie : Ballygone, formerly in the occupation of John 
Elcocke ; Gortatawry and Cloughfin, formerly in the occupation of Robert 
Russell j Monisholin and Annah (al. Anugh) Longe, formerly in the occupation 
of Sir F. Cooke. 

during the Commonwealth 

hearing this the Court of the Drapers passed the following 
resolution : 

c Considering that the Companies of London have been originally at 
the charge of purchasing and planting of all the lands and Cittie's planta- 
tion in Ireland, and at all Josses and expenses incident thereunto or 
occasioned thereby ; also of the losses, and at the sole charge of procuring 
the new patent from His Highness the Lord Protector for the same; and 
that the Society doth really stand seized of the premises only in trust for 
the Companies, the Court doth judge it most mete and reasonable that 
the Society do make a deed of declaration under their common seal . . . 
wherein it shall be expressed that the said Society doth stand seized of 
all the towns, fishings, customs, woods and premises not granted to the 
said Companies, to and for the use and behoof of the several Companies 
of London, and that the profits thereof . . . shall, after the necessary 
charges touching the same thereout deducted, be divided and paid to 
and amongst the several Companies proportionately/ x 

In June 164.5) an ordinance was issued inviting the Livery The Adven 
Companies to double the loan of 100,000 which they had con- ture . la "^ 
tributed towards the defence of Ireland in 164.:!. The loan was p^ 1 ^ _* 
to be secured on the Deans' and Chapters' lands in Ireland. No mentofthe 
Company, however, appears to have responded. Indeed, the Loan of 
Drapers 2 had so little prospect of being repaid their share (7,^00) 
of the said 100,000, that they had empowered a Committee 
to accept ioj. in the pound. 3 Shortly after, however, the Govern- 
ment proposed that one-tenth of the said loan should be repaid 
out of the lands in Ireland forfeited from the rebels of 1641. 
The Company, after much debate, agreed with the other Com- 
panies to accept this offer, and a joint Committee was appointed 
to receive the said lands, which lay, half in the Barony of Demifbre 
in Westmeath, and half in that of Skreene in Eastmeath, valued 
respectively at j-,ooo. 4 The question then arose whether the 

1 Rep. +132, p. 204 b. Apparently no such deed was ever executed. The 
Irish Society paid a dividend to the Companies in 1659 j cf. Wardens' Accounts, 
1659-60, fo. 27. 

2 Cf. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, ed. Firth and Rait, vol. i, 
p. 192 ; vol. ii, p. 140. 

3 Rep. +132, p. I48b. As to other Companies see Prideaux, Goldsmiths, 
vol. ii, pp. 52, 57, 64, 69, 71, 76 j Jupp, Carpenters, p. 1 10. 

4 Rep. +132, p. 1593. Mr. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 64, gives 
Demistra. for Demifore. 

no External Relations of the "Drapers 

lands themselves should be apportioned and handed over to the 
twelve Companies, or whether they should be sold and the pro- 
ceeds divided. After some consideration the latter course was 
adopted. Two Aldermen of Dublin made an offer of i U. in the 
pound on the nominal value of the lands. 1 The offer was, however, 
declined, and eventually the lands were sold for 6,666 i^s. +d. 
to a Mr. Edward Carey of the Middle Temple. 2 Of this sum, 
the Drapers' share came to $l~j ios. 3 There remained, therefore, 
of the original sum of 7,5-00 which the Drapers had lent, a 
balance of <5,p62, i os. We have come across two incidental notices 
of private adventurers in Ireland. In 165*4. Samuel Pennoyer, 
a Draper, left lands in Ireland, which he had received as an adven- 
turer, in trust to the Company; and in 165-5- Anna Banister, 
a sister of the Company, is given 2, towards her journey to 
Ireland for the purpose of securing the lands allotted to her in 
return for ' a great sum of money owing to her husband, now 
deceased, for his services as a Captain in the Parliamentary service'. 4 
Other State The Irish debt was not the only one concerning which the 
loans not Drapers, in common with the rest of the Livery Companies, were 
anxious. As early as May 1649 a petition had been presented to 
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen by the twelve Companies repeat- 
ing a demand, made two years before, that the Court of Common 
Council would take speedy care for their help and prevent their 
utter ruin. In September of the following year a joint committee 
was formed to further their aims, 3 and in March 1654. the Com- 
panies, in answer to an Act of Parliament, presented a schedule of 
all such debts. According to this the total of the money still 
owing to the Drapers came to ^p,5"p2, ?s. exclusive of the interest. 6 

1 Rep. +131, p. 153 b. 

2 Ib., p. 164 a, where a copy of the Deed of Grant is given. Wardens' Accounts, 
1658-9, fo. 14. 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1654-5, fo. 4. 

4 Rep. + 131, pp. l 54 a, 167 a b, 179 b ; Penn, Nos. i, 7, 10 ; Calendar of 
State Papers, Ireland, Adventurers, i, pp. 64, 346. 

5 Rep. +131, pp. 107 b, I3ib; Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, pp. 157,176; 
Jupp, Carpenters, p. 109 ; Nicholl, Ironmongers, p. 186. 

6 Rep. +131, pp. 15 i b, i 51 ab, 153 a. Wardens' Accounts, 1658-9. This 
does not include the debt of 1,437 jos. owing on the loan of 3,750 made 
in October 1640, because it had been borrowed on the bond of certain Peers, 

during the Commonwealth 


The efforts of the Companies met with little success, for in 
August i<5j-p the Drapers had only been repaid some further part 
of the loan lent on the bonds of the Peers, and nothing else ; and 
finally the Drapers in lo^S abandoned these claims as desperate. 1 

The bare reference to the election of two Lord Mayors and Mayor and 
several Sheriffs given in the Renters' Accounts of id^^-g 2 requires Sheriffs 
explanation. Owing to the depletion of the finances of the City, decllmn g to 
caused by the Civil War, the Common Council resolved to cut s 
down the expenses. Henceforth 

4 it was to be unlawful for any Lord Mayor or Sheriff to be served at 
dinner with more than one course, nor were they to have at any time 
any more sundry dishes of meat at that one course (i. e. to a mess of ten 
or twelve persons, upon the Lord's Day, Tuesday, Thursday, or any 
ordinary festival day) than seaven, whether the same be hot or cold. . . . 
On Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Saturday the course was to comprise 
not more than five sundry dishes of meat or six of fish/ . . . Hors 
d'oeuvres such as 'brawne, callups with eggs, sallettes, broth, butter, 
cheese, eggs, herings, shrimps and dishes serveing onely for settinge forth 
and furnisheinge the table at any of the said dinners or feasts, and not 
there to be cutt or eaten, were not to be accounted among the dishes thus 

Similar restrictions were placed upon the diet of the members of 
the household of the Mayor and Sheriffs, and no Lord Mayor or 
Sheriff was to make any feast on entering or leaving office. 3 
The ordinary fere, it must be confessed, was sufficiently liberal, 
but the forbidding of any feast on entering or leaving office was 
no doubt galling to the worthy men who held these high offices, 
and were accustomed to much feasting. Nor was this all. They 
were no longer to defray their expenses by selling places and 
offices as they had of old. Their other perquisites were cut 

and not on the security of the State. This brings the debt up to 11,029 i jj. 
The Merchant Taylors' Company have an order in MSS. of the Protector and his 
Council that no proceedings should be taken against the Earl of Northumberland 
and others in respect of their bond. Parliament having declared the same to be 
a public debt of the Commonwealth. Cf. Hopkinson, Records of the Merchant 
Taylors' Company, p. 19. 
, * See next page. 

2 Renters' Accounts, itffi-j, fo. n. 

3 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. ii, p. 310, quoting from the City 




v jg vo 
ON g -- 

vo ii -> 

" c . 



o o 
o o 

O O vo 


c -d 

5 C 2 

oo ON 

^VQ w"i"< 
ON rf ON e 

vo vo 

vo vo vo rtj-a -o 

Cl . ^"J U 

>" > *^> I " H **" 


00 O 

ON ^ 



m ^ Tf 

00 O 

>^ O O 


<L> *- VO ** 

S a " 

S 8 og" 

C u w C 


"5 Cu 

4 ^S ^o 
o S ^ 

3 S * 





o *; 



ti rt 

5 fc. 6* 



Vo - VO 

^ c <: 
^? rt ^ 



" Cu 
D-. Jj 
rt O 

C .-5 ~ p - ' 
** i- > z 

.s ^ 
z "* 

o . *-, 

External Relations of the Drapers 

down, and they were to content themselves with a monthly 
allowance of zo? 6s. 8*/. if they were Mayors, and i?o if they 
were Sheriffs. Although some slight modifications of these stringent 
regulations were made in lo^a, 1 Simon Edmonds, a member of the 
Haberdashers' Company, who was elected Lord Mayor in the 
September of that year, declared that he could not undertake 
the charge of the office without * the accustomed encouragements 
and allowances ', and submitted to a fine of 600 to be discharged, 
being also subsequently dismissed from his office as Alderman. 
John Fowke, a member of the same Company, who was elected 
in his place, quarrelled with the Common Council and was accused 
of ' making an open assault upon the custom house and seizing the 
rights and profits of the City .to his own use '. In the following 
year the Common Council gave way, the Mayor . being again 
allowed to enjoy ' all the perquisites and profits which any Lord 
Mayor hath enjoyed, for twenty years last past '. At the same 
time the old difficulty of finding persons to serve as Sheriffs and 
Aldermen was experienced, though, here as in the case of Simon 
Edmonds, the City gained by the fines they paid to be excused. 2 

In the year 1650 opposition arose in the Drapers' Company Fees of 
against the rule, made in December 164.7, that any member, who those w 

O J t i f f* j f 

1 fined ' for the place of Sheriff or Alderman, and was an Assistant f cu ^ 
or was subsequently invited to be an Assistant, should pay a fee of O r Alderman 
$o on admittance. The Court at first was obdurate, and on admis- 
threatened to deprive any person refusing to pay his fee of his sion to the 
privileges even as a Liveryman. When, however, in 165-2, three Court, 
members, who had fined for the place of Aldermen and had been 
asked to become Assistants, remonstrated, the matter was further 
considered, and finally in lo^p the rule was repealed on the 
grounds that the Court ' was desirous of the advice ' of such eminent 
members. 3 

1 Sharpe, vol. ii, pp. 311, 333, 336. 

2 Ib., pp. 337, 338. The fines were very heavy, but varied from zco 
to 800. It was not often that a Mayor refused to serve. Five Drapers refused 
the office of Sheriff, and as many as twenty-seven the office of Alderman, during the 
Commonwealth. Cf. Appendix XLII B. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. i04b, 1 06 a, 1313, 148 b, 149 b, 266 a b. The three men 
were Robert Dicer, Theophilus Biddulph and Thos. Essington. About the same 

Attempt to 
place the 
election of 
the Mayor 
and Sheriffs 
and the 
in the hands 
of the Free- 
men, 1650. 

External Relations of the 'Drapers 

It was only to be expected that at a time when some extremists 
were advocating manhood suffrage for the Parliamentary elections' 
an attempt should have been made to take the right of electing 
the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs out of the hands of the Livery- 
men of the Companies, and to give it to all freemen. The 
proposal, however, at once aroused serious opposition among the 
Companies, who forthwith prepared petitions, of which that of 
the Drapers ran in the following words : 

c Whereas it appeareth that heretofore for divers yeares many greate 
differences did arise within this City touchinge the eJecion of the Lord 
Mayor and Sheriffs to the greate disturbance of the peace thereof the said 
elecions being made divers and severall waies and with continuall altera- 
tions and so often disturbances. . . . Untill the 15" yeere of Edward IV 
the elecion was settled by authority of [the] Honourable Court of Common 
Counsell by an Act then made, that ye Masters and Wardens of the 
Misteries of this City, meeting in their halls or other fitt places and 
associating with ye good men of their Company clothed in their laste 
livery, should come together to ye Guildhall of this Citty for ye elecion 
. . . and that noe others but the good men of the Common Counsell of 
the Citty should be present at the said elecions. Which course and 
custome hath ben ever since yeerly used and continued to ye honor, peace 
and happiness of this Citty, and the well settled government of the same. 
That the said Companies have in obedience to Parliament and for the 
honor, service and safety of ye commonwealth and Citty, and in their 
good affections to bothe, have from time to time hazarded their persons, 
exhausted their meanes, and freely undergone all services taxations and 
charges imposed upon them ; and that so great a parte of this Citty is 
now settled in the several Companies as that if a disturbance thereof be 
made it may be feared in time to bring a ruyne on ye whole. And 
forasmuch as the peticioners are given to understand that there is an 
endeavouringe to deprive and take from them that their ancient and 
lawful right. . . . Their humble desire and request therefore is that this 
Hon. Court will be pleased to take their just cause into serious con- 
sideration that, as they are for the most parte the ancientest and jnost 
able citizens of this Citty, and doe undergoe as alwaies they have done 
the greatest parte of the charge and service in the same, soe they may not 
be putt from that their right, ... as they and their predecessors . . . 

time it was decided that if two people c fined ' for Sheriff or Alderman, he who 
was first on the list, and not he who c fined ' first, should have precedence in the 
Court. Ib. 149 a. 

1 Cf. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, ed. 1894, vol. i, p. 53. 

during the Commonwealth 

have without alteration or disturbance lovingly and peaceably held and 
enjoyed ever since the said act of the ijth of Edward IVth being neere 
two hundred yeares, ... or be discouraged from bearing charge, giving 
attendance and performing services as they have alwaies done for the 
honor and good of this Citty.' * 

In the face of the opposition the proposal was dropped, and the 
elections of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs remain to-day as they 
then were. 

The Parliament had during the Civil War substituted monthly The Monthly 
assessments on the annual value of land, tenements and chattels Assessme t s - 
for the old Tudor subsidies, and this system was continued during 
the Commonwealth. A fixed monthly sum was demanded from 
the whole of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland being 
both separately treated. The sum varied according to the 
financial necessities of the moment. Falling as low as ^'60,000 
and rising as high as i2o,ooo, 2 the assessments were popularly 
known as the 120,000 or 60,000 Tax. The sum assessed on 
England was then partitioned among the respective counties and 
towns, some towns being included in the county in which they 
were situated, as was the case with the liberty of Westminster, 
which was assessed with the county of Middlesex ; while others, 
like the City and Southwark, were assessed separately. London's 
proportion was as much as one-fifteenth of the total sum raised on 
the whole of England. The assessment was levied primarily on 
the tenants by the Ward in which their land or tenement lay, and 
the tenants were empowered to deduct the sum they paid from 
their rents. The method of collection was practically the same 
for Scotland and Ireland. This tax met with considerable opposi- 
tion in London. The citizens complained that the quota 
demanded from London was too high, especially in view or the 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 1 08 ab. It is interesting to note that at this date the free- 
men of the several Companies, especially those of the inferior industrial 
Companies, were also attempting to gain the right of voting for the election of their 
Wardens. Cf. Prideanx, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 10. Unwin, Industrial Organiza- 
tion, pp. zoz, zof ff., mentions the Skinners, the Pewterers, the Stationers, 
Weavers, Founders, Saddlers, Clothworkers and Clockmakers. 

2 We also hear of the 90,000 Tax. Renters' Accounts, 1649-50, fos. 12,13} 
ib., 1650-1, fo. iz. 

i 6 3'3 G g 

^^6 External Relations of the 'Drapers 

losses the merchants had sustained of late by the interruption of 
foreign trade and the piratical practices of Prince Rupert ; and also 
because the wealthier classes were leaving London for the suburbs 
to escape this heavy assessment. 1 They also pointed out that the 
method of levying the tax primarily on the tenant caused great 
trouble to the landlord, who had to deduct the sum paid by the 
tenant from the rent. In May 164.9 certain tenants of the 
Drapers refused to pay their rents until the Company had agreed 
to make this deduction. The Company brought the case before 
the Committee of assessment, who decided against them. Upon 
this the following petition was presented to the Lord Mayor and 
Common Council; other Companies following suit. 3 

c That for the preserving of the State and rents of the Companies, 
for performance of works of charity and piety for which they are entrusted, 
and for making such necessary provisions for ye publicke, as wheate for 
the poore and other like things, and for preventing of divers incon- 
veniences and future evills, which may happen and fall upon the said 
Companies, some course may be taken that hereafter the assessments 
within this city touchinge the peticioners and their tennants may not 
bee made as of Jate it hathe bin upon ye yeerely value of theire houses in 
London, whereby ye .peticioners are taxed at greate sums to be paid and 
allowed to theire tennants out of theire rents, but, as formerly it hath 
bin, upon the Cos. onely in the place where theire respective Halls are 
scituated and upon their tennants' particular estate ; and onely upon ye 
rents of out landlords.' 3 

The petition, however, met with no response, and these taxes 
continued to be levied on the tenants. 4 

These monthly assessments by no means exhausted the financial 
demands of the Government. Sometimes additional taxes were 
raised by assessment for the year, as well as for Ireland and for 

1 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 331. 

2 Rep. + i 3 2, pp. 9 1 a, 93 a b, 94 b, 96 b, i oo b. 

3 Cf. Rep. + 132, p. 93 b, August 1649. By the 'particular estate 'of the tenant 
I presume is meant his own property freehold and personal, and by an 'out 
landlord * an absentee not living in London. 

4 Dowell, History of Taxation, vol. ii, pp. 4 ff. ; vol. iii, pp. 82 ff.; Acts and 
Ordinances of the Interregnum, ed. Firth and Rait, vol. ii, pp. 1019, 1050. For 
the method adopted by the Renter in keeping his account cf. Renters' Accounts, 
1649-50, fo. 7 j itfjo-5i,fo. 7. 

during the Commonwealth 

the army ; x and, apart from these direct taxes, there were the 
customs and excise, which were largely increased. But as these 
fell on the consumer there is no mention of them in the Drapers' 
records. And, if the money contributions of the Companies 
towards these assessments were heavy, at least they were not, as 
they had been in the past, asked for any further loans until the 
return of Charles II. 

1 c. g. cf. Renters' Accounts, 1649-50, fo. 7 ; 




T a meeting of the Court of Question of * 
Assistants held in December i<5y2,, renewal of 
a letter was read from the Com- the Charter - 
mittee for Corporations ordering 
the Company to present their 
Charter 'for alteration and renewal, 
to the end that it might be held 
under the power of the present State 
and Government '. The Livery, 
being called, assented to the de- 
livery of the said Charter, but said 
that if any new, or augmentation 
of, privileges be asked, a committee 
of the Livery should be consulted. 2 
The matter, however, went no 

further, and it was not till the reign of Charles II that the Com- 
pany obtained a confirmation of their old Charters. 

A few matters of importance concerning the constitution of the 
Society were, however, settled during the Commonwealth. In New oaths 
February 1648 an Act of Parliament had framed a new oath to be on admission 
taken by those admitted to the freedom of the City, but had not 
insisted on any oath being taken on admission to a Company, 
although that had been the usual method of obtaining the 

' The initial letter comes from the Poor Roll, 1 601-88 : -f 38?. 
Rep. + ijZj p. 1343. The same order was sent to the other Companies. 

Internal History of the Drapers 

freedom of the City. 1 The Drapers at first followed the procedure 
of other Companies. They ceased to ask for an oath on admission 
to the freedom of the Company, contenting themselves with an 
undertaking on the part of the person admitted that he would ' be 
conformable to take such an oath, as upon further consideration 
shall be appointed '. Considering however the inconvenience 
which might ensue by a continuance of this omission, the Court, 
in November 16^8, decided to revise the old oath, and enjoined 
the Wardens to administer it to all who should in future be 
admitted. 2 The oath ran as follows : 

4 You shall sweare that you shalbee faythfull and lovinge to the Guild 
or fraternity of the Drapers London. You shall obey all manner of 
sumons of the Master and wardens of the sayd Guild or fraternity by 
them or theyre officers for the tyme beinge; orelse you shall paye the 
paines and amerciaments ordayned therefore. You shalbee Compertioner, 
and to your power beare all manner of costes and charges of the sayd 
Guild or fraternity. The councells of the sayd Guilder fraternity honeste 
and lawfull you shall conceale and keepe privy. And to all causes and 
matters for the weal and worshipp of the said Guild or fraternity, when 
you shalbee summoned thereunto, You shall give your beste advice and 
councell; and all the lawfull Rule and ordinances made, or in tyme 
cominge to bee made, by the Discreete councell of the sayd Guild or 
fraternity you shall well and truly to your power observe and keepe, or 
being convicte thereof by ye Defaulte, you shall pay the paynes and 
amerciaments ordayned therefore upon Demand thereof made by the 
Master or Wardens of the sayd Guild or fraternity soe helpe you God.' 

And Master Wardens are 'intreated and appoynted to administer 
the sayd oathe as afbresayd.' 

It will be observed that the wording of this oath differs very 
slightly from that enjoined by the Ordinances of I5"76', except 

1 Cf. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, ed. Firth and Rait, vol. ii, 
p. z. It should be remembered that, unless a man was a freeman of the City by 
birth, he could only obtain that freedom through a City Company. On the other 
hand, it was not necessary that a freeman of the Company should take up the 
freedom of the City unless he wished so to do. I have come across three cases 
of members of the Drapers' Company who were not freemen of the City under 
the Commonwealth : Rep. + z66, pp. 4, 61 j + 167, p. 4. 

2 Rep. -fijz, pp. 90 a, 113 b. 

during the Commonwealth 


that the earlier one includes an oath of allegiance to the 
Sovereign. 1 

We have often noticed a that the smaller Companies, which 
were composed for the most part of handicraftsmen, had been 
eager that all those who were working at the special craft of 
their Gild should be translated to it, while the larger and 
especially the trading Companies, like the Drapers, rarely insisted 
upon translation. 

In July 1 6>o, a committee of the Common Council for griev- 
ances concerning trades asked the Company, at the instigation, no 
doubt, of the upholsterers, whether the Drapers would transkte all 
their members who were following the trade of upholstery to the 
Company of Upholsterers ' as a thing reasonable and likely to 
remedy the many deceits and abuses practiced ' in the said trade ? 
This request was refused on the ground that the Drapers' Company, 
* unlike others, doth consist of men of several trades and profes- 
sions, . . . there being scarce one Draper of tenne within London 
using the trade of Drapery, who are free of the Company ; but 
free of the Merchant Taylors, Cloth-workers and several other 
Companies ; ' and that, if all those members, who pursued other 
trades than that of drapery, were taken away from their Company, 
it * could not subsist in undergoing charge and performing service 
for the publike and the honor of this Citty, as it hathe done and 
as time may require ; ' especially as several members of the Com- 
pany using upholstery were of the Livery and * of especial 
concernment for the good of the same/ 3 

That there were only three actual instances during the 
Commonwealth of individual members asking to be allowed to 
4 translate ' to other Companies because they were molested 4 is 

1 Cf. vol. ii, of this work, p. 329, and Appendix XXX A. z Cf. supra, p. 199. 

3 Rep. + 13*5 p- 105 a. This important passage has been used in dealing 
with the question of the functions of the members of the Drapers' Company in the 
seventeenth century. Cf. supra, p. 95, note i. 

4 Viz. Two to the Woodmongers : Rep. 4-131, pp. 92 a, 179 a. One to the 
Vintners: ib., p. i86a. The request of Robert Doyly in July 1651, to be 
translated to the Mercers for causes which he alleged might be to his profit, was 
refused, because it is ' not thought fit to depart from him, ' c but to keepe him as 
a member . . . for the better service and benefit ' of the Company. The hopes 
of the Company do not appear to have been realized. He had only been admitted 

Attempt of 
to get all 
those using 
their trade 
to become 

probably to be explained by the feet that the inferior Companies 
were at this time attempting to attain their end by a more effective 
and general measure ; ' and for that purpose approached the 
Common Council in 165-3. The petitioners pointed out that the 
object of the Government in incorporating the Gilds had been to 
correct evil workmanship, and to avoid deceit in the several arts 
and manufactures, and that this purpose was frustrated by the 
present loose system of apprenticeship, whereby persons came to 
belong to Companies, who had neither ordinances to regulate them 
nor skill to judge of their wares or workmanship. Further, they 
complained that under the present system many, who were work- 
ing at some particular craft, did no service and bare no charge 
for the Company which represented the trade whereby they 
gained their subsistence. They therefore asked for an order 
insisting that, when a master bound his apprentices, he should 
bind them to that Company whose trade the master followed, and 
not to the Company or which the master was a member. 2 

In answer to this petition the Drapers in the same year formed 
a Committee * to act with Committees of such other Companies 
as shall stand together in maintaining their right to bind their 
apprentices to themselves/ 3 The Committee were not entirely 
successful in their efforts, for in August 1658 the Common Council 

by apprenticeship in the preceding April, and he never even paid quarterage. 
Cf. Rep. + 131, p. 1143. On the other hand, there is one instance of transla- 
tion to the Drapers, that of James S my the, an accomptant in the Treasury in the 
Guild hall, translated from the Joiners. Ib., p. 118 b. 

1 The inferior Companies mentioned are the Weavers, the Upholders 
(Upholsterers), and the Carpenters. Cf. Rep. +131, pp. ^^3 2-313 b. A list 
(given at the end of a Petition in Jupp, Carpenters, p. 311) omits the Upholsterers 
but adds the Joyners, Bricklayers, Feltmakers, Tylers, Plaisterers, and Hatband 
makers. Cf. also Merchant Taylors' Court Minutes, vol. ix, fo. 418 b. 

2 Cf. for the Petition, Jupp, Carpenters, p. 310, and for the fuller petition of 
1681, p. 313. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 1463, August 165:3; Wardens' Accounts, 1653-4, fo. 38. 
I have not discovered an exhaustive list of the Companies who stood by the 
Drapers ; but the Goldsmiths and the Merchant Taylors did : cf. Prideaux, 
Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 38 j Merchant Taylors' Court Minutes, vol. ix, fo. 418 b. 
The Haberdashers, the Blacksmiths and the Pewterers were asked to say 
whether they objected to the Petition j but their answer is not given. 

during the Commonwealth xg 3 

passed an Act, which imposed a fine of 20 on all Weavers who 
belonged to any other Company. 1 

On hearing of this Act the Court of the Drapers, considering 
that other Companies might be * induced to follow the like 
example and so to rend and disturb all the Companies of London ', 
ordered the Clerk to draw up queries to be submitted to counsel ; 2 
and, as he declared the Act to be against law, because it was con- 
trary to the custom of London, whereby any freeman of any 
Company might pursue the trade he preferred, it was decided that 
steps should be taken to get it repealed. 3 In November 165-8 the 
Drapers were requested by the Committee of the Common Council 
for trade to bring their objections in writing. This they prepared 
to do in conjunction with other twelve great Livery Companies. 4 
And so the controversy ended for the time. It was to be renewed 
under Charles II. 

But while the Drapers opposed the attempt of the inferior 
Companies to return to the old restrictions of the Gild system, 
they still shared the mediaeval dislike of foreigners, a dislike in 
which they were not peculiar. Thus in 16^7-8 they received 
4-j. 6et. from the Chamberlain, one-half of a fine .received of a 
member of the Company 'for setting foreigners on work in the 
City. 's 

Mr. Unwin 6 tells us of the democratic movement which Abolition of 

affected many of the Gilds during the period of the Common- the Office of 
wealth, and of the attempt of the journeyman freemen to regain J* yeo- 
the control of the government of the Gilds which they had long m anry, 
lost. It should be, however, noted that this was almost exclusively 1657. 

1 Rep. 4- 1 3 z, p. 3 1 3 b. 2 Ib., p. z 1 3 b. 

3 Ib., p. 117 b. 

4 Ib., p. 1133. That all the Greater Livery Companies took part is proved 
by a reference kindly given to me by Miss Martin : c Expended with the clerks 
of the iz chiefe Companies for Councellours fees, drawing up the report 
against the Act of Common Council obtained by some inferior Companies 
for binding of all apprentices useing their trades at their Halls, xxiii s. vi d.' 
Merchant Taylors' Wardens' Accounts, 1658-9. 

5 Wardens' Accounts, 1657-8, fo. 2.6. Cf. the petition of the Goldsmiths, 
Prideaux, vol. ii, p. 46, and of the Ironmongers, Nicholl, p. Z4J. 

6 Unwin, Industrial Organization, ch. viii, pp. 197 fF. 

H h 

Internal History of the 'Drapers 

confined to the smaller and industrial gilds, and that even among 
them the attempt was not successful. The larger and trading 
Companies do not appear to have had much trouble of this kind, 
or at all events to have easily succeeded in overcoming it. 1 As 
for the Drapers there was less cause for such an agitation, inasmuch 
as the smaller member was himself rather a small master than an 
artisan. Nevertheless, the abolition of the office of Warden of 
the Yeomanry or Master Bachelors in 165-7 marks the further 
decline in the importance of the ordinary freemen. For some 
years the position of the Wardens of the Yeomanry had been 
unsatisfactory. It was difficult to find persons to serve, 2 while 
those who did serve rarely performed their duties properly. They 
had been remiss in collecting the Quarterage of the freemen, and 
in presenting eight fit persons yearly, out of whom the Master 
Wardens were to elect the four succeeding Wardens of the 
Yeomanry. In short, the office appeared to be a useless one, and 
accordingly, in October 165-7, ' lt was decided that it should be 
abolished. 3 It was pointed out that their Charters had never 
sanctioned the existence of the office and that * most of the 
chiefest companies ' had either never had such Wardens, or had 
ceased to have them ; and that a ' considerable profit would arise 
to the Company by the fines of persons to be hereafter taken into 

1 Sir Walter Prideaux, the Clerk of the Goldsmiths' Company, tells me that 
the freemen of that Company had no Wardens or Officers of their own. Nor 
apparently had the Grocers. The organization of the Yeoman Tailors of the 
Merchant Taylors' Company was never a very strong one, and it was abolished 
in 1661. Cf. Clode, Merchant Taylors, pt. i, pp. 60 fF. 

2 In May 1649 we hear of a Mr. Smith who had never paid his fine for being 
excused from holding the post of Warden of the Yeomanry, and who was, if he 
were still recalcitrant, to be summoned before the Mayor. Rep. + 131, p. 913. 
In October 1650, two others paid fines of 40 and 50 respectively to be excused 
from being in the future elected Warden of the Yeomanry, or from being called 
to the Livery, or to any place of charge or attendance on the Company j and one 
of these did this on his being admitted to the freedom. Ib., p. 108 b. In 1654 
two freemen, who had been chosen Wardens of the Yeomanry, asked to be 
excused without paying a fine. Although this was refused, they were promised 
that they should never be called upon again, nor be called to the Livery without 
their consent. Ib., p. i6oa. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. 10 1 b. 

during the Commonwealth 

the Livery ', who had not served as Wardens of the Yeomanry. 1 
As for the Quarterage, it was ordered that the Wardens of the Payment of 
Company should for the future take care that all those who bound Quarterage, 
apprentices or entered them into the freedom duly paid, and that, 
although these were, as the minute says, the only persons who 

* on the matter ' paid Quarterage at all, the two youngest of the 
Livery should be entreated to sit in the Hall on every Quarter 
Day to receive the Quarterage from any that might appear and 
deliver the particulars thereof to the Wardens. 2 

The abolition of the office of Warden of the Yeomen involved the 
closing of the Bachelors' Box. Accordingly instructions were 
given that the balance of the account should be handed over to the 
Renter Warden. In spite of objections, which were held to be 

* very inconsiderable ', this was finally done, when the linen and 
other goods and chattels belonging to the Yeomanry were also 
surrendered. 3 

By this measure the organization of the Bachelors, or Yeomen, 
as a semi-autonomous society within the larger Company, which 
had lasted since the later part of the fifteenth century, was 
destroyed, and the Bachelors' Box disappears. 4 Henceforth active 
membership was confined to the Livery, and the ordinary freeman 
rapidly lost touch with the life of the Company, 5 unless in the 
opinion of his betters he was a fitting person to be called to the 

1 Those who had served as Wardens of the Yeomanry only paid 9*. zd. for 
their Livery. The others, beside their Livery money, paid a fine of z6. 13*. $<L 

2 Rep. + 131, p. zoi b ; Wardens' Accounts, 1658-9, fo. 30; 1659-60, fo. 18. 
Inasmuch as the Wardens of the Yeomanry had only levied the Quarterage 
from freemen, it would seem that this resolution applied only to freemen. 
Whether the Liverymen who bound apprentices or entered them into the freedom 
paid Quarterage at this date is doubtful. I believe that they did not, and 
certainly they had ceased to do so by 1660. 

3 Rep. +131, p. zoz b. The sum came to 41 i8/. 4<f. Wardens' Accounts, 
1657-8, fo. z5. 

4 Cf. vol. i of this book, p. 149 j vol. ii, pp. 75 , 76, 196 j Bachelors' Accounts, 
-f 178, fos. 139, 141. 

5 In 1660 the Court declared that, of freemen who could not dispense 500 
a year, ' they were not acquainted with their habitation or estate for the most 
patte.' Rep. + 1 3 a, p. 246 b. 

of the 

136 Internal History of the 'Drapers 

Livery. In a word the Company, which in its earlier days had 
been a popular society in which all freemen had a share in the 
government, had now become a close body of persons nominated 
by a self-elected group, consisting of the Court and the Livery ; 
and of these the Court alone had any real power. The change, 
however, does not appear to have excited any serious discontent. 
Indeed, of late the difficulty had rather been to find persons who 
were willing to accept nomination as Liverymen. This is partly 
at least to be explained by the fact that admission to the Livery, 
and still more to the Court, or to the position of Warden, or 
Master, brought with it responsibilities and expense, 1 from which 
the freeman was at least free. 

Nor did the decline in the importance of the Yeomen seriously 
deter people from entering the freedom. In spite of the evil days 
through which the country had passed since the year 1641, we 
learn from the Quarterage book that, in the year 165-1, the free- 
men numbered 1,3.90, and 1,386 in the year 165-3, or on ly forty- 
one less than it had been in 16^.1* We have no means of 
discovering the exact number of the freemen in the years 
immediately after the destruction of their semi-autonomous organi- 

1 The duties of the Master and Wardens have been given in vol. ii of this 
work, p. 117. The Liverymen had to pay for entry, and for their liveries. Cf. 
vol. ii, p. 193. They were from time to time appointed Stewards at the Stewards' 
Dinners, the charges of which they had to bear, and they further were 
expected to take part in the civic processions, and to contribute to the demands 
made by the State in the way of gifts and loans. 

3 Cf. Quarterage Books + 166, 167. In making this calculation, the same 
method has been adopted as before j cf. supra, p. 88. These years have been 
taken because 167 i is the last year in one Quarterage Book, and 1653 the first 
of the other. From the names found in 1651, all those marked dead have been 
deducted, while the list of those who had entered up to i6f 3 are presumably the 
freemen of that date. In the course of the year 1653, four were called to the 
Livery j cf. Livery Book +301. The number of admissions to the freedom 
from i^49~J9 were 788, or an average of 7i T 7 T a year. Cf. Freedom List+ 179. 
Most of these were admitted through apprenticeship ; a few were, however, 
elected after the election dinner by special favour and paid no fee : e.g. i<Jf I, 
Richard Jones and Sam. Rowe j 1651, Lord Monzon, Major-General Harrison, 
Ed. Harris, Thomas Forthe. Rep. +301, pp. 140, i5z, Appendix to this 
volume, XXV. iii. 

during the Commonwealth 157 

zation under their Master Bachelors, but, as we shall see, in 166? 
there was only a further decline of some thirty. 1 

In one respect the Court made haste to allay any apprehensions 
of the freemen that they would suffer materially. Conceiving 
that the Yeomanry might fear * lest they should be utterly deprived 
of their dinner ', especially as it was some years since, owing to 
the times, one had been held, it was ordered that such a dinner 
should be held at the accustomed date (Tuesday after Michaelmas 
Day), and that the accustomed fee of izd. should be remitted for 
the future. 2 The Court desired that the dinner should be one 
that befitted the credit of the Company and yet ' as frugally as 
conveniently it may be '. It cost &W ^.s. Sd. 3 

But while the ordinary freeman was thus becoming of less Increase in 
importance, the size of the Livery was increased. In the year Numbers of 
of Charles's execution, the Livery (exclusive of the Assistants, who r ; Llvei 7- 
numbered with the Master and four Wardens 34), was composed 
of 69, and in the following year of 6$ ; a number which we are, 
however, told was small when compared with that of other 
Companies. 4 In September 165-0 therefore it was resolved that 
whereas * divers of the Yeomanry ancient in freedom, and of good 
worth and hability, have been of long time neglected and for- 
gotten to be called, . . . whereby much discontent had arisen 
amongst them by seeing others, their juniors, preferred and called 
before them ', the Wardens should at their discretion call any such 

1 Cf. infra, p. 320. The following table shows the fluctuations in the number 
of the freemen since the reign of James : 

Numbers of Freemen. Numbers paying Quarterage. 
1617 1106 617 

1641 1417 576 

1651 1390 ? 

165:3 1386 564 

\66<) 1356 or 1359 381 

For admissions into Freedom from 1649-59 cf. Appendix XXV. iii. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. zi3 a. 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1658-9, fo. 39. The fare was to be seven good 
substantial dishes without a second course for one messe in the Hall, where the 
better sort sat ; and five dishes for each messe in the parlour. Cf. Rep. 

p. 2 1 6 a. 

4 Cf. Rep. + 131, p. 1593. 

Internal History of the Drapers 

to the number of twelve, and this not only ' for the continuance 

of unity ', but because thereby money might be raised towards the 

payment of the Company's debts. 1 In the next year ten persons, 

who had served the office of Wardens of the Yeomanry, and 

twenty-four others were called. 2 In 16^-4, in anticipation of the 

election of Sir Christopher Pack, the Master, to the office of Lord 

Mayor in the following September, the Wardens were asked to 

carefully peruse the Quarterage book, and find at least forty fit to 

be chosen to the Livery. 3 Accordingly as many as forty-three 

Admissions were called. 4 In the following year only one was admitted. 5 On 

into the the a b li t i on o f tne office of Warden of the Yeomanry, it was 

ever/ fourth decided tnat m future freemen should be taken into the Livery 

year, and to every fourth year, as had been the custom of late, and that a 

be twice as Committee consisting of the Master, the Wardens and others 

many as they should carefully peruse the Quarterage book and choose double 

the number hitherto taken. 6 Finally, in August of the following 

year, twelve, of whom eight had served as Wardens of the 

Yeomanry, were called, and it was resolved that ' for ever here- 

after there shall be a yearly addition to the Livery of eight and 

no more, unless for any extraordinary emergency the Court 

decide otherwise '. 7 In the year of the Restoration the number of 

the Livery (including the Master, the Wardens, and twenty-eight 

Assistants) was one hundred and eighteen. 8 

1 Rep. + 132, p. 107 a. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, i6f 1-2, fo. 35. Those who had served as Wardens of 
the Yeomanry paid only 9*. ^d t for their livery. The others paid 16 13*. $d. 
in addition to the livery money. 

3 Rep. + 131, p. ifpb. 

4 Viz. the four Wardens of the Yeomanry ; eleven who had previously 
served as Wardens of the Yeomanry, twenty-eight who had not. Wardens' 
Accounts, 16*4-5, fo. 28. 

5 Rep. -f 131, p. i68b. 

6 Ib., p. 201 b. 

7 Ib., p. 2133. Roger Hatton, who had served as Warden of the Yeomanry, 
at first declined to enter. But as the Court had a good opinion of him, his 
friends prevailed upon him to accept the Company's love in offering him the 
Livery. Rep +132, p. 2223. 

8 Cf. Livery List +301, and Appendix. In i6jo the Goldsmiths ordered 
that none but those exercising the trade of a goldsmith should be admitted to the 
Livery, lest the government should fall into the hands of persons ignorant of the 

during the Commonwealth 139 

One reason for increasing the number of the Livery was that 
the fees, which were heavy, helped the Company to pay off its 
debts. 1 Another reason was, perhaps, the slender appearance of 
Liverymen at Quarter Day and other meetings. In 16?% an 
attempt was made to check this irregularity by imposing a fine of 
is. 8//. for non-appearance. 2 

In July lo^p the Court also decided to do away with the office The Office 
of Renter. The last two Renters, Ralph Sheppard and T. Cart- of Renter 
wright, had neither of them proved satisfactory. Both of them a ^ ollshed J 
had made mistakes in their accounts, and Cartwright, who had been 
a freeman of the Company and a Woollen Draper, had also been 
forced to borrow of the Company. In October i<5.f7, being 
unable to make his account good, he had declared himself to be 
' unfit to continue in office ', and the Clerk, George Inice, had 
been asked to temporarily undertake his work at an extra fee of 
jfio a year. The Court had, however, allowed Cartwright to 
continue his salary, and to live in the house in the Garden, which 
of late had been appropriated to the Renter, on condition that he 
found security for the payment of the balance of his account, and 
also of the %6 he had borrowed. In the following June he had 
been given 10 to find him clothes and coals against winter, and 
in i6^p he was given ^2, in his sickness. 3 On Cartwright's 
death, which occurred in July of the following year (16^9), no 
new Renter was appointed. The Clerk continued to do the work, 
receiving the salary of the Renter (32, 6s. %d.) and his fees, as 
well as his own. The Beadle was allowed to occupy the house 
in the Garden, while the widow of Cartwright was given a 

mystery. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 171. The Drapers had no such rule, 
as persons of all professions were in the clothing. 

1 Rep. + 131, p. lojb. 

2 !*>., P- I49b. 

3 Ib.j pp. 1313, i ?6 a, ?oi a, nob, zifbj Renters' Accounts, 1658-9, 
fo. iz. The deficit in Cartwright's account was not entirely his fault. The 
Company had of late renewed all the leases they could and levied fines, so 
as to provide ready money to meet their debts. In spite of this, the annual 
receipts of the Renter did not suffice to meet the current expenses, and the 
Renter had been forced to borrow from the Wardens. Moreover, the deficit 
was found to be less than wis supposed. Cf. Rep. + 1 3 z, pp. 1313, 171 a, z 1 7 a b. 

The Beadle 
and Porter 
to be 
their fees 
stopped but 
salaries in- 

iz 10 

X4-O Internal History of the Drapers 

gratuity. 1 From this time forward the work of the Renter was 
taken over by the Clerk, although the Renter's Account continued 
to be kept separately from that of the Wardens. 

One year oefore, the Court had thought it necessary to dismiss 
the Beadle and the Porter, or Under-beadle. They had exacted 
more and larger fees from those admitted to the freedom than was 
lawful, and had otherwise in various ways miscarried themselves 
by receiving fees from the poor who received the charity of the 

Rep. + 132, p. 229 b. The salary and fees of the Clerk at this time were : 


Original Salary 
Fees, under Bequests for administering the same 

Gift of the House : 

For a Livery gown .... 2 

Clerk's .... 2 
For candles . . . . .'8 
Eight Livery fines, calculated on average 

number of admissions to the Livery 2 
Solicitation Fee .... 2 
Fee for keeping Accounts, &c. . 5 

Extra Fees and Perquisites : 

For drawing leases since February 1604. 
For Bindings, is. 6d. since 1604 (Rep. +131, p. 23 b). 
For Freedoms through Apprenticeship or Patrimony, %d. 
For Freedoms by Redemption, 3*. ^d. 

For the Clerks' Mess at every Hall Feast, commuted for \6s. 
Pieces of candles left after dinners. 
So many chaldrons of coals, coke, and wood billets. 

Fees when Ward motes were held in the Hall . . 220 
Fees when Distillers held their courts in the Hall . . 800 

N. B. These fees for the Hall stopped in 1827, when it was resolved that the 
Hall should only be used for the business of the Company. 

Subsequent additions : 

1756. In lieu of fees for Balls and Feasts which were no longer 

to be held in the Hall 28 

Salary raised in 1803 ..... 200 ) 

1827 200 j 

For management of Irish Estate when the Company 

took over the management in 1817 . . . .350 

He is now paid a fixed salary. 

' d. 

66 '3 4) 

32 6 *\ 99 


92 6 o 








^ 23 6 10 






o , 


Reasonable fees. 


400 o o 

during the Commonwealth 

House. To prevent abuse in the future it was decided that 
these two offices should be filled by election every August, 
instead of being held during the pleasure of the Court, and, to 
remove all colourable reason for exacting unwarrantable fees, 
the salaries were increased. 1 

We have already noticed that the old difficulty of getting 
persons who were willing to fill the office of Sheriff was a serious 
one during the Commonwealth. 2 The same difficulty was ex- 
perienced with regard to the Wardenship of the Company. No 
less than fourteen excused themselves during the ten years of the 
interregnum. Among the reasons given were sickness and 
infirmity, losses, absence from London, being elected an Alderman, 3 
and employment in the service of the State. The usual fine for 
declining to serve was generally enforced, but was returned if a 
person who refused accepted office at a later date. 4 There are, 
however, only two instances of persons declining to accept the 
office of Master. In i6yp Ambrose Brunskill was excused on the 
ground that he was indisposed and had settled in the country. 
Mr. Crofte, who was chosen in his place, though desirous to serve, 
was excused because he was c ill by reason of a distemper '. 
Mr. Brunskill paid his fine of ^2.0, but it was remitted in the 
case of Mr. Crofte. 3 

The conditions of the City w y ere not well fitted for feasting 
and merriment. 'Trade was dead, taxation great, provisions 
extremely dear, the poverty of the poor extreme.' Above all, 
there were continual ' fears of troubles that might happen '. 6 

1 Rep. -f 132, p. 203 a. The Beadle was to receive \6 instead of his old 
salary of 6 in addition to the 6 i$s. $d. he had hitherto received from the 
Wardens of the Bachelors. The Porter was to receive 13 6s. 8rf., instead of 
7 salary and 3 annual pension. 

2 Cf. tupra p. 211. 

3 It appears that at that time an Alderman need not serve as a Warden j cf. 
Rep. + i 3 2, pp. 1 04 b, 1 08 a. 

4 Rep. + 132, pp. 95 a, 1073, 147 a b, I7ob, 179 a, 184 a, zoo a, 205 a, 238 a. 

5 Ib., p. 233 b. It may here be noted that since January 1651 the 
meetings of the Court, which had been early, were now very frequently held 
after noon. 

6 Ib., pp. 1073,1103,2393. The winter of 1657-8 was also a very cold one. 
Ib., p. 205 a. 

1603.3 1 i 

and Masters 
refusing to 

Reduction in 
the number 
of Dinners. 

14-x Internal History of the Drapers 

The Court therefore decided to reduce the number of the dinners, 
as it had during the Civil War. Throughout the period of the 
Commonwealth the Election Day dinners were only intermittently 
held, and the allowance seriously reduced. 1 Of the Quarter Day 
dinners only one was held every year, and that in December. 
The Stewards' dinners were also curtailed. 

In 165-1 divers Liverymen, who had newly entered the Livery, 
presented a petition that, as they had borne heavy charges on 
coming on to the Livery and times were bad, four instead of 
two stewards should be appointed to every Stewards' dinner, 
and that an allowance should be made them by the House. This 
was refused, on the grounds that if four were appointed the list of 
the Livery would be soon exhausted, and that the diet had been 
reduced to eight or nine dishes to every mess. There were, 
however, to be only two such dinners, one when the Mayor took 
his oath at Westminster, and the other on the yth of November to 
commemorate the failure of the Gunpowder Plot ; 2 and this rule 
was henceforth generally adhered to. The private dinner of the 
Assistants at election time was usually held, but the Great Dinner 
rarely. The Yeomanry dinner at election time was also only 
held occasionally, and then generally in spite of a protest from 
the Wardens, 3 and, if the two usual View Day dinners were gene- 
rally kept, the fare was a very modest one. 

1 In 1647, 1648, and 165 1, the allowance was only 13 6s. 8d, instead of 40. 
In 1651 it was raised to 20 'in respect of extraordinary charges in going to 
church and paying the ringers'. In 165411 was z6 i$s. 4<, c in respect of 
extraordinary provisions for the Mayor's Messe '. In 1660-1 it was 20. Cf. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1648-9, fo. 465 1650-1, fo. 43 j 1652-3, fo. 35 : 1654-5, 
fo. 36; 1660-1, fo. 35. 

2 Rep. -i- 132, p. 1 10 a. The policy of the Court with regard to Stewards' 
dinners had varied very much. Apparently, when an allowance was made it was 
by special grant, and I have found no instance since 1639. In 1658, however, 
it was decided to grant an allowance of 10 for every Stewards' dinner. Ib., 
p. 221 b. Even after that we find instances of Liverymen refusing to act as 
Stewards. Those who did were not to be summoned to any meeting of the 
Livery. Ib., p. 2363. These were the usual Stewards' dinners. Excep- 
tional ones were appointed from time to time, e.g. for Coronation Day, or 
a Day of Thanksgiving. 

3 Rep. + 132, pp. 94 ab > 1<5 9 a j I7ob. 

during the Commonwealth 145 

With regard to the fare generally, an order of November Fare at 
' was in the year 165-4. confirmed, in the following some- dmners 
what quaint terms : 

'In respect that, notwithstanding ' an order of November 1645-, e divers 
of this Company making dinners or feasts within the Hall, and not 
taking notice of the said order, have, in their love and to show their 
bounty, exceeded in number of dishes and fare and bin at greater charges 
than they might have bin else, by whose example others, though of meaner 
estate, for their credit sake and avoiding unkind censures did expende 
their monies with lesse delight, comfort and love than otherwise they 
would have done, thinking muche that they, as Members of this Com- 
pany, should bee putt at so greate expence ; this Court therefore taking 
consideracion of the premisses and cf the present time, together with the 
greate taxes and expences imposed beyond what hath formerly bin, doth 
not only approve, . . . ratifie and confirme the said . . . order, but do 
hereby order and appointe that the same be hereafter in all respectes 
duly kepte and performed from time to time by all whom the same may 
an ; e waie concerne. And for the better taking notice hereafter of the 
said order, it is thought fitt and appointed that the clarke . . . shall 
deliver ... a coppie thereof to such as shall make anie dinner or feaste 
in his house or for this Companie/ 

At the same time the cook was dismissed for many misde- 
meanours, especially for being unpunctual, sending up the meal 
ill-cooked, and for demanding too high rates for his provisions. 2 

In the following September the allowances for some of the 
dinners and their number were definitely fixed. 3 

1 For this order cf. supra, p. 164. 

2 Rep. + 1 3 z, p. 1 60 a, b. 

i Court Dinner . . . . . 13 6s. 8</. 

z View Dinners \ 

i Search Dinners , 4 each. 

I Audit Dinner j 

3 Dinners at distribution of charity . . . z xor. 
Rep. + 1 3 2, p. 1733. The allowance for the Election Dinner was now generally 
only zo instead of 40, as it had been. For the Quarter Day and Stewards' 
dinners (now two) 10, although an extra allowance was given for the Mayor's 
Mess, when he appeared at an Election or Quarter Day dinner. All extra 
charges had to be borne by the official or officials responsible. These allowances, 
with the exception of that for the Election Dinner, were higher than in the 
reign of James I. Cf. sttpra } p. 14, note 5. In September 1658 it was ordered 

144- Internal History of the "Drapers 

In every case where a dinner was omitted, the officers respon- 
sible for the same were expected to contribute a c fine ' towards 
the relief of the poor, which exceeded the allowance they received 
from the Company. The orders made from time to time that no 
one should go as ' benevolent guests ' to the Sheriffs' dinners were 
also due to a desire to save the fee, which the Company provided 
on such occasions. 1 

Abuses Regulations were also made to put a stop to ' great and intoler- 

reinedied. a b} e abuses ' committed by the under officials and other hangers- 
on, who intruded themselves into the Hall and parlour at dinners, 
under colour of attending on some Liveryman, and * took dishes 
unmannerly from the tables, their children and wives standing 
with baskets near the Hall to receive the same, or hid food in 
bags till the dinner was finished '. Already in the reign of 
Charles I an attempt had been made to check these abuses. 
Nothing was to be taken from the side tables, where the Alder- 
men's men, the beadle, and others sat, till they had dined and 
risen, except a dish of meat, which was to be sent by the Master 
Cook to the nnder-cook and scullion in the kitchen. When the 
table had risen, the beadle, the butler and the porter might 
divide the remains, allowing something for the scourer. From 
the other tables nothing was to be taken. 2 

These regulations had not cured the evil, and accordingly, in 
1 65-4, they were replaced by others. 3 No Liveryman was to give 
anything during dinner to any person, and no Assistant except to 
his particular servant, and that for present eating and not to be taken 
away. No Liveryman, not being an Assistant, was to bring in any 
one to attend him at dinner, but a convenient number of waiters 
were to be appointed at a fee of ia/^., which was to be forfeited 
for bad behaviour. No servant was to cut or carry away any 
meat, especially from sirloins of beef, from the side table during 
dinner. The punishment for all such offences was a fine of -LS. 

that the Yeomanry dinner should consist of seven good substantial dishes without 
seconds for one mess to be served in the Hall, where the better sort sit ; and 
five for each mess in the parlour; ib., p. n5a. 

1 Rep. -f 132, p. ia6b. This policy had been resorted to in 1641, and at 
other times, both before and after that date. 

- Rep. + 131, p. 1303. 3 Ib.j pp. 161 a. 

during the Commonwealth 

to u. 6V. for the first offence, which was to go to the poor, with 
the threat of exclusion from all dinners till the fine was paid, and 
of suspension in the event of the offence being repeated. Further, 
to prevent the purloining of the linen and pewter, which had 
occurred of late, they were to be taken from the custody of the 
beadle and placed in that of the youngest Warden, who was to 
give them out by tale to the butler when they were required. 1 

But if the Court did their best to cut down all unnecessary The Garden. 
expense and waste with regard to their dinners, they were un- 
willing to neglect their Garden, in which they had always 
shown great interest. It is true that in 165-0 they decided not 
to make up the bowling gallery, and it was not till 165-3 ^at 
they ordered it to be renewed. After that it was repaired in 
every Spring at a cost of some 3 IDS. to ^ IDJ. To meet this 
and other expenses a fee was charged from players. 2 In 165-6 
some indeed remonstrated. They pointed out that * scarce any 
person of quality ' played, but only young men ' more fit to be 
employed in their callings than to spend the whole afternoon at 
the game ', and that the regulations, which had often been passed 
with regard to the Garden, were not kept. These objections 
did not prevail, and the Court * after dinner ! ' took a more genial 
view, the Renter promising to put up the rules in a room hitherto 
used for * gameing '. 3 In 165-9 the Court also ordered the rugged 
stone pavement in the entries to the Garden to be replaced by 
purbeck stone. 4 

Nor was the Court unmindful of the necessity of maintaining Revived 
the honour and dignity of the Company, more especially towards importance 
the close of the Commonwealth, by which time we may well attachetl . to 
believe a reaction had set in against the license and disregard of ( 
proper ceremony, which was one of the least lovable tendencies 
of Puritanism. Thus, in 165-7, ^ was ordered that all members 
of the Court, except those who had held the office of Mayor or 

1 Rep. +131, pp. 16 1 a ff. 

2 Ib., pp. 102, b, 137 b, 208 b. Renters' Accounts, i6jz-2j fo. I2. } and later 
Renters* Accounts. A pair of bowls cost jr. 

3 Rep. + 1315 p. 179 a. 

4 Ib.j p. 137 ; Wardens' Accounts, 1659-60, fo. 41. 

Internal History of the Drapers 

Sheriff, should attend the processions of the Company when they 
went to St. Paul's, or to the election of the civic magistrates, and 
that proper gowns should be worn at meetings of the Court instead 
of cloaks, as of late had been adopted by some. This last regula- 
tion, however, was resisted because of the expense and incon- 
venience of the said gowns, and the Wardens were requested to 
find some remedy. Smoking in the parlour, being considered 
' inconvenient ' and dangerous, was also forbidden, on pain of a fine 

Of 2,J. 6V. 1 

Charity. It is evident, from the amount of charity dispensed, that there 

was during the Commonwealth a great deal of distress. 2 The 
nature of the relief was much as it had been before. In the first 
place, the usual distribution of 2,0 at Easter and at Christmas 
among the poor of the Company was frequently increased 
from the fines paid by the Wardens and the Stewards in lieu of 
their dinner charges ; from the contributions of the lease holders 
of the Company, who were asked to put their moneys in the poor 
box ; 3 and from charitable gifts or bequests. 4 Then came direct 
doles ; loans, for the repayment of which sureties had to be found, 
and which were often given to set the applicant up in business ; 
assistance to release members and others from the debtors' prisons ; 
and grants towards putting out children of applicants as apprentices 
or in service. 5 There are also two instances of annuities, for 

1 Rep. +131, pp. I99b, zoz a, 203 a b. 

2 In 1650 the Common Council raised 4,000 on the Wards to find work for 
the poor. Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 313. The winter of 1677-8 was one of 
heavy snow and hard frost. Wardens' Accounts, 1657-8, fo. 36. 

3 This way of raising money had been first tried in 1646-7. It then only 
produced 1 io/. It was used three times during the Commonwealth; In 
1650-1 it produced 3 8/. zd. ; in 1651-3, 7; in 1653-4, 3 } in 1659-60, 
10 11 f. yd. Cf. Wardens' Accounts for the respective years, under General 

4 The gifts or bequests made during the Commonwealth were : A. Almshouses, 
two sets. B. Lands producing rents of some 315 17*. Zd. C. Money, 
585. The total disappearance of bequests of money to be lent out to 
young men is noticeable. There was one of 50, but it never accrued to the 
Company. Cf. Appendix, Benefactions XLVII. 

5 The references are too numerous to give. They will be found chiefly in the 
Wardens' and Renters' Accounts, or in the Repertory. There is one grant of 
t to a poor brother to go to the Barbadoes. Rep. -J- 131, p. 91 b. 

during the Commonwealth 147 

which the receivers paid down a lump sum. 1 It is noticeable that 
the gift of 5- towards repairing the steeple of All Saints, Barking, 
is the only instance of a contribution to the reparation of churches, 2 
and that there was only one small dole of i to a ' poor minister 
and preacher of good words '. 3 The benefaction of Rainey towards 
the preaching of sermons at St. Paul's Cross and at Cornhill was 
also only intermittently paid. In several years the sermons were 
not preached, because the Lord Mayor had sent no warrants. 
But from time to time they were revived, and then the Company 
were ordered to pay arrears for the years when they had been 
omitted. 4 

As to the sermons to be preached, according to Rainey 's will, at 
St. Michael's, Cornhill, on Holy Days, at Easter and Whitsuntide, 
we have a characteristic and humorous notice. The preacher, in 
165-3, pleaded as an excuse for not preaching an ordinance of 
Parliament forbidding the observance of Holy Days, which he 
* dared not adventure ' to disobey. The Court accordingly advised 
him to announce the day of the week, and not call it an Holy 
Day ! 5 The divine service to be daily read by the Curate of 
St. Christopher's at 6 a.m. at the Great North Gate of St. Paul's was 
for some years inhibited by public authority. In January 165-8, 
however, the Court requested the Curate to resume the service, 
informing him that otherwise they would find some other fit 
person, and that the people should be encouraged to constant 
attendance and worship, 6 These two incidents may be taken as 
a proof that the Court did not share the anti-church prejudices 
of the Puritans, while the last seems to show a reaction towards 
the Established Church at the close of the Interregnum. 7 

1 In 16^6 Sarah Cullimore, who had hitherto held an annuity of 4, paid 50 
to have the annuity doubled, with a promise that she should have a share in 
future charitable allowances. Ib., p. i8zb. In 1657 Sarah Pomfret, widow of 
a Liveryman, pays 50 and receives an annuity of 8. Ib., p. ZO4 a. 

2 Ib., p. 13 5 b. . 3 Ib., p. 90 b. 

4 Rep. + 131, pp. 101 b, 105 ab, 141 b, i3ob} Wardens' Accounts, 1653-4, 
fo. 39. 

5 Rep. -f 131, p. 141 b. 6 Ib., p. zoj a. 

7 In 165 1, 3 9 is assessed on the Hall for repairing the Parish Church of 
St. Peter-le-Poor. Ib., p. ^6z b. 

148 Internal History of the "Drapers 

Among the contributions of the Company, beyond the Ex- 
hibitions at Oxford and Cambridge, 1 and the gifts to students \vho 
were proceeding to their degree, the following are interesting as 
showing that the Company still continued to be patrons of 
literature and learning. 

In i<5?^., 10 was given to John Ogilby for *a faire large book 

with Maps of Virgil translated in English Meter with annotations ', 

and in 165-7, ^3 to James Ho well, who had presented his book 

* Londinopolis or a Survey of London ' and was ' now poor '." 

Gift to In the following year the Company gave ^150 for the repairing 

Pembroke o f tne Hall of Pembroke Hal], Cambridge. The letter of the 

Master and Fellows asking for help is interesting as a specimen of 

the style of the day. It runs thus: 3 

'To the Right Worshipfull the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the 
Company of Drapers. Right worshipfull, It may seeme happily not only 
strange and uncouth, but alsoe little agreeable to those lawes of modesty, 
which should be held sacred, especially with us in these places of educa- 
cion, That wee, who have not had the good hap to bee any wayes known 
to you, should notwithstandinge addresse to you in this manner, as the 
sequell of this paper will importe. Nor have wee any other Defense or 
Apology for ourselves herein, but the necessity of the case on the one 
hand, and the knowne goodnesse and piety of this famous citty on the 
other. For, Gentlemen, it is a maniftste truth, for which you and the 
Nation in you, and for you, have much Reason to blesse God, That 
your large Heartes and publique spiritts, particularly celebrated for the 
universail Patronage of those twoe most publicke interestes of all others 
Religion and Learninge, have from tyme to tyme furnisht us with more 
Reall Arguments wherewith to confronte the Romish braggs of theyr 
good workes, than any Protestante Citty in the world besides. 

1 Some of the Exhibitions were provided out of moneys left by private bene- 
factors, others by the House. 

2 Rep. +132, pp. 158;), 1993. For these two worthies cf. Diet. National 
Biography. James Howell was subsequently appointed Historiographer Royal by 
James II. The Goldsmiths were not so generous; they only gave him i for 
the book, but 10 to Ogilby. Prideaux, vol. ii, pp. 68, 1 19. The Ironmongers 
gave 3Oj. to Howell, and 20 nobles for Ogilby 's Book. Nicholl, Ironmongers, 
p. 296. Ogilby was a member of the Merchant Taylors' Company: cf.. Clode, 
Memorials, p. 187. It was the common practice of the day for authors to present 
books to patrons who would be likely to respond. 

1 Rep. -f 1 3 2, p. 2 i i b. 

during the Commonwealth 14,9 

Uppon this confidence therefore, and the single iricouragement thereof, 
wee shall crave leave with your good favour and allowance to recommend 
to you an objecte of your charity, and such an one, whereon wee hope it 
will appeare to you, you have an opportunity, not only of bestowinge, 
but of improvinge with the beste advantage some of that store, which 
accordinge as God hath prospered you, you lay by you for pious uses. 
It is the Antient and Religious Foundacion (as Queene Elizabeth taking 
speciall -notyce of the eminente Lightes of the Church which sprange 
thence was pleased to stile it) of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge, of 
which seminary of good Learninge (although It might bee but an acte of 
justice to our predecessours and gratitude to God to enlarge a little in 
magnifyinge his particular blessinge on it, yet) wee shall only say thus 
much ; That for these many ages paste it hath not beene a barren womb 
nor borne Drybreasts. For without feare of envy or suspition of vanity 
wee may boldly affirme thus much of our poore old colledge, That now, 
for above these three hundred years, it hath borne its parte in supplyinge 
the Church and nacion with able and usefull Ministers, and such many 
of them, as have been accounted among the worthyes of theyre genera- 
cionj yea, if wee should say, that it hath afforded more than a Ratable 
Contribution to these publique services (although happily it may not soe 
well become our mouths, yet) wee are well assured, That all those who 
have knowne or heard of those many martyrs, Rogers the firste, Ridley 
the moste Learned, Bradford the holiest of that glorious army, which 
abode the fiery tryall in Queene Maryes daies ; those many Reverend 
Fathers and eminente Pillars of the Church ; those many, Grindalls, 
Whitgiftes, Andrews, Feltons, Fulks, Greenham, Fenners, (of which wee 
might give large Catalogues) who all had theyr educacion here, will 
abundantly testify for us, that herein wee should not use any overreach- 
inge expression to excite your eharyty, but sufficiently keep ourselves, 
within the bounds both of truth and modesty* 

c But now, soe it is, that the very antiquity of this anciente seed plott 
of Religion and Learninge is become the presente matter of our griefe 
and complaynte, because thereby this house is well nigh Disabled from 
being any longer a seate of Religious educacion. For havinge, as wee 
sayd, stood for above these three hundred yeares, and never yet craved 
assistance from abroad for the Repayringe of it, (which we know none of 
ye like Antiquity can say) it is at length become so universally Decayed 
and Ruinous, that the very walls thereof are ready to fall downe at every 
beholders feete to implore theyr assistance to keepe them upp. In order 
to which good end wee the presente Master and Fellowes, as we are most 
particularly obliged, soe can wee truely say, that to our ability yea and 
beyond it too, wee Have Layd out ourselves. 

' For, be pleased further to understand, that at our owne charge wee 
have compassed the purchase of a considerable quantity of good and 
1603.3 K k 

Internal History of the 'Drapers 

substantiall stone, enough in the judgemente of skillfull workemen com- 
pleately to Repayre the Ruine of our Colledge. But alas! the settinge 
them upp, together with other necessary materyalls, as of Lead, Tim- 
ber, etc. will yet require a greate sum of money, which wee are noe way 
able to procure units it shall please God to stirre upp, such publicke 
spiritts, such Lovers and Patrons of Religion and Learninge as your- 
selves to contribute your worthy assistance to soe good a worke. 

c Gentlemen, This is the objecte and this is the case of it, which we 
desire to presente to your pious consideracion, And wee doubt not, but 
that wisdome, which governes your charyty, will preferre it before many 
of those every Day occasions, which offer themselves to you. For if the 
receivinge of one Prophett in the name of a Prophett bee of soe greate 
accounte with God, as to entitle us to a Prophet's Reward for soe Doinge, 
then what Reward may they expecte, who out of a single eye to the 
supplying of the church of God from age to age with Prophetts and 
Prophetts' children shall contrybute to the upholdinge of these houses, 
which our pious Ancestors have provided for the constante Recepcion 
and entertaynemente of them ; A worke that seemes to bee of such indis- 
pensable necessity, that God was once pleased to put himselfe to the 
charge of a miracle (and wee find him not workinge miracles in flighty 
and triviall matters) for the carryinge of it on, makinge Iron to swimme 
for the buildinge the schooles of the Prophetts and Doubtles, if charity 
admit of any Arte of improvement, if bounty be capable of any kind of 
good Husbandry, if there be any way more compendious than other to be 
rich in good workes it is this of foundinge and maynteyninge places of 
good and Religious education, whereby our Liberality doth not only 
Relieve the outward necessityes of many poore students, but also reach 
the good of soules, and that to all succeedinge generacions. Sure wee 
are, there is noe way better to perpetuate the precious memory of good 
men ; As an earneste whereof our predecessors by a very Laudable example 
have beene wonte to embalme the Names of their benefactors in a Leafe 
of Lawrell, the Emblem of Immortality. In which that wee may have 
occasion of Recordinge Youres, as it will be the greate Honour, soe it 
is the good hope of Gentlemen your very Respectful friends to serve you. 
The Master and Fellowes of Pembroke Hall.' 

The gift was acknowledged in appropriate terms, and the money, 
by the request of the authorities of the Hall, paid over to 
Mr. Edmund Calamy minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury and 
Dr. Roger Drake, minister of Peter's Cheape, both of whom had 
graduated from the Hall. 1 

1 Edmund Calamy was the noted Presbyterian and the author of { The Saints' 
Rest '. Roger Drake, another eminent Presbyterian, was a doctor of medicine 

during the Commonwealth 


The number of persons receiving relief during the period under 
review, who had held high position in the Company, was consider- 
ably less, but the relations of such persons much more numerous 
than they had been in the reign of Charles I. 1 

As usual the Company was not neglectful of its old officers, Chsrityjo 
servants and their relations. Thus the son of their late Renter, ' at <j 
Rilph Sheppard, was given 6 towards his discharge out of the * 
debtors' prison ; Cartwright, who succeeded him, was on his retire- re i a tio 
ment, lent ^80, and in the following year granted 10 to supply 
him with clothes and coals against winter. 2 The widow of 
Humphrey Downes was ' treated kindly with regard to a small 
house ' she rented of the Company. 3 The two sons of Richard 
Minors, their late porter and under-beadle, were given 10 each ; 
one to go to the East Indies, the other towards his apprenticeship. 4 
Part of the fine on her lease was remitted to the widow of their 
cook, and to the widow of the schoolmaster at Bow was granted 
^'4, as well as ? towards placing her daughter. 5 Goodman 
Goodrich, the Warden of Queen Elizabeth's College, received 18 
for coals against winter ; and Adrian Littlejohn, who had fulfilled 
the duties of reading prayers and the scriptures at St. Christopher's 
Church, but was then old, ^'g. 6 

The total amount of charity dispensed in 165-8-9 among the 
poor of the Company came to over ^Vo'o, while ^804 odd was 

and a member of the College of Physicians, who subsequently took orders. For 
the lives of these two men cf. Diet. National Biography. 

1 Viz. two as ( Wm. Perry, a liveryman, Rep. + 132, p. 1333. 
Stephen Burton, once Warden, Ib., p. 158 a. 

3 Widows of Wardens, Ib., pp. 1023, 183^ 209 b. 

i Widow of an Assistant, Ib., p. 1 8 2 b. 

f widows of Liverymen, ib., pp. i fo b, 165 b, 178 b, 

compared with 
eight in 1647-8. 
Viz. eleven as 
compared with 
two in 1647-8. 

r daughter of an Assistsnt, Ib., p. 182 b. 
i son of 3 liveryman, Ib. 3 1353. 
^f. supra, Chanty under Charles I, p. 177. 
2 Rep. + 132, pp. 197 a, 210 b, 226 b, 3 Ib., 128 a. 

4 Ib., pp. 89 3, 1 02 a. 

5 Ib., pp. 88 b, 1373, i Sob. 

6 Ib., pp. 123 a, 228 b. 

Internal History of the Drapers 

distributed among outsiders, making a total of 1,364 i8j. 6//. 1 as 
compared with 80 1 i8j. ^d. dispensed in 164.7-8. 

Howell's As usual the Company had some difficulty in administering 

Chanty. Ho well's Charity. By a decree of the Court of Chancery in the 
first year of Queen Elizabeth it had been ordered that a certificate 
from the Bishop of Llandaff as to the fitness of applicants for the 
Charity should be received by the Company before the marriage 
portions were granted. 2 After the abolition of episcopacy and the 
establishment of the Presbyterian system in 1 648 there was no one 
appointed to undertake his duty, and the Company having no 
means of testing the validity of the claims, for a time declined to 
grant the portions. In June i<%9, however, on a motion being 
made in Chancery on behalf of divers orphans of Howell's kindred, 
the Company decided that they would for the future be satisfied 
with the certificates of the Mayor, of the Bailiff of Monmouth and 
of five Justices of the county. Accordingly after some delay the 
Company paid, in the year 165-1, the sum of 756 (i.e. the 
arrears of 84 per annum for nine years). 3 As might be expected 
the granting of so many marriage portions in one year 4 exhausted 

1 Thus : To Poor of the Company s. d. 

By Will or Gift 345 18 4 

By Gift of the House 264. \6 6 
To Poor not of the Company 

By Will or Gift 641 38 

By Gift of the House 163 o o 

Total 1414 1 8 6 

The total is certainly correct. But I cannot be quite certain as to the exact 
proportion distributed to poor of the Company and to outsiders. My estimate 
may however be taken as approximately accurate. Cf. Appendix XXVIII C. 

2 For the certificates of the Bishop of LlandafF and his acknowledgement of 
monies received cf. Rep. +301, reverse. This was confirmed in 27th year of 
Elizabeth cf. Rep. 133, p. 283, pp. 283-4. I have not succeeded in finding the 
original decrees. The troubles with regard to the applicants had been continuous. 
In 1556 one Wm. Jones and a woman were condemned to the pillory, and 
Jones' ears nailed to the said pillory, for a fraudulent attempt to obtain the 
portions for two wenches. Cf. Rep. B, pp. 159, 1645 Wardens' Accounts, 
1555-6, fo. pb, 10 a. 

3 Rep. + 132, pp. 91 b, 923, 99 b, 123 b, i24b. 

4 Apparently forty, for besides the arrears they also paid 84 for four maidens 
for the year. Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1651-2, fo. 43 j Renters' Accounts, 


during the Commonwealth 15-3 

the supply of marriageable maidens of Howell's kin, and, taking 
advantage of this, two ladies attempted to get their portions twice 
over ! x 

The Company had for some time been in the habit of borrow- 

ing money from Queen Elizabeth's College, Greenwich, the 

i T j 1. i- r r i. 1 -j 

interest being applied to the relier or the alms-people in the said 

College. When, in 165-0, the College accounts showed a balance College, 

of 10?, the Company agreed to add ^100 of that sum to the Greenwich 

300 they had already borrowed in i<$^<$; but, whereas the 

current rate of interest was now only 4 per cent, or 5- per cent. 

instead of 6 per cent., as it had been in 1646, they only consented 

to pay 2,0 or 5- per cent, interest on the whole loan of ^'400. 

As a further justification for the low rate of interest they proposed 

to pay in future the Court pointed out that the Company received 

no benefit from the College, but was 6 out of pocket every year 

for the expenses of the Visitors. To this sum s a year 

was added out of a gift of Mr. Rookesbye, the said sum to be 

spent in clothing for the poor of the College against the 

winter. 2 

In 165-8 the parish of Greenwich was empowered to proceed 
against the parishioners of Chaiiton to recover arrears of is. 6d. 
a week for a poor inhabitant of that parish, on the grounds that 
they had promised so to do ; and that the founder had expressly 
provided that Greenwich parish should not be chargeable for 
persons admitted from other parishes. 3 In the same year the 
lands of the College, which had been leased to Sir Multon Lombard 
the son of William Lambard the founder, were now re-let to 
Thomas, the founder's grandson. Meanwhile measures were 
taken to see that the Court of the Manor of Cryeley, in which 
the lands lay, was duly kept. 4 

Although the continued misconduct of the inhabitants of the 

i6ji-z, fo. 1 8. In the years when the portions were not paid, the item is 
entered as c to be paid '. 

1 The names of these ladies should not be lost. They were Margaret Rynald 
and Anne Morgan ! Rep. +131, pp. 140 a, zo6 a. 

2 Ib., pp. i87b. 

3 Ib., p. z 16 a, b. 

4 Ib., pp. 130 a, 141 b, zz<\ a, b. 

15*4- Internal History of the 'Drapers 

Almshouses almshouses x might, one would have thought, have taught the 
Th" ri d t y Drapers tnat tn i s f rm f relief was not very satisfactory, additional 
Johnwllter houses were founded by John Walter, the Clerk. The donor 
gave as reasons for his benefaction, that many * had lately perished 
by lying abroad in the cold for want of habitation to the great 
dishonour of God '. Accordingly * for God's glory and partly for 
the comfort and relief of the poor he built eight almshouses in 
the parish of St. George's, South wark, and eight in that of 
St. Mary, Newington, on sites granted by the City. The donor 
expressed a wish that his name should not be divulged during his 
life time, but in recognition of this and other benefactions, and of 
his long and faithful service as Clerk for above forty years, he 
was, in 165-6', admitted as a Member of the Court, a very unusual 
honour. Unfortunately he did not long survive. 2 

The almshouses were to be called the Drapers' almshouses. 
They were to be kept in repair by the parishes; but for the 
maintenance of the almsfolk he left messuages in trust to the 
Company producing rents to the amount of 194- The almsfolk, 
thirty-two in number, were to be men, widows or spinsters, partly 
of the said parishes, partly of others. They were to be elected, 
some by the parishioners, some by the two youngest Wardens who 
were to be the Governors and have the right of dismissal if the 
parishioners neglected to keep the houses in repair. The Wardens 
were to choose pensioners at their discretion. 3 

He also left by will a sum of money to build other eight houses 
in or near London, as some of his relations and friends should 
decide. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, was eventually chosen ' on 
account of its abounding with poor '. The parish furnished the 

1 One almsman was expelled from the almshouse in Crutched Friars for 
marrying ; and one almswoman deprived of her pension for misbehaviour. A 
widow's request that she might have some one to live with her, because she was 
old and sick, was refused ; and the almspeople were reminded that they should 
be helpful to one another and watch the sick by turns. An almswoman at Bow 
was accused of countenancing her daughter in assaulting another almswoman 
whereby she was in 'great danger of being slain '. In 1654 all pensioners of the 
Company were ordered to appear before the Wardens when any misconduct was 
to be reported to the Court. Rep. -f 132, pp. 91 a, 159 b 3 163 a, 167 a. 

2 Ib., p, i8 9 b. 

3 Ib., pp. iiobjfF.j I9oa,bj 192.3. 

during the Commonwealth 

site and was to keep the houses in repair. His widow subsequently 
gave a further sum of 5-00, the interest of which was, with the 
exception of some small fees to the Wardens and the clerk, to be 
spent on the alms-folk. Six of the houses were to be reserved for 
widows or spinsters of the parish, to be elected by the authorities 
of the parish ; the other two were to be filled by the Wardens, 
who were to have general control and power of dismissal. If the 
parish failed to fulfil their trust the pensions were to go to members 
of the Drapers' Company. 1 

In 1 6$ 3 the Court opposed the idea of forming a meal-market Schools at 
under the School House at Bowe, on the grounds that Sir J. Jolles Bowe an< * 
had obtained a licence of the Lord of the Manor to build his alton * 
School on the land, which was then on the waste; 2 and, when 
the Governors of Thomas Russell's School at Barton applied for 
a contribution towards repairs, the Court granted _$-> but reminded 
the Governors that, as the ordinary expenses of the School 
practically absorbed the receipts, they expected the town, which 
derived much benefit from the School, to undertake these extra- 
ordinary charges. 3 These details are given because they prove how 
scrupulous the Court was in the administration of their trust funds, 
and that nevertheless it was composed of careful business 

The reserve of corn which the Company was expected to keep Corn 
was generally 75-0 quarters. It was bought as far as possible when Money, 
it was cheap. When the stock was larger than was necessary it 
was sometimes disposed of to merchants, on condition that they 
should deliver the same amount at some fixed date, plus a certain 
percentage. The sale price in the market was fixed from time to 
time by the Wardens, for unground wheat usually at about 7^. 
the bushel. 4 In times of special distress, however, the Mayor 
ordered that it, or meal should be sold to the poor in small quan- 
tities at a lower price. On this point the Court had a slight 
disagreement with the Mayor in 16}$. He had ordered twelve 

1 19. 4J. od. to the alms-folk} ?. QJ. cd. for coals j ro/. to the Wardens; 
6s. to the Clerk. Rep. + 132, pp. zo6 b, 1143, z 1 8 b. 

2 Ib., p. 137 b. 
Ib., p. 1373. 

4 Ib., pp. 1 06 a, 1 3 1 a, 1 4 f a, i j i a, i %6 b. 

Internal History of the "Drapers 

quarters to be sold weekly at $s. 6d. a bushel. The Court, how- 
ever, declined to sell more than ten quarters, alleging as their 
excuse, that this was as much as ever the Company had sold, and 
. that the corn had been bought at a much higher price. 1 They 
also complained that the corn porters demanded more than they 
ought for handling the corn of the Company, and that the fee of 
2,</. charged by the Clerk of Leadenhall was excessive, since the 
Company sold at a loss. At the same time they granted their 
granary keeper a gratuity of 9 beyond his usual fee of 2.J. a quarter, 
because, the corn being light in that year, the overplus in weight 
of the meal by which he should have been recompensed was less 
than usual. 2 

Money In the early days of the Commonwealth the Company had, 

raised by owing to the large amount of money it had lent to the State 

during the late reign and its own indebtedness, 3 some difficulty in 

high fines, finding the cash necessary to meet current demands and fulfil their 

trusts. Accordingly, in February 165-1, the Court suspended the 

rule that no lands should be re-let until within two or three years 

of the expiration of the lease, and asked the tenants of their principal 

houses to renew their leases for terms of forty years at low rents, 

but heavy fines. If they declined other tenants were to be looked 

for, who should enter on the expiration of the existing leases. 4 

1 Rep. + 132, pp. 226 a, 228 a,b. 2 Ib., pp. 1373, 231 b. 

3 Ib., pp. 1 10 a, 1293, 1323. In 1652 the Clerk reminded the Court 
that while the Company was owed about 20,000, principal and interest, 
by the State for loans made in the late reign, it was itself responsible to the 
amount of 4,642 6s. jd. Thus: s. d. 

Legacy money not lent out 1,830 16 8 

To John Smith . . . . . . . 1,250 o o 

Part of Kainey's Legacy to purchase lands } the rents thereo 

to be given to the Poor ..... 200 o o 

Weaver's Legacy for the Poor not yet invested in land 200 o o 

Butler's Legacy for the Poor ditto ditto . 100 o o 

Queen Elizabeth's College loan ..... 300 o o 

To buy plate sold in 1642 ...... 561 9 n 

To executors of Mrs. Eliz. Daniell .... 200 o o 

4642 6 7 

4 This was an expedient adopted by other London Companies at the time. 

As I have always given, when possible, the names of the tenants of the chief 

during the Commonwealth 15-7 

In spite of the disturbed and anxious times through which the Financial 
country had passed, the financial position of the Company at the position, 
close of the Interregnum was sound. The trust lands had been A "8 ust 
increased ' and, in the year i6f4,fll ios. of the money, which 
had been lent for the relief of Ireland in 1641, had been repaid. 
Their title to the lands left by Sir John Jolles for the alms houses was 
indeed disputed in itfj-a, 2 but the Company apparently succeeded 

messuages, it may be here noted that the lease of the great tenement next the 
Draper's Hall, which had been held by Alderman Garway, was by him assigned 
to a Mr. R. Woodward in 1649. An amusing condition was inserted that he 
was not to dry his clothes in the garden. Rep. +131, pp. 92 b, 94 a. In i<5y 3, 
it passed into the possession of Alderman Wale, who took it for forty-one years 
at a rent of 9 and a fine of 350. He was to enjoy the right of a passage into 
the garden, but the great chamber lying over the gate of the Hall was to be 
reserved for the use of the Company. Rep. +131, pp. 1393, 1423. Some 
dispute arose between him and the Company j ib., 143 a, 145 b. He had planted 
trees in the passage, which he was, after negotiation, allowed to leave, on con- 
dition that he would remove them on demand. In 1660 the Company were 
asking him to allow them to take the Gallery of his house which adjoined the 
south-west corner of the great parlour j ib., 140 b. General Monck resided in 
his house when he occupied London just before the Restoration } cf. supra p. ^l6. 

The lease of the capital messuage in Austin Friars was, in 1659, renewed to 
a Mr. Peter Barr on a small fine, because he had c done much for the House '. 
Rep. + 132, p. 232 a; cf. p. 3193. 

In 165 o the Court decided that when the lease originally granted to Sir Francis 
Drake should fall in (1659) they would break up the capital messuage of The 
Herber at Dowgate, let the great House by itself, and build convenient houses 
on the rest. Apparently this was not done. In 165 6 y Alderman Chiverton, 
who was inhabiting the house as assignee under Drake's lease, and John Chevall 
and James Burton, two liverymen of the Company, applied for a new lease. 
Chiverton became Mayor in i6j7 8, but, apparently because he would not accept 
the terms offered by the Company, the new lease was granted to Mr. Burton for 
forty-one years at a rent of 40 and a fine of 2,400, and subsequently to him 
and John Chevall jointly. 

The Checker at Dowgate was in the possession of Mr. Wm. Wakefield j 
ib., p. 13 jb. 

In 16^6 the Court had a dispute with the Court of Aldermen about certain 
supposed encroachments at the Bell Wharf, Southwark. I only mention this 
because the Wharf is probably that now known as Chamberlain's Wharf in Tooley 
Street, a part of which belongs to the Drapers. Cf. Rep. + 1 3 2, pp. 1 84 b, 1 97 b. 

1 For the gifts or bequests made during the Commonwealth cf. Appendix, 
Benefactions XLVII. 

2 Rep. +131, p. 130 b. A warrant was served on the Company from the 
Surveyors of the Manor of Hackney, appointed by the Trustees authorized by 

i 6 3'3 L 1 

15*8 Internal History of the "Drapers 



in vindicating their right, as the benefaction appears in later 

At the end therefore of the financial year, August i6yp, the 
balance of the Renter's Account came to something over ^i^g. 1 

In the return presented by the Wardens, the receipts are given 
as j&,8i3 3-r. 8^., the disbursements as 1,877 IIJ - 3^-> an d the 
credit balance as 2,940 175. $d. But, as explained before, this 
return is misleading. In the first place the amount of receipts in 
any given year depended to a considerable extent on the sum 
received in legacy parcels returned by the borrowers, and not 

Parliament for the sale of lands forfeited for treason. The Wardens were 
ordered to bring their title to lands left by Sir J. Jolles for his almshouse in the 
said Manor ; the said lands having been purchased by Mr. Rowland Wilson. 
A committee was appointed to confer with Mr. Wilson and report. Rep. +131, 
p. I job. This was probably a case of alleged concealment. The Manor had 
been granted to the Earl of Northumberland on the dissolution of the Monasteries. 
The Earl died without heirs in 1537. His only brother Thomas had been 
beheaded a few months before, for taking part in Aske's rebellion. The Earldom 
became extinct, but was revived in favour of a son of Thomas, who himself was 
beheaded 1571. As the reversion of the Earldom had been granted to his 
brother Henry, his honours were not forfeited. We hear no more of the claim, 
and the lands remained in the possession of the Company. They were protected 
by the Acts of James I for confirmation of defective titles ; cf. supra, under 
James I. 


Balance of previous year 
Meal sold . 
Contributed by 

ACCOUNT, 1658-9. Cf. Appendix XXVIII A. 

s. . 







ar 66 


Quit Rents and other 

. 1188 



rents . 






Taxes abated from 


1 1 




1 1 



Expenditure on lands 




and tenements . 




Corn Expenses . 




1 167 



Credit Balance . 










were arrears 

still unpaid of 97. 8s. ^d. 

(7*. 8 

* 4 

rf. of 

Besides this there 

which were never likely to be paid), as well as hopes of recovering the benefaction 
of Sir Wm. Terry, which had been declared forfeited after a suit in Chancery, 
in i6f z. Cf. Renter's Account, 1651-3, fo. 35, and for the Will, +417, p. 7 a. 
These hopes were not however realised. 

during the Commonwealth 15-9 

lent out again ; on the debts repaid ; on the money borrowed by 
the Company itself; and on the balance handed over from the 
previous year. If this were omitted we should find that the 
normal receipts of the Wardens came only to 1,432, %s. 6V. 1 On 
the other hand the disbursements, were abnormally swollen by 
several items, and came to nearly ^2,,ooo. If we leave out these 
exceptional receipts and disbursements the balance sheet for the 
current year would stand thus: 


Receipts as in Account , . 
Less exceptional receipts : 

*. d 
Legacy Parcels 

returned .13x8 5 4 
Balance from last 

year . . 1958 19 10 
Repaid by the 


of London 93 1 j o 

*. d. 
5813 3 8 

4^81 O 2 

Ordinary receipts 

1431 3 

Disbursements as in Account 
Less exceptional disbursements 

z8 7 7 


Purchase of plate 

to replace that 

sold in 1642 . 449 16 
HowelFs Charity 

Arrears . . .105 o 
Gift to Pembroke 

Hall, Cambridge ijo o 
Fees returned to 

two Assistants 

for admission to 

the Court . .100 o 
Legacy Parcels 

lent out . . 1 1 90 

Ordinary Disbursements 
Credit Balance 



6 8 


If to this, the balance on the Renter's Account of i? 3 1 3 s. 1 1| d. 
be added, the total credit balance on the normal receipts and 
expenditure of the year would be 703 8s. \Q\d. If, on the 
other hand, we take the stated balance of ; 3,o8p 6s. 4.!^., which 
represents the actual amount of ready money in the hands of the 
Wardens (including the actual balance on the Renters' account;, 
we must remember that the Company was owed debts to the 

1 The amount of fines on leases also varied very much from year to year, but 
I have included them in the year's receipts. 

1 1 

^6o Internal History of the Drapers 

amount of 1,947 los, o</., which it might hope to recover, 1 as 
against which the Company itself owed 1,4*79 ipj. 4^. Thus the 
actual financial position in the year i6^p would stand thus: 

s. d. 

Warden's Account Stated Balance .... 1935 n ? 
Debts owed to the Company which were likely to be repaid 

lets debts owed by the Company . . . . . 467 i 8 

Renter's Account Balance ..... . . I 53 I 3 11 ^ 

Total 3fj6 17 
Besides this 1,500 in the Chest. 

s. d. 

1 Owed by the State Il88y if o 

These were never repaid and were declared 'desperate 'in 1678. Rep. +133, 

p. 95 b. 

x. d. 

Owed by individuals, likely to be recovered , , . . 315 o o 

Fines for leases unpaid ....... 1460 o o 

Arrears likely to be recovered . . . . . . ay o o 

Arrears on Mr. Terry's lands forfeited in 16 ^6 ; of the recovery 

of which there was some hope . . . . , 137 10 o 

1947 10 o 
Debts considered desperate. 

s. d. 

a. Lent to Cartwright late Renter ..... 80 o o 

b. Owed by individuals . . . , . . . 7184 

Total rya 84 

r. d. 

Total sum owing to the Company 13985134 

Sum likely to be recovered ...... 1 947 i o o 

Money owed by the Company, 

s. d. 
Mr. Rainey's and Mr. Hibbens' Legacies ; interest to be paid 

to poor of Company till lands were purchased . . 400 o o 
Money borrowed from Queen Elizabeth's College j interest to 

be paid to poor of the said College .... 400 o o 

Legacy money not lent out 679 19 4 

1479 19 4 





EREMONIES and Entertainments Entertain- 
were the order of the day at the ments by 
;. restoration of the Merry Monarch, !j e t rapers 
and in all these the Drapers took Restoration, 
their part along with the other Livery 
Companies of the City. They were 
present when he passed through the 
City on his first entry (May 19, 1660), 
and again at his subsequent procession 
from the Tower to Whitehall before 
his Coronation (April 2,3, 1661), as 
well as at a later passage of the King 
and the new Queen by water from 
Hampton Court to Whitehall (August 

Towards the charges of these ceremonies and the festivities 
which accompanied them, the Companies were expected, according 
to custom, to contribute. Hence frequent precepts of the Mayor 
with which the Company complied, although on two occasions 
they demurred to the peremptory language he employed. Thus, 
when in May 1660, a demand was made for a sum of 900 (the 

1 The initial letter comes from the Charter of Charles II to the Irish Society. 

2 Rep. +132, pp. 241 a, 242 b, 254 a, 255 b, 270 a. On the last occasion it 
was ordered that no women, children, or servants should be permitted on the 
Company's barge, c to the end the Company might be better accommodated '. 

For a contemporary account of the Coronation cf. Relation of John Ogilby, 
with engravings by Holler. Bodleian Library, Gough London 4. 

^6^ External Relations during the 

Drapers proportion of 12,000 according to their corn assessment) ' 
as a present to Charles and his two brothers 2 in answer ' to his 
gracious letter and declaration lately sent ', the Court while 
unanimously agreeing to pay the sum, yet * protested against any 
power in the Lord Mayor, the Aldermen or the Common Council 
to dispose or require any of the Company's money on any account 
whatsoever '. They answered a further demand for a loan of 
22;- (the Company's proportion of 3,000), made by the Mayor 
and the Common Council towards defraying the expenses of enter- 
taining His Majesty at the Guildhall, by insisting on the con- 
dition that the words * desire ' or * request ' should be substituted 
for the peremptory terms of the original precept. 3 

The entertainment, which was held on July ^, was a sumptuous 
one. The King, the two royal Dukes and other great personages 
were invited, as well as representatives of the two Houses of 
Parliament. Inasmuch as large quantities of provisions would be 
required, the Mayor issued a precept enjoining the Companies of 
London to make no solemn feasts at their Halls on that day ' for 
the better accomodation of the entertainment both in respect of 
provisions and cooks '. The Drapers accordingly limited the cost 
of their own dinner to twenty marks (13 6s. 8</). 4 

An account of the ceremonies and pageants at the King's 
coronation was written by John Ogilby, the King's cosmographer 
and geographic printer. In acknowledgement of a copy presented 
to the Drapers, a present of 2. was given to him and 2J. 6d. to 
his man for bringing the book. 5 Finally, in August 1661, the 

1 Heath, Grocers, p. 71, says wrongly that the money was to be spent in corn 
and given to the King. 

2 The Duke of York, subsequently James II, and the Duke of Gloucester, who 
died shortly after. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 140 b, 141 b. For similar conduct on the part of the 
Goldsmiths and the Skinners cf. Prideaux, vol. ii, p. 134 : Wadmore, Skinners, 
p. 176. 

4 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii. p. 13? ; Rep. +131, p. *4Z b. The total 
expenditure on that day, however, came to 37. 6s. $d. j Wardens' Accounts, 
16^9-60, fo. 41. 

5 Ib., p. zjtfa. The pamphlet is no longer in the possession of the Company, 
but there is a copy in the Bodleian Library (Gough London 4). For John 
Ogilvic or Ogilby cf. Diet. National Biography. 

Reign of Charles II 

id g 

Company gave 2.00 to the King. This was in virtue of the Act 
13. Car. II. 4., which authorized the King to issue commissions 
for receiving subscriptions on the grounds that * the speedy supply 
of money necessary for the King's great occasions could no ways 
be so readily raised, as by a free and voluntary gift from those 
able and willing to aid his Majesty '. The total sum granted by 
the Company, apart from the loan of ; 12,5- to the City, came to 
^1,17-T- 1 Besides this their expenses in connexion with the 
festivities exceeded the sum of 42,1. The Restoration of the 
Monarchy was indeed somewhat costly to the Company. But 
these contributions to the Crown were no new thing, and the 
Company had fared little better under the Commonwealth. 

It was not long before further demands were made on the Further con- 
Company. In November 166^ the Court consented to lend tributions 
2,,ooo (their proportion of 100,000 raised from all the Livery "J wards tlle 
Companies) at 6 per cent, to the Chamber of London towards l ^64- 
the naval preparations, which were necessary owing to the war 
with the Dutch. 2 Unfortunately in the following April a man- 
of-war named The London was blown up at the Nore, and this led 
to a further precept from the Mayor, urging the Livery Com- 
panies to start a voluntary subscription among its members towards 
the building of a ship to replace The London. It was to be an 

1 Thus- 

1. May 1660. Present of 900 (proportion of 1,100) to the King and his 
brothers. Rep. + 132, p. 240 b. 

2. June 1660. Loan of 225 at 6 per cent, (proportion of 3,000) to the City 
towards the charges of entertaining the King on July 5. Ib. 3 p. 241 b. Repaid 
with interest, Wardens' Accounts 1661-2, to. 28. 

3 . February 1 66 \ . Gift of 4 5 o (proportion of 6,000) towards defraying the 
expenses of the Coronation ceremonies on April 23. Ib., p. 254 a. 

4. April 1661. An additional gift of 225 (proportion of 3,000) for the 
same purpose. Ib., p. 2 5 j b. 

f. August 1661. Gift of 200, under the Act 13 Car. II, c. 4. 

The Company also spent over 200 on their c standing ' in Cheapside, and 
other charges at the first entry of the King (Wardens' Accounts, 1659-60, 
fos. 40-41) ; and 132 17*. 8rf. on the pageants and other charges, in attending 
the progress of the King and Queen by water, in August 1662. Renters 
Accounts, 1661-2, fo. 12. They also built a new barge at the cost of 90, 
Wardens' Accounts, 1660-1, fo. 37. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. 301 b j Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, fo. 38. 

i6 4- External Relations during the 

8o-gun three-decker, and to be christened the Loyal London? To 
this appeal the Court zealously responded. It met twice a week 
to receive subscriptions, and the Assistants were urged to use their 
utmost endeavours in persuading the brethren * to a liberal sub- 
scription, answerable to the importance and reasonableness of this 
service ' ; a On June 2.0 the Company commemorated a thanks- 
giving-day for the victory over the Dutch off Lowestoft (June 3) 
by a dinner to the Assistants and the Livery, in the hope perhaps 
of thereby stimulating their patriotism. 3 The subscriptions received 
from all the Companies, which came to 4,2,5-3 I 3 J> - ^-> did not, 
however, suffice, and in the following May, xo'6'6', the Mayor 
informed the Companies that, as there was an utter unlikelihood 
that way to raise the necessary funds, the Common Council had 
decided to demand a contribution from the corporate funds of the 
Companies according to their usual proportions. Once more the 
Drapers protested against the form or the precept c not conceiving 
themselves liable to be compelled ', but agreed nevertheless to pay 
their share ("?o) c considering the great importance of the 
concern in this juncture of affairs *. 4 The total subscription of the 
Drapers came therefore to 1,12,1, by far the highest contributed 
by any one Company. 5 The total subscribed by all the Com- 
panies and by other individuals including some Merchant Strangers 
was^8,p33 *> s - ^ The City gave ^9,42,1 i^s. io</., some of 
which was raised on mortgage. The total cost therefore of the 
ship was i8,35.T. 6 The career of the Loyal London was unfor- 
tunate. After a year's service, during which, however, she gave 
a good account of herself she was burnt by the Dutch during their 
raid up the Medway. We have no other important reference to 
the interesting, though complicated, course of foreign policy during 

1 Rep. 4-131, p. 306 b. 

2 Ib., pp. 306 b, 307 b. The Clerk, the Beadle, and the Under Beadle 
received gratuities amounting in all to 10 ijj. ^d. for the trouble they were put 
to in collecting subscriptions (p. 309 b). Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, f- 4- 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, fo. 40. The cost was z% 8/. 6d. Probably 
it would have been better spent on the frigate. 

4 Rep. +131, p. 3i4b. 

5 The Grocers, who came next, subscribed 700. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, 
vol. ii, p. 154. 

6 Cf. MS. 289 in the Guildhall, fos. 1 1 a to i: j a. 

Reign of Charles II 


the reign of Charles II, and only hear of the ' Frigate ' because 
the Drapers subscribed to the building thereof 1 

In addition to these loans and gifts the Company had, of course, 
to contribute to the various taxes imposed by Parliament. Such 
were the assessments on the annual value of land which took the 
place of the old subsidies, and the annual assessment to the poor 
rate, which came to S i^s. ^d. To the unpopular hearth-tax 
of u. for every hearth or stove in every house with the exception 
of cottages, first imposed in 1662,, the Company had to pay 32J-. 
for sixteen hearths ' in and about the Hall '. 2 Although the Poll 
Tax of 1660, which was also disliked, was not levied on the 
Drapers as members of the Company, but as citizens, the Court 
was ordered to assist in its collection by making a return of the 
names and dwellings of all members. While complying with 
this demand with regard to members of substance, they declared 
that of the greater part of the freemen they neither knew the 
habitation nor the estate, and therefore left them to be returned 
by their wards. 3 

1 The following are all the references to such matters, and to domestic troubles : 
i. 1662 or 1663. A dinner on the occasion of the visit of the Spanish Am- 
bassador) cost 13 ^f. 4^. Wardens' Accounts, 1661-3, ^- 3?- 

. October \66z. Precept from Mayor for immediate provision of gunpowder, 
match, and bullet, according to their proportion, for the service of the State and 
the safety of the City. Wardens ordered to see to it. Rep. +131, p. 2743. 
This was possibly on account of the projected rising of Ensign Tongue, which had 
been detected in June. 

3. October 1678. The Wardens ordered to provide arms for the use of the 
Company in time of danger. Rep. +133, p. 963. No doubt because of the 
alarm caused by the ' Popish Plot ' of that year. 

2 Renters' Accounts, 1661-3, ^- Io - The Goldsmiths were charged for thirty- 
three hearthsin 1665 : Prideaux, Goldsmiths, ii. 153. Thetax was especially disliked 
because the visits of the 'Chimney men ' were deemed invasions of the homes of 
Englishmen. It was abolished in 1692 by i Will, and Mary, c. 10. 

3 Rep. 4- 131, p. 246 b. The Court were ordered by the Mayor to certify the 
names and dwellings of i. Those who were, or had been, Masters or Wardens, 
or had refused the said offices. 2. All who had served as Alderman or Sheriff, 
or had refused the same. 3. Those in the Livery. 4. The Freemen. f. All 
other persons, who could dispend yearly in lands, leases, money, stock, or other- 
wise above j per annum, and how much every of them could dispend. 6. All 
widows of freemen, stating the highest degree held by their husbands in the 
Company. The Court agreed to make the said return with regard to all those 

M m 

166 External Relations during the 

Besides these regular taxes we also get notices of some excep- 
tional assessments made during the reign. Such were : the assess- 
ment on the salaries of the Clerk and the Beadle, for the relief of 
the indigent royal officers in 1663, which however was to be 
repaid by the Company; ' that of 7 IDJ. made on the Hall in 
lo^-S for the building of ships;* two more made in 1 6^8-9 
and 1679-80 for disbanding the army; 3 several for the main- 
tenance of the militia and for * trophy money ', 4 towards providing 
harness, drums, and colours for the same, as well as those raised 
for local purposes, such as having the streets paved by the Com- 
missioners or Sewers. 5 

New Char- Although the Protector had restored to the Irish Society and 

tertothe t h e Companies the estates in Ireland which had been declared 

Jet A~ril ^ Q ^ Q ^^ by Charles I, his acts were not considered to be valid 

10 1661. unless confirmed by royal authority. In 1661 therefore Charles II, 

declaring * that he found they dealt honestly with him and would 

deny him nothing ', 6 issued a new Charter to the Irish Society. 7 

The Charter re-granted all the lands which had been conferred 

by early patents, and reconstituted the Society as a Body Corporate 

*for the better ordering, directing and governing all and all 

in the three first categories, and also of the widows. But of the freemen they 
declared they were acquainted neither with their habitation nor their estates. 

1 Rep. +131, p. 177 a j cf. 13-14 Car. II, c. 8. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, 1677-8, fo. 36. 

3 Ib., 1678-9, fo. 36; 1679-80, fo. 37. 

4 See Wardens' Accounts, 1679-80 to 1683 ; and for f trophy money ', Renters* 
Accounts, e. g. 1661-3, *- 10 > ^74-5, fo. 6; 1680-1, fo. 7,- 1688-9, fo. 7. 
* Trophy money ' was the contribution to the Militia under the Militia Act (cf. 
13-14 Car. II, c. 3), a relic of the old train-band system. In the debate on the 
Militia Bill in 1689, Mr. Boscawen complained that trophy money for two or 
three years had been collected together in contravention of the Militia Act, 
which had limited it to 70,000 a year; cf. Parl. History, v. 54. It was paid 
by the tenants, but refunded by the Company. 

5 Rep. 4- 133, p. 6ia. 

6 State Papers Domestic, Charles II, vol. xviii, No. 49. 

7 Cf. Letters Patent, April 10, 14 Car. II; Clarke and Finnelly, Reports, 
vol. xii, p. 445. Among those to whom the Charter was granted, the names of 
two Drapers, Sir Theophilus Biddulph and Charles Lloyd, are found (Rep. + 131, 
p. 249 a) ; and Sir Thomas Adams, who had been the Master of the Drapers, 
1640-1, and Mayor, 1645-6) was Governor from i66z-8. 

Reign of Charles II 


manner of things'. This was followed on April 7, 1663, by 
a fresh licence in Mortmain. In the same year the Irish Society 
renewed the grants to the Livery Companies, 1 and recreated the 
manor made under the original charter of James I. 

Meanwhile the request of Sir John Clotworthy their former Renewal of 
tenant, who had recently been created Viscount Massereene, to Lease of the 

IV/f A 

purchase the whole Proportion had been declined. Instead of this Jr 

j j- v- L r- -i Proportion, 

a new lease was granted, according to his wish, to his sister-in-law, j an u ary 
Mary Clotworthy a widow, to whose husband, James Clotworthy, 1661. 
Lord Massereene had assigned the remainder of his original lease ; 
Captain Fitzgerald, her present husband, was included in the grant. 
The term was increased from thirty-two years, which were yet 
to run under the old lease, to forty-five beginning with the year 
i6?f, and the rent was to be 2,00 a year. No fine for renewal 
was demanded. 600 of the 1,000 arrears due for rent since 
the year 165-6', when Cromwell had restored the Irish lands, was 
to be remitted * for taxes and other contingent charges ', and also 
in consideration of the loss suffered by their tenant during the 
rebellion and the period of confiscation. 2 The remainder, amount- 
ing (with arrears of 4.2, i^j. due under a bond of 1636) to 
442, i^-j-., was treated as profits and distributed as dividends 
amongst the representatives of the original subscribers, whose 
shares had not been surrendered to the Company. Only eight are 
mentioned. 3 There were, however, four other shareholders who 
for some reason did not participate, probably because they were 
absent at the time. 4 

This was the last dividend distributed. The policy of the 

1 Cf. B. 17, Ma. Dr. 1663, zi8, Appendix LIX. 

2 Rep. +131, pp. *5ob, zf iaj B. 18, Ma. Dr. 1664, zao. In 1671 the 
sum of 8 1 6s. 6d. was also remitted for c iz subsidies and 13 13*- 4^ i n 
the nature of a subsidy according to the Act of Settlement.' Cf. 14-15 Car. II, 
chs. vi, vii. Lord Massereene subsequently requested the Company to revoke 
the lease to his sister-in-law, saying that he had changed his mind, but the Court 
declined so to do. Rep. +131, p. 191 b. Apparently he ceased to have any 
connexion with the Drapers' Proportion. We are told in 1690 that he had 
a house at Ballyaghy in the Vintners' Proportion. Cf. Records +133, p. 2-07 b. 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1661-2, fo. 38. 

4 We often find instances of persons who are paid their dividends at a later 
date than that of declared dividends, e.g. Goddard, Rep. + 131, p. 31 b. 

168 External Relations during the 

Company was now to buy up the few remaining shareholders. 
Accordingly the Clerk was * authorized to treat and conclude ' with 
such persons c for the selling and conveying of their respective 
interests to the Company'. 1 The terms offered were that the 
shareholders should be paid the sum originally subscribed, less the 
total amount of dividends they had at any time received. Although 
this seems hardly a fair arrangement, inasmuch as it meant that 
those who surrendered got no return in the way of interest for 
the sum originally ventured, the terms were accepted. By the 
year 1679 all the individual shares had been surrendered, 2 and 

1 Rep. + I3Z, p. 3003. 

2 Thus in 1664-5 the shares of : 

. s. d. . s. d. 

Michael Warner, who had subscribed 900 were bought for 596 
John Nevill i j o o 858 

John Taylor 30 o o 16 8 4 

Rich. Husbands 37 17 i a 14 n 6 

Wm. Meggs 48 o o 26 5 o 

Mr. Poole 30 o o 16 8 4 

John Saunderson 30 o o 1684 

John Withers 2,4 o o ? 

In 1667 the shares of: 
Bryan Janson, who had subscribed 60 o o 39168 

In 1668 the shares of: 
Rich. Archedaile, who had subscribed 45 o o 14 1 1 6 

In 1678 the shares of: 
the son of Thos. Muns, 

who had subscribed 6150 6 i j o 

In 1679 th 6 shares of Samuel Baker, who had subscribed \ j, were bought for 
13 i fj. ; his representative stating that he had only received i ft. in dividends. 
Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, fos. 38, 39; 1668-9, f- 335 ^76-7, f- 37 j 
1678-9, fo. 365 1679-80, fo. 37; Receipt Book Ireland +701, pp. 8 b, i6a, 
1 8 a, z 4 a, 343, 35b, 141 a j Rep. + 132, p. 147 a j Rep. + 133, pp. 87 a, 
i c i a b. 

As will be seen from the abstract in the Appendix, the actual surrenders of all 
the original shareholders or their representatives have not been preserved ; but 
that they ceased to hold their shares is evident from the fact that they ceased to 
receive dividends, and the date when this happened may be taken as the date of 
the surrender or abandonment. In many cases, no doubt, the shares lapsed to 
the Company because the owners died intestate and without heirs. 

I learn from Mr. Hopkinson that, by the opening of the eighteenth century, 
the same thing had happened with regard to the Irish estate of the Merchant 
Taylors. In 1698 Peter Bradshaw, a member of the Merchant Taylors, sued for 

Reign of Charles II 


the whole of the Irish Estate, as well as any interest which might 
be paid by the Irish Society, became corporate property. While 
then the original adventure had been no source of profit, at least 
to those individuals who long retained their shares, 1 the Company 
gained, especially when matters in Ireland had quieted down, and 
the receipts both from Moneymore and the Irish Society increased. 3 

In 1 676 Captain Fitzgerald, who was presumably the only Assignment 
survivor of the grantees of the Manor, assigned his lease to of Lease 
Thomas Dawson of Moylelough for good consideration. This ?, 

~ J . , r 1 Manor to 

assignment was at first demurred to, because no notice or the MI-. Dawson 
assignment had been given, and because two years' rent was in 1676. 
arrear. 3 The Company, however, subsequently consented. 4 

As might be expected, considering the many changes through 
which Ireland had passed of late, there were several contested 
questions concerning the other tenants, which caused the Com- 
pany considerable trouble. In 1664 Hugh Rowley made a request 
that he should be estated in the freeholds of certain persons to 
whom they had been originally granted, and who had assigned 
them to him. The Court agreed to comply as soon as the arrears 
of the rent on the whole Proportion had been paid by Mary 
Clotworthy. 5 In 1675- Rowley made a like demand for the 

a return of the money his grandfather had subscribed, declaring that an agree- 
ment had been made that the money should be returned when demanded. 
This the Company denied, but eventually repaid it on his surrendering his share. 
Cf. Merchant Taylors' Misc. Doc. A. n-i, Hopkinson, Ancient Records of 
Merchant Taylors, p. 37. 

1 In the earlier cases of purchase by the Company, the interest received had 
not been deducted from the purchase money. 

2 In 1660 the Irish Society, for the first time since the restoration of their 
lands by Cromwell, distributed a dividend out of its profits on Londonderry and 
Coleraine. The Drapers' share was 35. Henceforth a yearly distribution was 
made until the Revolution with the exception of the year \66\. Cf. Appendix LX A. 
In the eighteenth century, however, this was discontinued, on the ground that 
there was no balance, and, as noted elsewhere, the Society refused to present 
a balance-sheet, holding that they alone were the judges of what expenditure 
was desirable. 

3 Rep. +133, p. 80 a. 

4 Ib., p. 1143. We are told that he gave some 400 to Fitzgerald for itj 
Rep. + 1 3 3, pp. 1 30 b, 2 1 1 b. 

5 These were the townlands of Cullmoore, Moyesset, Moneshenare, Brackah- 
lisleah, and Cloughfin. Rep. +131, pp. 193 b, 194 b, z^6bj B. 41, ^6^ > 

170 External Relations during the 

freehold of Gortatawry, which, as he alleged, he had bought from 
Robert Russell, to whom it had been originally granted. 1 As, 
however, his claim was disputed by John Dawson, who said that 
it had escheated to him as the then holder of the Manor, the 
Court declined to accede to his request until the suit between him 
and Dawson had been decided, but eventually consented unless 
John Dawson succeeded in his suit within twelve months. 2 
A further complaint of Dawson that Rowley had, as ranger of 
the woods belonging to the Irish Society, done injury to him was 
referred to the Society itself. 3 Finally, in 1672, the freehold in 
the townlands of Monisholin and Annah or Annahlong was con- 
firmed to Thomas Church of Kilrea. 4 

The only remaining question of importance arose out of the 
lands which had been granted to Samuel Pennoyer, 5 one of the 
private adventurers in Ireland, and which had, in 165-4., been left 
by him to his wife for life, with remainder to the Company in 
trust to carry out the provisions of his will. In i66y, alter the 
decease of Pennoyer, Sam. Disbrow, who had married Pennoyer's 
widow, obtained, 'for the better encouragement of planting ', the 
promise of a lease of the lands for thirty years and a rent of 60 
after his wife's death, and the lease was finally granted in 1665-. 
As, however, under the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 
Disbrow had only succeeded in obtaining some ^ acres, out of 

Ma. Dr. 1664, icf j B. 35, Ma. Dr. 1664, 106. I have not discovered whether 
Hugh Rowley was any relation of the Rowleys who gave so much trouble in the 
reign of Charles I, but in all probability he was. Moneshenare and Brackahlisleah 
had been claimed by William Rowley, but finally given to Nathaniel Godwin. 
Cf. supra, p. 1 17. Culmoore and Moyesset were in the hands of Daniell Hall in 
1638, and Cloughfin in those of Robert Russell. Cf. Appendix LIV. 

1 Cf. supra, p. 1 i 6. 

2 Rep. + 133, pp. 643, 73 b, 8 z a, 87 a, 943, 1033, 1 66 bis a, B. 1748, Ma. 
Dr. 1697, 117. 

3 Rep. p. 103 a b. 

4 B. 1743, Ma. Dr. 1671, in. These in 1638 were in the hands of Sir 
Francis Cooke, of Desart Martin. Cf. Appendix LV. In 1689 a conveyance of 
the townland of Ballygone, sometime in the tenure of John Elcock, was made to 
Sir R. Staple, with reservation of the old rent and usual covenants, he having 
been in long possession, and being the rightful owner. Rep. + 133, 
p. 191 b. 

5 For Samuel Pennoyer's adventure cf. supra, p. no. 

Reign of Charles II 171 

the 1,62,3 originally granted, he received in 167% an abatement 
in his rent of 2,0, and an extension of the term to fifty years. 1 

The condition of the Pkntation when it was restored to the 
Company was very bad. We are told that all the houses had 
been burnt down. As late as 1676 we find the Court asking 
leave of the Irish Society to cut down timber, which was specially 
reserved in the grant, for the purpose of rebuilding the castle, 
for building a market-house and other repairs ; 2 but I can find no 
statement as to how much was spent, nor of the extent of the 
rebuilding and repairs. In any case, Ireland was before long 
disturbed by the attempt of James II to raise Ireland against 
England, and Ulster suffered severely. 

Although, as above mentioned, a thanksgiving day was held on the Great 
June ^, 1 66^, to commemorate the victory of the Duke of York 
over the Dutch fleet, the news caused but little joy, for already 
the Great Plague of that year had begun. It is a strange coinci- 
dence that the scourge appears to have spread from the very 
country whose fleet we had just defeated. In the preceding June, 
the Lords of the Council had instructed the Lord Mayor to insist 
that all persons and merchandise coming from the Netherlands, 
and other places infected with the Plague, should be subjected to 
strict quarantine. 3 But these precautions were of no avail. The 
first cases seem to have appeared in the early days of June 1665-. 

1 Rep. + 132, pp. 1543, 167 b, i79b, 307 a j Rep. + 133, pp. 93^100 a. 
These grants to adventurers had been made out of the lands forfeited by the 
rebels in the reign of Charles I. But as the term rebel ' had been extended to 
all those who had fought against the Parliament before the Cessation of Arms in 
1643, and included many Royalists, an attempt was made by the Act of Settle- 
ment and the Act of Explanation (Irish Stats. 14-15 Car. II, c. 17, and 17-18 
Car. II, c. z) to restore some of them to part of their lands at least, with a result 
that it was necessary to deprive the adventurers of part of their original grant. 
The settlement pleased no one, but, as has been said, it would have required two 
Irelands to have done that. Cf. Hallam, History of England, ed. 1854, 
vol. iii, p. 390. 

2 Rep. + 133, p. 8z a. In 1678 the Irish Society made a curious order that 
the Drapers should send two youths into the County of Londonderry, with an 
allowance of i 6 per annum for their education and maintenance. The Court 
decided to consider the matter, but we are not told whether it complied. Rep. 
+ 133, p. i 9 b. 

3 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 410. 

171 External Relations during the 

On July 17 the Court of the Drapers ordered that ' in regard of 
the present visitation in and about the City, which is feared doth 
and will increase, there shall be no public Election Dinner ' (in 
Charity August). 1 They also decided that in addition to the sum of 60, 
of the which the Wardens were to give to the poor, in lieu of their 

Diapers. charges for the said dinner, the House was to add a sum of 70 
to the 2,0 usually allowed for the same object. 2 The ^i^o, thus 
made up, was not given to the poor of the Company, as was usual 
in these cases, but to the general relief of poor families in the City 
visited by the Plague. 5-0 was sent to the Chamberlain of the 
City in pursuance of a precept by the Mayor, to be dispensed by 
him. The rest was distributed by the Company among the 
following parishes: St. Sepulchre's, St. Giles's in the Fields, 
St. Giles's Cripplegate, St. Andrew's Holborn, St. Botolph's Aid- 
gate, St. Botolph's Bishopsgate, and St. Leonard's Shoreditch. 3 In 
August they voted twenty marks (13 6s. 8</.) to the parish of 
St. Olave's Southwark ; while between that date and December, 
Mr. Burton, the Renter Warden, contributed a further sum on his 
own responsibility to the three parishes of St. George's Southwark, 
St. Mary Newington and St. Mary Overies, because these 
parishes had been * greatly visited 'since the meeting of the Court 
in August, and because, contrary to custom, no Court was to be 
held till December. Not only was this measure of the Warden, 
though contrary to rule, approved of at the December meeting in 
regard ' to the extraordinariness of the occasion, and the accep- 
tableness of so charitable a service ', but the Parish of St. Thomas's 
Southwark was added to the list. 4 The amount of relief given to 
each parish was in proportion to the severity of the visitation, and 
varied from 2,0 to 3. Meanwhile the members of the Com- 
pany were not neglected. In July 1665- 2,0 was granted to poor 
members visited by the sickness. One of these, Mr. Kendricx, it 

1 Rep. +131, p. 3093. 2 Rep. + 132, p. 3093. 

3 Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, fo. 40. 

4 Rep. + i 3 2, pp. 3 rob, 31 1 b, 3 it a; Renter Warden Cash Book, 1665, 
fo. 13. The total amount came to 39 8j. 4</., but some part of this was given 
to the poor of the Company. Besides these contributions the Company were, 
during the years 1665-6, assessed 26 for relief of poor infected with the plague. 
Renters' Accounts, 1664-5, fo. 10; 1665-6,6). 11. 

Reign of Charles II 

may be noted, was the son of the Lord Mayor of 
A short time after, the Renter Warden made a further grant on 
his own responsibility of something like 20, 2 and in December 
the Court also added ^0 to the 40 usually dispensed among 
the poor of the Company at Christmas. 3 In the following May 
(1666) the Court lent 100 to carry on Mr. Walter's almshouses, 
because the rents of the lands left to support them fell short ' by 
reason of the late grievous contagion ', which had caused trade to 
languish, several houses to lie vacant owing to the death of the 
tenants, and rents to fall into arrears. 4 It was also owing to the 
Plague that a resolution was passed in 166?, ordering a servant 
porter who was admitted to the Company of the Tackle-house 
porters to pay his entrance-fee to them, because they were in debt 
owing to the sickly times and want of work. 5 Finally 10 
apiece was given to the Beadle and the Under Beadle in regard 
* to the great expense they had been at in maintaining some of 
their families abroad' during this long visitation, and 30 to the 
Clerk in view of the great pains he had been put to. 6 As we 
should expect, the acute distress was chiefly confined to the free- 
men or their families. Only one Liveryman and five widows of 
Liverymen were found in 1665 to claim the charity of John 
Smith. 7 We have, unfortunately, no definite statement as to the 
number of the members of the Company who fell victims to the 

1 Rep. 4- 132, p. 309 a } Wardens' Accounts, 16647, fo. 41. 

2 Ib.j p. 3 1 1 b. The amount is not definitely stated. 

3 Ib., p. 3 1 1 a. Total extraordinary relief owing to the Plague : to poor of the 
Company, 11$; to poor not of the Company, 168 6s. 8c/. It must be 
remembered that this was in addition to the ordinary charity dispensed by the 
Company. For this cf. infra, under the year 1687-8. Nor does it include the 
assessment to the Poor Rate, which was increased from 8 13*. ^d. to 17 6s. 8rf. 
both this year and the next. Renters' Accounts, 1664-7, fo. 10 ; :66j-6, fo. iz. 

4 Rep. + 131, pp. 311 a, 313 b. In spite of this gift, the pensions had to be 
reduced in October 1666. Ib., p. 3173. 

5 Ib., p. 3 1 1 b. The fee was usually paid to the widow or children of the 
deceased Master Porter whom the new-comer succeeded. But in this case there 
was neither a widow nor children. 

6 Rep. + 131, p. 311 b; Renter Warden's Cash Book, 1655, fo. if. 

7 Rep. +132, pp. 3113, 3i8b, 3193. The names of the widows are: 
Pomfreth, Perry, Garway, Bagwell, and Gibbon. For Smith's charity cf. 
Appendix XLVII, Benefactions. The name of the Liveryman was Richard 

1603-3 N n 

X74- External Relations during the 

Plague. As to the freemen we know nothing, and even with 
regard to the Liverymen the evidence is not conclusive. There 
are no Livery Lists between the years 1663-7. All we can 
say is that thirty-two names (p Assistants, 23 Liverymen) found 
in the list of i66'3 are not in that of 1667, but whether they 
died of the Plague, or even in the year of the Plague, we 
know not. 1 

No sooner had the virulence of the Plague begun to abate than 
the City was almost entirely devastated by the Great Fire which 
broke out on the night of September i, 1666. London had often 
suffered from this scourge. As late as 165? the Drapers' records 
tell of a great fire in Threadneedle Street. 2 Precautions had 
always been taken. We constantly hear of buckets, ladders, and 
other apparatus being furnished by the Company. 3 But the 
number of houses built chiefly of wood was very great, and, 
fanned by a strong east wind, the fire soon outran control. The 

Jeenes. Kendrick, the person mentioned above as receiving relief, though the 
son of a late Mayor, was not a Liveryman, at least in i66i-3> which is the 
nearest list we have. 

1 Cf. Livery List +301. 
Names which are in the Livery List of 1661-3 but not in that of 1667-8. 

Assistants. William Stubbard. 

Sir Thomas Cullum : he died April Thomas Speed. 

1664. Jonah Peck. 
Sir Robert Dicer: he died August 1667. Christopher Clarke. 

Matthew Hardy. Clement Pung. 

John Ledgingham. Thomas Rose. 

John Clark. Robert Earle. 

Tobell Aylmer. Samuel Baker. 

William Cutler. Jonathan Ashe. 

John Shorte Samuel Fowle. 

John Snow. Nicholas Lawrence. 

William Nicholl. 

Livery. Roger Hatton. 

Bartholomew Newcombe. Thomas Rastall. 

William Shaw. Richard Jeenes. 

Edward Sadler. J ohn , ^oxe. 

B*rnaby Meire. Wildebore 

Abraham Babington. J ose P h 

* Wardens' Accounts, 1654-5, fo. 40. 
3 e.g. Rep. 4-131, pp. jb, 16 b. 

Reign of Charles II 


conflagration lasted from Saturday till Thursday; 13,200 houses, The Great 
some four-fifths of the buildings in the City, and 8p parish F * rc > Se P~ 
churches, besides St. Paul's, are said to have been destroyed, and 
only some 7? acres about Aldgate and Tower Hill, out of a total 
of 3^3 within the City walls, were untouched. 1 

The losses of the Company were very serious. Besides the 
Hall itself and the Old Hall in St. Swithin's Lane, the capital 
messuages at Austin Friars in the tenancy of Sir William Wale 
and Mr. Cockaine, the Herber at Dowgate, and certainly not less 
than one hundred houses out of a total of: some two hundred owned 
by the Company in various parts of the City, including the Vicarage 
of St. Michael's, 2 were destroyed, or blown up in the efforts to stay 
the fire. The Church of St. Michael's, of which the Company 
held the advowson and where the services of the fraternity were 
held, was also demolished. 3 Silver coin to the amount of 446, 
which had been deposited by the Renter Warden in the * Book- 
house or Treasury ', was either defaced or melted, and a silversmith 
was employed to refine the remains and extract what he could. 
The weight of the silver extracted from the rubbish was ntfoz., 
and the total amount received for it and for the defaced silver 
11? os. $d* The plate, however, which had been put into 

1 Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 417. The fire did not extend northwards 
beyond Drapers' Hall and its precincts, as will be seen from the Map, p. zjj. 
For a detailed account of the Fire and the conduct of the Mayor, Sir T. Bludworth, 
cf. W. G. Bell, The Great Fire, ed. 19x0. 

2 It is impossible to give the exact number, either of the houses owned by the 
Company or of those destroyed, but the estimate in both cases is probably 
somewhat under the actual figures. 

3 The references are too numerous to give. They are to be found in the 
Repertories +131 and +133. 

4 Rep. +131, p. 3 17 a ; Renter Warden's Cash Book, 1666, fo. iz ; Renters' 
Accounts, 1666-7, fo. 8. The refining of the silver cost 6. We do not know 
what the amount of the defaced silver was, and therefore cannot tell exactly 
what price it fetched. The Merchant Taylors got jj 6d. to jj. Sd. per oz. for 
their melted plate : Clode, Memorials, p. 57. No gold coin is mentioned. The 
armour in the armoury was also destroyed ; the remains fetched i : Renters' 
Accounts, 1697-8, fo. 35. The barge was also saved, though the barge-house 
was much damaged: Renters' Accounts 1666-7, fo. 8. As the barge-house 
was not large enough, nor well situated, they did not renew the lease, but in 
1674 rented another of the Barber Surgeons at Stangate in Lambeth, on land 
belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury : Rep. +133, pp. 6 b, 593. 

176 External Relations during the 


Reign of Charles II 


a well of the common sewer in the garden, was saved. Most 
fortunately, owing to the exertions of the Clerk, G. Inice, most of 
the Records of the Company were preserved. In reward for this 
important service and for saving the plate, as well as for the 



From Maitland, History of London, ed. 1756, i. 43 z. This map is not 

very accurate. 

additional work caused by the fire, he was given a gratuity of 
60.* The loss of life in the City appears to have been very 
slight, 2 and I have not come across any notice of a member of the 
Company who perished, but many were reduced to poverty. 

1 Rep. + 132, p. 317 b. In November 1667 he was given a further gratuity 
of ?o, and, in October 1668, 60, for his extraordinary services: Rep. +133, 
pp. 3 b, 14 b. The Wardens' Accounts for the years 166^-6, 1666-7, n 

I longer survive, nor do those of the two years after the fire, 1667-8 1668-9. For 
these years we have the Cash Books of the Renter Wardens, which give some 

2 Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 437, says that only six 
persons perished in the whole city. 

178 External Relations during the 

and Charity 
of the 

The distress was increased by torrential rains in October and a 
very severe winter. 1 

As was to be expected, the December Quarter-Day dinner was 
forborne for the year 1666' and until the year 1671.* It was 
indeed decided to hold the Election Dinner in the following year 
(August 1 667) for 'the better preserving of unity'. But there 
was to be ' no high feasting ' ; only one course of moderate fare 
was to be provided, and ' in respect of the charge thereby saved ' 
it was decided that the usual allowance to the Wardens of 2.0 
should be spared and devoted to the relief of the poor of the 
Company, a policy which was also adopted when the Quarter- Day 
dinners were abandoned. 3 In spite of the serious loss sustained by 
the Company, * wherein almost all the houses given and belonging 
to the Company for maintaining charitable uses had been utterly 
consumed ', it was decided that ' there should be a continuance of 
the payment of all charitable and pious gifts chargeable to be 
paid ' so far as the rents of the said houses would allow. The 
only exception made to this decision was in the case of the alms- 
houses founded by the late Clerk, John Walter. He had particu- 
larly provided for ' a proportional abatement ' of the moneys to 
be paid * in case of any decay of rents by fire or otherwise ' ; and 
accordingly the pensions were reduced from 6s. 8d. to ^s. a month, 
until it should 'please God by some means to supply the loss'. 4 
In cases where the reading of prayers or of lectures provided for 
by charitable bequest had been suspended owing to the fire, the 
Court paid up the arrears when they were renewed. 5 

1 Cf. Bell, The Great Fire, p. 166. 

2 Rep. + 133. p, 38b. The City also curtailed expenses. There was no 
pageant at the initiation of the Lord Mayor, Sir Wm. Bolton, in October 1666 
much to the grief of Mr. Pepys, cf. Diary ed. Mynors Bright, 1 877, vol. iv, p. 138. 

3 Rep. +131, pp. 3i8b, 313^ In 1669 the allowances to the Stewards' 
dinners were also forborne: Rep. + 133, p. I7b. But this was partly to meet 
the expense of rebuilding the Hall. These allowances were not renewed till 
February 1671 : ib., p. 41 a. 

4 Rep. + 131, p. 3173. This means that the charitable uses should be a first 
charge on the rents. 

5 e.g. in 1671 and 1673, in the case of Kendrick's bequest to the parish of St. 
Christopher's for reading of prayers and for poor prisoners. Ib., Rep. +133, 
pp. 34!}, 51 b; Renters' Accounts, 1671-1, fo. 13. In 167*, }6 arrears since 
\666 of (,6 per annum, due for morning lectures at St. Anrholin's according to 

Reign of Charles 11 

Although the loss caused by the cessation of rents was serious, 1 Policy 
it was in some measure temporarily mitigated by the policy adopted with 
adopted by the Court. All arrears up to the date of the fire were [*j a nts t0 
demanded, and for the future the tenants who undertook to 
rebuild in accordance with the Act passed for the purpose 2 were 
given an extension of their leases at the old rents, and without 
the payment of any fine. 3 Those who were unable or unwilling 

Mr Parker's gift; this to go towards c purchasing a yearly revenue to be laid 
out towards maintenance' of the said lecture. Rep. +133, p. 41 b.' In 1673, 
arrears of Lady Bailie's charity to Whittington College in the parish of St. Michael 
Royal. Ib., p. 55 b. 

1 The rents fell from 1,157 13*. $<, to 584 ior. id. Cf. Renters' 
Accounts, 1665-6, 1667-8. 

2 1 9 Car. II, c. ii. A Court of Judicature touching houses burnt or demolished, 

c. iii. All ground to be rebuilt upon within three years, or to be sold by the 
Corporation, the proceeds being paid to the owner. 

Buildings to be of four sorts : 

a. Houses fronting by-lanes, two stories. 

b. streets and lanes of note, three stories. 

c. High and principal streets, four stories. 

d. Mansions, four stories. 

All houses to be built of brick or stone of prescribed thickness. 

Surveyors, or Supervisors, to be appointed to see that the Act was enforced. 

The Court of Aldermen to fix wages, and no combinations, either of dealers 
or Isbourers, to be allowed. 

Foreigners to be allowed to work, and after seven years to obtain the 
privileges of freemen. 

Streets to be enlarged at the discretion of the Common Council, with com- 
pensation to owners of lands taken. 

Parish churches to the number of thirty-nine to be rebuilt (as well as St. Paul's), 
with approval of the Archbishop and the Bishop of London. Sites of those not 
rebuilt to be sold, and proceeds devoted to cost of building the others. 

An octroi on coals of it. a cauldron, subsequently raised to n., to be estab- 
lished to pay for these improvements, and owners of houses to be assessed 
according to the benefit received. 

Penalties threatened for any contravention of the Act. Cf. Bell, pp. 141 ff., 357. 

For Regulations issued by the Common Council cf. Msithnd, History of 
London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 443. A ptan for rebuilding the City was prepared by 
Sir Christopher Wren (ib., p. 446), but it was abandoned, and the part he took 
in the restoration has probably been exaggerated, cf. Bell, 160 ff. 

3 e.g. Rep. +131, p. 3103; Rep. + 133, pp. 193, 313. The length of 

i8o External Relations during the 

to rebuild were offered the option of surrendering their leases. 1 
To avoid the inconvenience or having to refund the taxes levied 
on the knds, the rents were in future to be clear of such taxes or 
assessments in respect of improvement, 2 but tenants were allowed 
to sub-let a parcel, though not all, of their tenements, without 
obtaining the consent of the Wardens. 3 This method of meeting 
the financial difficulties, which was adopted by other Companies, 4 
was, however, considered by Counsel in 1704 to have been 
unwise. He held that the more prudent course would have been 
to have appealed to the Court of Judicature for powers to reduce 
the charities in cases where the rents, owing to the fire, would 
not suffice to meet the charges. 5 

The destruction of so many houses gave an opportunity for the 

leases varied. Some were for as long as eighty years. For fear that the title 
of the Company as ground-landlord might be forgotten, the Wardens were 
ordered to have the arms of the Company cast in lead and put on the outside of 
the houses, where they were held on long leases (Rep. +133, p. 41 b). None 
of these survive. Indeed, the Clerk informs me that all the houses belonging to 
the Company in the City and now standing are of a later date than the seven- 
teenth century. Where there was no house to be rebuilt, a fine on renewal of 
the lease was demanded (ib., pp. 18 b, 303). In the case of John Cullum the 
amount of the fine was left to him. He put > jj. into the Poor Box (Rep. 
f 133, p. 18 a). In some cases, however, when the expense of rebuilding was 
great, or to encourage the tenant to build, the rents were reduced, e.g. the 
Herber (Rep. + 133, p. I a; and cf. Rep. + 131, p. 3iob). In 1671 the rent 
which G. Inice, the Clerk, owed to the Company for houses he held was reduced 
from 50 to 30, because he had rebuilt at his own charge (Rep. -f 133, p. 37 b). 
But this was a special favour granted to the Clerk. 

1 The surrender of leases under these circumstances was enforced by the 
* Court of Judicatory touching burnt houses sitting at Clifford's Inn*. If the 
houses were not rebuilt, the Act, 19 Car. II, c. 3, xi, empowered the City 
authorities to sell the land to those who would build. Thus Ellen Hawkins 
refused to come to any agreement for rebuilding, or to pay any rent since the fire, 
in spite of a judgement of the SherifPs Court for recovery, 'And there being 
a certificate ... of the Court of Judicatory sitting at Clifford's Inn touching 
burnt houses . . . ' it is ordered that * for the prevention of sale of the said ground 
by the City for want of rebuilding, the ground shall be disposed of to some person 
who will undertake to build'. Rep. +133, p. 3 a a. Cf. Appendix XXIX for 
some decisions of the Court of Judicatory. 

2 Rep. + 1 3 z, p. 3 1 9 a. 3 Rep. +133,?. 19 b. 

4 e. g. the Goldsmiths. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, pp. ido, 161. 

5 Rep. +13 3, p. 305 a. 

Reign of Charles II x8r 

widening of some of the narrowest streets and lanes in the City. Land sold 
The Act had therefore authorized the municipal authorities to for widening 
compound with the owners of land thus vacant for the purpose. 1 str< els " 
After some negotiations the Company agreed to surrender certain 
plots for the total sum of ;pp3 3^. 6d. They also granted land 
in Honey Lane for a new market, for which they received }6?.* 
As in the opinion of the Court these sums were to fall to the 
Company and not to the tenants, they inserted provisos to that 
effect in the leases. In special cases, however, they made con- 
cessions. Thus, in the case of one tenant in the parish of St. 
Margaret Pattens, a lease for eighty years of the remainder of the 
ground, which was not to be absorbed in the new street, was 
granted to him for a peppercorn rent for the first year and 10 
per annum for the rest of the term, and all arrears of rent were 
discharged on his paying 170, allowing the Company to enjoy 
all the money received from the City, and undertaking to build ; 3 
while Mrs. Mabb, the executrix of a late tenant, was granted 
30 out of the 4.3 17-r. 6d. received by the Company from the 
City for land laid into the street at the east corner of St. Mary-at- 
Hifi. The Court, however, expressly stated that the concession 

1 For a list of the streets and lanes enlarged see Maitland, History of London, 
ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 443. 

2 Thus . s . d. 
For land set out in the street 

at St. Nicholas' Shambles. . . . . . . . 25 j 16 6 

into Smithy Lane, Love Lane, Thames Street in Petty Wales, 

Abchurch Lane, New Fish Street, and Blowbladder Street. 531 17 o 

in Queen's Street and Wading Street. . . . . . 141 12 6 

in Cheapside at Bowchurch Yard. . . . . . 20 o o 

at St. Mary-at-Hill over against Rood Church. . . . 43 17 6 

Total . . 993 3 6 

Cf. Wardens' Accounts for the years 1668-9, 1670-1, 1671-2, 1683-4; 
Rep. + 133, pp. 33 b,i 32 b ; Wardens' Accounts, 1669-70, fo. if . It appears 
from Ogilby and Morgan's Map of 1677 that the restoration of the City was 
nearly completed by that date. Mr. Bell points out that the restoration was 
almost entirely the work of the City and the Companies, that the Government 
did very little, and that the fines imposed on those who declined to serve as 
Sheriffs and Aldermen, which were numerous, were applied to this purpose, 
pp. 269, 285. 

3 Rep. + 133, p. 32 a. The name of the street is not given. 
1603-3 O O 

External Relations during the 

' 60 

*^ 'C CJ "" tJ 

~ u w O n 

O .2 

; | rf 

C 'u 
o .C 

1 - = 

O '5 y 

o **" ^ 

1-1 W ^ 

U. T3 -T _ " 

o c 5 o co 

O " w "* 
** > D. 

js. " rt 

H D- W 

Reign of Charles II 

was due to the great losses she had sustained in the fire. 1 These 
details might be indefinitely multiplied. It should be remembered 
that the rearrangement of leases led to much negotiation, to many 
surrenders and consolidation of tenancies, and to many con- 
troversies with troublesome and needy tenants, some of which 
were brought before the Court Judicatory above mentioned. 3 
Enough, however, has been said to convince the reader of the 
enormous amount of work which was thrown upon the Company 
and the Clerk, of the business-like way in which the difficulties were 
grappled with, and of the generosity shown to those in trouble. 

As was to be expected, measures were taken to reduce the Measures 
danger of future fires. By the Act of ip Car. II. c. iii, houses taken to 
were no longer to be built of wood, and by the widening of some cope with 
streets something was done to destroy the ' rookeries ', which were ^ utul ' e " res - 
likely to contribute to the spread of a fire. The City authorities 
also bestirred themselves. In itf'?" the Common Council passed 
an Act for the prevention and suppression of fire. By this Act 
each of the four quarters of the City were to provide eight hundred 
leathern buckets, fifty ladders, two ' engines for spouting water ' 
for each parish, twenty-four pickaxes, and forty shovels. The 
Companies and each alderman and principal citizen were also 
ordered to provide themselves with the like implements according 
to their ability. Engineers were also appointed, who should 
superintend the blowing-up of houses to stop any fire which might 
break out. 3 London has, indeed, never suffered so heavily again, 

1 U'.jpp- 33 b , 37 b. 

2 Cf. Appendix XXIX for some decisions of the Court. 

3 Cf. Nicholl, History of the Ironmongers, pp. xx, 459 ; Rep. +133, p. 3? a ; 
Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 450. The following drawing 
of c the engines for spouting water ' is of interest. They were made of brass and 

were like a syringe. The tubes were 9 inches in circumference and 17% inches in 
length, with two handles. The total length of the engines was 33^ inches. 
They would each contain a bucketful of water. They apparently cost 34. 
Wardens' Accounts 1670-1, fo. 31 ; 1671-2, fo. 31. 

184- External Relations during the 

but even as early as 1682 we hear of another fire at Wapping 
which consumed 2,,5*oo houses. 1 

Destruction Since the Restoration extensive alterations and embellishments 
and rebuild- h a d b een undertaken in the Hall and the Garden at a cost of over 
mgof the . I}000> an d as l ate as February 1666 further additions, including 
a gallery for musicians, had been decided upon. 2 The fire had not 
only put an end to these designs, but had reduced the whole 
structure to ashes. To rebuild it was an imperative necessity. 
The Hall had been the centre of the Company's activities and 
the symbol of the common brotherhood of the members. On 
September 10, therefore, four days after the fire had been quelled, 
the Court met in the Garden House, the late residence of the 
Beadle, which, though partially destroyed to stay the conflagra- 

1 Hardwicke Papers +346, fo. ?. 

2 We learn incidentally that the Company paid c hearth or chimney tax ' 
for sixteen hearths in and about the Hall. This gives one some idea of the 
size of the old Hall. The Goldsmiths paid for thirty-three. The Drapers 
had hoped to take in a gallery from Sir William Wale's house, but the negotia- 
tions broke down. Rep. + 131, pp. 141 b, ifi a, 2*4 a, 15? a, 163 a, 266 a, 174 a, 
3133; Wardens' and Renters' Accounts for the years 1659-60, 1661-3. 
The chief improvements had been the black and white tiles, According to the 
best mode ', in the fire-places of the Parlour and the Ladies' Chamber, as well as 
new andirons $ Turkey-work chairs for the uppermost table in the place of forms, 
c which are not found so easy ' ; new carpets ' for the tables j a new floor for 
the Great Parlour, and the abandonment of rushes as being inconvenient, c as 
well in regard of the danger of fire and making of dust and that they are not 
much used elsewhere '. The order against smoking in the Parlour had been 
confirmed. A fine of u. 6<f., to be given to the poor, was imposed on those who 
smoked in the Parlour. This order is also found in the Grocers' Books, with 
this comment, ' If any person have a desire to refresh himself by a pipe of 
tobacco or cup of drink he is to withdraw into some retiring room more suitable 
for the purpose.' Heath, Grocers, p. 16. These details are of interest as 
illustrating the growth of luxury. The following notice, ' Pd. for two pictures of 
the King and Queen's Majesties hung up in the Ladies Chamber 3 ' (Wardens 
Accounts, 16613, fo. 37), presumably refers to the framing or fixing, other- 
wise the remuneration of the artist was indeed low. More than 250 had 
also been spent on the Garden, in regard that it was c not so decent as is desired 
in a place ofgreate resorte and of such concern to the honor of this City and 
Company '. A new Summer House and comely pedestals to the tops of the three 
old summer-houses, a maze, purbeck pavements for the path into the Great 
Gardens and five statues were the most important embellishments. 

Reign of Charles II 


tion, still stood, 1 and a Committee of influential members was 
formed to carry through the business. 

The old Hall had been mixed up in a most perplexing way 
with the adjacent houses, more especially with those of four of 
their tenants, Sir William Wale, Mr. Thynne, Mr. Bar, and Mr. 
Clarke. In consideration of this and the * vast expense ' of buying 
them out, and of the rents which might be procured by letting 
the site of the old Hall, it was at first proposed to build the new 
Hall at the west end of the Great Garden. 2 Finally, however, 
satisfactory arrangements were made with the above-named 
tenants, 3 and the new Hall was built practically on the old 

1 Subsequently the Court held its meetings in the house of John Morn's and 
Robert Clayton, who took a lease of what remained of the ground hitherto 
held by Sir William Wale. In return they were allowed to open a door from 
their precincts into the paved passage to the Garden (Rep. +131, p. jiyb). 
There also the plate-chest and other valuables were deposited. For this service 
the Company granted Clayton the use of their plate during his year of office as 
Sheriff, 1671-1, although this, according to ancient custom, was only done when 
the Sheriff was a member of the Society (Rep. + J33 3 p. 39 a). Clayton was a 
Scrivener, but was translated to the Drapers' Company in 1679; was Mayor in 
1679-80, and Master in 1680-1. John Morris was also a member of the 
Scriveners' Company and Alderman of Cheap. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. i, p. 3 5 3. 
Mr. Jupp, in his History of the Carpenters, pp. 247, 248, 503, states that, as their 
Hall escaped, they leased the use of it to several Companies ; and that the Drapers 
hired it on every alternate Wednesday for the year 1667 at a rent of 30, the 
Drapers being allowed to open a doorway through the wall which divided the 
Gardens of the two Companies. He also says that Sir Samuel Starling, the Draper 
Mayor of 1669-70, hired it for the year of his Mayoralty at a rent of i? o, as 
three previous Mayors had. It is curious that I have found no notice of this in the 
Drapers' Books. But the Wardens' Accounts of the two years after the fire have 
been lost, and presumably Sir Samuel would pay the rent out of his own pocket. 

2 Rep. -f 131, p. 311 b. 

3 Sir William Wale surrendered c all the interest he had in rooms over the late 
porter's lodge and the gate, and all the site and rooms running westwards, with 
the said lodge from the north part of that lodge to the utmost extent of his 
ground, including the site of his green parlour', on condition that his lease of the 
rest was increased to seventy-one years and that he received 400 (Rep. -f- *33> 
p. nb; A. iii. 143). Mr. Thynne surrendered his lease altogether for a sum 
of 310 (Rep. + 133, p. 2,93), and the land, less those parts which were needed 
for the enlargement of the Hall, was let out to Mr. Cartwright, the mason who 
rebuilt the Hall, for sixty-one years at a rent of j, clear of taxes, and a fine of 
150. Cartwright undertook, under pain of forfeiture, not to project his new 

186 External Relations during the 

foundations, though with considerable enlargements. The 'model ' 
for the New Hall was drawn by Mr. Edward Jarman (Jerman), one 
of the Surveyors appointed by the City authorities, and carried out 
by Cartwright, his head mason, 1 but we have no details as to the 
character or the erection. The main part at least of the building 
appears to have been finished by the year 167 1, since we hear that a 
View Dinner was held in the new parlour for the first time in the 
April of that year, while in the following December a Quarter- 
Day was kept at the Hall for the Assembling of all the Company, 
and a dinner given ' according to custom '." It was, however, a 
long time before the interior decorations and the furnishing were 
completed. 3 In 1674 we learn that the Company were obliged 

building beyond the New Hall to the north-east, nor to raise it higher than the 
roof of the Hall. He further agreed to pay a higher rent for so much of the new 
tenement as should be used c as a tavern, ordinary, victualling, or coffee house ' 
(ib., p. 3 1 a). Mr. Bar surrendered some of the land held by him to the north- 
west of the Hall for the enlargement of the parlour. The term of his lease was 
extended, on condition that he built a substantial house convenient for a mer- 
chant '. He was also to have the lease of the warehouse under the parlour. 
Committee Book +380, p. i ; Reverse, pp. 7, 10. John Clarke also surrendered 
part of the land held by him (A. iii. 143). The remainder of the site hitherto 
held by Sir William Wale was let on a building lease to John Morris and 
Robert Clayton. Cf. Appendix, No. XL VI. 

1 Rep. +133, pp. i a, a b, 6 a, 19 b; Sharpe, London, vol. ii, p. 418. 
Jarman's fee was ip. In \66<) his widow was given a gratuity of 2,0 marks. 
He also designed the Fishmongers' Hall. 

2 Rep. + i33>PP- 30 a j 35j 3^b. A public election dinner was given in 
August 1670, but, inasmuch as a heavy bill for building was paid in 16712, it 
is probable that this was held elsewhere, as, almost certainly, was that of May 19, 
1669, given to those who met at church on the day of the King's nativity and 
coronation (ib., p. I9b). Only 100 was borrowed (Rep. + 133, fo. a r a). 
The rest of the money was provided, partly from the loans repaid by the East 
India Company (1,000 being repaid in 1669 ; z,ooo in 1671 ; and "8oo in 
1671-3), partly, in all probability, borrowed from the Legacy money, a very 
considerable amount of which was, at that time, not lent out j cf. Wardens' 
Accounts for the year mentioned. It should also be remembered that lands were 
sold to the City for enlarging streets to the amount of nearly 1,000 ; cf. supra. 
We are also told incidentally that a Mr. Aldus, one of their tenants, helped the 
Company to obtain materials at a reasonable rate, and that for this service his 
rent was reduced (Rep. + I 33, p. 18 a). 

3 The Committee Book on rebuilding the Hall, +380, ends in February 

Reign of Charles II 


to forbear wainscoting their rooms for want of funds. By 1678 
this had been done in the Hall and the Parlour, the latter at the 
charge of Sir Joseph Sheldon, but the other rooms were still 
unfinished. 1 As to the total cost it is impossible to speak with 
accuracy, because the accounts do not distinguish between the 
charges for restoration and those for maintenance, and at times 
mix up expenditure on the Hall with that on other parts of their 
property, but certainly somewhere about 13,000 was spent on 
the Hall before the end of the reign, while the restoration of the 
Garden accounted for about another i,ooo. a That we have no 
definite description of the building is unfortunate, 3 inasmuch as 

1 Rep. 4- 133, pp. 55 b, 93 a, 94 b, H4b. A statue was put up to Sir Joseph 
in hopes that his influence will be good in exciting others to finish the ornamental 
part of the remaining rooms'. At the same time it was decided to replace the 
statues of other benefactors, which had been destroyed by the fire. Mr. Pemel, 
an Assistant, presented a pendulum clock for the Parlour as an expression of his 
affection for the Society (ib., p. 463). In i68z the Hall was insured with the 
City authorities for 5,000 (Rep. +133, p. 1193). This is the first notice of 
the Company's insuring their property. 

s. d. 
In 1667-8 1711 10 o was spent. Renter Warden's Account Book, 

1667-8, fos. 17, 1 8. 

In 1668-9 J 793 IX 5 M j Wardens' Accounts, 1 668-9, fo. 34. 

From that date 

to Feb. 1673 8161 it 6 Committee Book, fos. 17-37. 


11667 13 

As to subsequent years we cannot be certain. 

3 I have, however, collected the following details from incidental notices. The 
ceiling of the Hall was richly moulded, that over the staircase in fretwork ; the 
walls panelled. The Ladies' Chamber and the Gallery were to be 14 feet high. 
The Ladies' Chamber as well as the Parlour was furnished with Colchester bayes 
on the wall, and curtains. The Gallery ceiling was in square panels and plain 
c ballexian ' mould. The doors generally were of deal painted ; the chimney- 
pieces in marble, that in the Ladies' Chamber black and white diamond pattern. 
The chairs were of three kinds : Turkey-work, Russia, and bayes-covered. 
There were also forms for the side-table in the Hall, and three tables, ' Spanish 
table fashion,' for dinners in the Hall, and c Spanish tables ' for the Ladies' 
Chamber. Cf. Committee Book +3 80, and Wardens' Accounts. Maitland, 
London, ed. 1760, vol. ii, p. 845, gives a description of the Hall as it existed 
in 1756. For the meaning of 'Spanish tables' cf. infra, p. 314 note 4. 

x88 External Relations during the 

a considerable part of Jarman's buildings was destroyed by another 
fire, which broke out in the vaults in 1772,. 

Restoration Much care, as usual, was taken with regard to the Garden, 
of the We are told of a long walk paved with freestone, leading 

Garden. from the Hall to the Garden, and of an agreement with their 
tenant, Mr. Thomas Neale, who was building a capital messuage 
adjoining this walk on the west. His house was not to be higher 
than two stories, and he was only to make two windows in his 
cellar through the wall which divided the plot he held from 
the Garden. For this concession he was to pay a peppercorn 
rent of 2,j. a year, and to make a present of 2,0, with two fat 
bucks. 1 The Company was very jealous of windows opening on 
the Garden. None were allowed to do so except by special 
consent ; several applications were refused, and those to whom the 
privilege was given paid an acknowledgement of is. ^d. a year, 
and i to the poor-box. 2 Little, however, was done towards the 
embellishment of the Garden till the Spring of 1671 . At that date 
the Bowling Alley was once more prepared for the Summer, and 
continued to be so annually. In 1672, a pair of large folding- 
gates, with handsome piers, was put up at the entrance ; the 
summer-houses were repaired, the statues in the Garden repainted ; 
while a little later a sun-dial was set up and a paving of Purbeck 
marble was laid down on the west side. 3 No sooner had the 
Garden been restored than the old complaint was raised that it 
was frequented by 'idle and lewd people and rude boys'. It was 
therefore decided to close it to the general public, keys being 
given only to Assistants, and to Liverymen who applied 
for them. 4 

In 1684, at the request of the Lord Mayor, the Company also 
set up a gilt statue of King Edward VI in one of the niches of the 
Royal Exchange, other Companies undertaking to replace those of 
other kings and queens of England. This statue was designed by 

1 Rep. + 133, p. \6 b. 2 Ib., pp. 43 a, 46 a. 

3 Rep. + 133, pp. 35 b, 41 b, J9 b. I presume that the Summer-houses and 
statues had escaped the fire. I have met with no notice of their having been 
set up anew. 

4 Rep. +133, pp. 107 b, 109 b. 

Reign of Charles II 


Grinling Gibbons, the famous carver, who at that date was a 
member of the Company. 1 

Sir William Prideaux, in his history of the Goldsmiths, says Corn Money 
that, in consequence of the destruction of the granaries by the discon- 
Great Fire, the old system of Corn Money was abandoned. 2 This tlnued - 
appears to have happened to many of the Companies, but the 
granary of the Drapers at the Bridge-house evidently survived. 
In August 1 67 3 we are told that they still had a store, which, 
from having lain for a long time, had depreciated, and that, since 
scarce any Company had any store, the little quantity in their 
possession would be of little use to supply the market and keep 
down prices, it might be well to sell it before it became worse, 
especially as the market was advancing. The Wardens were 
further instructed to inquire how the other Companies, who kept 
no store, managed to supply the markets. The Court, however, 
eventually decided not to sell at the moment, but the question 
was raised whether, since the amount lying in granary was only 
one-fifth of the usual amount, the salary of the Keeper should not 
be reduced. 3 In the April of the following year they finally 
decided to sell it all in small parcels to the poor, and the Keeper 
was dismissed. 4 Shortly after, on the Mayor issuing his usual 
precept, the Wardens were instructed to find out what the other 
Companies were doing. 

Meanwhile, in the year lo'o'y, the Mayor had ordered the Coal Money. 
Companies to apply the same system to coal, 5 and in 1679 made 
an attempt to continue it, as well as Corn Money. The Court 
decided to consider the matter, and, as that is the last notice we 
have, we may take it that both Corn and Coal Money fell into 
disuse. 6 

1 Rep -f 133, p. 1393. It cost ?c, and a IQJ. for the gilding of the same 
(Wardens' Accounts, 1685-6, fo. 39). Grinling Gibbons was entered by patrimony 
in January 1673 (Freedom Book + 180, fo. 19), and was called to the clothing in 
1685, just after the Revocation of the Charter. Cf. Rep. +133, p. 143 b. 

2 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. i, p. 361. 

3 Rep. +133, pp. 50 b, jz b. We, however, hear no more of the Granary at 
Bridewell. Presumably it was burnt. 

Ib., p. 58 b, 59 b. They, however, granted a pension of \ to his mother. 

5 Herbert, vol. i, p. 130. 

6 Rep. +133, p. 101 a. 

1603-3 p p 

190 External Relations during the 

The Mayor's In spite of the disasters caused by the Plague and the Fire, the 
Pageants City soon resumed its accustomed gaiety, and of the Mayor's 
e ' Pageants, which reappeared, some were not less splendid than those 
of former days. In these civic festivities the Drapers took their 
share. In the period from 1670 to 168^ no less than five Drapers 
held the office of Mayor. None of them, however, except the 
last, James Smith, were originally members of the Company, but 
were translated on their election, 1 and, the fact that the Drapers' 
Company was chosen by these four prospective holders of the 
Chief Magistracy of the City is good evidence of the reputation of 
the Society at the time. 

Of the Show at the election of Samuel Starling we have but 
little information. To judge from the cost, which only amounted 
to the sum of 2,71 13^. 6</., it was on a modest scale, probably 
because of the late Plague and Fire. 8 But of the four others we 
have a much more detailed account. They were all designed 
and written by Thomas Jordan, and printed copies of them still 
survive. 3 That of Sir Joseph Sheldon, in 1675-, was called 'The 
Triumphs of London ', and cost the Company more than <%3, as 
well as 66 i^s. ^d. for ' beautifying of his house '. 4 The expense 
was, as usual, met in part by the fees of those called to the Livery, 
and by those freemen who were appointed to serve as bachelors 
in foynes and in budge. 5 

The Show at the inauguration of Sir Thomas Davies in the 

1 Samuel Starling, 1670-1, translated from the Brewers. 
Joseph Sheldon, 1675-6, translated from the Tallow-Chandlers. 
Thomas Davies, 1676-7, translated from the Stationers. 
Robert Clayton, 1679-80, translated from the Scriveners. 
James Smith, 1684-5, Member of the Drapers' Company. 

2 Wardens' Accounts, 1669-70, fo. 33. 

3 Cf. Herbert, Livery Companies, vol. i, p. 461. 

4 The House also paid 6 13*. 4^. for the Mayor's messe whenever he dined 
with the Company. Wardens' Accounts, 1675-6, fbs. 34, 35, 36. 

5 Forty-three freemen, who served in foynes as rich bachelors, paid a fee of 
3 each. Four, who declined to serve, were fined 6 each. Sixty-four, who 
served as bachelors in budge, paid 30*. each. Twelve, who declined, were fined 
3 apiece. Wardens' Accounts, 1675-6, fo. 15. In 1676, when Thomas 
Davies was Mayor, one paid i to be excused from being Gentleman Usher (ib., 
1676-7 , fo. 15). For the meaning of bachelors in foynes and in budge cf. supra, 
p. 7- 

Reign of Charks II 191 

following year was less costly. 1 Nevertheless the repetition of 
these charges led the Court to pass a Resolution (December 
itf^ ) that the Company would not in future bear these expenses, 
nor give the usual present of i oo marks to any Mayor, unless he 
was at the date of his election either a member of the Company, or 
had been a member and had translated to another Company. 
This resolution was, however, repealed in August 1679, in 
anticipation of the translation of Sir Robert Clayton from the 
Scriveners on his election as Mayor. 2 The pageant then presented 
was once more of peculiar splendour. It was called * London in 
Luster ', and was composed of characters dressed to represent the 
twelve months of the year, and numerous other allegorical per- 
sonages richly dressed, who marched in front of a moving stage, 
on which stood a golden ram, in allusion to the mystery of the 
Drapers, ' backed by a beautiful boy with such features of face, 
curiosity of complexipn and symmetry of limbs, that he would 
have been an excellent original to draw an angel by, and might 
have prevailed with Medea, as Jason did, when he obtained the 
golden fleece at Colchis '. Then a shepherdess of princely rank v 
superbly habited and bearing in one hand a golden crook, in the 
other the City banner, made an appropriate speech to the Mayor. 
The concluding pageant exhibited a landscape of Salisbury Plain, 
where rustic shepherds and shepherdesses fed and folded their 
flocks; 'and, for the future exaltation of the Drapers' delight, 
here were several trades met together, all pertinent for making of 
cloth ; as corders, spinners, dyers,wool-combers, shearers, dressers, 
fullers, weavers ; which were set without order, because the excel- 
lence of this scene did consist in confusion. Although their 
number and weight were too cumbersome and ponderous for ail of 
them to work according to their distinct arts and mysteries, yet 
they were here met in their persons to rejoyce and express their 
frolics in dancing, jumping, tumbling, piping and singing, and all 
such jovial actions and movements of agility as might express 

1 It cost 484 1 8 f. <)d. Wardens' Accounts, 1 676-7, fo. $6. The libretto of this 
Pageant composed by Jordan is in the possession of the Company. Shelf mark ooo. 

2 Rep. +133, pp. 78 b, 103 a, lof a. Sir Robert was also Burgess for the City. 
He built for himself a fine house in Old Jewry, where he and his lady gave 
entertainments vying with those of kings. The house was for some time used 
by successive Lord Mayors (Bell, The Great Fire, p. 278). The Mayor had no 
official house till the Mansion House was built in 1753. 

^<)^ External Relations during the 

their joy and exultation in their compliments to the new Lord 
Mayor, and their service to the Drapers' Company.' 

It is curious that although, as we have shown, the Drapers' 
Company had long abandoned direct connexion with the manu- 
facture or even the sale of cloth, the fiction was still kept up. 

The procession consisted of the Master, the Wardens, twenty- 
six Assistants, sixty gentlemen ushers in velvet coats and chains of 
gold, some two hundred Liverymen, sixty Bachelors, twenty in 
fbynes and forty in budge, the Company's pensioners in gowns 
and caps and bearing banners, and one hundred poor freemen in 
azure gowns and caps, with javelins and targets bearing the arms 
of benefactors. These, together with the City Marshal and other 
officials, with trumpeters, drummers, fife players and others, formed 
a procession of above five hundred. And the total cost of the 
triumph came to 5- 1 3 u. 4^.' 

That there was some discontent among the freemen at the 
charges imposed upon them for the Mayors' triumphs is proved 
by the fact that three of them declined to pay their fee on being 
appointed 'rich Bachelors', and that in December 1681 others 
were summoned before the Mayor for the same offence. 2 This, 
however, had been experienced before, and must not be taken as 
evidence that the Company as a whole was refractory, though this 
might well have been the case had they known the King's designs. 
Forfeiture of Shortly after Sir Robert Clayton's show, the King proceeded to 
the Charters, act in a way which revived the worst memories of his father's 
. unconstitutional rule, and did much to forfeit the loyalty of 
London. In the year 1680 the Bill to exclude his Roman 
Catholic brother James from the throne had passed the Commons 
without a division. It had indeed been thrown out by the House 
of Lords, but it was revived in a somewhat altered form in the 
Parliament of 1681, which was held at Oxford to escape from the 
Whig influences of London, and was only stopped by a dissolution. 
Since then Charles, in violation of the Triennial Bill, had ruled 
without a Parliament. As such a policy could not be long main- 

1 Cf. London in Luster' set forth at the cost and charges of the Worshipful 
the Drapers' Company. Devised and composed by Thos. Jordan, gent. City 
Library, Guildhall. Wardens' Accounts, 1679-80, fo. 37. 

2 Rep. + 133, pp. 108 a, 138 b. 

Reign of Charles II 


tained, the King made an attempt to place the control of the 
municipal offices in the hands of those who would support him, 
and to secure a more subservient House. Already something had 
been done in this direction by the Corporation Act of zo'6'2.. 
Thereby all existing holders of municipal offices were to take the 
oaths of allegiance and supremacy; to declare on oath that it was 
unlawful to resist the King, and to repudiate the Solemn League 
and Covenant. 1 That Act had, however, been passed amidst the 
Royalist enthusiasm of the Restoration, and had been acquiesced in, 
because the Roundheads were at that time out of favour, and 
because it was also directed against the Roman Catholics. Thus 
in 1672 the Mayor, when issuing a precept to enforce the Act 
' on all persons in or under any degree of trust or profit in any 
Corporation ', said that the purport of the Act was ' to prevent 
the dangers arising from the growth of Popery ', and the Drapers, 
on information that other Companies did ' generally give notice 
of the substance of the said precept by tickets in print to their 
Liveries, Master and Wardens ', proceeded to do likewise. 2 In 
T 63 1 a bolder move was made. If, argued the advisers of the 
Crown, the towns had received their privileges by royal Charter, 
these privileges could, if sufficient reason were found, be taken 
away by the Crown. 

In December 1681, therefore, a writ of Quo Warranto was The 
obtained from the King's Bench against the City to inquire into Writ 
the tenure of its liberties, and to discover a justification for their J^rr 
forfeiture. 3 As, however, the legal procedure under the Writ 1<5 e 8 " er 

1 13 Charles II, Stat. ii, c. i. I believe W. Eardley, Anthony Poole, and 
William Witherden were degraded from the position of Liverymen in August 
1662, because they refused to take this oath, although no reason is given. Rep. 
131, p. 272 b. 

2 Rep. +133, pp. 49 b, 107 a. That some of the Companies were suspected 
of Puritan tendencies is proved by the Precept of the Mayor to the Ironmongers 
in 1677, forbidding the holding of Conventicles in their Hall (Nicholl, lion- 
mongers, p. 313). JJut of this precept there is no mention made in the 
Drapers' books. Apparently the Testament used for administering the oath 
suffered from the frequent use to which it was put, since we are told that it had 
to be rebound and refitted with silver clasps at a cost of i if*. 8d. Wardens' 
Accounts, 1664-5, f' 4 l - The same treatment was applied to all the Companies, 
e.g. Grocers (Heath, p. 121). 

5 The misdemeanours adduced were chiefly the imposition of tolls on goods 

194 External Relations during the 

June i68z. 

would be necessarily long, a more speedy method was devised. 
In the preceding November a bill or indictment against Shaftes- 
bury, the Leader of the Whigs, for treason had been thrown out 
Interference by a London Grand Jury, composed of civic officials. The best 
with the wa y O f preventing a repetition of such conduct was to secure the 
appointment of subservient Sheriffs. Sir John Moore, a member 
of the Grocers' Company, once a Nonconformist, who had of late 
gone over to the King, 1 happened to hold the office of Mayor in 
the year lo'Sa. 2 He was accordingly induced to exercise an 
ancient privilege of appointing one of the Sheriffs, and nominated 
Dudley North, a Turkey merchant of the Mercers' Company, 

brought to the City markets by an Ordinance of the Common Council, and the 
presenting of a petition by the same body to the King in December 1679, asking 
for the calling of Parliament, which was published by their authority. Cf. 
Hallam, English History, loth edition, vol. ii, p. 453. 

1 Burnet, History of My Own Time (ed. Airy, Oxford, 1900, vol. ii, 
p. 335, says Sir J. Moore was c a flexible and weak-hearted man; a Noncon- 
formist till he grew so rich that he had a mind to go through the dignities of 
the City.' 

2 The following list of Lord Mayors and Masters of the Company at the time 
will be found useful : 

Lord Mayors. 
October 18 to October z8. 

Sir John Moore. Nonconformist i68i-z 

turned Tory. 
Sir William Prichard. Reap- 1681-3 

pointed by the King, October 

13, 1683. Tory. 

Sir H. Tulser. Tory. 1683-4 

Sir James Smith. Tory. 1684-5 

Sir Robert JefFery. Tory. 1685-6 

Sir John Peake. Tory. 1686-7 

Sir John Shorter. Whig. He 1687-8 

died September 4, 1688. 

when Sir J. Eyles (Tory) was 

appointed by the King till the 

ensuing October. 
Sir John Chapman (Tory) till 1688-9 

March 1689 j then Sir T. 

Pilkington (Whig). 
Sir T. Pilkington. 1689-90 

Masters of the Company. 
August I to August I. 
Joseph Dawson. 

Richard Alie. 

Sir James Ward. 
Sir James Smith. Tory. 
Sir R. Adams. 

Thomas Tyther and H. Dixon. 
Sir Peter Vandeput (Whig) and 
Sir F. Clark. 

John Ray ley. 

Sir Peter Vandeput (Whig). 

Reign of Charles II 195- 

who came of a Tory family. 1 When, however, the Common 

Hall was assembled, the members declined to confirm his nomina- 
tion, and elected Thomas Papillon, another Mercer, and John 
Dubois. On the ground that the proceedings were accompanied 
by riot, and that the Mayor had been assaulted, the outgoing 
Sheriffs, Pilkington and Shine, were arrested, as well as Alderman 
Cornish the Haberdasher, and an Order in Council ordered a fresh 
election. The Mayor then insisted on his nomination of North 
without confirmation, and, by declaring all who had voted for 
Papillon and Dubois to be disqualified from voting, also secured the 

election of Ralph Box. As he prudently declined to serve, and 
paid his fine, Mr. Peter Rich, another Tory, was elected and, with 
North, was sworn before the Mayor. Pilkington and Shute were 
then tried by juries impanelled by the new 1 Sheriffs, and con- 
demned to pay heavy fines, the one for libelling the Duke of 
York, the other for riotous conduct, while Alderman Cornish was 
subsequently condemned and executed for High Treason. 2 At the 
same time the Mayor, Sir John Moore, removed the names of three 
Assistants (Sir R. Clayton, Sir James Smith, and Sir T. Gold) and 
nine Liverymen from the Livery List. The three Assistants and 
all the Liverymen except John Blunden were restored in i68^. 3 
The Tories also succeeded in electing another of their party, 
Sir Wm. Prichard, a Merchant Taylor, to the Mayoralty for the 

1 North was brother of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who was sub- 
sequently created Lord Guildford, and of Roger North, the author of The 
Examen', a clever defence of Tory views. The privilege of nominating one of 
the Sheriffs had been exercised by the Lord Mayors without challenge till 1640. 
In that year the Mayor made no nomination. But the privilege was again 
exercised by the Lord Mayors from 1641 to 1651, and their nominees elected, 
although under protests. From \6<)% to \66o or 1661, the custom fell into abey- 
ance. It was revived in 1661, and continued till the date of this controversy. 

2 T. Pilkington, a Skinner, became Lord Mayor for part of the year 1689 and 
for 1690-1. Box belonged to the Grocers' Company, Dubois to the Weavers, 
Rich to the Saddlers, Shute to the Dyers. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen. Cornish was 
subsequently condemned and executed for complicity in the Rye House Plot. 
Shaipe, London, vol. ii, p. 5 i z. 

3 Cf. Appendix XXXI A. It is noticeable that of those who were approved by 
the Mayor two Wardens, fourteen Assistants, and two Liverymen were discharged, 
while one Assistant and three Liverymen surrendered their positions, apparently 
because they were annoyed at the conduct of the King. 

Rye House 
Plot, June 

The Char- 
ters of the' 
City and of 
the Com- 
panies de- 
clared for- 
feited, June 

196 External Relations during the 

ensuing year. Thus the three chief magistracies of the City were 
in the hands of persons favourable to the King. 1 

In the following June the discovery of the Rye House Plot, in 
which some of the more violent Whigs were implicated, led to 
the trial and execution of Lord Russell and Algernon Sidney, two 
of the most devoted of English patriots, and emboldened the King 
to proceed with his attack on the City. He hoped by over- 
throwing its right of electing its officials and its burgesses, to 
obviate the necessity of an annual repetition of the struggle. On 
June i a, 1683, therefore, the Court of King's Bench declared the 
Charter of London to be forfeited to the King. The execution of 
the judgement was however delayed, in expectation that the City 
would come to terms and voluntarily surrender it; but, as the 
Common Council remained obdurate, 2 the judgement was formally 
entered and the City was deprived of its Charter. Many other 
towns, cowed by the humiliation of the City, made haste to 
surrender their Charters; while those who were obstinate were 
coerced by writs of Quo Warranto, enforced by the notorious 
Judge Jeffreys, who ' made the Charters fall down before him like 
the walls of Jericho '. 

Charles had,- however, no intention of altering the framework 
of municipal government. All that he desired was to substitute 
his royal nomination of municipal officers for the right of election, 
and to secure the return of loyal subjects as the borough repre- 
sentatives. 3 This he proceeded to do. In a short time all 
obnoxious Aldermen were dismissed, and others nominated by 

1 Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 474. No eminent Draper 
was mixed up in this quarrel. But it cannot be said that any Company in their 
corporate capacity supported either party. The prominent men, who were 
Gildsmen at all, belonged to several Companies. 

2 c Some were for their compliance, that so they might prevent the prejudice 
that would otherwise arise. On the other hand it was said that all freemen took 
an oath to maintain the rights of their Corporation ; so that it was perjury in 
them to betray these. They said it was better to leave the matter to the King 
than by any act of their own to deliver all up. So it was carried not to do it, 
only by a few voices.' Burnet, History, ed. Airy (Clarendon Press, 1900), 
vol. ii, p. 395. 

3 It should be remembered that the Borough Members at that time formed 
about four-fifths of the House of Commons. 

Reign of Charles II 

Royal Commission, and the new Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and the The Lord 
Recorder were appointed to act during pleasure (October 1683).' Mayor, , Sir 
Even this did not suffice. If the municipal officers and the ^"sJeriffs^ 
parliamentary burgesses of the City were to be permanently an d t h e Re- 
persons well affected to the Crown, it was necessary to obtain a corder ap- 
subservient Corrimon Hall, which formed the electoral body, and pointed by 
at that date was composed of the Liverymen of the City Com- S> e 

. i *._.., J -i r 11 Commission, 

panics. The Writ of Quo frarranfo was therefore extended to October 
the Companies. On receipt thereof the Court of the Drapers 1683. 
addressed a petition to his Majesty declaring that ' in all humility 
they cast themselves at his Majestie's feet and submitted themselves 
to his Royal wisdom and pleasure' (April i6S^}. 2 The King 
assured them that he c designed not to intermeddle or take away 
the rights, property, or privileges of the Company, nor to destroy 
their ancient usages and franchises, but only to regulate the 
governing part so as his Majesty might, for the future, have in 
himself a moving power of any officer therein for misgovernment', 
and that, on compliance with his wishes, he was * graciously in- 
clined to add in his new grant such further benefits and privileges 
for the good of the Society as were reasonable '. Upon this the 
Drapers in common with other Companies decided to surrender 
their Charter, 3 and proceeded to pass the following resolution : 

4 Considering how much it imports the Government of our Company 
to have men of knowne loyalty and approved integrity to beare offices 
of magistracy and places of trust, the Masters, Wardens and Brethren 
and Sisters of the Guild or Fraternity of the Blessed Mary the Virgin of 
the Mistery of Drapers . . . doe by these presents graunt, surrender and 
yield upp unto his most Gracious Majestic . . . his heirs and successors 
all and singular the powers, fraunchises, liberties, privileges and authori- 
ties whatsoever, and howsoever graunted to be, or to be used, or exercised 
by the said Masters, Wardens and brethren and sisters ... by virtue 
of any right title or interest vested in them by any Charters, Letters 

1 The Mayor appointed was Henry Tulse, a Grocer, who had been one of the 
informers against Pilkingtbn. He was, however, the senior Alderman, and there- 
fore the person who would probably have been elected, The Sheriffs were Peter 
Daniel, a Haberdasher, and Samuel Dashwood, a Vintner. The Recorder was 
Sir T. Jenner. Maitland, History oi London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 483. The 
Mayor had already, in 1682, removed some of the Assistants and Liverymen from 
the Livery list. Of. supra, p. 2 9 5 . 2 Rep. +133, p. 1193. 3 Ib., p. 1303. 
l6 3'3 a a 

External Relations during the 

Patent, Customs, or Prescriptions in force of, or concerning, the electing, 
nominating, constituting being, or appointing of any person, or persons, 
into and for the severall and respective offices of Master, Wardens, 
Assistants and Clerk of the said Fraternity. And the said Masters, 
Wardens and brethren and sisters . . . humbly beseech his Majestic to 
accept of this their surrender; and doe, with all submission to his 
Majesty's good pleasure, implore his grace and favour to regraunt to 
the . . . said Fraternity the nameing and choosing of the said officers 
and the said liberties and fraunchises, or soe many of them, and in such 
manner, as his Majestic in his great wisdom shall judge most conducing 
to the government of the said Fraternity, and with and under such 
reservations, restrictions and qualifications as his Majestic shall be 
pleased to appoint.' x 

About the same time the Court committed a further act of gratuitous 
humiliation. They invited Chief Justice Jeffreys, who had taken 
a prominent part in the late arbitrary proceedings, to a Stewards' 
dinner, and decided to admit him as a guest to all their public 
dinners. 2 

The Company no longer possesses the original of the New 
Charter. It was probably destroyed as worthless after the Revo- 
lution. But the substance of it may be guessed from that granted 
to the Grocers. 3 After reciting the instrument of surrender, the 

1 Rep. +133, p. i*9 b - 

2 Jeffreys had been admitted to the freedom of the Company ex amon in 
August 1675 (Freedom Book + 180, p. 37). This was probably as a step towards 
the Freedom of the City. He was a tenant of premises belonging to the 
Company in Coleman Street, where he resided. Cf. Renters' Accounts, 1687-8, 
fo. i. In Rep. +133, p. 1 39 b, he is spoken of as if he were one of the Assistants, 
and his name appears among those present at the Court Meeting of January 
1685 (Rep. +133, p. 139^). He was certainly given a general invitation to 
all the dinners (Rep. + 133, p. 134^. But his name does not appear in the 
list of Assistants of that year, in the Livery Book +301, p. 91, nor of any other 
year. Presumably he was allowed to appear, because of the business in hand. 
The conduct of the Drapers was not, however, peculiar. The Merchant Taylors 
gave Jeffreys a piece of plate worth 100. Herbert, vol. i, p. iif ; Rep. + 133, 
p. 134 b. Charles had the effrontery to enrol himself a Member of the Grocers' 
Company, as a proof that they might assure themselves of all the kindness and 
favour he could, according to the lawf } bestow upon them. Heath, Grocers, p. 145. 
This he did, because Sir Henry Tulse, the Mayor appointed by the King, was 
a Grocer. 

3 Heath, Grocers, p. 147. The Merchant Taylors and the Dyers also have 
the original Charter. The purport of all these is practically the same. That 
granted to the Skinners is by James II, i68j. Wadmore, Skinners, p. 184. 

Reign of Charles II 199 

Charter proceeds to state that His Majesty is graciously pleased 
to grant them another Charter under such restrictions as he shall 
think fit. It incorporates them by their ancient name, and gives 
them power to elect their officers yearly, with the proviso that 
they must hold communion with the Church of England, receive 
the Sacrament according to the form prescribed by the Church 
within six months before their election, and after election take the 
several oaths and subscribe the declaration appointed by the Act of 
Parliament, which condemned the Solemn League and Covenant. 1 
The names of the Master, Wardens and the Clerk are by a special 
clause to be first presented to the King, and, if they be not 
approved under the sign manual or privy signet, the Court of 
Assistants is to elect others, and so on until his Majesty is satisfied. 
Every election made contrary to this clause is to be null and void. 
To the King is also reserved the power of removing by an order 
of the Privy Council any Master, Warden, Assistant, or Clerk. 
The Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen are to approve of all 
persons admitted to the Livery. The Charter ends, in bitter 
irony, with a confirmation of all previous Charters, grants, usages, 
and privileges ; so that the Company ' shall not be troubled or 
molested by the King, his heirs or successors for or by reason of 
any abuse or misusage in the past '. 

The new Charter was accepted by the Court in grovelling 
terms. They professed their * most humble thanks for his 
Majesty's most gracious Letters Patent and grant of incorporation '. 
Forthwith the King put his new powers into execution. In 
August 1683 the Master, the Wardens, the Assistants and the 
Livery were nominated 2 and in September George Inice, who had 
been Clerk of the Company for nearly forty years, was removed. 
His post was filled by Richard Graham with his son as his deputy. 3 

1 It ran as follows : s I . . . declare that I hold there lies no obligation on me 
or any other person from the oath commonly called the Solemn League and 
Covenant, and that the same was in itself an unlawful oath, and imposed upon 
the subjects of this Realme against the known Laws and Liberties of this kingdom/ 
Mr. Hopkinson informs me that the Merchant Taylors' Company have a book 
containing as many as 1 1 3 such disclaimers by members of the Company. 

2 Appendix XXXI B. 

J Rep. + 133, pp. i 39 b, 140 a. The cost of obtaining the Charter was 197. 

Sir James 
Master of 
the Com- 
pany, elected 
Lord Mayor, 

measures of 
James II, 

300 External Relations during the 

The Company, possibly as a feeble protest against this arbitrary 
conduct, continued to employ Inice in collecting and abstracting 
the wills of benefactors and other work which was found for him. 
For this he received a gratuity of 15-0 (September 1684.).' 

It was in the very midst of these exciting days that the Drapers 
saw, for the fifth time during the reign, a member elected to the 
Mayoralty in the person of Sir James Smith, who was at that 
time the Master of the Company. The title of the Pageant they 
then presented is illustrative of the want of courage they, with 
the rest of the Companies, displayed, although perhaps the title of 
the Pageant, ' London's Royal Triumph for the City's Loyal 
Magistrate ', may be explained by the fact that the Mayor was at 
that time in the royal favour. 2 It was devised, as the other 
pageants during the reign had been, by Thomas Jordan. 3 The 
real sentiments of the Court pf fhe Drapers may, however, be 
gathered from the absence of all mention in the Minutes of the 
death of Charles II and the accession of James II, an omission for 
which there had been no precedent. 

After the accession of James II a still more serious attack on the 
officers and the Liverymen of the Company was attempted. On 
May 6, 1685-, he directed the Lord Mayor to issue precepts to the 
Companies for the return of such members as might, on account 
of their unquestionable loyalty, be judged worthy and fit to be by 
the Mayor and Court of Aldermen approved as Liverymen, 
and to elect members to serve for the City at the approaching 
Parliament. 4 

1 Rep. + 1-3 3, pp. 13/b, 1383, 1453, ifza, 1773. The Crown had often 
recommended persons for the office of Clerk and others, and as late as 1678 
Charles II had recommended a candidate as Clerk to the Merchant Taylors' 
Company. But this was the first time, as far as I know, of a Clerk being 
removed, and another nominated without election. Cf. Herbert, Livery Com- 
panies, vol. i, p. 213, note. 

2 Sir James Smith had been removed from the Court by the Mayor, Sir 
J. Moore, in i68z, but was restored in 1683, and was one of those approved of 
in the scrutiny of May 1685. Cf. Appendix XXXI B. 

* Cf. Herbert, vol. i, p. 461. It cost 513 3*. lod. (Wardens' Accounts, 
1684-5, fo. 41.) The pamphlet is in the Bodleian (Gough Adds. London, 

4. ). 

4 Rep. +133, p. 141 b. 

Reign of James II 


As will be seen from the list approved of by the Mayor, 1 three 
Wardens were removed, and, in their places, one was appointed 
from the Assistants, and two from the Liverymen. Of the 
thirty-three 'Assistants, one was made Warden, thirteen were re- 
nominated, and nineteen were removed, their places being taken 
by fourteen, of whom twelve were raised from the Livery and 
two from the freemen. Of the one hundred Liverymen, two 
were made Wardens, twelve were raised to the Court, thirty-eight 
were re-nominated, forty-eight were removed, and in their places 
fifteen were called from the freemen instead of the usual eight. 
The number of the Livery was reduced from one hundred to fifty- 
three, and that of the Assistants from thirty-three to twenty-seven. 
A like system of purgation was applied to the other Companies, 
and as a result four men of staunch Tory principles were returned 
as burgesses at the election held at the Guildhall on May 1 3 . 2 

As the King had now obtained his object, there was no inter- 
ference with the election of the officials of the Company nor with 
the callings of freemen to the Livery in the years 168^-6 and 
1686' 7, but we do not exactly know how many were called to the 
Court, or to the Livery in those years. All we are told is that, in 
October 1686, Sir Peter Vandeputt, who had lately been taken 
into the freedom, was called to the Court. 3 Care, however, was 

1 Cf. Appendix XXXI c. The list of freemen to be called to the Livery differed 
somewhat from the one they had previously selected, probably because they 
wished to satisfy the King ; yet, even so, one Francis Peake was not approved. 
Those degraded to the position of freemen were ordered to pay Quarterage, when 
they bound apprentices or made them free, as if they had never been of the 
clothing. Rep. +133, p. 1483. It is strange that the Company should have 
passed this order. The Livery Book +301, pp. 99, 100 gives 17 other persons 
as * of the Livery in 1685 '. That would make the number of the Livery 70. 
But there is no mention in the Repertory of their being called. 

2 Rep. +133, p. 1443. They were: Sir John Moore, the Tory Mayor of 
168 1-2, Grocer j Sir William Prichard, the Tory Mayor of 1681-3, Merchant 
Taylor ; Sir Samuel Dashwood, Vintner ; Sir Peter Rich, Saddler. Cf. Beaven, 
Aldermen, under their names. 

3 Rep. + i 3 3, p. 1 5 5 b. Appendix XXXI D. Sir Peter had been admitted into 
the freedom ex amore in September 1686. Freedom List 4-i8o, p. 73. He was 
called to the Court without having been called to the Livery. He was removed by 
the King in February 1688, and again recalled as an Assistant after the Restoration 

goi External Relations during the 

policy of 
James II, 
Oct. 1687. 

taken to choose * fit persons ', and for this reason the beadle and 
the porter were ordered to visit the houses of all freemen residing 
in tne City or suburbs who had not come to the Hall to pay 
Quarterage, and to collect the same, a policy which had been 
abandoned of late. 1 That the arbitrary conduct of the King had 
caused much discontent is shown by the fact that it was found 
difficult to find members of the Company to dine with the Mayor 
and Sheriffs as benevolent guests (June i6S^}' In the following 
October, however, the King once more thought it necessary to 
intervene. In that month and in the following February and 
March orders were issued by which the Master, Sir Peter Vandeput, 

of the Charter by James II, just before he fled. Livery List + 301, fo. 100. He 
became Master of the Drapers in 1689-90, without having previously served as 
Warden, as was the custom. Sir Peter was a rich merchant and financier. He 
is mentioned by Pepys in his Diary (cf. edition by Mynors Bright, 1877, vol. v, 
p. 164), and is among those who were reported to hold large amounts of Dutch 
money (cf. Hist. MS. Commission, vol. viii, p. 134). 

Ten persons were, during the years 1686-88, enrolled as freemen of the 
Drapers by order of the Mayor and Aldermen, no doubt as a means of giving 
them the freedom of the City. This is an unusual number, but as they were not 
nominated to the Livery before the Revolution, and they do not appear to have 
been persons of influence or importance, it is doubtful whether this act of the 
Mayor had any political end. Their names were : Lawrence Courtney, John Parry, 
Christopher Peake, Joseph Long, Gilbert Gaudiat, John Otter, James Shelding, 
Ed. Huson, William Wrag, H. Burton (Rep. + 180, pp. 70, 71, 73, 74, 
78, 8z). 

1 Ib., p. 157 a. As mentioned above (cf. p. 135), the enforcing of the pay- 
ment of Quarterage from the freemen had been given up as a hopeless task, 
except when any freeman came to bind apprentices or enter them into the freedom. 
In the Wardens' Accounts for 1660-1, those paying Quarterage on enrolling 
apprentices or entering them into the freedom are called ' Yeomanry ' (cf. fo. 19). 
In all the later accounts, up to the Revolution, the phrase is the ' several members '. 
But in the cash-book of 1669 all those paying Quarterage are freemen except 
Henry Steed, who was called to the Livery in that year, presumably after he had 
paid Quarterage; and I have found no instance in the reign of Charles II of 
a Liveryman who paid Quarterage on binding apprentices or entering them into 
the freedom. This evidence (which may be verified by comparing Renter 
Wardens' Cash Book 1671, Bindings and Freedoms +180, 190, and the Livery 
List -1-301) seems to prove conclusively that at that date no Liveryman paid 
Quarterage. It is also confirmed by a statement in Rep. + i 33, p. 148 a, to the 
effect that those degraded from the Livery are to pay Quarterage, as if they had 
never been called to the Livery. 

- Rep. + 133, p. 161 b. Sir John Pcakc was M.iyor. 

Reign of James II 

two of the Wardens and nine-six Assistants and Liverymen, 
were degraded to the position of freemen. 1 Here, however, 
we notice a complete reversal of the policy hitherto adopted. 
James was now bent on exercising his suspending power to evade 
the Test and Corporation Acts in favour of the Roman Catholics, 
the step which did more than anything to forfeit him his throne, 
and found himself opposed by those very * Church and King men ' 
whom he had hitherto favoured, but whose devotion to the Crown 
was subordinate to their attachment to the Established Church and 
their dread of Popery. 2 Thus, of those removed at this moment, 
sixty -two had been approved in 1685-, and the Master, Sir Peter 
Vandeput, in 1687. Practically all those who had been excluded, 
either by his brother or himself, since the surrender of the Charter 
were restored to their positions (except those just removed by the 
late order) ; the King declaring that he was ' well persuaded of 
their loyalty and duty ' and 4 fully resolved to encourage and 
countenance all his subjects of dutiful behaviour '., Only five, 
however, are recorded as having availed themselves of his act of 
grace ; while the suspicious assertion of the Court on admitting 
the said men is significant. A resolution was passed, that they 
did not understand that they were restrained from administering 
the oaths prescribed by their Charter (that is, the oaths of allegiance 
and supremacy, which implied adherence to the Established 
Church), and that they were therefore ready now and at all 
times hereafter to administer the said oaths to such as should at 
day time desire to take them. 3 To replace the gaps in the 
list of Assistants, eleven Assistants who had been removed in 
1685- were recalled, and eighteen of the Senior Liverymen 
were called ; the Court passing a resolution, that none of these 
were to be excused from serving as Wardens in their several 
turns. 4 

1 Ib., pp. 1663-1693. For their nsmes cf. Appendix XXXI E. 

2 Besven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. Ivii. 

3 Rep. + 133, pp. i68b, 1693^ 1703. The five who availed themselves 
were Edward Anthony, John Rayley, Sam. Harwar, Joshua Pordage and Thomas 

4 Ib., pp. i7z ab, 1733. This resolution wss no doubt passed because of 
the great difficulty of finding persons to serve as Warden of late. Thus in 

504- External Relations during the 

Opinion on these arbitrary acts of the two last Stuart kings will, 
I suppose, vary according to one's predilections. Strype, in his 
edition of Stow, says: 'Many of the citizens did make a matter of 
sport of it, as though the City was well enough met with, because 
of the want of loyalty in some of its members, and for the standing 
up so strenuously for their pretended rights and privileges ; and 
songs were sung at entertainments in the City '.* That such was, 
however, by no means the universal opinion he clearly shows by 
proceeding to enumerate the numerous hostile tracts and pamphlets 
which the whole incident called forth. To many, none of the 
unconstitutional acts of Charles I seem worse than this insidious 
attempt to destroy the privileges of the towns of England and to 
rob them, under a pretence of legality, of their right to elect their 
municipal officers and their burgesses. The subservience of the 
City and of the Companies of London, a subservience which was 
mainly due to fear of the consequences, is as surprising as it is 
humiliating. Fortunately James had, by his other arbitrary 
measures, roused the country, and seven months later he finally 
Vain at- fled the kingdom, which he had so justly forfeited. At the last 
tempts of moment a vain attempt was made to conciliate the City. Calling 
James II to fa ^ L orc [ Mayor and the Aldermen, the King declared his 
the Ciry determination to restore their liberties, and Judge Jeffreys, coming 
at his command to the Guildhall, handed back the Charter. At 
the same time orders were given to the Drapers that all those 

1687 no less than four persons declined to serve as Wardens; of these, two 
pleaded business and absence in the country, one could not be found at his 
ordinary place of abode, and one, Sir. E. Barkham, pleaded serious indisposition. 
All except Barkham paid their fine of 40 ; cf. Rep. +133, pp. 163 a-itff a. 
Sir John Shorter, who was nominated Mayor by James II in 1688, was not even 
a freeman of London. 

1 Especially the following : 

You freemen of London and prentices mourn, 
For now you are left with your Cnarjes forlorn j 
Since London was London I dare boldly say 
For your riots you never so dearly did pay. 
In Westminster Hall 
Your Dagon did fall 
That caused you to riot and mutiny a 
Strype's Stow, ed. 1755, Book v, p. ^54. 

Reign of William III 


who had been removed from the Livery and the Court of 
Assistants should be restored. This attempt * to sweeten ' the 
City did not, however, succeed. 1 

No sooner had William of Orange landed than the Lord William III 
Chancellor informed the Master that it was William's intention "J. res , tIle 
to cancel all the acts of James with regard to the Company; chapters, 
delivered back their surrender of April 1684, and stated that it 
had never been enrolled on record. 2 Upon this the Court, having 
for further security obtained Counsel's opinion that the Company 
stood * in the same plight and condition ' as it was before the 
surrender, unanimously confirmed the present Master and Wardens 
for the remainder of the year, and recalled their Clerk, George 
Inice. 3 

One of the first acts of the new King was the publication of 
a prockmation for the * restoring Corporations and members of 
bodies politique to their state and degree, in which they were in ' 
previous to the writ of Quo Warranto. The Act i William and 
Mary, c. 8, declared that all the judgements obtained upon the 
late writ, and all the consequent proceedings, were illegal and 
arbitrary; and enacted that the Lord Mayor, Citizens and 
Commonalty should, for ever thereafter remain a Body Corporate 
and politic, without any seizure or fore-judger, or being thereof 
excluded or ousted, upon any pretence of forfeiture or misde- 
meanour whatsoever. 4 

1 Rep. +133, pp. i8ob, i8ia^ i8ib} Strype's Stow, Book v, p. 45 f. 

2 Rep. +133, pp. 183 ab. 

3 William landed at Torbay November ?, 1688. The Chancellor sent for the 
Master on November 20. The Court sat on November ^6. James left London 
December n, but returned on the i5th and did not finally leave the Kingdom 
till the 23rd. William arrived in London Deceriiber 19, 1688. The rapidity 
with which the Drapers reasserted themselves after their humiliation is 

4 The Act I William and Mary, c. 8, abrogated the old oaths of allegiance 
and supremacy imposed on all who held office, and substituted a simple oath of 
allegiance and a declaration that no foreign prince, civil or ecclesiastical, had or 
ought to have any jurisdiction within the realm. Office holders had also to declare 
that they did not believe in Transubstantiation (cl. x). Cf. Appendix XXX A for the 
new oath. There are in the Record office the rrames of 17 Assistants, 105 Livery- 
men, 9? freemen, and 6 others whose position is uncertain, who took the oath to 

1603-3 K. r 

306 External Relations during the 

On October 22, i68p, William condescended to be enrolled as 
a Master of the Grocers' Company, and to take upon himself the 
office of its Master for the ensuing year. In December 1690 he 
was admitted as a freeman of the Drapers' Company. 1 

Party Some trouble, however, arose after the restoration of these 

struggles in privileges, which were caused by party controversies in London. 
London. j n April itfpo the Mayor, Sir Thomas Pilkington, a Skinner, and 
three Aldermen, all Whigs, 2 presented a petition to the House of 
Commons, alleging that the Sheriff had declared four Tories to 
have been elected as burgesses, in spite of the fact that on a 
scrutiny being held, the majority of votes were found to have 
been cast in favour of the petitioners. As nothing came of this 
move, the Lord Mayor, for the purpose of revising the scrutiny, 
issued precepts to the Livery Companies, demanding returns to 
be made of the names of those who had been members of their 
Liveries since the * Writ of Quo Warranto ', and of those who had 
died, or were absent, or who had omitted to take the prescribed 
oaths for a freeman or Liveryman. The result was, however, to 
affirm the decision of the Sheriffs, and the Tories were declared 
duly elected. 3 

The same party rivalries were also seen at the time of the 
election of the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and City Chamberlain in the 
following May, when, according to the Statute for the Restoration 
of the Charter, these officials were to be elected, not only for the 
remainder of the current year, but also for the ensuing one. 

William III in 1696 (cf. Petty Bag i|i, Appendix XXXVI) and we have the 
signatures of the Master and Wardens to this declaration from 1689 to 1 876. The 
necessity of taking the declaration was removed in 1866 by 901 Viet. c. 62. 

1 Heath, Grocers, p. 153 ; Freedom Book + 280, fo. 20. 

2 They were : Sir R. Clayton, the Mayor of 1679-80, who had been then 
translated from the Scriveners' to the Drapers' Company ; Sir P. Ward and Sir 
William Ashurst, both members of the Merchant Taylors' Company. Ward had 
been Mayor 1680-1, and Ashurst became Mayor 1694-5. Sir R. Clayton was 
subsequently chosen M.P. by his own pocket borough of Bletchingly. Beaven, 
Aldermen, vol. i, p. 302. 

3 They were : Sir William Turner, a Merchant Taylor j had been Mayor in 
1668-9. Sir S. Dashwood, a Vintner; became Mayor 1702-3. Sir William 
Prichard, a Merchant Taylor; had been Mayor 1683-4. Sir T. Vernon, 
a Haberdasher. 

Reign of William III 307 

Sir T. Pilkington, the Lord Mayor, the two Sheriffs, and the 
Chamberlain who were elected were all Whigs. 1 Further, in the 
elections to the Common Council, in the following June, several 
disputes arose; and these were aggravated by party dissensions. 
The. Tories complained of various irregularities, and their indigna- 
tion was increased when the Mayor refused to allow the question 
of petitioning Parliament to be put in the Common Council, and 
dissolved it. The petitioners then addressed themselves directly 
to the House, declaring that Pilkington and the Chamberlain had 
not been duly chosen by the Common Council, and asking for 
explanations of some doubtful points arising out of the late Act. 
The petition was received, and witnesses on either side heard, but 
Parliament was probably afraid of losing the support of the Whig 
City Magnates, and the case, being then adjourned, was for the 
time shelved. 2 

It is remarkable that no notice of these dissensions is found in 
the Drapers' Books, especially as Sir Robert Clayton, one of the 
important members of the Court and late Mayor and Master of 
the Company, was concerned 3 ; the Company, however, did 
not, as was the case with some others, associate itself with either 
the Whigs or Tories. 4 

As Parliament declined to intervene, the controversy continued 

< They were: Edward Clarke, Mercer ) Sheriffs. Both subsequently became 

Francis Child, Goldsmith M ^ oa : CIarke m ' 6 9 6 ^ Child in 
J 1099-1700. 

Leonard Robinson, Chamberlain. 

2 My information is drawn chiefly from Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, 
vol. ii, pp. 555 ff. ; Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 495. 

3 Sir Robert had been a Scrivener. In the part of Dryden's c Absalom and 
Achitophel ' written by Tate, he is accused under the name of { Ishban ' of being 
a usurer, and of offering to turn Tory in return for a peerage, which was refused 
(Dryden's Works, ed. Scott, 1808, vol. ix, p. 318). He was Master of the 
Drapers in 1680-1, Governor of the Irish Society 1692-1706) Director of the 
Bank of England 1701-7 (Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, pp. 105, 191). 

Of the petitioners given by Maitland, History of London, vol. i, p. 495, none, 
with the exception of John Johnson, who may be the later Alderman of that 
name, was a member of the Drapers' Company. 

' Thus the leanings of the Goldsmiths and the Merchant Taylors were Tory, 
those of the Fishmongers Whig. 

External Relations 

until, in the year i']!^, an Act was brought forward for regulating 
elections within the City. Although it was severely criticized 
as interfering with some of the ancient privileges of the citizens, 
it finally passed and ended these dissensions. 1 

1 Stat. xi George I, c. 18. Clause if, which confirms to the Aldermen their 
right to negative the acts of the Common Council, was however repealed by 
Stat. xix George II, c. 8. Maitland, London, vol. i, p. 534. Dr. Sharpe, 
London and the Kingdom, vol. iii, p. a 8, says that many of the Livery Companies 
petitioned against the Bill. But again I can find no notice of this in the 
Drapers' Books. 



HE Restoration seemed to the Court New 
of Assistants a fit occasion on which Ordinances, 
to revise the Ordinances of the Com- December 
pany. ' Whereas ', runs the resolu- 
tion, c some of the old ordinances are 
scarcely understood by many, by 
reason of the alteration of the times 
and the state of the Company, and 
many have become of little use, and 
there is a necessity of some new 
ordinances for the better carrying on 
of the government of this Company, 
it is thought well to appoint a Com- 
mittee to revise and report.' The 
Report of the Committee was con- 
firmed, and the New Regulations received the confirmation of the 
Chancellor and the two Chief Justices on July 16, i66^. 2 

The Ordinances 3 dealt chiefly with the election of the Master and 

1 The initial comes from the Re-creation of the Manor of the Drapers in 
Ireland, B. 27. 

2 Rep. + 133, pp. 175 a, 176^, 179!); Wardens' Accounts, 1662-3, fo. 32. 
The Clerk was given 40 for his pains and his servants ' 
amounted to 61 ?j. 

3 Cf. Appendix XXX B. 

Counsel's fees 

in the 

number and 
expense of 





3 10 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

the Wardens, the Election Dinner, the Wardens' Accounts, the com- 
position of the Court of Assistants, the method of calling to the 
Livery, the Quarter days, View days, and Search days and dinners. 
Rules were also drawn up with regard to the attendance at public 
ceremonies, and the forms of oaths which were to be taken by 
officers on assuming office, and by the freemen on admission. 
These ordinances are substantially the same as those of 1^76', and, 
where they differ, the differences are small. It should, however, 
be noticed that in the oath of the freemen the old wording omitted 
during the Commonwealth is restored. 1 Subsequently a few more 
orders were made dealing more especially with the wearing of 
gowns at dinners and burials, and the allowances for certain 
dinners; while in 1674 new regulations respecting the Garden 
were drawn up. 2 

Owing to the general depression caused by the Plague and the 
Fire, the public Election Day dinners were, during the earlier 
years of the reign, often omitted, a private dinner alone being 
held. In 1667 indeed, it was decided to hold a public dinner 
4 for the better preserving of unity, yet in regard to the sadness 
of the times ' and the fact that the Hall had been burnt down, 
it was not expected that there should be that high feasting, which 
had formerly been indulged in, but only * one course of moderate 
fare without any seconds ' ; and, in respect that the expense 
would be thereby reduced, the usual allowance made by the Com- 
pany was not granted. 3 

A similar policy was pursued with regard to all other dinners. 
Thus of the Quarter Day dinners, that held at Christmas was 
alone retained, 4 while in 1667 and 1668, the two years following 

1 The omissions in 1658 had been (<*) Sainte Marie ' ; (b) c And, if you know 
things at any time which should be slanderous, or hurtful, to any of the said 
guild or Fraternity, to your power you shall let it, or else anon the Master, or 
one of the Wardens, you shall warn thereof, or do to be warned} ye shall also 
conceal and keep privy the reasonable counsels of your Master that you serve, or 
have served.' Cf. vol. ii of this work, p. 319; Rep. +131, p. 113 b., and 
Appendix XXX A. 

'* Cf. Appendix XXX B. 

3 Rep. + 132, p. 313 b; Rep. +133, p. 17 t>, 4* a. 

4 Rep. + 131, p. I7ob. 

Reigns of Charles II \ James II, William III 311 

the Fire, none were given. The money which the Wardens 
would have spent was, as in the case of those Election Dinners 
which were omitted, usually devoted to the poor of the Company, 
being added to the 4.0 (2,0 at Easter and 20 at Christmas) 
given every year by the House. 1 

Of Stewards' dinners three only were given in 16(51 : one on 
May 2-p in memory of the King's birthday and Restoration ; the 
second on October 2,p, the Lord Mayor's Day ; and the third on 
November ^, to commemorate the frustration of the Gunpowder 

The normal number of View Day dinners had been two : one 
in Lent, which was called the Fritter Dinner, and one in July. 
Of these the Fritter Dinner was frequently omitted. 

The only exception to the attempt to reduce the expenditure 
on dinners was with regard to the Yeomanry dinner. This was 
not, indeed, given every year, but, when given, it was on a gene- 
rous scale, in order, as we are told, to better preserve love and 
amity ; and although the Wardens were entreated to take care 
that * the dinners should be performed with as much frugality as 
was consistent with the honour of the Company, they cost some- 
thing like 100 apiece. 2 

As we draw near the end of the reign, the exceptional reasons 
for economy no longer existed. The dinners were accordingly 
for the most part resumed, 3 and we find that, in the year 1687-8, 
the Company spent i$o on dinners and wine, an expenditure 
which recalls the more festive days of Charles the Second's earlier 
years. 4 


View Day 




Dinners re- 
sumed to- 
wards the 
close of the 

1 The two Junior Wardens were, however, relieved from the fine of 10 in 
lieu of the Midsummer Quarter-day dinner. Rep. + 132, p. 270 b. 

2 Rep. + 132, p. 269 bj Wardens' Accounts, 1662-3 fo. 34, 1677-8 
fo. 35. 

3 Of the Quarter Day dinners, that held in December was alone retained. 

4 In the year 1614-15, when Sir Thomas Hayes was Mayor, the Wardens 
spent 174 14^. lod. on dinners and wine; while the Bachelors' Election , 
dinner cost 10. In the following year, 1615-16, when Sir John Jolles was 
Mayor, the total expenditure came to 139 zj. We have no records of 
the two years after the Fire, but in 1668-9 the outlay on such festivities had 
fallen to 81 iu. nd. Cf. Wardens' and Bachelors' Accounts for the said 

3 ii Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

ness to 


In 1672, the allowances for the dinners on the Election Day 
and the Quarter Day (December) were fixed at ^ 10, and that for 
the Public View Day dinner at 10* 

In the year 1687 the expenses of the Public View dinner were 
limited to 12,, and those of the private Election dinner and the 
Fritter dinner to 10 each ; but in the following March this 
regulation was suspended till further orders. 8 

Although there was no increase in the number of the Stewards' 
dinners, which remained at three, there were four instances of 
Liverymen preferring to pay the fine of zo to 30 rather 
than accept the onerous duty which fell on them in turn. The 



Number yearly. 

By whom attended. 

How provided. 

Public "Dinners. 

Election Day 

One ; first Tuesday in 

Court and Livery 

By the Wardens, plus allow- 

August till 1699, then 

ance of the Company, 20. 


Quarter Day 

One, in December 

Court and Livery 

By the Wardens, plus allow- 

ance of the Company, 2.0. 


Three: May 29, October 

Court and Livery 

By Stewards with allowance 

2.9, November j 

of y till 169^ ; then by 

the Company. 

Public View 

Two: (a) in Lent, 'Frit- 

The Court 

By the Company after 1674.; 

ter dinner 'j (b) in June, 

not to exceed 20 for each 

or July 


Private Dinners. 


One, Monday, the day be- 

The Court 

By the Company, 12. 

fore the Election 

View, e.g. visiting 


The Wardens 

By the Company ; allow- 


ance varied, 2 to/, to 3. 

Gift Days, after distri- 

Varied -, generally two, 

The Wardens 

By the Company ; allow- 

buting charities 

Easter and Christmas 

ance 2 for each dinner. 

Fair dinners after mea- 

Two, August and Sep- 

The Wardens 

By the Company ; allow- 

suring yards at the St. 


ance 5 for each dinner, 

Bartholomew's Fair 

plus charges of the day. 

and Lady Fair in 




By Auditors, generally 

By the Company ; allow- 

the Wardens 

ance 6. 

Cf. Rep. + 133, pp. 41 a, ?6 a, 65 a, if6b, 1373, 177 aj Wardens' Accounts, 
passim. Most of the private dinners were held at Taverns, e. g. the Rumer or 
Roomer in Queen's Street, until 1817, when it was resolved that they should be 
held at the Hall. Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1685-6, fo. 39 j 1688-9, f s - 39> 
40 ; Records + 138, pp. 636-7; + 139, p. 577. 

1 Rep. + 133, p. 41 a. 2 Ib., pp, 171 a, 173 b. 

Reigns of Charles II ^ James 77, William 777 3 13 

Stewards were indeed generally given allowances, but as these 
did not cover the charges of the said dinners they had to defray 
the remainder out of their own purses. 1 To meet this difficulty, 
the expense of the dinner in commemoration of the King's birth- 
day and Restoration was taken over by the Company in idpo, 
and no guests were to be asked except those who attended the 
Service. 2 Meanwhile several new provisions were made to lighten 
the charge of these Stewards' dinners. In 1671 it was decided to 
appoint three instead of two Stewards for every dinner, so that 
* the honour of the Company might be preserved with the least 
charge that may be ' to the Liverymen, especially as all allow- 
ances had been stopped since the Fire. 3 In 1674 and 1675- an 
endeavour was made to equalize the charges. The fare was cut 
down ; there was to be no music ; the guests were to be confined 
to the Assistants and the Liverymen ; all friends or relations of the 
Stewards were to be excluded ; and whereas the dinner on the 
last Mayor's day had been much less numerously attended than 
those of the two other Stewards' dinners, because some dined at 
the Guildhall and others were wearied with the tediousness of 
the Services before the dinner at the Drapers' Hall, a special 
allowance of $ was made towards the other two Stewards' 
dinners. 4 This special allowance was not however continued. 

1 Rep. +133, pp. 81 b, 93 b, 96.1, i8ib. Besides these Wm. Lang- 
horn in 1678 paid 40 to be discharged of holding any office: ib., pp. 101 a, 
103 a. 

2 Ib., p. 101 a. 3 Ib., pp. 38 b, 2or a. 

4 Ib., pp. 64 a, 6<) a. There were to be not more than four substantial eating 
dishes to one mess, and three messes for each table (except for the Mayor's mess 
when, being a Draper, he dined ; for this an extra zo nobles was allowed). 
The fine for entertaining those excluded was r to the poor box. In June of 
1675 the Stewards were, however, given special leave to invite Sir Joseph 
Sheldon and Alderman Dannet Forth to these dinners. Sir Joseph was at that 
date still a member of the Tallow-chandlers. He was translated to the Drapers 
in October, as Mayor-elect. Dannet Forth had been a member, but was 
translated to the Brewers in 1661. He was Sheriff in 1669-70, and Master of 
the Brewers' Company 1670-1. He was a Nonconformist, the brother of John 
Forth who married the daughter of Sir H. Vane. Dannet's daughter married 
the son of Oliver St. John, Chief Justice during the Commonwealth, and by him 
was the ancestress of the Dukes of Manchester. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, 
p. 170. 

1603-3 S S 

3 T4 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

In 1685-, in consequence of the reduction of the Livery owing to 
the interference or the Crown, only two Stewards were appointed 
Stewards no for the dinner on the Mayor's day of that year. 1 In i6po the 
longer ap- Stewards were relieved from the charge of the dinner to com- 
TTc memorate the Restoration, which was taken over by the Company, 

pany under- an< ^ f ur Stewards were appointed for the two remaining dinners, 
takes the those on the Lord Mayor's Day and November 5*. Finally, in 
charge of all 1695- it was resolved that, after those at present in the Livery 
Stewards' ^ad servec i t |j e office of Steward, no others subsequently called to 
the clothing should have to serve as Steward, and that the Com- 
pany should undertake the charge of the ortly two ' Stewards' ' 
dinners which remained. The cost, however, was by a resolution 
of 1700 ' to be as little as may be *. 2 

In the year lo^y it was decided that the charge for the View 
Day dinners should be undertaken by the Company, instead of 
being borne by the youngest "Warden. The expense was not to 
exceed 2.0 for each dinner, while, in order that there might be 
* opportunity for free discourse ', no one was to be invited (under 
pain of fine of 2,0 j. to the poor box), except the Master, the 
Wardens, the Assistants, and the wives and ladies of the 
Master, the Wardens, and of such of the Assistants as had ' fined ' 
for the pkce of Alderman or Sheriff, or had been Masters of the 
Company. 3 

At the same time, care was taken to maintain ancient and 
decent usages, which had of late been by some neglected. To this 
end, all Assistants and Liverymen were ordered to wear their 
gowns at dinner, unless by leave of the Master and Wardens, on 
pain of a fine of u, 6V. to the poor box. 4 

It was found even more difficult throughout the reign to fill 

1 This reduction in the number of Stewards was not continued. Rep. + 133, 
p. I 44 a. 

2 Rep. + 133, pp. 137 a, 167 a. 

3 Ib., p. 56 a. 

4 Ib., p. 126 b. The order does not seem to have been well observed: 
cf. ib.j p. io3b. The same order was made with regard to funerals: ib., 
p. 1 1 1 b. There are several notices of * Spanish tables ' and Tables Spanish table 
fashion ' for use at dinners in the Hall and the Ladies' Chamber. Wardens' 
Accounts, 1669-70, fo. 34 j Committee Book Hall 4-380, fos. 31, 37. Professor 
Firth has furnished me with a reference to them in a manuscript at Chriit 

Reigns of Charles II, James 77, William III 315- 

the place of Warden, because of the far heavier duties and Difficulty of 
charges of the office. The excuses given for declining were finding 
various. Sometimes it was residence in the country ; sometimes P ersons * c 
infirmity ; sometimes pressing business ; x often inability to support *^g O f e 
the office to the honour of the Company. The ordinary fine for Warden, 
declining was ^2,0 ; a fine which was, however, returned in the 
event of future acceptance. 2 If the office refused was that of one 
of the two youngest Wardens, posts which were, as before men- 
tioned, filled by a person called from the Livery, and the fine 
was remitted, the person was degraded from the position of 
Liveryman. 3 

In the year jo'o'a, alone as many as five persons declined the 
profFerred honour. Accordingly, in 1664. the fine for refusing 
was raised to 40, although for a few years only half was in some 
cases demanded.* The alteration had a temporary effect. Only 
four refusals occurred between that date and the year io'7p. But 
after that the trouble recurred, In the years 1673-, 1679, 1680, 
and again in lo'Bo', respectively, no less than three persons, and 
in 1687 f ur > declined. Probably the explanation of refusals in 
1687 is to be found in the irritation caused by the forfeiture of 

Church, Oxford, published in Bullen's < More L.yrics from the Song Books of the 
Elizabethan Age ', p. 145 : 

c Set me fine Spanish tables in the Hall, 
See they be filled all j 
Let there be room to eat, 
And order taken that they want not m^at ". 

I have, however, failed to discover exactly what they were perhaps small 
movable tables on trestles. Yet three dozen borrowed for the dinners on 
Election Day and the Lord Mayor's Day is a large number. Possibly therefore 
they were wooden platters placed on the tabJes. 

1 Thus Francis Wellington, merchant and farmer of the Customs, who had 
been specially called to the Livery in i68, was, on account of the business of 
his office, excused from ever being called upon to be Warden, on payment of zo 
or so much in plate (Rep. + 133, pp. i6a, i lob) ; and Mr. Hiller was excused 
because he was steward of the Hospital at Bridewell (ib., p. 90 b). 

2 Rep. +131, p. 303 aj Rep. +133, p. 903. 

3 Rep. + 133, pp. 75a, 79 b. 

4 Rep. -f- 1 3 z, p. 3 1 o a j ib. + 1 3 3, pp. 1 1 8 a, 1793. 

The office 
of Master 
rarely de- 

316 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

the charter, and the arbitrary interference of the Mayor with the 
internal government of the Company. 1 

Of refusals to accept election as Master there are only three 
instances, probably because the office was a very honourable one, 
and did not involve heavy expense. Of the three who did refuse, 
Sir James Smith was excused because of his great employments as 
Sheriff; and Mr. Tusher by reason of very great age and infirmity. 2 
In no case was any fine exacted. The City found the same diffi- 
culty in filling the places of Sheriff and Alderman ; and the 
number of Drapers who ' fined ' for these two offices respectively 
during the period from 1660 to 1688 was eight.3 This, however, 
was no new experience. 4 

1 The total number of refusals between 1660-80 was 33. The references are 
too numerous to give. They will be found in Rep. +131, +133. 

It may be useful here to state the rules with regard to the Election of 

(i) The two junior Wardens were elected from the Livery or from the 

(ii) The second Warden, from those who had been junior Wardens. 

(iii) The upper or Master Warden from those who had held the place of second 
Warden, or had fined for the position of Alderman or Sheriff. Cf. Rep. + 133, 
p. 1313. (N. B. These rules still hold, except that having fined for the position 
of Sheriff or Alderman is no longer a qualification for election as upper Warden, 
and, as a matter of fact, the Master Warden is now by custom always elected to 
the office of Master for the ensuing year.) 

In 1673 a very nice question arose whether Messrs. Grosvenor and Tyther, 
who had held the post of second Warden first, or Messrs. Dixon and Cooke, who 
were called to the clothing and had paid their fines to be excused the Warden- 
ship before the others had held office, and had also subsequently held the office of 
second Warden, should have precedence in being nominated for election to the 
position of Master Warden. The Court ' proceeded in all tenderness, anxious to 
maintain union and love ', and tried to shift the responsibility of deciding the 
knotty question on the whole Company, but, failing in this, finally cut the 
Gordian knot by putting up Mr. Grosvenor and Mr. Dixon for election. 
On Mr. Grosvenor being elected Master Warden, the Court decided that 
Mr. Grosvenor and Mr. Tyther should in future take precedence of the other 
two. Rep. + 133, p. yo b, 

2 Rep. +131, p. iS9a; ib. +133, pp. 47 b, 1533. Sir James was sub- 
sequently Mayor and Master in the year 1684-7. 

J That is, eight for each office ; cf. Appendix XLII. Six served as Sheriffs and 
twelve as Aldermen during the same period. 

4 For duties, charges, and allowances before the reign of James I, cf. vol. ii of 
this work, pp. 56, 117, note. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 317 

The trouble was not, however, confined to the offices of the Refusal to 
Company and the City ; it was also experienced with regard to enter the 
the Livery, which was shunned because of the general depression Llver y- 
and, as we are expressly told, from * fear of charges ' to which 
they might be put. It was to meet this difficulty that, as above 
mentioned, the Court resolved, in 169;-, that all persons called to 
the Livery after that date should be relieved of the charge of 
Stewards' dinners. 1 

The Drapers' Hall, as well as those of other Companies, was Private 
used by members for their private entertainments, when there dinners in 
was often high feasting. John Verney describes a wedding a ' 
repast given in the Hall in 1^7^ by the Widow Marisco for 
her daughter, who had 10,000 or 11,000 for her portion, and 
married the son of Alderman Fredericks. 2 

4 The first day there were 600 dishes, and the second and the third 
days were also great feasting at the same charge. And then Sir John 
Fredericks entertained them with 400 dishes. And this day the six 
Bridesmen entertain the Company. . . . To-day is another great 
Wedding kept at Cooper's Hall between Kisting's son and Dashwood 
the brewer's daughter, both anabaptists.' 

Owing to the disinclination to take office, and other reasons, Variations 
there was considerable fluctuation in the number of the Livery in number 
during the reign of Charles II. Thus between 1663 and 1677, Liver x- 


1 This exemption did not, however, extend to those already in the Livery: 
Rep. +133, p- 1373- Those refusing escaped the ys. zd. to be paid for the 
Livery gown. Those who had entered and paid their fees were sometimes, for 
some special reason, given back their fees, and allowed to degrade again to the 
position of a freeman: Rep. +133, p. 1143. This was in all probability the 
reason for not summoning Wm. Eardley, Wm. Witherden, and Anthony Poole 
to the Livery in \66^ : Rep. + 133, p. 272 b. Wm. Eardley, we know, became 
a bankrupt : ib., p. 3143. 

2 Memoirs of the Verney Family from the Restoration, vol. iv, p. 124. This 
must have been Thomas Fredericks (Frederick), who was elected Alderman in 
1687, but it is not known whether he was a member of any Company, and 
I cannot find his name in the Drapers' Books. His father, Sir John, was 
a Barber Surgeon, who was translated to the Grocers i66i y and was Mayor 
1661-2. He was a strong supporter of the Restoration, but was removed by 
Charles II in 1683. The Widow Marisco was presumably the relict of Charles 
Marisco, a Clothworker ; cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, pp. 53, 112, 18 J, 

3 18 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

no less than twenty-two declined to answer the call to the 
Livery. 1 The difficulty was, however, met by presenting sixteen, 
twice the number required, as fit persons, from whom eight were 
annually chosen 3 ; and also in some cases by increasing the 
number called when a Draper was Mayor. 3 A more effectual 
remedy was found in lo^S by the reduction of the fee for entrance 
from 40 to 2,0 marks (13 6s. 8</.). 4 Other measures were also 
adopted which finally ended, as before mentioned, with the free- 
ing of the Liverymen from the office of Steward in lo'py, and the 
taking over of the charges of the Stewards' dinners by the Com- 
pany, although this measure of relief was accompanied by an 
increase of the entrance fee to iz los. <\4, and fees to the 
officials of 2, pj. 8</.s 

The result of all these expedients was that, when once the 
Company had recovered from the effects of the Plague and the Fire, 
the size of the Livery increased steadily from 81 to. 12,5 in the year 
1683, and this although in 1678 two, and in i<$7p three, declined 
the call. Shortly after, by the forfeiture of the Charter and the 
nomination of its members by the Mayor, the whole composition 
of the Livery was altered. In 1683-4 tne number was reduced 
to 103, and in 1684-5- to 5-3. 6 As for the years which inter- 
vened between that date and the Revolution, it is impossible to 
speak with certainty, since many who had been recalled did not 

1 The experience of the Grocers was the same j cf. Heath, Grocers, p. 134. 
3 Rep. + 1 3 1, p. 147 a, repeated every year. 

3 The main object of this custom, which had lone obtained, was that the fees 
of those called, or their fines in the case of refusal, should go towards the 
expenses of the Mayor's Show. It should be remembered that five Drapers 
filled the office of Mayor during the reigns of Charles II and James II. In 
preparation for the Mayoralty of Sir S. Starling in 1669, it was resolved to admit 
twenty to the Livery, though eventually only nineteen were found fit and willing : 
Rep. +133, p. 2,3 a. For the Mayoralty of Sir J. Sheldon in i^7j, only eight, 
the usual number, were called (ib., p. 77 a) ; for that of Sir Thos. Davies in 
1676, sixteen (ib., p. 84 b) ; for the Mayoralty of Sir R. Clayton agajn only eight 
(ib., p. 105 a); in 1687 sixteen for the Mayoralty of Sir J. Smith (ib., p. 138 a). 

4 Ib., p. 9jb. A proviso was, however, added that none should be called 
but those c of good repute '. 

5 Cf. supra, under Dinners, p. 310, and Rep. +133, p. 137 a.. 

6 Cf. supra, under Quo Warranto, p. 193. 

Reigns of Charles II ^J antes II ^William HI^K) 

respond, 1 but in April i68p,just after the Accession of William III, 
the number, exclusive of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants, 
stood at no and in 1690 at 125-. This increase is explained by 
the fact that the list includes those who had at any time been 
called by the Company, as well as those nominated by the King or 
the Mayors since 1682-. 

The usual way of entering the Court of Assistants was by Variation in 
election to the post of one of the youngest Wardens, or by holding f {| e slze 
the office of Alderman or Sheriff, or fining for the same. 2 Occa- 
sionally others were called to the Court for some special reason. 
This was the case with Sir Peter Vandeput, who, having been 
taken into the freedom in September i()8<5, was called to the 
Court in the October of the same year, without having been a 
Liveryman. 3 The number of the Assistants was, at the Restoration, 
thirty-two, including the Master and the four Wardens. It 
increased gradually, in spite of the Plague and the Fire, until 
it stood at forty-four in 1681. Then, owing to the interference 
of the Crown, it was reduced by three, and in 1684 by eleven ; 
to rise to forty-seven with the fall of James II. 4 

1 Livery List +301, p. 95, + 164 ; cf. Appendix XLIIIe. 
In 1 660 . . . 8$ 1677 

1667 after the Plague 80 1680 

1668 after the Fire 81 1683 

1670 ... 91 1684 

1671 . . . 100 1689 

In February 1690, the number of the Livery, including the Master, the 
Wardens, and the Assistants, was 170. We do not know exactly how many 
of these were Assistants, but as they were probably about 45, this would make 
the approximate number of the Livery lay. 

2 Rep. +133, pp. 75 a, 833, io6a; Ordinance Book +796, fo. 98. A 
freeman who had declined the office of Sheriff or Alderman before he was 
called to the Livery or Court was, before he could be called to the Court, or be 
elected to the post of Senior Warden, to pay a fine of 50 in respect of the 
charges he would have incurred as a Liveryman or Junior Warden. Rep. 4- i33j 
p. 51 b. A person once admitted as an Assistant held his position for life. The 
fine for non-attendance at a Court meeting was $s. 6d. Widows of Assistants 
were, so long as they remained unmarried, invited to all public Election and 
Quarter Day dinners (Rep. +133, p. 67 b), but they were never called to the 
Livery or to the Court. 

3 Rep. 4- 133, p. 155 b. 

4 Cf. +301 Livery Lists j Rep +133, p. 1873, Appendix XLIII B. The 
number was 48 in 1690, cf. 

The numbers were : 


3 xo Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

Decline in It was, however, with regard to the numbers of those admitted 
the number to tne freedom that the variations were the most significant. In 

of the 

t j ie i55- the freemen, though they had decreased since 165-2, 

.1111 T L i. J mi 

still numbered about i^p. 1 In 1074 the number had fallen to 

12,39. No doubt this decline was partly the result of the Plague 
and the Fire. But that these were not the only causes is proved 
by the continued decrease. In 1678 it is expressly stated that 
4 men of quality ' were ' shy of taking up their freedom ' ; and the 
reasons given were the decay of trade, the charges of the offices 
they might have to bear, and the fees to be paid on entrance into 
the Livery. To meet the last scruple these fees were, as above 
mentioned, reduced, 2 but the concession does not appear to have 
had much effect; while the treatment of the Company under the 
Writ of Quo Warranto must have added another reason for declin- 
ing the freedom. In 1684 a committee made various suggestions 
with the object of keeping up the number and preserving a 
succession of members to discharge the Services of the Fraternity. 3 
Nothing, however, came of this proposal. In 1687 there were 
renewed complaints of the falling-off of membership, and in i6po 
the number had fallen as low as 1,118, nearly one-half what it 
had been in the reign of James I. 4 

1 i. e. from 1385 to 1356 or 1359, of whom only 381 paid Quarterage. Cf. 
Quarterage Books + 161, ^6^. We cannot be quite certain of the numbers in 
166^ because, having no Livery List of that year, we do not know how many of 
those entered in the Quarterage Book were Liverymen. The Poll Tax return of 
1660 does not help us, because, as we learn from the Repertory + 131, p. 146 b, 
'of the freemen who cannot dispend 500 a year* the Wardens 'are not 
acquainted with the habitation or estate of the most parte, and leave them to be 
returned by their wards'. And the same statement applies to the later Poll 
Taxes j cf. 18, 2,9-30 Car. II. 

2 Rep. +133, p. 94 b. Freemen were also liable to be called upon to serve 
'in foynes ' or ' in budge ' when a Draper was Mayor. The fee for the first was 
3, and 3OJ. for the second, while refusal to serve led to a fine of double the 
amount. For meaning of ' foynes ' and c budge ' cf. supra, p. 7, note i. 

3 Rep. + 133, p. 133 a; cf. under Translations. 

4 The evidence for this has been obtained : 

(a) For 166 $ 3 by counting all who entered before the August of that year 
(with the exception of those stated to be Assistants, or of the Livery), on the 
assumption that, as the Quarterage Book begins with that year, all names in it 
are those of living people. 

(&) For 1674, by counting all who entered before January 1675, omitting 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 3 xi 

Some interesting facts with regard to the entries into the 
freedom from i<56o to 1688 are disclosed in the accompanying 
table. 1 It will be observed that by far the krger number of 
entries are still through apprenticeship, and that the number 
of those admitted * ex amore ' or ' gratis ', as well as that of the 

those stated to be Assistants or of the Livery, or dead. Cf. Quarterage Books 
+ 262, 264. For the year 1690 we have a complete list of Appendix XXXV A. 
The following table shows the fluctuations since the reign of James I : 

Number of Freemen. Number paying Quarterage. 
1617 - . 1106 .... 617 
1641 . . 1427 . . . . 575 

. . 1386 .... 564 
. . I3f6ori3?9 . . 382 
1674 . . 1239 .... 183 
1690 . . 1118 .... 245 

1 The number of apprentices held at the same time by any one master appears 
to have been much the same as it was in the reign of Charles I. Cf. supra, p. 195. 
Entries into the Freedom, May 29, 1660 to December n, 1688. Freedom 
Lists + 280, fos. 1-82 ; +301, fos. 308-43. 
I. In the ordinary way. 

By apprenticeship . . . 1142 




of these women), 
of these women), 
of these a woman). 

By patrimony 

By redemption .... 

Ex amore ..... 

Gratis ..... 

II. By Order of the Court of Assistants. 

A woman, Barbara Hardy, Jan. i r, 1680. 
III. By Order of the Court of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. 

Ed. Brackwell March 7, 1682. 

Peter Deleave May I 2, i68j. 


Christopher Peate 
Josias Long . 
Gilbert Gaudiat 
John Otter . 
James Shelding 
Ed. Huson . 
Wm. Wrag ) 
Henry Burton) 
By translation, 4. 

j J 

May 19, r686. 
July 23, 1 6%6. 
Nov. 16, \6%6. 
Jan. 12, 1687. 
Feb. 9, 1687. 
Jan. n, 1688. 

Sept. 12, 1688. 


T t 

3 ii Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

women, is high. Of the fifteen women admitted, five enter 
through apprenticeship, which is unusual, and one by special order 
of the Court of Assistants. 1 

The twelve who between 1 68y-8 entered at the order of the 
Court of Aldermen did .so during the forfeiture of the Charter. 
No doubt these men were on their way to obtain the freedom of 
the City, which, unless it could be claimed by patrimony, could 
only be attained by admission to a City Company, and were in all 
probability persons whose vote could be depended upon by the 
King in the election of the Aldermen of the City. 

Functions of Not only had the Company long ceased to be composed 

the Drapers exclusively of Drapers, but those few who were wholesale Drapers 

at this date. W ere no longer exclusively concerned with the buying and selling 

of cloth. Nor had the Company anything to do with the control 

of Blackwell Hall 2 or with alnage. 3 Nevertheless, Drapers still 

bought and sold at Blackwell Hall, 4 and the Company still 

retained its old privilege of measuring yards at the fairs.s The 

1 The Quarterage Book of 1690 gives us very much the same results. 
Thus : 

Admitted by Redemp- Apprentice- Ex 

Patrimony. tion. 



Livery . 127 
Freemen 1,1 1 1 






Amore. Translations. 

(r. Clayton on 
his way to the 

2 Thus there is no mention of the Drapers' Company in the Act of the 
Common Council of i66j, made for the regulation of Blackwell Hall and of the 
handling and sale of cloth. Cf. Stowj ed. Strype (i7Jj)> v l- "> P- 379- The 
other markets for cloth at this date besides Blackwell Hall were Leadenhall and 
the Welsh Hall. They appear to have been under the control of the Governor 
of Christ's Hospital. 

3 Alnage had long become a mere revenue affair, the length and breadth 
being no longer insisted upon. In 1669 the 'farm' of it was renewed to the 
Duke of Lennox for sixty years j on his death in 1672 it passed to his widow. 
In 1693 a petition was presented to Parliament urging that alnage should be 
abolished and the loss to the Crown made up by increasing the customs on 
woollen clothes. Cf. House of Commons Journal, 1693, xi, p. 16. Alnage 
finally came to an end on the termination of the Lennox * farm '. 

4 Cf. Maitland, vol. i, p. 463 $ cf. Stat. 11-12 Will. Ill, c. io ii. 

5 Wardens' Accounts, 1663-4, fo. 35. 


Reigns of Charles II,JamesII, William III 313 

Company was also sometimes consulted when legislation with regard 
to cloth was contemplated. Thus in February 1661 a Committee 
was appointed of those members who were ' most knowing in the 
trade and mystery of Drapery ', for the purpose of expressing 
their opinion in writing to a Committee appointed by the King 
on the following questions : 

1. The cause of the importation of great quantities of fine 
Dutch cloth, especially ' Blacks and Whites '. 

2. The abuses in the English manufacture of the same. 

3. Why Dutch cloth outsold the English, and what might be 
the most effectual way to prevent this. 1 

We have, however, no report of the findings of the Committee, 
nor any reference to the Petition of the Clothiers in 1664. asking 
for the prohibition of the export of wool, wool fells and fullers' 
earth, nor to the Statutes passed in 1666 and 1677, enacting that, 
for the encouragement of the cloth trade, all persons should be 
buried in woollen cloth. 2 

As to the smaller draper, who conducted the retail business, The small 
they had, according to Defoe, become practically the same as Draper, 
the draper of to-day. They had, he says, abandoned St. Paul's 
Churchyard, and kept their shops like the Mercers, in the high 
streets such as Cheapside, Ludgate Street, Cornhill, &c., where 
customers were more likely to be found.3 

1 Rep. +132, p. 254 b. 

2 Cf. 1 8 Car. II, c. 4 j 30 Car. II, c. 3 j 32 Car. II, c. i j Dom. State Papers, 
Charles II, 1664, vol. xcv, pp. 20, 22, 24. 

3 Defoe, The Complete Tradesman, ed. 1727, vol. i, pp. 81, 86. It may here 
be noted that London is not mentioned in his list of towns where cloth is made 
(vol. iij p. 61) ; but we know that the cloth industry had left the City long ago. 
The evidence from the Drapers' Books is not conclusive, as there are so few 
drapers on the books. But from the Quarterage Book of 1690 we learn that the 
one Liveryman, who is given as a draper, lived in Cornhill, and a linen draper in 
Bishopsgate Without. Of the freemen the habitations were as follows : 

Drapers, 4. St. Paul's Churchyard ; Southwark j Fenchurch Street j Chal- 
wood, Surrey. 

Woollen Drapers, 2. St. Paul's Churchyard ; Cambridge. 

Linen Drapers, 2. Cheapside ; London Bridge. 

Of the 19 Tailors, who were close akin to the Drapers, 18 lived in Great 

314- Internalj4jfairs of the Company during the 

with the 

Meanwhile, if we except the East India Company, to whom 
they were in the habit of lending their balances, and perhaps the 
Levant Company/ the relations of the Drapers with the Great 
Joint Stock Companies founded in the Elizabethan days, as well 
as with the Merchant Adventurers, had become much less inti- 
mate. Nor do foreign countries appear to have attracted the 

Spur Street ; Holborn Bridge ; Butcher Lane ; Gutter Lane ; Juin Street j 
Lombard Street ; Bride Lane ; Cloth Fair ; Chiswell Street ; Thames Street ; 
Duke Place; Wallbrooke; Play House "Yard; Beare Garden; Tower Royall ; 
Whitecross Street; Long Lane; Gracechurch Street. 

Those who were engaged in other trades likewise lived in various parts of the 
city. Cf. Appendix. 

The Quarterage Book of 1690 +164 tells us the trades or professions of 
9 Liverymen and of I j 5 out of 1,1 1 1 freemen (of the Assistants unfortunately we 
learn nothing). Of the Liverymen, two are silkmen, while of the following 
trades there is one respectively : Draper, Linen Draper, Hosier, Laceman, 
Leatherseller, Timber Merchant, Upholder. 

The 155 Freemen are thus distributed : 


19 Cutlers 

Tallow Chandlers 
8 Weavers 

1 Gardeners 

7 Boddicemakers 

6 Victuallers 

5 Barbers 

4 CofFeemen 

3 Cooks 

2 Hosiers 

4 Mercers 

Other trades . . . . 38 

It is noticeable that there are no esquires or gentlemen. They are therefore 
for the most part business men. 

1 Sir Christopher Pack was Governor of the Merchant Adventurers in 1657, 
and on the Committee of the East India Company 1657-9. F* ve members of 
the Company were on the Committee of the E. I. C, and one was Governor 
during the period between 1660-89: 

Merchants } 
Carpenters j 
Upholsterers . 

Woollen Drapers 
Linen Drapers 

Reigns of Charles II, James II ^ William III 31? 

attention of members of the Company so much as they had in 
earlier reigns. 1 

This may, so far as the Merchant Adventurers and the Eastland 
Company are concerned, be explained by their decline. During 
the Commonwealth the Charter of the Merchant Adventurers 
had been suspended, and interlopers had been allowed ; and, 
although the Company was reinstated at the Restoration, its 
importance rapidly declined. In the vain hope of increasing the 
membership, the entrance fee was reduced. In lo'pg the Company 
offered to allow any Englishman, not being a handicraftsman, 
to enter on payment of a fee of 1 and to trade within the limits 
allowed, but the statute of i Will. III. c. 32,, by allowing freedom 
of trade, finally destroyed its privileges. The fate of the Eastland 
Company was much the same. 2 

We gather from the number of translations from the Drapers Transla- 


William Williams 

William Love 

Theophilus Biddulph . 

Sir Francis Clarke 

James Smyth 

Andrew Riccard, at. Ricaur, Governor 



1 660-7 3 


As to the loans to the East India Company cf. infra, p. 340, note i. 
Three Drapers were on the government of the Levant Company : 

Andrew Riccard, a.1. Ricaut, Governor .... 1654-71 

William Love, Deputy Governor . .... 1 661-61 

Sir Francis Clarke, Assistant ..... 1664-65 

Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, pp. 90-117. We also hear of a freeman, Arthur 

Dukeyne, who was a Turkey Merchant : Quarterage Book + 161, p. 39. 

1 I have only found two members of the Company who are said to be abroad 
between 1660 and 1688 : Robert Taylor, a Liveryman i66i-i,in the Barbadoes; 
Elnathan Negus, a freeman, in Holland. Quarterage Book + 167, pp. 81, 109 ; 
Livery Book +301, fo. 59. But John Peel, Warden in 1661-1 and 1671-1, 
who founded an almshouse, chiefly for mariners, says in his will that 'most part 
of his estate whifch God had pleased to grant him had been made by trading in 
parts beyond the sea'. Cf. Wills, i. A, p. 17. In the Quarterage Book of 
1690, one Merchant is given as living in Rotterdam. 

2 Lingelbach, Merchant Adventurers, p. xxxiii 5 Sellers, Ordinances of Eastland 
Merchants, Preface, and p. 139. Cf. also Surtees Society, vol. 119, p. Ixviff. 

3 1(5 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

after the Restoration that some of the less important and industrial 
Companies were still insisting that Citizens who pursued their 
craft should belong to their gild. 1 No less than eight members 
of the Drapers' Company were allowed to translate, two to the 
Brewers and the Woodmongers respectively, and one to each 
of the following : the Bakers, the Tallow-chandlers, the Carpenters, 
and the Barber-surgeons. 2 It is noticeable that one of those trans- 
lated to the Brewers was not a freeman, but a Liveryman. This 
is unusual. 

It will be observed that none of these translations took place 
in the later years of Charles II's reign nor in those of James II. 
This leads us to the conclusion that the said Companies had 
nearly succeeded in their aim, for after searching the Quarterage 
Books I have only found two chandlers, one brewer, one baker, 
and one barber on the list of the Drapers' Company between 

1 See, for instance, the Carpenters, who in 1693 finally obtained from the 
Common Council an Act ordering all those carrying on the trade of Carpentry 
to bind their apprentices in their Company. Jupp, Carpenters, pp. 268, 309, 310, 

3 IZ - 

2 The reasons given for the translations were as follows : 

To the Brewers, Dannett Forth, a Liveryman, because he had left his calling 
of a woollen draper and taken to that of the Brewers, and that he was likely to 
be cast in the suit which the Brewers were threatening. Rep. +132, pp. 148 a, 
2? i b. Forth was a somewhat important person (ct. supra p. 313, note 4, and 
Beaven, vol. ii, p. 196)- When he was elected Sheriff in 1670 the Company 
lent him their plate, in spite of a resolution, passed two years before, that this 
should not be done for any Mayor or Sheriff who was not a member of the Drapers' 
Company at the time ; cf. Rep. + 1 3 3, pp. 14 a, 30 b. G. Russel, because he had 
taken to brewing without having served his apprenticeship with a brewer. Rep. 
4- 132, p 2643. 

To the Woodmongers : Two, because the Woodmongers claim the right of 
licensing cam and c carroomes '. Ib., pp. 243 b, 248 a. 

To the Tallow-chandlers : one, because he had been apprenticed to the Tallow- 
chandlers. Ib., p. 269 b. 

To the Carpenters : one, because, although he had bound himself as a journey- 
man to a freeman of the Drapers' Company, he had previously been apprenticed 
to a 'forraigne' carpenter, and had the trade of a carpenter. Ib., p. 279 b. 

To the Bakers : one, because he had married a widow who used the trade of 
a baker, and had not stock enough of his own to pursue his own trade, that of 
a linen-draper. Ib., p. 243 b. 

To the Barber-surgeons : one, because he was keeping a barber's shop. 
Rep. +133, p. 15 b. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, Wtlltam III 3 X7 

and 1688.' On the other hand, we find that, when in 
it was proposed to grant a new Charter in the place of the 
old one forfeited by Charles II, the Drapers themselves, contrary 
to their usual practice, 2 made a belated attempt to enforce the 
same rule with regard to their own calling. ' Whereas ', runs the 
report of a Committee of the Court, 

( anciently all persons using the Mistery or trade of Woollen drapers 
were free of this Fraternity, and now many using the same are free of 
severall other Companies, to the great decay of this Company, and 
endangering the want of successors of members to discharge the services 
of the said Fraternity j that for reducing the said Mistery to its ancient 
order, and preserving a succession of members as aforesaid ; and to the 
end that all persons using the said mistery, or factors at Black well-hall, 
may be subjected and made liable to such reasonable orders and ordi- 
nances as shall be made for promoting the said manufacture, it would 
be to the benefit of the Company to sue for the following privileges in 
the intended new Patent. First that all persons using the trade, or 
mistery of woollen drapers, and all woollen factors at Blackwell-hall, who 
were freemen of London, but not of the Drapers Company, should bind 
their apprentices to one free of the Drapers Company. Secondly that 
all such persons should hereafter be made free of the Company. Thirdly, 
that all apprenticed to a Merchant, or Warehouse keeper of the Fraternity, 
should become freemen of the City and of this Company, before they 
be allowed to use merchandise or keep a warehouse within the liberties 
of the City.' 3 

No such privileges were however granted, and, even if they 
had been, it is doubtful whether the Drapers themselves would have 
benefited. The attempt could only have succeeded if the Drapers 

1 Cf. Quarterage Books + 163, 167. 

2 The translations to the Drapers during the reign were due to the custom 
that the Mayor should belong to one of the Greater Livery Companies. They 
were : 

Sir S Starling, translated from the Brewers . . . \66<) 
Sir J. Sheldon Tallow-chandlers . . 1675 

Sir T. Davies 3 , Stationers . . . 1676 

Sir R. Clayton Scriveners . . . . 1679 

3 Rep. + 133, p. 1333. The continued opposition to foreigners is noticeable. 
In 1663 or 1664 two members of the Company were fined ijj. by the 
Chamberlain of London for setting foreigners to work. Wardens' Accounts, 
1663-4, fo. 19. 

g 18 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 


had confined their membership to those engaged in the cloth trade, 
and had been willing to see the same policy adopted by the other 
Companies. For such a return to the conditions of the Middle 
Ages they were not prepared. Even in the heyday of the gilds 
the theory of gild restrictions had never been completely realized. 
To attempt to restore them in the later seventeenth century was 
bound to fail. The trading gilds at least had long ceased to 
exercise effective control over their peculiar industries, and were 
no longer capable of organizing industries and trades which had 
now become international. Before long the industrial and smaller 
Companies shared the same fate, and fell before the domestic and 
the factory systems, which were to dominate the future economic 
development of England. 

Charity dis- But if the Company was ceasing more and more to represent 
pensed by the interests of any especial trade or industry, its work as a 
the Com- friendly benefit society was very prominent during the distress, 
which was widespread. For this,no doubt, the hard and long winters 
of 1554-^ and i6<S6'-7, the Plague, and the Great Fire were largely 
responsible, but the dislocation of business by the Civil War and 
during the uncertainties of the later days of the Commonwealth 
had its share in causing the general slackness of trade which is 
constantly mentioned in the Drapers' Books. 1 We should there- 
fore expect to find that the amount of charity dispensed among 
members of the Company during the period from 1660-88 would 
be considerable ; 2 while for this reason, and because of the great 
expenditure caused by the destruction of their Hall and so many 
of their houses in the City, the Company were unable to be 
generous to outsiders. Thus in 1674 the Court even declined to 
assist the parishioners of St. Michael's to re-pew and re-adorn 
their own especial church on the grounds that 'for want of 
monies ' the Company had been ' constrained to forbear the 
wainscoting of their own roomes '. 3 Such language, however, 

1 Cf. Hist. MS. Commission, vol. viii, p. 133. The competition of the Dutch 
in the carrying trade is also given as a cause. The' hard winter of 1664-5 is 
specially mentioned in Wardens' Accounts, 1664-5, fo. 39. 

2 For the charity dispensed during the Plague and after the Great Fire, 
cf. supra p. 171. 

3 Rep. +135, p. 55 b. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II,William III 319 

implies a certain lack of religious enthusiasm, which was charac- 
teristic of the age, and possibly this may be the reason why we 
find none of those gifts towards the rebuilding of churches, nor of 
those pensions or other relief to distressed ministers, which had often 
been given in previous times. 1 That there were nevertheless some 
of the brethren who were good Churchmen and had the cause of 
religion and learning at heart is shown by the benefaction of 
Mr. Colbron, to which we shall return, and by that of Sir Thomas 
Adams of an annuity of 40 issuing out of the rents of a farm for 
the endowment of an Arabic Lecture at Cambridge. This trust 
the Company * freely and lovingly ' accepted, considering that the 
design or the same 'hath a great tendency to the advancement of 
learning and the propagacion of the Gospel.' 2 Sir Wm. Boreman 
also built the Green Coat School at Greenwich for the sons of 
seamen, and endowed it with a sum of foo. 3 In any case the 
number of bequests to charitable purposes made during the period 
from the Restoration to the Revolution proves that the sentiment 
of charity at least was as strong as ever. 4 

The table given in the Appendix shows how numerous were the 
demands made on the Company by its members, many of whom had 
seen better days. 3 At no previous date had the number been so 
great, and it will be observed that the list includes descendants of 
three wealthy benefactors, who had held high position in the Com- 
pany. 6 It should also be remembered that the benefaction of 
Mr. Smith was to be given by preference to twenty Assistants and 

1 Cf. supra p. 185. Only one minister received relief, and he was the son of an 
Assistant. Rep. +133, p. 14 b. In 1670, however, they paid an assessment on 
the Hall of i r 13*. ^d. towards the repair of the Church of St. Peter Le Poor. 
Ib. +380, fo. 15. 

2 Rep. + 131, p. 315 b. Sir Thomas Adams had been the Royalist Mayor of 
1645-6. He died in 1660, and the preacher of his funeral sermon called him 
c the darling of the City J and 'an oracle' among the Aldermen. Cf. Diet. 
National Biography, and Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, Index. The lecture is given 
to this day. 

3 Cf. Appendix, Benefactions XLVII, and p. 334. 

4 Fora summary of these bequests cf. next page. s Cf. Appendix XXXIII B. 
6 Sir Richard Champion, who had been three times Master, and was Mayor 

1565-65 Sir Allan Cotton, who had been Master 1616-17, and Mayor 
Mr. Buck, who had been Warden 1614-15. All had been benefactors. 


U U 

3^0 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

Liverymen or their widows, 1 and that when, in i66p, there were 
not sufficient applicants to exhaust the fund, the remainder was 
given to freemen or their widows who had ' lived in fashion.' 2 
A somewhat novel feature with regard to the charitable contributions 
is worth noticing. The tenants of the Company and the Tackle 
House Porters are found contributing to the Poor Box. 3 As will 
be seen in the table in the Appendix, 4 the total amount of charity 
dispensed among brethren or their relations in the year 1687-8 
was over 605), of which 158 pj. 6V. was by the gift of the 
Company; while only some 300 was distributed among outsiders, 
and of that only 12, 6s. by the gift of the Company. If we add 
to this the sums expended on Schools, Lecturers, Preachers, and 
Annuities, the total will come to over 1,64^.5 

The practice of undertaking to pay annuities to members of the 

1 For Smith's Bequest cf. Appendix XLVII. 

2 Rep. + 133, p. 13 b. In \66\ three Liverymen and six widows of 
Liverymen received the charity. In 1667, one Liveryman and five widows of 
Liverymen. In 1669, one Assistant, two widows of Assistants, and three 
of Liverymen. In. 1670, one Assistant and seven widows of Liverymen. 
Rep. + 1 3 2, pp. 263 a, 3 1 8 b ;+ 1 3 3, p. 3 2 b. 

3 The sum was, however, only 50*. : Wardens' Accounts, 1663-4, fb. 40. The 
tenants contributed from 13 to 7: Wardens 3 Accounts, 1659-60, fo. 275 
1669-70, fo. 33. 

4 Cf. Appendix XXXIII A. The total amount of charity distributed out of 
benefactions came to 1,007 i 2 - r - ?d. Most of this came from the interest on 
money left to be lent out to young freemen. The actual gifts and bequests 
made during the reign were : / 

A. Money 11,133 6 8 

B. Lands producing rents of some . . 444 6 8 

C. Annuity ...... 40 o o 

D. Boreman's School at Greenwich . 500 o o 

E. Money to be lent to young freemen . 1,060 o o 

We do not know exactly how much rent the messuages left in Whitechapel by 
C. Clarke produced, nor what the one-third of the residuary estate of 
Mr. Bloomer amounted to. The reappearance of bequests of loans to young 
freemen of the Company starting life, after their disappearance under the 
Commonwealth, is noticeable. Cf Appendix, Benefactions XLVII. 

5 Strype's Stow, 6th ed., vol. ii, p. 173, says that the sum of all charitable 
donations expended by the Company in 1710 amounted to some 2,000. This 
considerable increase is due to the bequests of Harwar, Edmanson, Deade, 
Sir Wm. Langhorne, Hollis, and Walrond. Cf. Appendix, Benefactions, XLVII. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 331 

Company in return for a lump sum paid down was still continued. 
In the last year of James II's reign there were two such annui- 
tants, who received between them 60 a year. 1 From the very 
generous terms on which some of these annuities were granted, it 
is evident that they were in some cases really a form of charity. 

Although the Almsmen and Almswomen continued to give Aims- 
considerable trouble, 2 the Court decided in the year 166' i to build touses - 
two other almshouses at Tower Hill on a piece of waste ground 
adjoining the old one. The reason they gave does honour to the 
Company. The profits of the lands left by Sir J. Milburn, the 
founder, had much improved since they first came into its hands 
more than 100 years ago. The Court was, however, careful to 
record their opinion that the Company was in no way obliged to 
thus spend the balance which had accrued by the rise in the rents. 3 
In i6~6 the Company also accepted a trust under the will of 
H. Lucas, of lands to the value of about 7,000, to found a , 
hospital for almspeople at Wokingham in Berkshire, ' though 
there be no manner of profit redounding to the Company '. In 
1681 John Pemell left 1,2.00 in trust to build and endow 
another almshouse in Stepney, chiefly for the widows of mariners; 3 

' Kath. Emmett, who had paid 200 in 1661, received 40 till 1690 
(cf. Wardens 3 Accounts, 1661-2, fo. 37; 1689-90, fo. 35;); and Ann Garway, 
who had paid 160 in 1675, received 20 till 1712 (Wardens' Accounts, 
1711-12, p. 36; Rep. +133, p- 77 b). Richard Woodward paid 200 in 1663, 
on condition that a life annuity of 20 should be given to his son, then eleven 
years of age. Fortunately, however, for the finances of the Company, the 
annuitant died in 1677. Cf. Wardens' Accounts, 1676-7, fo. 35. 

2 e. g. Widow Evans, almswoman at Bow, was after much difficulty expelled 
for c several great misdemeanours ', and especially for harbouring her daughter and 
her husband in the said almshouse, cutting a vine tree maliciously, and threatening 
to take the heart's blood from another almswoman (Rep. +132, pp. 248 a, 2 J2 b, 
261 b, 295 b. An almsman at Tower Hill was expelled because he married contrary 
to regulations (ib., p. 293 b^. On the other hand we hear of an almsman whose 
pension was augmented, because, c as he saith ', he was over 100 years old. On 
his death his widow was allowed to continue as an inmate (ib., p. 247 a). 

3 Ib., p. 260 a. 

4 Rep. + i 3 3, pp. 7 J a, 1 1 5 b, 1223. For the regulations cf. pp. 87 a ff~., 121 b. 
The Master was to be an M.A. of Cambridge 'ordained and orthodox 'j and 
a prayer-book, chained to the pew, was to be provided for every almsman. 

5 Ib., p. 1 20 b. 




The Com- 

Bow and 

331 Internals! fairs of the Company during the 

while in 1690, Anne Mills, daughter of their late Clerk, John 
Walter, granted tenements to produce 60 a year towards the 
said charity, and in 1699 gave 12,0 on condition that the 
pensions might be increased by u. a month. 1 

Of Queen Elizabeth's College at Greenwich there is little of 
importance to record. The Company had been in the habit of 
borrowing money from the foundation, and paying the interest 
thereof to the inmates, and at one time during the reign the 
amount borrowed came to 900. In 1660 Mr. Rookeby left a 
legacy of f to be spent in clothing for the almspeople in the 
College, and in 1684 tne Master of the Rolls gave 2,0 to be dis- 
tributed among them. 2 In 1671 Wm. Lambard, the grandson of 
the founder, asked that the provision in the founder's will, to the 
effect that the lands of the College should always be leased to his 
heirs, should be departed from, because the heir of the petitioner 
was the son of a loose woman, whom he had been induced to 
marry. After consultation with the Master of the Rolls, the Court 
decided that the petition could not be granted, and accordingly 
after Wm. Lambard 's death in 1681 the lease was renewed in the 
name of his son. 3 

The condition of the Company's schools continued to be some- 
what unsatisfactory. Barton School had declined under the 
mastership of Mr. Birch, who died in 1670. His successor, 
Mr. Aitken, did much to retrieve its ancient good feme, and, in 
acknowledgement of this, the Court added an annual gratuity of 
twenty nobles. His successor, however, after a few years' service, 
was reported as being old, while the usher was negligent ; and 
when the Visitors suggested that the gratuity should be continued 
for the new master, because it was difficult to find a competent 
person to fill the post at the salary, the Court made answer that 
although they promised to ' shew themselves diligent and kind as 
occasion offered ', 4 they were in no way bound to continue it, 
inasmuch as it had been paid out of corporate revenue. Nor was 
the condition of the schools at Bow and Worsburgh any better. 

1 Rep. + 133, pp. zoo b, 163 b. 

2 Rep. + 131, pp. Z48b, 187 a ; + 1333 p. 1343. 

3 Rep. 4- 133, pp. 39 b, u8a. 4 Ib., pp. 30 b, 53 a, 1303, 138 a. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, Wtlliamlll 333 

At both there were complaints made of the schoolmaster, and at 

Worsburgh they were so loud that for a time the Court decided 

to forbear paying the master his salary. 1 When we remember 

that the Master at Barton and Worsburgh only received i 3 6s. 8</. 

and the Master at Bow 2,0, we shall probably be of opinion that 

the Visitors of Barton were right in their opinion that this was 

one cause at least for their inefficiency ; when therefore, in 166?, 

the Court proceeded to administer the trust of Henry Colbron at 

Kirkham, in Lancashire, this mistake was avoided. The upper Endowment 

masters of the School were to receive 4? and 2,^ respectively, of Masters 

and to prepare the boys of the parish for the Universities gratis. t Kn-kham 

>-r\ j * i j r ^ 1 School, 

I he under-master, who only received 10 IO.T., was to teach L ancas hi re 
boys of an inferior degree. The upper schoolmasters were to be \66<). 
University men, and were to be well qualified and obliged to 
preach once a month in the parish church or in some of the 
chapels in the township. 2 In the regulations which were drawn 
up by the Court, the wishes of the benefactor were loyally carried 
out. The children were to be brought up in the fear of God 
and in the way of good literature, so that they might be service- 
able to the Church, useful to the Commonwealth, a comfort to 
their parents, and a credit to their masters. ' And ', as one of the 
orders runs, * since most Comedies be full of ribauldry and scurrility, 
and most Tragedies full of cruelty and villainy, to all which the 
fallen nature of man is too prone, we will and ordaine that the 
schollars . . . never act any play, but such as not only the masters, 
but likewise the Vicar of Kirkham and some of the neighbouring 
ministers, shall approve of The parishioners expressed their 
thanks not only 4 for the education of their children in good 
literature', but also ' for the spiritual benefit of them ; all which 
had been greatly wanting.' 3 

That the Company still believed in the value of education for 

1 Rep. +133, pp. 14 b, 18 a. Barton School had been founded by Thos. Russell 
in 1593, Bow by Sir J. Jolles in itfzo. Moneys had been left for the salary of the 
schoolmaster at Worsburgh in Yorkshire by I. Rainey in 1631. 

2 Wills +43? j p. 30 ; -f i A, p. 13. For certain questions arising out of the 
Will, cf. Rep. +131, pp. 144 b, 1483, 17735+133, p. 353. The school 
was finally established by a decree of the Court of Chancery in 1673. 

3 Rep. +133, pp. 68 b, 71 a. 

Sir Wm. 
Green Coat 

Careful ad- 
of trusts 
by the 

3 34 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

the sons of the poor is proved by their acceptance of Sir Wm. 
Boreman's trust in itfSo. Like good business men, however, the 
Court had not done so without careful consideration. By his will, 
Sir William had left to the Company in trust his Green Coat 
School at Greenwich for the education of the sons of seamen, 
watermen, and fishermen, and also an almshouse for four poor 
widows. Inasmuch, however, as the rents of the lands left for 
the maintenance of the trust were not sufficient, the Court only 
consented to undertake the responsibility after reference to the 
Chancellor, who gave an opinion ;hat the trust should be accepted 
so far as the income allowed. 1 

Any one who studies the documents of the Drapers' Company 
will, I think, agree with Mr. Harwar, long a member or the 
Court, who in 1702, gave as his reason for entrusting the Company 
with the performance of a trust, that he had observed the faithful 
way in which such trusts had been managed. 2 It may, however, 
be well to give a few instances during the reign of Charles II in 
proof of this statement. 

When, in August lo'o'o, the Churchwardens of certain parishes 
in London complained that the tenant of a messuage, who held 
by the will of Robert Cooper, a member of the Company, on 
condition that he should deliver coals to the poor of the said 
parishes, had failed to fulfil his obligation, the Court informed 

1 The rents were held to come to 107 3.5-. 6d., and the sums to be spent on 
the school and almshouse were limited to that amount. Any residue or further 
income was to be formed into a fund for purchasing lands, wherewith to increase 
the trust funds. Boreman's Account +337, fos. 10-28 ; Rep. + 133, pp- i59b, 
I76b, 185 b, i88b. The scheme was not, however, completely carried out till 
1709, and shortly after was closed for want of funds. Cf. infra, p. 478. 

2 Rep. +133, p. 2.75 b. He left 1,700 to erect and endow almshouses ; 
cf. Benefactions, Appendix XLVII. By the irony of fate, the Company at a later 
date got into trouble over this trust ; cf. infra, p. 499 note. Erasmus tells us that 
Dean Colet, the founder of St. Paul's School, when asked why he had made the 
Mercers' Company the Governors and trustees of his beloved foundation rather 
than any great Minister or even a Chapter or a Bishop, answered that he had 
done so because he had found less corruption in married citizens than in any others. 
Cf. Letters of Erasmus, ed. 1641, Book xv, letter 14, p. 705. The words c cives 
conjugates ' have been by some taken to mean f citizens united in a gild '. This 
seems unlikely. Nevertheless it is clear from the context that when speaking of 
c married citizens' Colet was thinking of the Mercers' Company. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 335- 

him that unless he did so it would take over the trust, as it was 
authorized to do by the testator. So again in 167^, on information 
that endeavours were being made to suppress a will of Godfrey 
Harrison, by which a considerable sum had been left to the 
Company for charitable purposes, the Court ordered an inquiry to 
be made. In 1676' they took legal measures against the executors 
of Robert Winch, who had been remiss in paying certain legacies 
left under his will. 1 Counsel was also to be consulted as to whether 
those lands, which were still held in the names of individual 
trustees, some of whom were dead, could not be settled on the 
Company. 2 

Nor was the Court less scrupulous with regard to the trusts 
definitely imposed upon it. Thus in 1661 the Court agreed to 
pay the marriage portions of four orphans of Howell's kin, although 
the certificate as to their qualifications had only been signed by 
two Justices of the Peace instead of five, as had been ordered by 
a decree of Chancery in i6?i. As careful men they first obtained 
the opinion of Counsel that this could be safely done.3 In 165$ 
the Court gave instructions that care should be taken to find out 
poor cloth-workers and their widows as recipients of Kendrick's 
charity. 4 In other cases the Court often went beyond its legal 
obligations. Of the generous way in which the trusts were carried 
on at the charge of the Company when, after the Great Fire, the 
rents no longer sufficed, I have already spoken. 5 In 1575- it was 
decided that, although Robert Winch had left no instructions in 
his will as to how the interest on 100 to be lent to young men 
should be expended, it should be distributed among the poor of 
the Company, and not appropriated by the Company, as it legally 
might have been. 6 In 1683 a Committee was appointed to make 
careful inquiry into all trust monies held by the Company, to 
invest as much as possible in the purchase of land, and to see that 
the rest was properly secured.? 

It is true that in the year 1684 the Court of Chancery held 

1 Rep. +132, pp. 245: ab, 248 bj + 133, pp. 77 a, 82 a. 

2 Rep. +133, pp. 67 a, i2<Sb. 3 Rep. + 132, pp. 2j6b, 257 b. 
4 Ib., p. 1493. 5 Cf. supra, p. 279. 6 Rep. + 133, p. 65 b. 
1 Rep. + 133, p. I26b. 



3 36 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

the Company responsible for not having seen that the debts of 
Theophilus Royley were paid by the testator's descendants and 
beneficiaries, on whom that duty had been imposed, and to whom 
all the rents were to be paid for the first eight years. The 
grounds of this decision were that, although the Company was not 
to derive any benefit therefrom till thirty-two years from the 
testator's death, the lands had been left in trust to it and accepted 
by it. Here possibly the Court had been somewhat negligent, 
but at least there was no imputation of fraud. 1 

The finances of the Company were at the Restoration in a 
satisfactory condition. 2 They were soon to be reduced to a low 
ebb by the losses and expenses caused by the Plague and the Great 

In the year i<S6''7-8,one year after the Fire, the rents had fallen 
by more than one-half, 3 and, although they had somewhat 
recovered in the following year, there was nevertheless even then 
a deficit in the Renter's Account of over 87.* However, with 
the addition of 184, which the Renter received from the 
Wardens, his actual credit balance stood at 96 us. i\d. 

The Renter had throughout the two reigns of Charles II and 
James II much difficulty in recovering the rents due. Conse- 
quently the Wardens had often to make him grants to meet his 
charges, 5 and in i68|- the Court decided to take legal proceedings 
against defaulters. 6 These, however, do not appear to have been 

1 Cf. Rep. +131, p. i8obj-f357, fb. ^flf.j Drapers' Hall, g. i/j Roy. 
1840-1, 154. 

2 Cf. sufra, p. ZJ7. 

3 From ji,i?7 135. f</. to $84 IQJ. zd. This decrease in the rents is no 
doubt partly to be accounted for by the sale of land to the City for the purpose 
of widening the streets. 

4 Other Companies suffered in the same way : cf. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, 
p. 1 60 j Heath, Grocers, p. \i6. 

5 e. g. Wardens' Accounts, itf^-j, fo. 38 ; 1667-8, fb. 39. The contribution 
to Howell's chanty, which is frequently made by the Wardens, was in payment of 
arrears for the period during the Commonwealth, when no portions had been 
granted : cf. Wardens' Accounts, passim. From the year 1665-6 the Renter 
showed in his accounts the rents due and the rents received, so that the amount 
of the arrears might be clearly seen. 

6 Rep. -f 133, p. 147 a j cf. also Rep. + 131, pp. 154 b, 166 b, 187 a > 188 b. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 337 

very effectual, for in the last year of James IPs reign the arrears 
for the year were over ^po, and unpaid arrears just upon 350. 
Apart from the difficulty of recovering rents, the Company was, 
however, fortunate in escaping from any serious disputes about 
their property. 1 

Turning to the Wardens' Accounts of zo'o'S-o, 2 we find on Wardens' 


1 The most important were : (a) Question of ownership of the wall to the 
west of the almshouses at Tower Hill, claimed by Lord Rivers. This was an old 
dispute, which was finally settled in \66\ by the Company giving way. Rep. 
+ 13*, p. z6o a. (&) Dispute as to ownership of land at St. Mary-le-Bow, 
claimed by the parson as belonging to the churchyard. This was eventually 
settled by the Company paying afo for an assignment of the lease for fifty-six 
years. Rep. +133, p- Jib. The important houses belonging to the Drapers 
were in the following hands : The Herber, re-let to Messrs. Burton and Cheval for 
fifty-one years from 1660 (Rep. + i 3 i, p. 346 a). The Capital messuage in Austin 
Friars, leased to Mr. Cokaine, and on his death granted to his son-in-law 
Sir Thomas Rich for twenty-one years from ,1665 , at the old rent of 9 and a fine of 
800 (Rep. + 131, pp. 175 a, 176 b). It is worth noting that Thomas Montague, 
* Chief Master 3 of Eton School, and Chancellor Jeffreys were among the tenants 
of the Company. Montague held a messuage in St. Botolph's Lane; Jeffreys 
held a garden plot in Coleman Street, and was at times in arrears with his rent. 
A Mr. Richard Pepys was tenant of a house in Cornhill from 1664. to 1678. He 
probably was the son of Richard Pepys, the Chief Justice of Ireland, cousin of 
the immortal Samuel. Rep. +133, p. *7 a ; Renter Warden's Account Book, 
1667, fo. ID; Renter's Account, 1674-5, fo. i; 1684-5, fo. r - 

2 I have taken this year because the accounts of the previous year no longer 
exist. They were probably destroyed in the Fire. 


Rents (less Quit Rents 
and other rents paid 
by the Company) 

Received of the War- 



. t. d. Excluding Quit Rents . /. d. 

and other rents, but 
1031 ii 8 including taxes . . 1119 19 5 1 

184 o o 

Total . 1 1 1 6 ii 

1119 19 

Debit Balance on the year's account 
Actual cash Credit Balance . 

Continued on next page. 

1603-3 x x 

87 7 s. 

338 Internal Affairs of the Company duringthe 

the ordinary receipts and expenditure a deficit of as much as 
i^j-. n</., although that was partially met by a sum of 


Ordinary Receipts for the year . . 
Exceptional Receipts 

. s. d.\ 

Debts repaid . . 1733 12 10 

Corn sold. . . . 213 16 o 

Sale of House . . 50 o o 

Sale of building 

site to the City 255 16 6 

Borrowed towards 
rebuilding of 
Hall 100 o o 

Legacy money not 

lent out ... 95 1 o o 

Balance from pre- 
vious year . . 461 17 



. s. d. 

1095 6 4 Ordinary Disbursements . . . 
Exceptional Disbursements 
Howell's marriage . s. 

portions, paid for 

instead of by 

Renter with ar- 
rears .... 
Purchase of the 

leases . . . 63 8 1 5 o 
Purchase of share 

in Irish estate . 
Legacy money lent 



s d. 

1 3 


3765 6 ii 

>. I20J 14 2 

24 12 6 
358 6 8 

4860 13 3 

4550 15 

Debit Balance on ordinary Receipts and Disbursements 2,249 r 4'- 
Actual Credit Balance 309 17*. 

Total Actual Credit Balance . s. d. 

Renter's Account . . 96 12 i\ 
Wardens' Account . . 309 17 10 

Total . . 406 10 o 

Debts owed for loans made for public purposes declared 'desperate ' in October 
i<5 7 8 (Rep. +133, p. 9jb). 

Sum ordinarily 

For disbanding the Scotch 

army, lent 1640 
For Arms, lent 1642 . 
For relief of Ireland, lent 1642 . 
For defence of City and 

/. d. 


198 5 o 

o o 

s. d. 

3750 o o 

198 5 o 

7500 o o 

Kingdom, lent 1643 

Continued on next page. 

2500 o 
11885 n 


15198 5 o 

Reigns of Charles II,JamesII, William III 339 

461 is. 7</., which had been handed over by the Wardens of 
the preceding year. Fortunately, however, the Company had 
been repaid debts to the amount of 1,733 us. io</., and this, 
with other exceptional receipts, enabled them to meet their 
charges, including the exceptional disbursements, and to present 
an actual cash balance of 3 op 17^. io</. If to this the actual 
cash balance on the Renter's Account be added, the total cash 
balance came to 406 IQJ. o|</. It should also be remembered 
that, apart from the loans given for public purposes in the reign of 
Charles I, of which the greater part was never repaid, the Company 
owed 6,42, 3 1 3 s. ^d. to sundry creditors, as against 4,477 1 6s. 8 d. 
it was owed by sundry debtors. Thus the Company was really 
in a poor way, since its total indebtedness came to more than 

Again, at the audit of the Wardens' Accounts in December 
1680, it was found that the expenses much exceeded the income, 
and a Committee recommended that certain measures should be 
taken to reduce some of the charges. 1 Even in the last year of 

Recoverable debts owed to the Company. 


f . d. . s. 


By the East India Company and others 
Fines owing .... 



16 8} 
o of 4477 l6 


Debts owed by the Company 

6413 13 


Adverse Balance ..... 

1945 \6 


Summary : 

. s. d. 

Adverse Balance on Debts . 


1945 i 6 8 

Credit Cash Balance . 

406 10 o^ 

Debit Balance 

1 Rep. + 1 3 3, pp. 1 1 1 a b, 1133. 

(<*) The interest paid on the 400, borrowed from Queen Elizabeth's College, 
and given to the poor of the College, was reduced from 5 per cent, to 3 per cent., 
and the fee of the Wardens for visiting the said College was cut down from 
6 to 3. 

(b) The pensions to the Almsmen in Mr. Walter's Almshouses were reduced 
from jj. to 4.5-. a month j the salary of the two readers cut down from 61. to f /. j 
and the fees to officers of the Company, who visited the almshouses, reduced. 

The pensions had already been reduced from 6s. 8d. to jj , and the salary 
of the readers from 8j. 4^. to 6s. , in consequence of the loss of rents owing to 
destruction of the houses left by Mr. Walter in the Great Fire. 

(c) The Committee also recommended that the two exhibitions of 6 13*. 4^. 

position in 

34 Internal Affairs of the Company during the 

James II's reign the two accounts of the Renter and the Wardens 
together showed a debit balance of 42,6 i?s. $d. on the receipts 
and the expenditure for the year. But, supplemented by the 
balance of the previous year and the repayment of a loan of 30^ 
bv the East India Company, the accounts of the Renter and the 
Wardens together showed a credit balance of 1,2,19 J - i< in 
actual cash. To appreciate the true financial position we must 
further take into account the debts owed to the Company by those 
to whom money had been lent, and those owed by the Company. 1 
These in 1687-8 came respectively to 3,649 iis. ^d. owed to 
the Company, as against 3,930 3^. nd. owed by the Company, 
leaving a balance of indebtedness against the Company of 
280 us. 4*/. If this sum is deducted from the credit balance 
of 1,2,19 s - id- n the annual account, it leaves the Company 
with credit balance of 938 8.r. 9</. 2 That the balance of 1687-8 

each, given by the Company at the Universities, should be discontinued as they 
fell vacant. This recommendation was, however, not adopted. 

1 Whenever the Company had a balance they frequently lent it out at 
interest, especially to the East India Company (Rep. +132, pp. 2703, 299 ab; 
+ 133, p. 66 b). The interest had been 6 per cent. But in 1684 the East 
India Company demurred to this, and offered only 3 per cent. Eventually they 
paid 4 per cent., and later, again paid 6 per cent (ib., pp. 1 15 a, 1 18 b, 132 b). 
When in need of money the loans were withdrawn (ib., p. 149 a), and sometimes 
money was borrowed, e. g. from Queen Elizabeth's College, or others, while the 
capital of trust money was also borrowed. 

2 1687-8. 

Receipts. Disbursements. 

. s. d. . s . d. 

Rents 1076 7 8 Including Quit Rents 

Balance from previous and other rents due 

year 845 7 9 by the Company . . 1135 6 11 

Granted by theWardens 200 o o 

Total 2 

15 5 

Debit Balance on the year's Account . 
Actual Credit Cash Balance 

Besides there were arrears for the year of 457 I2r. 6d. 
Continued on next page. 

1135 6 ii 

8s. 6d. 

Reigns of Charles II, James II, William III 3 41 

was not larger than it was is to be explained by the serious loss of 
loans x lent for public purposes during the reign of Charles I and 
the Commonwealth, and to the heavy expenditure necessitated by 





. s. d. . 

Receipts for the year . 709 n 10 Including zoo given to 

the Renter . . . 1077 8 o 
Z 9f 7 9 

Balance from previous 

Loan repaid by the East 
India Company . . 


Total 1309 19 7 

Debit Balance on the year's Account 
Actual Credit Balance 

Renter's Account actual Cash Credit Balance 

1077 8 o 

, 367 16*. zd. 
, z$z us. jd. 

. s. d. 

986 8 6 

S3* IT 7 

1119 o i 



Debts owing by the Company. 

Borrowed from Queen Elizabeth College, the interest . 

paid to almsmen of the College . ... 400 o o 

Trust money left to the Company to be dispensed among 
the family of the testators, when the children or 
grandchildren reached a certain age ; interest mean- 
while to be paid to the trust. .... 1667 9 o 

Trust money left for charitable purposes to be invested in 
lands } the interest meanwhile to be dispensed in 
the said charitable purposes ..... i86z 14 n 

Debts owing to the Company. 

For loans to the East India Company and others 
Balance of indebtedness against the Company . 

Summary : 

Total Credit Balance .... 
Less adverse Balance of indebtedness 

1 viz. 11,885 if'- These declared ( desperate ' in 1678. 

393 3 

1 1 

3649 ii 


z8o 1 1 


s. d. 




II 4 


8 9 

amount of 
Trust and 

34/L Internal Affairs of the Company duringthe 

the Plague and the Fire. Nevertheless the revenues of the Com- 
pany had much increased, partly owing to the numerous benefac- 
tions, 1 but also to the increase of the annual income. 

Unfortunately we have no definite statement as to the rektive 
amount of the property in land and money, which was at the 
disposal of the Company, and which was held on trust. But by 
following the same method as was applied in 1 62,4-5- 2 we may 
arrive at the following approximate estimate : The capital value 
of property held by the Company on trust was, in lands about 
2,3,490, and in money 8,417 ; while, free from trust, it held 
lands of the capital value of some i,ipo, and money to the 
amount of about 7,100. Thus since the reign of James I the 
Company's trust property in lands had increased by 15-, 35-6, and 
that in money by some f,868. The capital value of the lands 
it held free of trust had been increased by 1,15-8, and the money 
free from trust by over 1,3^5". 

The enhancement in the annual income derived from lands was 
not apparently caused to any extent by a rise of rents, as the table 

1 At no period did the Company receive so many benefactions. Most of these, 
except the gifts of plate, were, however, saddled with trusts, and the actual 
grants to the corporate funds did not amount to more than some 15 a year, in 
addition to a small gift of jo. Thus : 

Loan Money interest to be distributed among the Poor of the t. d. 
Company ......... 960 o o 

Gifts or Bequests of money for charitable purposes . . . 9183 6 8 
Family Trusts Winch and Parker . . . . . 1650 o o 

Gifts or Devises of Lands to charitable uses producing rents of about 47 1 

a year. 
Gifts or Devises to the Company : 

By R. Wilson, f o. 

By Thos. Cullum, residue amounting to about i r a year. 

By Sir S. Starling, 4 a year. 

Of course any residue after fulfilling a trust would always fall to the Company. 
Plate: Three pairs of candlesticks, snuffer, and snuffer panj and 2,40 to be 
spent in purchase of plate. 

On the other hand, Thomas Shalcross's lease of lands to charitable uses came 
to an end in 1671. Cf. Renters' Accounts, 1670-71, fo. 15. One curious 
bequest was that of an * alligator', but whether alive or stuffed we are not told. 
Rep. +133, p. 78 b. 

2 Cf. p. 103 of this volume. 

Reigns of Charles II Barnes II, William III 343 

below shows. 1 It is to be explained by the benefactions which 
had been made, and by the fines on the renewal of leases, a rise 
which would often be justified by the expenditure on the main- 
tenance or rebuilding of houses, although in some cases the houses 
were let on repairing or building leases. Meanwhile the very 
considerable increase in the corporate property of the Company, 
more especially in investments or money, can be thus explained. 
It was the usual custom for those who granted or bequeathed 
money for the purpose of carrying out some trust to reserve at 
least a small balance to the Company. 2 Indeed the Court was 
naturally shy of undertaking a trust unless they were certain that 
the income amply sufficed to fulfil the trust. They never accepted 
one without careful inquiry ; 3 they frequently stated that they 
expected some residue for the trouble which would be incurred ; 4 

1 Comparisons of rents on Houses and Clonne's Lands, Howell's, Russell's and 
Dumer's Lands. 


Rents paid.* 

619 9/. 8rf. 

1625-6 1649-50 1658-9 

Rents due. Rents due. Rents due. 

141. od. 691 14*. 4<f. 704 9/. od. 
* In this account the rents paid only are given. 

Rents due. 
8j od. 

So, again, the rents from lands belonging to Queen Elizabeth's College, after 
having been raised in 1617 by some 20, remain much the same during the 
period under review. Cf. 356, fo. 3735 +131, pp. n8a, 883 b. It appears, 
however, from a note at p. i of the Renter's Accounts for 1687-8, that about 
that date the Company contemplated a considerable raising of the rents in 
future j and the rents from the lands of Queen Elizabeth College, which in 1684 
came to 102 6x. 8</., were estimated at 185 in 1703 (cf. 883 b} +133, 
p. 277 b) j while the rents of lands held on Boreman's trust had risen from 
209 u. 4^. to 216 14.1-. 5</. (cf. Trust Accounts + 367, fo. 43). It is 
difficult to give definite proof of the increase of the fines. But there is no doubt 
that they did increase as time went on. 

2 e.g. Sir Thos. Cullum, 1662. Livery Commission Report, 1884, vol. iv, 
p. 139. 

3 Cf , for instance, the benefaction of Sir Wm. Boreman's Trust (1688), which 
they only accepted on condition that they should only be responsible as far as the 
income would allow (Rep. + 133, p. I76b) ; of John Stock (1782) (Rep. +136, 
p. 332)5 of Wm. Clavill (1818) (ib. + 138, p. 652). 

4 For instance, Sir Wm. Capel's obit (1515), vol. ii of this work, p. 35; 
Sir John Milborne's benefaction (1534) (ib., p. 83). For similar cases in the 
Merchant Taylors Company, cf. Hopkinson, History of Site of the Hall, p. 60. 

344- Internal Affairs of the Company 

and there are many instances of their refusing to undertake trusts 
on those grounds/ 

Then again, in cases of family trusts, the interest on the capital 
was sometimes temporarily at its disposal. The balances which 
thus accrued to the Company were naturally invested, as well as 
those in the annual accounts, when they were substantial enough 
to make it worth while so to do. 

1 For instance, the case cf Samuel Harwar's benefaction (1704), which they 
refused at first (Rep. +133, p. 197) 9 the benefaction of Ann Smith for building 
almshouses (1734), which the Court declined, because there was not sufficient 
provision for the trouble and necessary expense of the Company in the due 
execution and management of the trust (Rep. + 134, p. 263 b). 


FROM 1688 TO 1815- 

ENERALLY speaking, the Company The Drapers' 
of the Drapers had by the close of Company 
the seventeenth century assumed und f r lts 



its modern form. Under these 
circumstances I do not propose to 
follow its history in any detail, and 
shall content myself with a brief 
account of its activities, and of any 
important changes in its internal 

The Company had become a 
society chiefly indeed, though not 
exclusively, composed of business 
men, of whom however very few 
were connected with the cloth trade 
at all. It retained some picturesque symbols of its ancient control 
of this trade, such as its coat of arms and its searches for short 
yards, whicn were still carried on as a matter of form. 2 Of any 
special interest in the cloth trade, however, or indeed in any 
matter directly concerned with the trades or industries of London, 

1 The initial letter comes from Letters Patent of Geo. II, confirming the will 
of J. Bancroft, ch. vii. 

2 So unimportant were these that they are not recorded in the Minute Books; 
cf. the statement of the Company in 1818. Records, + 1 3 8, p 66$. The 
search at the Cloth Fair on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Fair was continued till 
1854. The Merchant Taylors' Company participated in it. Cf. Clode, Memorials, 
pp. nofF. Elsewhere apparently the last search was made in 1851; cf. Livery 
Commission Report 1880-84, vol. i, p. 343. 

1603-3 y y 


34-6 External Relations of the Company 

I have not found one single instance in the Records of the 

Company. 1 

Fewer Fewer members of the Company are to be found filling the 

municipal municipal offices of the City than had been formerly the case. 2 
offices held This c hange, which is more or less applicable to all the greater 

by members T . ~ . i i 5 i_ 

O f the Livery Companies, 3 is to be explained in various ways. In the 

Greater first place, some of the minor Companies began to follow the 

Livery Com- example of the greater Companies and to admit persons who were 

pames. not pursuing t he particular industry connected with the Company, 

and who were or higher social or commercial standing. 4 Such 

men would feel themselves. qualified to hold civic offices without 

the patronage of one of the greater Livery Companies. 

It followed that the number of the Aldermen belonging to the 
smaller Companies increased, 5 while fewer belonged to the greater 
Companies, and already, by the close of the eighteenth century, 
the custom that Aldermen should belong to several Companies 
had begun. 
The rule Meanwhile in 174.2, 6 the customary rule that the Lord Mayor 

that the must be a member of one of the Greater Livery Companies was 
Lord Mayor 

1 e. g. When in 1814 the Secretary of the Association of masters,, journeymen 
and manufacturers of London addressed a letter to the Company protesting 
against the repeal of the Statute of Apprentices (5 Eliz. c. 4), the Court made no 
order. Cf. Records, 4- 1 38, p. 427. 

2 Members of the Company who were (between 1600-1700) Mayors 16, 
Sheriffs 20, Aldermen 37, Burgesses of the City 8, Chamberlains oj (between 
1700-1918) Mayors 7, Sheriffs 14, Aldermen 16, Burgesses 5, Chamberlain i 
(Benjamin Hopkins the opponent of Wilkes, cf. p. 3^9). Only one Draper had 
held the post of Chamberlain before 1600, viz. Thomas Thorndone, from 

3 Especially with regard to the Mercers and Grocers, while the Merchant 
Taylors and Fishmongers, the Goldsmiths and the Haberdashers, have been better 
represented} cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. xlvi. 

4 This was especially the case with the Loriners and the Spectacle Makers, and 
in quite recent years with the Fruiterers and the Gardeners (ib., p. xlvii). 

5 This had already happened in the seventeenth century. Cf. Beaven, Alder- 
men, vol. i, p. 331. The number of Aldermen belonging to the twelve Greater 
Companies elected since 1750 inclusive have been : Goldsmiths 22, Fishmongers 
16, Haberdashers 12, Merchant Taylors 11, Clothworkers 11 (none since 1883), 
Grocers 10, Salters 9, Vintners 9, Drapers 8 (none since 1817), Skinners 5 (only 
one since 1804), Ironmongers 5 (none since 1821), Mercers 2 (none since 1774). 

6 By R. Willimott : cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. i, p. 333. 

from 1688 to i8if 


broken, and after that the number of translations from the lesser 
Companies of those who were to be elected to the Mayoralty is 
very small. 1 As a natural consequence, the Greater Companies 
took less interest in municipal affairs, and the connexion which 
had hitherto existed between them and the City became less close. 
Thus as early as 1711 we find a committee of the Goldsmiths' 
Company recommending that no Lord Mayor should hold pageants 
at the public charge of the Company, and in 1721 Sir William 
Stewart, the Mayor-elect, contributed 60 as a moiety of the 
charges of his procession. Financial difficulties were given as an 
excuse for this apparent want of generosity on the part of the 
Company, and in 172,9 it was determined to retake the charge. 
The incident, however, shows that the Goldsmiths were less 
careful of the dignity of the Mayor's procession than they had been. 2 
Nor was the conduct of the Goldsmiths peculiar. Although 
the Drapers' Company made no objection to bearing the charges 
or the expenses of the Lord Mayors and the Sheriffs when they 
had entered the Company in the ordinary way,3 the Court in 1719 
resolved that the Company should no longer bear the expenses of 
those Lord Mayors and Sheriffs who might in the future be 
translated to the Company before being elected to the said offices. 4 
When, in the year 178 3, James Sanderson was admitted to the 
freedom of the Company by redemption, in view of his having 
been elected Alderman, he signed an agreement that if elected to 
either of the offices of Sheriff or Mayor he would indemnify the 
Company from all expense, unless the Court should otherwise 
decide ; it being also resolved that a like undertaking should be 

1 Only one (F. Cockayne, a Farrier translated to the Vintners) has since then 
been translated in view of his election to the Mayoralty. Three more in the 
nineteenth century, and two in the twentieth century, have been translated, but 
all of them some time before their election as Mayor. 

2 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, pp. 184, 201, zio. 

3 Cf. the case of Sir Henry Marshall in 1744, when the expenses were met as 
usual by the fees of those called to the Livery and those nominated as foyne 
and budge bachelors (Rep. + 135, p. 24), The charges came to 3$ i 17 s. lod. 
(Journal, + ?oo, p. 347)- In 1709, however, the Court resolved not to pay the 
customary 100 nobles to the Sheriffs who were members of the Company, unless 
they lived in the City (Rep. + 134, p. 42). 

4 Records, + 134, p. 147. 

should b<" a 
member of 
one of the 
Livery Com- 

ness to 
the charges 
of the 

34-8 External Relations of the Company 

asked from all those who might in future be entered by redemp- 
tion. 1 Accordingly, when in 179:1 Sanderson became Lord 
Mayor, the Court only consented to pay about one-third of his 
charges ; * while in the case of Sir William Curtis, elected Lord 
Mayor in npy, who again had been admitted by redemption, 
the contribution of the Company was only 37 i is. 3 

The whole question was again raised in 1817, on the occasion 
of the Mayoralty of Christopher Smith, a member of the Company 
who had again been admitted by redemption. The Mayor -elect 
had omitted to address the Court as to the details of the ceremonial 
at his inauguration. A motion was therefore proposed that the 
Company should not show him any especial honour, but only do 
that which was customary when the Mayor was not a member of 
the Company. The motion was not however carried, and a letter 
was addressed to the Mayor stating that while they regretted his 
silence, sixteen members of the Court would attend him on his 
procession and give such orders as should cause his Lordship the 
least expense consistent with the dignity of his office. As no 
answer was vouchsafed, a special Court was summoned, at which 
the Mayor-elect appeared, apologized for his silence, and pleaded 
press of business. 4 

The last Draper to hold the office of Mayor was John 
Thomas Thorp, elected in 1810, and as he had entered the Com- 
pany by apprenticeship the Court decided to follow the procedure 
adopted in the case of Sir H. Marshall in 1744, and the charges 
came to 670 ipj. y</, a larger sum than that expended on any 
Draper Mayor during the eighteenth century. 5 

1 Records, + 136, pp. 340-41. In 1711, the Company even resolved ro 
discontinue their usual present of 100 marks to the Mayor, and the 100 nobles 
to the Sheriffs, when they were members of the Company. But this resolution 
was repealed in 1740. Records, + 134, pp. 164 a, 36? b. 

2 i.e. 34 8/. 8rf. out of 91 8/. 8d. : Records, + 137, pp. ?j, 97. For the 
procedure at his inauguration cf. Appendix XL A. 

3 Journal, + 513, pp. 538-9. Some original letters of Sir Wm., &c., are in 
the possession of the Company, cf. ooo-i. 

4 Records, + 138, pp. 61 1 ff., 6^6. The only reference to the ceremony on 
the Lord Mayor's Day is the following : f Paid for advertising in sundry papers 
notices to the Livery that the dinner on Lord Mayor's Day is postponed 
10 13*. 4/.' Journal, +518, p. 910. 

5 Records, +139, pp. iztf-x8 ; Journal, +531, pp. 106-8. 

from 1688 to 1815- 


This unwillingness on the part of the Companies to be charged Decline in 
with heavy expenses in connexion with the Lord Mayor's show J e Spl 5 n j" 
is probably one reason why the Pageants began to decline in LO"J 
splendour, and why they were for a time given up. The last Mayor's 
Pageant prepared for the Lord Mayor's Day was in 1708, when Pageant. 
the libretto was written by Elkanah Settle, but owing to the 
death of Prince George, the husband of Queen Anne, it was never 
performed. 1 From that date until quite recently, although there 
was some revival after 1761, the proceedings were on a very 
modest scale. 2 

We have a detailed account of the procedure at the inauguration 
and procession of John Thomas Thorp, the last Draper Mayor in 
1820, which I give in the Appendix. It will be observed that 
the only two Companies represented at the swearing-in of the 
Mayor at the Guildhall were the Drapers and the Wheelwrights, 
of whom the last Mayor, George Bridges, was a member, and that 
apparently the Drapers alone took part in the procession to and 
from Westminster on the following day. 3 

The Gentleman's Magazine of nyi 4 describes a curious pro- 
cession of the Drapers to a sermon at St. Peter's, Cornhill, which 
was attended by the Master, the Wardens and the Court of 
Assistants, followed by a number of the poor of the Company, 
each carrying a pair of shoes and stockings and a suit of clothes, 
the annual gift of the Company. This must have been an ancient 
ceremony, but there is no notice of it in the Records, nor do 
I remember having ever seen it mentioned at an earlier date. 

The Court had been accustomed to make summer excursions in 
their barge, accompanied by ladies. 5 Nevertheless the Court was 

1 Percy Society, x, 1844, p. 112. Sir Charles Duncombe, a Goldsmith, was 
the Mayor. The Pageant, c The Triumphs of London ', was written by Elkanah 
Settle. He had also prepared the Pageant for the Draper Mayor, Sir Thomas 
Stampe, in 1691. He was the last City Poet whose duty it was to draw up the 
programmes and write the librettos for the Pageants. 

2 Cf. the account of the procedure at the inauguration of Sir Thos. Thorp in 
1820, Appendix XL B. 

3 Records, +139, pp. 116, 128. Thorp was elected again in 1831, but 
declined to serve. 

4 Gentleman's Magazine, 1751, p. 474. 

e.g. n 1794, 1795, 

1797. Records, + 137, pp. tfij I99> *f ?j 3 l - 

Silence of 
the Drapers' 
Records on 
touching the 
in the 

Repeal of 
the Corpora- 
tion Act of 

Question as 
to settle- 
ment of 

35-0 External Relations of the Company 

not an enthusiastic supporter of regattas. This is shown by a 
somewhat amusing refusal in 177^ to grant the use of the barge 
for the accommodation of some of the nobility and gentry at an 
intended * regatta or water race ' on the Thames, ' with respect to 
the many accidents and inconveniences that may very well attend 
and arise from such an entertainment '. x Possibly an apprehension 
of such accidents caused the Court to abandon their summer 
excursions. However that may be, when in i8op and 1812- the 
Lord Mayor, who was proposing to go to Richmond in his state 
barge after holding a Court of Conservancy, invited the Company 
to attend him in their barge, they declined on the ground that 
they never made summer excursions. 2 

Another sign of the loosening of the connexion between the 
Company and the municipal constitution and of the decline in the 
interest taken in civic matters is to be found in the almost entire 
absence of any reference to the somewhat serious controversies 
which arose within the City during the eighteenth century. 

In the year 1718 the Court of Aldermen expressed in a petition 
addressed to the King the apprehensions of the civic authorities 
that they might be c disquieted in the execution of their offices by 
pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League 
and Covenant at the time of their admission into office ' as enjoined 
by the Corporation Act of 1661, a subscription which had of late 
been disused. They therefore humbly prayed his Majesty to take 
such steps as might quiet their fears and enable them ' to proceed 
with cheerfulness in the execution of their duties '. The petition 
was graciously received by the Crown, and led to the Act of 
5 George I, c. <5, by which the officials of the City of London and 
other boroughs were relieved of any disabilities for neglect of 
subscribing the said declaration. 3 

More contentious matters were those regarding the qualifica- 
tion of the electors of the Mayor and other civic officers and of 
Burgesses. 4 

1 Records, + 136, p. 133. * Ib. + 138, pp. 190, 252. 

3 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. iii, p. 1 1 ; Maitland, History of 
London, ed. 1760, vol. i, pp. 521 ft. 

4 Many of these questions had arisen during the reign of William IIIj cf. 
Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, pp. 495, 499. 

from 1688 to 1815- 

In the year 1704. the Lord Mayor issued a precept to the 
Livery Companies, stating that several persons not of the Livery 
of the Companies of the City had of late presumed to be present 
at the election of public officers of the city, whereby the elections 
were rendered disorderly and uncertain ; and that, contrary to 
custom, persons had of late been admitted to the Livery of certain 
Companies without having been admitted to the freedom of the 
City. He therefore gave notice that in future no Liveryman 
would be admitted at the Guildhall for the purposes of election 
unless he wore his gown and hood, and demanded that the Com- 
panies should send a list of all their Liverymen for scrutiny. 1 
Apparently the last order was not complied with by some of the 
Companies, including the Drapers, for we find it repeated in 
1713 and 17 ip. 2 

Closely connected with this question were those of the proper 
qualification of voters for the election of Aldermen in their 
Wardmotes and of members of the Common Council ; and, further, 
the right of the Common Council to defend, at the expense of the 
City, suits of law relating to the elections of Aldermen and 
Common Councilmen. 3 In the year 171.9 the House of Lords 
addressed themselves to this last question, and passed a resolution 
that the Court of Common Council had exceeded its powers in 
thus maintaining such suits of law in cases of disputed elections ; 
that it had been guilty of great partiality, had violated the freedom 
of elections in the City, and, by defraying the costs of such actions 
out of the City chamber, had misspent the City revenues. Sixteen 
peers, however, entered a protest against this indictment. 4 In 
172,4 a petition from the citizens at krge was presented to the 
House of Commons setting forth that at the elections by the 
Liverymen of the Common Hall and by the freemen in the Ward- 
mote elections many had voted who were not qualified, 5 and 

1 Records, +371, pp. loab. 2 Ib., pp. 21, 26 ab. 

3 Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 522. 

4 Sharpe, London, vol. iii, p. 12 j Maitland, vol. i, p. f2f. The Court of 
Common Council was composed of 206 members elected by the freemen in their 

5 The Liveiymen of the Common Hall were summoned to the Guildhall to 
elect the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, the Burgesses, the Bridge Masters, and the 
Auditors of the Bridge Masters' accounts } cfl Precepts, + 371, pp. 8 b, 9 a, lib. 

of voters, 
and powers 
of the Court 
of Aldermen 
with regard 
to elections. 

3 5-x External Relations of the Company 

praying the relief of the House for preserving the liberties, 
quieting the minds of the citizens, and settling their elections upon 
a just and lasting foundation. In answer to this petition, the Bill 
for regulating elections in the City was brought forward. 1 By this 
Act the qualification for the vote of the freeman was declared to 
be the holding of the freedom of the City, the paying of scot and 
bearing of lot, and the tenancy of houses of the annual rent of at 
least jio ; while the right of voting in the Common Hall was 
confined to those freemen of the City who were at the time on 
the Livery of some Company, and had been on the Livery for at 
least a year, had paid their fine for entry into the Livery, had 
during the previous two years paid their rates and taxes, and had 
not received alms within that period. Clause xv also enacted that 
no act or ordinance was to be passed in the Common Council 
without the assent of the Mayor and Aldermen present at the said 
Common Council, or the major part of them, nor without the 
assent of the Commons present at such Common Councilor the 
major part of them. 

The dissensions which accompanied the passing of the Bill, 
both in Parliament and the City, were mainly influenced by party 
considerations. The majority of the Court of Aldermen, who 
were of the Whig party, were in favour of the measure ; while 
the Common Council, where the Tories were in strength, peti- 
tioned against it, mainly because of the power of stopping legisla- 
tion given to the Aldermen under clause xv of the Act a power 
which they declared to be an infringement of the rights of the 
Commoners. Inasmuch as the only notice of these matters to be 
found in the Drapers' books is in the precepts of the Mayor seems 
to indicate that the Court was opposed to the Act. 2 Three 

133, 14, &c. The freemen in their Wardmotes elected the Aldermen and the 
members of the Common Council. Among other qualifications, the holding ot 
the freedom of the City was one. This many were unwilling to take, because 
by the custom of the City a freeman could not freely dispose of the whole of his 
personal estate by will, but was obliged to leave one-third to his wife and one- 
third to his children if he had any. 

1 171 j, 1 1 George I, c. 18. 

2 Probably opinion was divided. We know, however, that Henry Marshall, 
then a, who was M.P. for the Tory borough of Agmondesham 
1734-54, Master 1738-9, and Mayor 1744-5, was a strong Tory. He belonged 

from 1688 to 


Members for the City also stoutly resisted it in Parliament, the 
only one who supported it being Sir Richard Hopkins, a Fish- 
monger and a Whig. 1 Twenty-two peers also protested against 
the measure. In spite of the opposition the Bill was passed, 2 but 
owing to the agitation which continued, the obnoxious clause xv 

to a high Tory club called c Bonn's ', a description of which is to be found in 
Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, pp. 242, 338. 

Mr. Beaven has kindly furnished me with the following classification of the 
elected Aldermen who were members of the Drapers' Company from the period 
of the rise of the Whig and Tory parties at the end of Charles IPs reign. It 
shows that the two parties had during the period an equal number of adherents 
among the Draper Aldermen. 

*Sir A. Clayton (1670-1707). 

Sir T. Gold (1676-1683). 
tSir T. Strupe (1688-1711). 
fSir S. Stainer (1705-1714). 
*Sir H. Furnise (1711-1712). 

Sir E. Becher (1718-1732). 
*R. Heysham (1720-1723). 

J. Hey wood (1746). 

R. Oliver (1770-1778). 
*B. Hopkins (1773-1776). 
*J. T. Thorp (1817-1835). 


Sir J. Sheldon (1666-1681). 

Sir J. Smyth (1674-1689). 

Sir P. Vandeput (1684-1687). 

J. Johnson (1696-1698). 
*Sir A. Crowley (17111713). 
*J. Crowley (1727-1728). 
*Sir H. Marshall (1737-1754). 

A. Master (1758-1766). 
*Sir J. Sanderson (1783-1798). 
*Sir W. Curtis (1783-1829). 
*C. Smith (1807-1835). 

Those marked * sat in Parliament, and those marked t contested parlia- 
mentary constituencies. 

With regard to B. Hopkins there is no recorded parliamentary vote by him 
which would indicate his politics, but Mr. Beaven infers that he was a Whig from 
the fact that he gave his vote for Wilkes at the Mayoral election in 1773, f ^ e 
other Aldermen who supported him being all Whigs. 

Mr. Beaven has been unable to find any evidence as to the politics of T. Rigby 
(Alderman 1802-3). 

R. Heysham voted with the Tories while M.P. for Lancaster, before becoming 
M.P. for the City. 

1 The other members were Francis Child, Head of Child's Bank, Prime 
Warden of the Goldsmiths in 1723-4, M.P. for London 1722-7, Mayor 1731-25 
Richard Lockwood, a Mercer; and John Barnard, a Glover, translated to the 
Grocers in 1737, and Mayor in the same year: cf. Beaven, Aldermen. They 
received a formal vote of thanks from the Common Council for their opposition 
to the Bill. Maitland, London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 534. 

2 Cf. Sharpe, vol. iii, pp. 26 ff. j Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. xlvii ; Maitland, 
History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, pp. 5366". 

1603-3 z z 

Powers of 
the Mayor 
as to 

the Com- 
mon Hall, 

35-4- External Relations of the Company 

was repealed in 174.6,* and the * negative' power of the Mayor 
and Aldermen in matters of legislation abolished. 

Later on in the century the question arose whether the Mayor 
had the power to summon the Common Hall 2 for other purposes 
than those of election, and to punish those who refused to appear. 
The contention arose at the moment when the City* and the 
country were disturbed by the agitation caused by the Middlesex 
election. 3 At that time the Lord Mayor and the majority of the 
Common Council 4 were of the Whig persuasion. Accordingly 
the Lord Mayor, Samuel Turner, a Clothworker, summoned a 
meeting of the Common Hall, at which a petition to the King was 
drawn up praying for redress of grievance (June i^ftp). As the 
petition was not answered, the famous William Beckford, 5 who 
had been elected Lord Mayor in the autumn of 1769, sent a 
precept to the Masters and Wardens of the Livery Companies 
summoning another meeting of the Common Hall. At this 
meeting a violent address and remonstrance was drawn up, accus- 
ing the Ministry and Parliament of depriving the people of their 
just rights, and of violating the freedom of election. The remon- 

1 19 George II, c. viii. It may be noted that the words in the old oath of 
a freeman of the City, that he would not deal with any foreigner within the City 
without informing the Chamberlain, and also the words forbidding him to take 
any bondsman's son or child of an alien as apprentice, were omitted in the act of 
George I, cl. xix. 

2 The Common Hall was formed of the Liverymen of those Companies who 
had Liveries. For the method of summoning the Common Hall and of elections 
by it cf. Maitland, History of London, ed. 1760, vol. i, p. 499. 

3 Wilkes had been elected for Middlesex in 1768, but was expelled. In 1769, 
on his being re-elected without opposition, the House of Commons resolved that 
Wilkes was incapable of sitting in the House (a resolution which was wholly 
unconstitutional, since it was practically an attempt to pass an Act of disqualifica- 
tion without the consent of the House of Lords and of the Crown). He was 
forthwith re-elected, upon which the House resolved that the election was void ; 
and on his re-election immediately afterwards declared Col. Luttrell, the 
opponent of Wilkes, elected, although he had only polled 196 votes as against 
1,143 cast for Wilkes. Cf. Lecky, History of England, ed. 1881, vol. iii, p. 141 } 
Robertson, Select Cases, ed. z, 1911, p. 473. 

4 The Common Council was formed of the Mayor, the Aldermen, and of 
Councillors elected by the Wards out of those who were Liverymen. 

5 For William Beckford cf. Diet, of Nat. Biography. He was a member of 
the Ironmongers Company : cf. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 131. 

from 1688 to 1815- 

strance declared that the Commons had * done a deed more ruinous 
in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I, 
or the exercise of the dispensing power by James II ', and peti- 
tioned the King to dissolve the Parliament, which did not repre- 
sent the people, and to dismiss the Ministers to whom the Commons 
had been ' corruptly subservient ' (March 1770). Although this 
action on the part of the Lord Mayor received the support of the 
majority of the Liverymen who formed the Common Hall, sixteen 
of the Court of Aldermen protested against it. It was also opposed 
by the Companies of the Goldsmiths, the Grocers, and the Weavers. 
They not only declared the remonstrance indecent and disrespect- 
ful, but asserted that the Common Hall had exceeded its powers in 
interfering in political matters ; forbade their Liverymen to attend 
any Common Hall except for the purpose of election, without the 
express leave of their Courts of Assistants ; and declined to transmit 
a copy of their resolutions as enjoined to do by a precept of the 

In consequence of this conduct, informations were filed against 
the Master or Wardens of the three Companies, and in 1775 
Alderman Plumbe, who had been Prime Warden of the Gold- 
smiths in 1770, was condemned by the Mayor's Court and adjudged 
to be disfranchised. On an appeal, however, to a Court of Error 
in 1775-, this judgement was reversed. It was ruled that the 
meeting of the Common Hall had been held to consider certain 
national grievances, which had nothing to do with the Corporate 
capacity of the City nor with the collective character of the 
Livery ; that in consequence Alderman Plumbe, by neglecting to 
summon the Livery of the Company to attend the Common Council, 
had not been guilty of any offence against his oath and duty as 
a freeman, and that the judgement of disenfranchisement must be 
annulled. 1 From that day forward the Lord Mayor has been 
unable to compel the attendance of the Livery at a Common Hall 
except for the purposes of election. Nevertheless the practice of 
assembling the Common Hall for the purpose of presenting remon- 
strances on public grievances was continued, although they were 

1 For the decision of the Court of Error cf. Appendix XXXVIII, and Heath, 
Grocers, p. \6z fF. ; Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, pp. 157 ff. 

35*6 External Relations of the Company 

never obeyed by the Goldsmiths' Company at least. Thus in 
April 1 77 ;, the very year in which the judgement in Plumbe's 
case was reversed by the Court of Error, John Wilkes, then Lord 
Mayor, summoned an extraordinary meeting of the Common Hall 
to consider a petition to the Crown ' against the measures adopted 
with regard to America V On this occasion again the Goldsmiths 
declined to send their Liverymen. 2 As we find no mention of the 
refusal on the part of the Drapers to attend either of these meetings 
of the Common Hall, we may assume that the Liverymen of the 
Company attended, and that the Court was not opposed to the 
presentation of these petitions. That they did not approve of 
the policy adopted towards the American Colonies receives con- 
firmation from a resolution passed at a meeting on August 7, 177$-, 
that it was not necessary to put up a statue to King George at 
present, in spite of the feet that the Company had been * aspersed 
in the newspapers ' for their disloyal conduct. In the following 
year, however, the present of a ' buste ' of the King offered by 
William Saunders Welch was accepted. The Court ordered full- 
length pictures of George III, as well as of George I, George II, and 
William III. The picture of George III was painted by Nathaniel 
Dance-Holland, a well-known portrait painter, and cost 100 
guineas. 3 

1 This refers to the suspension of the Charter of Massachusetts and the 
preparations for war in consequence of the opposition of the Colonists to the tea 
duty and the Boston tea riots. 

2 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 263. There are two later instances of 
the Common Hall being summoned to discuss political grievances. In 
December 1783, the Mayor, Robert Peckham, a Wheelwright, summoned 
a Common Hall to petition against a Bill for vesting the affairs of the East India 
Company in the hands of certain Commissioners (Fox's India Bill). In January 
1785, the Mayor, Richard Clark, a Joiner, summoned a Common Hall to 
consider the instructions to be given to their Burgesses for obtaining more equal 
representation of the people. In both these cases the Goldsmiths again declined 
to obey the summons of the Lord Mayor: ib., pp. 17 j, 279. No mention of 
these incidents is found in the Drapers' Records. 

3 Records, + 136, pp. 1393, 1453, i^6b 3 161. For Sir Nathaniel Dance- 
Holland cf. Diet, of Nat. Biog. At the same time a drawing of the Clerk by 
Roma at a cost of 30 guineas was put up in the Court room. Roma was also 

fiven a gratuity of 20 guineas because of his illness and because his house had 
een broken into by thieves (ib., p. 163). Roma also made a copy of the 

from 1(588 to 1815- 377 

In the following year 17*71 occurred the famous case of the Primers v. 
Printers v. the House of Commons. 1 The House, jealous of its the House of 
privilege that its debates should be private, took action against Commons, 
Wheble, Miller, and other printers for publishing debates. 2 Wheble, 1 7? 
having refused to attend at the Bar or the House, was ordered into 
custody. He was, however, collusively apprehended by a friend, 
brought before Wilkes as Alderman, and forthwith discharged. 
Miller was apprehended on a warrant from the Speaker, but gave 
the messenger into custody for assault within the City. The case 
came before the Lord Mayor, Brass Crosby, a Goldsmith, 3 Alder- 
men Wilkes and Oh' ver. On the grounds that the warrant of the 
Speaker had not been backed by a City Magistrate, and was there- 
fore illegal as contravening the charters of the City, which provided 
that no warrant, attachment, or process could be executed within 
it except by its own Magistrates, they discharged Miller and 
signed a warrant for the commitment of the messenger of the 
House. For thus defying the authority of the House, the Lord Mayor 
and Alderman Oliver, who were both Members of Parliament, 
were committed to the Tower. On a writ of Habeas Corpus 
being moved on behalf of the Lord Mayor, the Court of Common 
Pleas ordered his remandment, and thereby decided that the 
commitment by the warrant of the Speaker was legal. 4 Chief 

portrait of Mary Queen of Scots then in the possession of the Company (ib., 

P- 153 b). . 

1 On this cf. C. G. Robertson, Select Statutes, Cases, and Documents, ed. 
191 z, p. 479. The case is generally known as that of Brass Crosby: Lecky, 
History of England, ed. 1882, vol. iii, p. 257. 

2 The Printers were accused of misrepresenting the speeches and of calling 
Col. Onslow, a Member of Parliament, c the little scoundrel ' and a * paltry 
insignificant insect '. 

3 He had been a member of the Company of the Musicians, but was translated 
to the Goldsmiths in 1766. Beaven, Aldermen, vol. ii, p. 133. 

4 Wilkes declared that he was the legitimate Member, for Middlesex 
and was ready to attend in his place in Parliament, but that he would not 
attend at the Bar, and though summoned three times persisted in his refusal. 
At last the House put a somewhat ignominious end to the contest by ordering 
him to attend on a day over which it adjourned itself. He was a dangerous 
person to deal with, and, as they won their case with regard to the Lord Mayor, 
it was perhaps the wiser course to leave him alone. A writ of Habeas Corpus was 
not moved for Oliver ; his fate would depend on the decision with regard to the 
Lord Mayor. 

External Relations of the Company 

Justice de Grey, in delivering his judgement, declared that this 
power of commitment for contempt must be inherent in the 
House because they had a judicial power in such cases, and that 
the Law Courts could not judge of the laws and privileges of the 
House, nor of the contempts thereof, because these were only 
known to Parliament men, and the Law Courts had no cognizance 
of them nor of the acts of the House. 

Thus the House of Commons won, and the Lord Mayor and 
Alderman Oliver remained in custody till the end of the Session 
(May 8), when they were conducted in triumphal procession to 
the Mansion House. Nevertheless, although the House had vindi- 
cated its claim that the publication of debates was a breach of 
privilege, the controversy caused such a ferment that from that 
day forward it has ceased to enforce it, except on special occasions 
where the public interest demands that a debate should not be 
made public. 

It is strange that no notice of Alderman Oliver should be found 
in the Drapers' Minutes, especially as he was Master of the Company 
at the time. His absence, however, from three meetings of the 
Court, on March 2,0 and in July and August, was no doubt due to 
his connexion with the affair. 1 

1 Records, + 136, pp. 4, 13, ir. Richard Oliver was committed to the Tower 
on March 16, and remained there till the close of the Session on May 8. He 
might therefore have been at the meetings, although he was not. He was present 
at the meeting of June 19. He was a West Indian Merchant, one of the Whig 
leaders of the day, a conspicuous member of the Society of the Bill of Rights, 
and for a time a supporter of Wilkes. He entered the Drapers' Company by 
redemption on June 19, 1770: Freedom List, + z8z (not paged). In the 
following July he was elected Alderman of Billingsgate Ward in the place of 
William Beckford, the famous Whig. In consequence of this election, Oliver 
was forthwith called to the Livery and admitted into the Court of Assistants, on 
paying the usual fees for admission into the Livery and for being excused from 
serving as Warden: Records, + 135, p. 355 a. In the same month he was 
returned at a by-election, also in the place of Beckfbrd, as Burgess for the City. 
In the ensuing August he was elected Master of the Drapers' Company (ib., 
p. 358b), and it was during his Mastership that the controversy mentioned in 
the text arose. Shortly after this he quarrelled with Wilkes and refused to serve 
as Sheriff with him, an office which he, however, filled in the following year 
(1771). At the election of the new Lord Mayor he supported the candidature 
of Townsend against Wilkes, and was accused by the hitter's partisans of having 

from 1688 to 1815- 

The silence of the Drapers' Records on most of these questions, The silence 
which so closely affected the City, may perhaps be partly explained of the 
by the fact that the Company as often before did not favour any Dra P e " 

1 X r^t- /- T> Records 

one party, as was the case with some or the Companies. 1 JBut it is w j t |j re p ar< i 
also an indication that the Company had by this time lost touch to most of 
with civic politics, and that they only took action, and even then thes e ques- 
rarely, when the dignity and the interests of one of their members nons< 
was concerned. Thus in the year IT/O', when Wilkes, after 
having been beaten by Alderman Benjamin Hopkins, a distinguished 
member of the Drapers' Company, in the election for the post of 
Chamberlain, 2 sought for the third time the suffrages of the Common 
Hall, the Court or the Drapers recorded its disapprobation of this 
unprecedented and improper course, stating that such contested 
elections tended to interrupt the trade and disturb the peace of 
the City, and were 'productive of idleness, debauchery, and party 
animosities '. They therefore urged the Liverymen to meet at the 
Hall and proceed in a body to the Guildhall to poll for their 
worthy member. 3 

But if the Drapers' Company took but little part in these civic 

taken the vote of the Court of Aldermen before the arrival of the Wilkites. He 
continued an active member of the Whig party in Parliament till 1778, when he 
left England to look after his West Indian estates in Antigua. He died in 1784 
on his homeward passage. Cf. Diet. Nat. Biog. and authorities quoted j Beaven, 
Aldermen, Index. 

1 Thus the Goldsmiths and the Merchant Taylors generally supported the 
Tories, while the Fishmongers were on the side of the Whigs. 

2 Hopkins is only the second Draper who has ever held the post of Chamber- 
lain. The other was Thomas Thorndone, who was Chamberlain from the year 
1454 to 1463. Wilkes, who had been Mayor in 177?, was anxious on account 
of his impecuniosity to secure the lucrative post. He therefore sought the 
suffrages of the Common Council in February 1776, but was beaten by Hopkins. 
As the election was a bye one, Hopkins had to be re-elected in the following 
June. In spite of the fact that it was quite unusual to oppose the re-election of 
the Chamberlain, Wilkes again opposed him on the pretence that Hopkins had 
not been duly chosen, and, though beaten by an overwhelming majority, stood 
again in the following year, only to be defeated once more. It was not till the 
death of Hopkins in 1779 that Wilkes at last succeeded in being elected to the 
office. Sharpe, London, vol. iii, pp. 161, 164. Hopkins had been Master of 
the Drapers in 1773-4. 

3 Records, + 136, pp. 147 a b. They took the same course at the election of 
1777 (ib., p. 1 66}. 


360 External Relations of the Company 

References questions,' they were not neglectful of the more important issues 
to important of national concern ; and we meet with some interesting, though 
often incidental, notices in their Records which are worth men- 
tioning. Thus, in the year i6po', when England was at war 
with Louis XIV, the Company melted down plate to the value of 
1,000 to furnish a loan to King William III. 2 At the coronation 
of Queen Anne, in 1702,, we are reminded that the Lord Mayor 
held the office of Chief Butler on these occasions, and that the 
Masters of the Livery Companies attended him. 3 

It appears, however, that some members of the Company were 
remiss in their duties on Thanksgiving Days. Thus, on Decem- 
ber 13, 1706, the Court of the Company, in drawing attention to the 
meagre attendance of members of late, 4 and to the way in which 
they had flocked to the Hall for dinner, ' to the great dishonour and 
expense of the Company ', ordered that on the coming Thanks- 
giving Day, to be held on the last day of the year for successes 
in the war against France (the war of the Spanish Succession), 
instead of having a dinner, some provision should be made near 
the Company's stand for those who attended the ceremonies; 5 
while the precept of the Lord Mayor that on the occasion of 

1 This does not mean that the Company were neglectful of what they 
considered to be the interests of the City. Thus in 1803 the Court decided, 
whether rightly or wrongly, to oppose a Bill authorizing the construction of 
a canal from the London Docks to Paddington as being detrimental to the 
general interests of the City, as well as injurious to the property of the Company : 
Records, + 137, p. 598. 

2 Records,+ 133, pp. 245 b, z^6b, ifib. 3 Precepts, -f 371, p. 9b. 

4 The following Thanksgiving Days were held during the reigns of Queen 
Anne and George I : 

(i) Sept. 7, 1704, for the late victory c over the French and Bavarians' 
(i. e. the Battle of Blenheim). 

(a) June 17, 1706, 'for the victory over the French in Brabant' (i.e. the 
Battle of Ramilies). 

(3) Dec. 31, 1706, c for the wonderful successes wherewith God hath blessed 
ye armes of her Majesty and her allies' (in the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain). 

(4^ May i, 1707, for the Union with Scotland. 

faj Aug. 19, 1708 (for Maryborough's victory at Oudenarde). 

(6) July 7, 1713 (for the Peace of Utrecht). 

(7) June, 1716 (Failure of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715). 
Precepts, -h 37 i , pp. 1 1 b, 14 b, ly, 16, 17, 14 b, 31. 

8 Records, + 134, p. i8b. 

from 1688 to 1815- 

the Royal Progress to St. Paul's to commemorate the Union with 
Scotland (May 1707) the ' stands ' of the Companies should not be 
taken down until * the nobility and other great personages had 
passed' in their return from St. Paul's implies that some Companies 
had been careless. 1 On that day, however, the Company attended 
the procession and resumed their dinner at the Hall. 2 

Of the election to the Parliament of 171^ shortly after the 
accession of George I, which caused such excitement, we indeed 
hear nothing, though one of the Burgesses then returned was 
Robert Heysham, a recent convert to Whiggism, who became 
Master of the Company in i^io. 3 Nor again is the Jacobite 
rebellion of 171.? mentioned. Possibly the Company was at that 
time too much divided, as we know England was, to take any 
corporate action, but in 174.^ the resolution of the Court to sub- 
scribe 300 towards the relief of soldiers employed * for suppress- 
ing the present unnatural rebellion ' shows that the Company had 
no sympathy with the unfortunate attempt of Prince Charlie, the 
Young Pretender. 4 

We are not surprised to find that the War of the Austrian 
Succession (174.1-8), with its somewhat inglorious course and 
conclusion, 5 awakened no patriotic sympathy in the Company ; 
but with the Seven Years War, which won us Canada and 
India from the French, and established our maritime supre- 
macy, the long list of subscriptions to patriotic objects begins. 
One hundred pounds was voted to the Marine Society for the 
purpose of clothing and fitting out landsmen and boys to be 
employed in the navy ; the same amount was given for enlisting 
soldiers during the continuance of the war, as well as 200 to the 

1 Precept, + 37 1, p. \6. 2 Ib., p. \()\>. 

3 Cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. iii, p. 4 ; Beaven, Aldermen, 
vol. i, p. 179 ; Records, -f 1 34, p. 154. Heysham had previously sat for Lancaster 
as a Tory and voted for Sacheverell. He was not a safe party man after his 
election by the City Whigs. 

4 Records, + 135, p. 39^ Most of the Livery Companies joined the Drapers 
in this and other patriotic contributions, e. g. the Goldsmiths. The references 
are too numerous to give, but may be found in Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, 
pp. 241-3 16. 

' By the Peace of Aix la Chapelle the French surrendered Madras and the 
English their gains in America. 

1603-3 A 

tions towards 
the conduct 
of the War 
of the 
and the 
Seven Years 
War, 1741- 

Dislike of 
the Ameri- 
can War of 

361 External Relations of the Company 

Quebec and Minden subscription for the relief of British troops 
abroad and of the widows and children of those who had fallen in 
the war. 1 When the French, anxious to revenge themselves on 
England for the humiliations of the Seven Years War, joined the 
Americans in their struggle for independence, the opinion of the 
Court appears to have been hostile to the Government. Thus, 
when the quarrel broke out between Admiral Keppel and Sir Hugh 
Palliser, the third in command, over the indecisive battle off 
Ushant (July 2,7, 1778), the Drapers sided with Keppel, who was 
supported by the Opposition, and presented him with the freedom 
or the Company (March 1 77p). a In the following July a motion 
that money should be subscribed towards the giving of bounties 

1 Records, + 135, pp. 101 b, 1173. The Marine Society was a private 
association founded in June 1756, and supported by voluntary subscriptions, for 
the purpose of preparing boys for the navy and clothing landsmen who 
volunteered for service. The boys were collected from the poorest classes and 
from workhouses, taken with the consent of their parents, if they were known, 
or if apprentices with the knowledge of their masters. It was urged that by the 
help of the Society the necessity of the press-gang was reduced, and that men 
who were active workers at home would not be forced to go to sea. The 
Society also taught some of the boys the use of the fife, so that they might be 
the better prepared to join the bands, which were considered to be or great 
service on ships of war. The amount subscribed between 1756-8 was over 
13,443, while 1,314 boys had been educated, and 3,487 volunteer landsmen 
clothed and sent to sea. From the close of the Seven Years War in 1763 to 
May 1769 the operations of the Society were suspended, to be revived in 1770 
when the war with our American colonies appeared imminent. In 1771 the 
Society asked to be incorporated. They showed that since May 1769 they had 
received from subscriptions, donations, and bequests, and interest on the same, 
6,099 3*- 4^- Of this sum, j,tzi 9*. nrf. had been expended in clothing 
809 district boys who had been sent as servants to officers in the Royal Fleet 
and 387 who had been indentured to owners and masters in the merchant 
service. The Society had also apprenticed 47 district girls according to a late 
bequest of a Mr. Hickes, while the total number of boys and men who had been 
assisted since the foundation of the Society was 11,757. Their request for 
incorporation was granted. By-Laws and Regulations of the Marine Society, 
List of Subscribers, &c., Bodleian Library, Gough, London, 174 ; Instructions to 
boys of the Society, Letters by Mr. Hanway, Bodleian Library, 139,163, ib., 
Gough, London, 7 (13)} Pamphlet in praise of the Society, ib., Godw. 
Pamphlets, 1817. 

2 Records, + 136, pp. m, Z3i. For the quarrel between Keppel and 
Sir Hugh cf. Hunt, Political History of England, ed. 1905, p. 193, and Diet, of 
National Biography, Art. Palliser. 

from 1688 to 1815- 

for the purpose of raising men to serve in the Fleet was negatived, 
though in the following year 100 was granted to the Marine 
Society. 1 The apparent close-fistedness of the Drapers on this 
occasion is probably to be explained by the dislike of the war and 
by the unpopularity of Lord North, who in 1781 was forced to 
give way to the Whigs led by Lord Rockingham. 

Meanwhile the peace of the City had been seriously disturbed by The Gordon 
the Lord George Gordon ' No Popery ' riots. These riots were ^^ 
caused by the Act of 1778 passed for the relief of Roman Catholics 
from some of the disabilities under which they suffered. The City 
undertook to defray the expenses incurred in restoring order. 
Accordingly Brackley Kennett, the Lord Mayor, and the Court 
of Aldermen approached the Livery Companies with a request for 
assistance, reminding them that they had often contributed to 
public charges in great emergencies. As, however, the Lord 
Mayor was accused of want of diligence in taking precautionary 
measures, there was much feeling in the City, and this is reflected 
in the conduct of the Court. They resolved that the Clerk 
should inquire what other Companies were doing, and so shelved 
the question. 3 The Whigs, now in power, were in favour of 
acknowledging the independence of America, but the French had 
to be dealt with. They still hoped for victory over the English, 
and now, joined by Spain and the Dutch, raised their demands. 
The victory of Rodney over La Grasse in the West Indies (April 
1 782,) and the relief of Gibraltar by General Eliott in September 
humbled their pride, and negotiations for peace were set on foot. 
At this moment Lord Rockingham died (July 1782,), and George III 

1 Records, + 136, pp. 222, 232. Two other indications that the Court was 
opposed to the American policy of the Government are to be found. In 1776 
they admitted Dr. Price to the freedom of the Company after he had been given 
the freedom of the City in a gold box as a mark of its approbation of his 
pamphlet, 'Observation on the nature of Civil Liberty, the principles of 
Government, and the justice and policy of the War with America'. Records, 
-f 136, pp. 143 a, 145 a. In 1780 c an American stove on Dr. Franklin's plan* 
was placed in the Hall (ib., p. 240). This was before the independence of 
America was granted. 

2 Records, + 136, pp. 252-8; Sharpe, London, vol. iii, p. 178. For an 
amusing description of the Mayor's weakness cf. Dickens, Barnaby Rudge. 
Kennett was a Vintner. 

The Drapers 
of Charles 
James Fox. 

364- External Relations of the Company 

asked Lord Shelburne to form a Ministry, much to the indignation 
of the section of the Whigs led by Charles James Fox. The 
Foxites called Shelburne ' The Jesuit ', and accused him of 
intriguing against his party. 

The Drapers' Company, it would seem, were inclined to side 
with Fox, for when the Lord Mayor communicated a request of 
Lord Shelburne's asking for pecuniary aid for the purpose of 
augmenting the domestic force of the nation by putting the militia 
on a proper footing, the Court postponed consideration of the 
demand * until some plan should be formed whereby judgement 
might be formed of the utility thereof to the public and the pro- 
priety of subscribing V and nothing more was heard of the subject. 
Lord Shelburne shortly after resigned, and Fox took the risky 
step of joining Lord North in the ill-starred Coalition of April 
1783. We hear nothing of the exciting election of 1784, when 
William Pitt was returned with a triumphant majority; but inas- 
much as they showed no honour to the new Minister, we may 
perhaps surmise that the Company were still inclined to the side 
of that popular but unsuccessful statesman, Charles James Fox, 
while the Goldsmiths, always Tory in their sentiments, conferred 
the freedom of the Company on William Pitt and gave him a 
magnificent entertainment. 2 

That the Drapers realized the danger of exciting religious and 
political passions in Ireland is shown by their refusal in 1789 to 
contribute towards a monument to commemorate the shutting of 
the gates of Londonderry on December 7, 1688, preparatory to 
the memorable siege in the reign of William III. From the 
wording of the original resolution, that inquiry should be made 
as to what the Irish Society and the other Livery Companies who 
had property in Ireland were doing, it would appear that these 
societies adopted the prudent conduct of the Company. 3 
The Drapers No reference is made in the Drapers' Records to the outbreak 
and the of the French Revolution nor to the tragic events which preceded 

1 Records, + 136, p. 314. 

2 Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 2,76. The dinner was attended by fifty 
persons. It cost 259 is- 6d, y and 193 bottles of wine at 4*. the bottle were 
drunk ! 

3 Records, + 136, pp. 319, 531. 

from 1688 to 1815- 365- 

the entry into the war by England in 1793.' From that moment, Revolution 
however, England was engaged in a struggle which increased in ar x an( * 
intensity, and which lasted, with only two brief intervals, till the Napoleonic 
battle of Waterloo in iSij-. 2 Her resources were taxed to the 
uttermost, and it was only to be expected that the patriotism 
which has always been displayed by the Livery Companies in 
times of national emergency should be called forth and express 
itself in many ways. 

1 In this respect the silence of the Drapers' Records may be contrasted with the 
conduct of the Grocers, who in 1792 passed a resolution affirming their unshaken 
loyalty and attachment to the Crown and the happy constitution of the Country, 
and condemning the seditious, inflammatory and fallacious opinions industriously 
propagated to introduce principles of anarchy incompatible with civil government 'j 
while in the same year they lent their Hall to the London Association for aiding 
the Civil Power, an association which was joined by many merchants, bankers, 
and tradesmen of the City. Cp. Heath, Grocers, pp. 173-4. 

2 The following dates may be found useful : 

1789 May 4. Meeting of the States General. 

July 14. Fall of the Bastille. 

1791 Oct. i. Meeting of the Legislative Assembly. 

1791 April 20. War declared against Austria. 

Aug. 10. Attack on the Tuileries. Louis XVI a prisoner. 

Sept. 21. Meeting of the Convention. 

1793 J an> 2I - Execution of Louis XVI. 

Feb. i. War declared against France and Holland. 
June 2. Fall of the Gironde. Triumph of the Jacobins. Inauguration 
of the Terror. 

1794 July 27, 28. Fall and death of Robespierre. 

End of the Terror. 

1795 Oct. 2.6. The Convention dissolved. 
Nov. 3. The installation of the Directory. 

1797 Feb. 14. Battle of Cape St. Vincent. 
Oct. ii. Battle of Camperdown. 

1798 Aug. i, 2. Battle of the Nile. 

1799 Aug. & Oct. British expedition to Holland. 
Nov. 9. Coup d'etat of the i8th Brumaire. 

Bonaparte created first Consul. 

1802 March 25. Peace of Amiens between France and Great Britain. 

1803 May 1 8. Rupture of the Peace of Amiens. 

1804 May 1 8. Napoleon created Emperor. 

1805 Oct. 21. Battle of Trafalgar. 

Nov. 4. Victory of Sir R. Strachan off Ferrol. 
1807 July 9. Treaty of Tilsit between Fiance and Russia. 

[Continued an next pifge. 

3 66 External Relations of the Company 

It had been contempkted to propose in Parliament an Act by 
which all possessed of a certain income should lend about one- 
quarter of it to the Government in return for Government Stock at 
nve per cent., the loans to be repaid at the end of three years. 
Meanwhile it was hoped that many would be willing to lend 
voluntarily. This ' Voluntary Loan ' was eagerly subscribed to 
the amount of 1,800,000, 'Many of the public Companies and 
innumerable individuals not being able to get their names entered ', 
says the Gentleman's Magazine for 17.96 (vol. 66, pt. ii, p. 105-1). 
The unfortunate lenders, however, lost considerably, owing to the 
fall in the value of the Government Stock, and in the following 
year they only received long annuities of ~js. 6d. for every 100 
subscribed (ib., vol. 67, pt. ii, p, lopp). The Act was never 
brought forward. 

The Drapers' Company was one of those which were too late 
with their offer to join in the loan. 1 But the following list will 
show that its other contributions amounted to the large sum of ' 
, 75- 7 ioj., and that the allies were not forgotten: 

French invasion of Spain. 

French invasion of Portugal. 

Wellington's victory at Talavera. 

The Walcheren Expedition. 

Graham s battle at Barrosa. 

Attempted relief of Badajoz. 

Wellington's victoiy at Albuera. 

War between Russia and Napoleon. 

The Moscow Campaign. 

Wellington's victory at Salamanca. 

Napoleon retreats from Moscow. 

The War of Liberation opens. 

Wellington's victory at Vittoria. 

Battle of Leipsic. 

Abdication of Napoleon. 

Escape of Napoleon from Elba. 

Battle of Waterloo. 

1 Dec. 1796, Regret expressed that the Company were too late to subscribe 
to the ' Loyalty Loan ', the list of subscriptions being filled up (Records, + 137, 
pp. 272-5). Cf. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, for a similar resolution, vol. ii, p. 284. 
The Merchant Taylors have a letter addressed by the direction of Mr. Pitt with 
an intimation that if the money was not voluntarily subscribed, the loan would 
be made compulsory. The Merchant Taylors sent in their offer, but it also 
came too late. 





July 27, 28. 


181 1 

March 5. 

May 1 6. 


June 24. 

July 22. 




June 21. 

Oct. 16-19. 


April 6. 


March i. 

June 18. 

from 1688 to 1815- 



July 1793 To the Marine Society (Records + 137, f. d, 
p. no) ...... 100 o o 

Jan. 1794- Resolution passed by only one vote to 
give to the General United Society for 
providing extra clothing for British 
troops serving abroad (ib., p. 137) . 5-000 

May 1795- To be distributed in bread to the poor 
because of high prices and distress. 
Each Assistant (4.3 in number) to be 
authorized to give relief up to + i^t. 
each (ib., pp. aoi, an) . . . 200 o o 

Nov. J 797 * For the relief of the widows and children 
of the brave men who so nobly fought 
and fell in the service of their coun- 
try and such as have been wounded in 
the glorious action off the coast of 
Holland under Lord Duncan against 
the Dutch fleet under De Winter on 
October n, 1797* [the victory of 
Camperdown] (ib., p. 340) . . 105- o o 

Feb. 1798 Towards the subscription opened at the 
Bank of England, in pursuance of an 
Act of the present session of Parlia- 
ment, for granting to his Majesty an 
aid and contribution (39 Geo. Ill, 
c. 18; ib., p. 354.) . . . . 1,000 o o 

Nov. 1798 Towards the relief of widows, children, 
and dependants of those who fell, and 
of those wounded in the action under 
Nelson of the ist, and, and 3rd of 
August in the Mediterranean [the 
battle of the Nile] (ib., pp. 382, 385) 100 guineas 

March 1799 Towards expenses of fitting up the 
barracks at Moneymore, and purchas- 
ing ammunition for the Corps of the 
Drapers' Yeomanry raised by Mr. 
Clotworthy Rowley, their tenant in 
Ireland (ib., pp. 391-6) . . . 100 o o 

Aug. 1799 Towards a Naval Pillar to be erected 
on Portsdown hill near Portsmouth 
or elsewhere in memory of the 

3 68 External Relations of the Company 

unparalleled victories over the fleets 
of France, Holland, and Spain, since 
the opening of the War (ib., p. 4^1) . 50 guineas 

Dec. 1799 For the widows and children of the 
kiHed and wounded British seamen 
in the expedition to Holland (ib., 
p. 434.) . . 5 guineas 

July 1803 The Company undertake to raise, at a 
maximum cost of 1,000 guineas, aoo 
men for the land force, and resolve 
that they are willing to give their 
utmost assistance, and to meet any 
inconveniences or hardships which 
may be necessary for the safety of the 
Kingdom j and that 'they prefer death 
to any submission to a foreign yoke 
or to the abandonment or degrada- 
tion of our national independence or 
character' (ib., pp. 614, 615) . . a,ooo guineas 

On this motion of July 1803 some difficulty arose with the Mayor, 
Charles Price, an Ironmonger, which is interesting as bearing upon 
the relations of the Company to the Municipal authorities. He ex- 
pressed his surprise that he had received no information of this 
offer, since he was the only authority by which, and the channel 
through which, any force could be raised within the City. He 
should therefore have been consulted, and the offer should have 
been made with his consent and through him. In answer the 
Drapers expressed their regret that their conduct should have 
excited any apprehension as to their wishing to infringe in any 
way on the constitutional liberties or dignity of the City. They, 
however, insisted that their procedure in no way involved any such 
franchise or liberty ; that their corporate funds were entirely under 
their control ; and that therefore there was no impropriety in their 
conduct. Since, however, they admitted that the men could not 
be raised without his Lordship's consent, they now applied for it. 
After some delay the Mayor declared that it was inadmissible for 
any person to come into the City for the purpose of recruiting, 
and accordingly the Inspector-General suggested that the plan had 

from 1688 to i8if 


better be postponed till the Army of Reserve had been embodied. 
The question was again raised in 180^, when the Inspector- 
General informed the Court that the time had come when their 
offer should be put into execution. No opposition was made by 
the then Mayor, Peter Perchard, a Goldsmith. The Court, how- 
ever, stated that 2,,ooo guineas was the maximum they could con- 
tribute, and finally it was decided that the men should be raised 
by his Majesty's recruiting staff and not by crimps. C Records, 
+ 137, pp. 62,9-31, 638, <%8, 64.9, 702,, 733, 734. 

Dec. 1803 
Jan. 1804. 

Jan. 1 806 

March 1811 

June 1 8 1 1 
Jan. 1813 

June 1818 

Towards the Military Association of 
Broad Street (Records, + 137, p. 6^1} 

Resolved to lend the Garden and Hall 
for drilling the 8th Regiment of the 
Loyal London Volunteers (ib., p. 65- 5-) 

To the patriotic fund for relief of widows 
and orphans of seamen killed in the 
battle of Oct. ai and Nov. 4. last 
[battle of Trafalgar and action of 
bir R. J. Strachan] (ib., p. 33) . 

To the fund at Lloyd's for the relief of 
British prisoners in France (ib., p. z<?8) 

To the suffering Portuguese in Portugal 

To the Russians suffering under the 
most unjust invasion by the unprinci- 
pled Ruler of France (ib., p. 383) 

To those suffering by the War in Ger- 
many and other parts of the Conti- 
nent (ib., p. 4/19) .... 

Towards relief of the families of the 
brave men killed, and of the wounded 
sufferers in the late signal victory of 
Waterloo (ib., p. 4,7?) 

Towards relief of distressed seamen 
(ib., p. 

5-0 guineas 

100 guineas 

50 guineas 
100 guineas 

xoo guineas 
100 guineas 

aoo guineas 

5*0 guineas 
Total 4,7 f 7 10 o 1 

1 A reference to Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, from page 282, will show that 
the Goldsmiths contributed quite as generously to most of these objects. No 
doubt the other Livery Companies did the same, but their Records have not yet 
been published in detail. 

i 6 03'3 2 B 

370 External Relations of the Company 

Freedom of The Court did not confine itself to pecuniary assistance. It 
the Com- conferred the freedom of the Company on many successful naval 

fe a r n red C onna- commanders.' 

val rather But as was tne case w * tn t ^ ie nation at large, it was Lord Nelson 

than military who was more especially selected for honour. They had admitted 
heroes. him to his freedom after his victory of the Nile. After his death 
they ordered that a painting should be executed of him by one 
of the most eminent artists and placed in the Hall 4 in grateful 
remembrance of his Lordship, who, after performing many great 
and heroic services for his country, fell in the Arms of Victory 
whilst commanding his Majesty's fleet consisting of 2,7 ships of 
the line ... in the most glorious battle which ensued on its attack 
upon the combined fleets of France and Spain consisting of 
33 ships of the line, ip of which were taken, off Cape Trafalgar 

1 Freedoms of the Company conferred : 

Aug. 1798 on Admiral Lord Duncan, the Earl of St. Vincent, Lord Nelson 
[for the battles off Cape St. Vincent, of Camperdown, and the Nile] (Records, 

+ '37, PP- 374, 3 8i > 

Dec. 1805 on Vice Admiral Lord Collingwood, c in testimony of the high 
sense which the Company entertained of his Lordship's services, and particularly 
after he had succeeded, by the death of Lord Viscount Nelson, to the command 
in chief in the battle off Cape Trafalgar ' (Records, + 138, p. 18). 
On Rear Admiral the Earl of Northesk. 

On Rear Admiral Sir R. J. Strachan as commander of a squadron of four 
of his Majesty's ships of the line, which after a successful battle with four French 
ships of the line of superior force took all of them on the 4th of November last '. 

It is noticeable that the Goldsmiths gave as a special reason for conferring 
the freedom of their Company on Lord Collingwood, the Earl of Northesk, and 
Sir R. J. Strachan, that as the Mayor was not a member of the twelve greater 
Livery Companies, it would be a proper mark of respect to these admirals if one 
of the Superior Companies should do so ; and that it would be all the more 
appropriate that the Goldsmiths should do this because the battle of Trafalgar 
had actually been won during the Mayoralty of the late Mr. Alderman Perchard, 
a member of their Company. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 308. 

On Captain Hardy of the Victory, flagship of the late Vice-Admiral 
Lord Nelson [at the battle of Trafalgar] (ib., p. z8). 

1 8 1 1 on General Graham for his able conduct at the battle of Barrosa on 
March f last (ib., p. 301). 

1816. They subscribed jo guineas towards erecting a monument at Londonderry 
to the memory of Major-General Sir Wm. Ponsonby, if there were sufficient 
other subscriptions. [Sir Wm. Ponsonby was of an Irish Whig family, and was 
killed at Waterloo.] 

from 1688 to 1815- 371 

on the 2,ist of October last.' x And at the funeral of the illustrious 
hero their barge took the first place among those of the other 
Companies who attended, while the Court passed a resolution that 
the order of the procession should be entered on the Records. 3 

It is significant that the Navy was more popular with the 
Company than the Army. Only two Generals were asked to 
accept the honour of being enrolled a member of their Society, 
both of whom were Whigs. 3 Even the Duke of Wellington did not 
share this favour. All would allow that there was good reason for 
this partiality for the Navy in the early days of the Revolutionary 
war, since our land operations were then comparatively insignifi- 
cant ; but that cannot be said of the feats of the Duke of Wellington. 
Nevertheless, no notice is found of his magnificent campaigns in 
Spain ; even the decisive battle of Waterloo is only mentioned 
in connexion with their subscription towards the wounded and 
the families of the slain ; the name of the Duke never occurs. 
Nay, in 1816 they declined to subscribe towards a triumphal 
column in massive plate with which the Mayor and others wished 
to present him. 4 

Whether this may be taken as evidence that the leanings of the 
Company were at that time Whig is doubtful, especially as in 1812, 
they ordered that the following resolution should be communicated 
to the public papers, on the assassination of the Tory Chancellor 
of the Exchequer, Spencer Perceval : ' The worshipful Company 
of the Drapers 5 wish to add their tribute of respect, in common 
with the nation, to the amiable character and exalted virtues with 
which he adorned his high station, and more particularly to express 

1 Records, +138, pp. 27, 28. It was left to the discretion of the Court whether 
the work should be entrusted to Sir W. Beechey, Hopner, or Opie (ib., p. 58). 
Sir W. Beechey was finally chosen. The picture is still in the Drapers' Hall. 

2 Ib., pp. 3?, 36. For a reproduction of the order of the Procession, see 
Appendix XXXIX. It is curious that of the twelve great Livery Companies only four 
besides the Drapers took part the Fishmongers, the Goldsmiths, the Skinners 
and the Merchant Taylors. Of the lesser Companies two, the Stationers and 
the Apothecaries, were present. 

3 General Graham and Major General Sir Wm. Ponsonby. Cf. last page, note i. 

4 Ib., p. 518. In 1851, however, the Court ordered a picture of the Duke to 
be painted by John Lucas. This is still in the Hall. 

5 Records, + 138, p. 360. 



during the 


and early 



External Relations of the Company 

their abhorrence of the crime of assassination, a crime at which 
the feelings of Englishmen have peculiarly revolted.' 

When the Duke of Wellington died in 185-2, the memories of 
the battle of Waterloo were no longer fresh, and he had of late 
merged the soldier in the Tory statesman. This may perhaps be 
the explanation why no reference is found in the Drapers' Records 
to his funeral, in which, however, none of the Companies appear 
to have taken any part. All that the Drapers did was to subscribe 
100 guineas towards ' the Wellington testimonial '.' 

The long record of the Company's activities during the great 
war ends with a notice of the entertainment of the Allied Sove- 
reigns at the Guildhall in June 1814, when the Company lent its 
plate, its banners and its chandeliers. 2 The Court at the same 
time resolved that the use of French wines for Hall Feasts, which 
had been forbidden in i^Sp, should again be allowed. 3 

The charity of the Company was not limited to the victims of 
the Avars. Although this charity was not carelessly dispensed nor 
without discrimination, their benefactions were numerous and 
widespread. At one time it is the sufferers from some calamity at 
home, at another those whose homes have been devastated by some 
catastrophe abroad, who were relieved. Meanwhile their subscrip- 
tions to charitable, educational, and religious societies and to 
hospitals was continuous. 4 

1 Assistants' Minutes, -f 140, p. 152. 

2 Records, + 138, p. 442. They did not follow the Goldsmiths in conferring 
the freedom of the Company on the Czar Alexander and the King of Prussia. 
Cf. Prideaux, Goldsmiths, vol. ii, p. 314. 3 Ib., p. 6\6. 

4 The amount subscribed towards these objects between 1731 and 1817 was: 

To victims of calamities . 
To London Poor .... 
To General Poor .... 
To Educational and Religious objects 
To Hospitals ..... 
















Grand total 1,989 o o 

also an annual subscription of 50 to 100 towards the discharge of poor 
debtors. Cf. Appendix XLI A. 

From the year 1818 to the year 1828 the total amount of donations to 

from 1688 to i8iy 


events since 

But while the Company have devoted more and more attention Scanty 
to the educational and social needs of the people, they have taken notice of 
even a smaller part in political questions since the conclusion P ubllc 

c t. XT i u i. J-J i- T. T- events 

or the Napoleonic wars than they did in the eighteenth century, lg 
and I believe that the conduct of the other City Companies has 
been the same. 

Thus there is absolutely no reference to the disturbances which 
accompanied the Spa fields riots in 1816', nor to the repressive 
measures which followed. Even the Reform Bill of 1 8 3 2, received 
no attention except that the Court prepared a list of those members 
who were qualified to vote under the Act ; * and yet, as we learn 
from Dr. Sharpe, these and other matters caused considerable 
agitation in the City. 

Nor is the reason far to seek. Now that with a few exceptions 
the Livery Companies have lost all control of trade or industry 
and that their connexion with the civic constitution has become 
very slight, they do not consider that such questions touch them 
in their corporate capacity. 

educational and charitable objects was 1,397 f J., and of the annual subscriptions 
101 io/. Cf. Appendix X LI B. 

It will be seen that during the later decades of the nineteenth and in the 
twentieth century the donations increased enormously ; p. 48; ff", Appendix XLI c. 

1 Court of Assistants' Minutes, +2,34, July j, 1831 (not paged). 


Ulster and 
the Revolu- 
don of ,688. 

Report as to 
the con- 

Renewal of 
Lease to 

Mr. George 




ERIOUS damage was done to 
the lands held by the Irish 
Society,the Livery Companies, 
and their Protestant tenants 
during the struggle which took 
place in Ireland at the Revolu- 
tion of 1688. In August 1689 
the Court decided to abandon 
their Quarter Day dinner and 
to devote the 30 usually spent 
on it, plus an additional io, 
to the relief of Irish Protes- 
tants in and about the City, 
who had fled from Ireland 
to avoid the cruelty of the 
Papists. In the following September they contributed 100 to 
the Irish Society towards the building of temporary shelters in 
Londonderry, rendered necessary owing to the destruction of 
houses during the famous siege. 2 

A Report presented to the Court of the Drapers in May i6pi 
gave a sad description of the condition of the estates of all the 
Companies. I n tne Drapers' Proportion Mr. George Dawson, the 
tenant of the Manor, had lost all his stock ; the Manor House and 
almost all the houses and buildings in Moneymore and those of 
two farmers had been destroyed ; most of the tenants had deserted 
their holdings during the rebellion, and very few had returned. 3 
The first thing to be done was to re-establish the chief tenant, 
jyj r George Dawson. The claim of Mr. Fitzgerald to have the 

* The initial letter comes from Letters Patent of George II confirming the 
will of J. Bancroft, ch. vii. 

3 Rep. -f I33,pp. 1893, I9ib, 193 a, ii 3 ; Wardens' Accounts, 1689-90, fo. 36. 
3 Records, + 133, pp. 104 ff. ; cf. Appendix LXI. 

The 'Drapers and Ireland since 1688 375- 

lease renewed to him was rejected on the ground that he had in 
1676 assigned his lease to Mr. Dawson's father for more than 
^^ooo. 1 And the lease of the whole Proportion, which had 
fifteen years to run, was renewed to Mr. Ciotworthy Upton in 
trust for Mr. Dawson, his wife and children, for sixty-one years on 
the old conditions. In consideration of the late rebellion and the 
small profit likely to be made for some time, the rent of 2,00 a 
year was not raised, but 1,000, to be paid in three instalments, was 
to be levied as a fine on renewal. 2 Of his arrears, which amounted 
to 400, he was lent fo ; the rest was only recovered with 
difficulty from the agent, Mr. Davis, after a threat of prosecution. 3 

We have not much information as to the re-establishment of 
order in the Proportion, but apparently a better condition of things 
was soon restored. Nevertheless the dread of the Catholic Irish Dread of the 
was ever present; and it was held necessary to support the Pro- Catholic 
testants. In 172-1, therefore, the Court granted a site for a 
Protestant Church in the parish of Ballynascreen, where the 
Catholics were very numerous, 4 and in 173^, ?o was granted to 
the Incorporated Society of Dublin for the promotion of English 
Protestant schools in Ireland. 

The Society pointed out in their petition, which was addressed 
to all the Livery Companies, that the Protestants in Ireland were 
so much outnumbered by the Papists that they were in perpetual 
danger from them whenever the circumstances abroad gave the 
Catholics either an opportunity or encouragement to make a dis- 
turbance ; that the blind obedience paid by the Irish to their 
Popish priests was so great that all endeavours to convert the adults 
had proved ineffectual ; and that the only hopes of success lay in 
instructing not only their children, but those ' of the poorer sort 
among the Protestants to preserve them from being seduced by . 
Popish emissaries, who swarmed everywhere and were very 
industrious to pervert them'. Moreover, by such education it 
was hoped that the Irish children would be weaned from their 
habits of idleness and sloth, and put in an honest way of getting their 
bread, more especially in husbandry and in the manufacture of linen. 5 

1 Records, 1691, pp. 111,113. 2 ^., +133, pp- 111-113. 

3 Ib., pp. 189, 131 b. 4 Records, + 134, p. \66. 5 Ib., pp. 180-81. 

Renewal of 

Lease to 





376 The Drapers and Ireland 

In 172,}- Captain William Rowley married Arabella Daw son, 
the daughter or Mr. Dawson, who had lately died, and in 1729 he 
was allowed to renew the lease for thirty years from The 
rent was to be raised from 2,00 to 44.0, free of taxes, and a fine 
of 1,000 was to be paid for the renewal. 1 Two years later the 
Captain compkined of the hardness of these terms. His tenants, 
he said, were leaving him, either to go to America, or to take 
leases on one of the other three Proportions, where the head 
tenant had received grants in fee farm, which enabled him to 
grant leases for lives renewable for ever. 3 If this continued, he 

1 Records, + 134, p. zjo. The Rowleys were descendants of John Rowley, 
the first Mayor of Londonderry and Agent of the Irish Society and the Drapers' 
Company. The following table will make things clear : 

John Rowley, first Mayor of Nathaniel Rowley. Wm. Rowley* of 

Londonderry, Agent to the Irish Tubbermore. 

Society and the Drapers' Com- 
pany, d. 1617. Ralph Rowley. 

John Rowley, + 1665. 

Wm. Rowley.* 


Arabella, d. of George Dawson, late; 

tenant of the Manor of Drapers ; 

Captain in the Army, killed at the 

siege of Gibraltar, I7Z7. 

Isaac Rowley. 

; Sir Wm. Rowley, K.B., 
Admiral, d. Jan. 1768. 

Sir Joshua Rowley, created 
Baronet 1786, d. 1790. 

Sir Wm. Rowley, M.P. for Suffolk. 

Clotworthy Rowley, a barrister. 

Sir Josias Rowley, Admiral, 
d. 1841, S.P. 

Sir Joshua Ricketts Rowley, Vice-Admiral. 

The present representative of the family is Sir Joshua Thellusson Rowley, of 
Tendring Hall, Suffolk. Cf. Burke, Baronetage and Landed Gentry j Diet. 
National Biography. 

2 November I74Z. Records, + 135, p. 4. The Merchant Taylors had in 1717 

* Two Rowleys, John and William, were killed in the Irish Rebellion of 164.1. Hill, 
Plantation of Ulster, p. 404.. I have not been able to identify them. 

since 1688 


declared that in two years three-quarters of the Proportion would 
be waste. Moreover, he pointed out that having no freehold in 
the Proportion he did not enjoy the Parliamentary franchise ; x 
nor could he sit on juries, and thus protect his own interests and 
those of his tenants, which were endangered in that part of the 
country, where Catholics so greatly abounded. He therefore 
asked for a grant of the reversion and inheritance, the Company 
reserving a fee farm rent. This request was however refused, 2 
and in 1742 the Court declared themselves much dissatisfied that 
the rent should be in arrears for three and a half years, and 
threatened proceedings against the gallant Captain, who was at 
that time commanding a ship in the Mediterranean. 3 

In 175-5- the Captain, who was now an Admiral and had been 
knighted for his services at sea, again approached the Company, 
asking them to allow him to surrender the existing lease and 
receive another for three lives, which would give him the free- 
hold tenure which he required. He pleaded the same reasons as 
before, and added that unless he could grant longer leases to his 
tenants they would not plant trees, although in 1740 the Irish 
Society had, with the consent of the Livery Cofnpanies, aban- 
doned their claim to all trees planted after a certain date. 4 Further 
Sir William stated that he was anxious to improve the estate and to 
settle one of his family there, if the nature of the tenure could be 
altered ; an arrangement which would be to the mutual advantage 

granted their Proportion in fee farm, subject to a rent-charge. Cf. Hopkinson, 
Ancient Records of the Merchant Taylors' Company, p. 39. The Goldsmiths sold 
their estates to Lord Shelburne in 1718, reserving a rent-charge of zoo a year. 
The Mercers let their estate on a lease for lives about 175 j, having been authorized 
so to do by the Act zi George II, c. 32, as amended by 24 Geo. II, c. 14. 

1 He was, however, a member of the Irish Parliament. 

2 Records, + 134, 241 ab, 248 b. 3 Ib., + 13?, p. 4. 

4 Records, + 135, p. If6b. The Irish Society had cut down much of the 
old timber on the Proportions of the Livery Companies, as they were entitled to 
do according to the original agreement. In 1742 they expressed their willing- 
ness to surrender their claim to any trees that might henceforth be planted, so 
as to encourage replanting. As this surrender would reduce the revenues of the 
Society and therefore the surplus, which, after payment of expenses, had to be 
distributed among the Livery Companies, the consent of theCompanies was obtained. 
Henceforth, therefore, each Company enjoyed their right to any trees planted after 
that date on their respective Proportions. Records, + 134, pp. 359, 370. 
1603-3 C 

Demand for 
a grant in 
fee farm 

Lease for 
three lives 
granted to 
Sir William 

378 The "Drapers and Ireland 

of himself and of the Company. Moved by these arguments the 
Court, while declining to accept the surrender of the existing 
lease, agreed to grant him a new lease which should commence on 
the expiration of that lease in 175-6'. The lease was to be for three 
lives of the age of not less than twenty to be named by Sir William, 
or for sixty-one years should the lives end before that term. The 
conditions were to be as in the old lease, but the rent was to be raised 
by 160 (i.e. to 600) free of taxes, and the fine was to be 8,000. 
As Sir William demurred to these terms, the fine was reduced to 
6,73 2.. ' The substantial increase in the rent, which Sir William 
agreed to pay, is no doubt chiefly to be explained by the fact that 
he had now a freehold tenure, but it throws some doubt on his 
assertion that he had been hardly used in 172,^, considering that 
the rent was then only 440. 

Three matters of some importance occurred during Sir William 
Rowley's tenancy. In 175-7, we are reminded of the distress in 
the parish of Ballynascreen by the contribution of 100 made on 
the petition of the Protestant minister towards the purchase of 
corn for the starving people. 2 In 1766 the Court were informed 
that the old church at Moneymore had fallen into decay ; that 
the Primate was of opinion that it would be desirable to build a 
new church on a new site ; and that he had himself subscribed 
100 towards it. The Court consented to grant the site, on 
condition that the advowson should be in their hands ; but on it 
being represented that this could not be done without an Act of 
Parliament, the Court waived their demand. 3 

In* 1775- the Irish Society reported to the Companies that the 
Government, then in the hands of Lord North, proposed to coun- 
tenance a Bill for a land tax in Ireland. 4 The tax, they said, ' was 
calculated to affect only those who did not commonly reside ' in 
Ireland, and would be unjust and injurious to the Companies 
holding estates there. As opposition ought to be made to it in 

1 Records, +156 b, pp. iJ9b, i6ib. 2 Ib., + I35 3 pp- I77 3 179. 

3 Ib.j pp. 3 1 i b, 3163. 

4 Ib.j + 136, p. 107 b. Lord North was at that time in financial difficulties 
owing to the War of American Independence} and in 1776 raised the land tax 
in England to 4*. in the pound. Hunt, Pol. Hist, of England, Longman's ed., 
1907, p. 162. 

since 1688 


England as well as in Ireland, the Society asked for their co- 
operation. The Court, after debating the matter, decided to make 
further inquiry, and the Act was never passed. 1 

Sir William Rowley on his death, in 1768, devised his lease to 
trustees for his son, Sir Joshua ; and in 1 789 the trustees approached 
the Company with a request that the lease should be renewed and 
fresh lives substituted. The Court declined on the grounds that 
the time yet to run was a long one, and, on the request being 
renewed, decided to make an inquiry as to whether the tenant 
had planted and properly fenced their estate according to the con- 
ditions of the existing lease. They also demanded that all arrears 
should be paid ; that a map and a terrier of the estate should be 
prepared, in which the cultivated and waste land should be clearly 
indicated ; and that a return should be made of the rents paid by 
the under-tenants. Finally they declined the proposal, 2 and Sir 
Joshua died in 1790. 

During the tenancy of Sir Joshua, the attention of the Court 
was again called to the parish of Ballynascreen. In 1789 the 
Protestant minister, Mr. Torrens, informed the Court that, as the 
glebe was eight miles away, the Rowley family had granted him 
and his predecessors the tenancy of a cheap farm near the church, 
but that the house was now unfit for occupation; that Sir Joshua, 
owing to the shortness of his lease, could not give him sufficient 
encouragement to rebuild it. He therefore, with the approval of 
the Bishop, asked that he should be allowed to exchange part 
of the glebe for this farm, as was allowed by the Act 2, Anne, 
c. 10. He also reminded the Court that there was in the parish 
a large tract of the wildest and worst land on the estate, and that 
the residence of the Rector near the church was much to be desired. 
To this reasonable request the Court consented; and in 1792, contri- 
buted 100 towards the building of a spire to the church. 3 

In the year 1790, Sir Joshua was succeeded by his son, Sir 
William, who was for some time M.P. for the County of Suffolk, 
and did not apparently reside much in Ireland. No sooner had he 
come into his property than he applied for a renewal of his lease, 

1 There never has been a land tax in Ireland. 

2 Records, + 136, pp. 541 a, 571, 581. 

3 Ib., + 136, p. 5*9; + 137, pp. 41, 4 J >44- 

Request of 
Sir Joshua 
Rowley to 
renew the 
lease in 
1 7 89, and of 
Sir William 
junior in 
1796, re- 

The Irish 
Rebellion of 

The Court 
another re- 
quest of Sir 
Rowley, and 
take over 
the estate 

380 The Drapers and Ireland 

and in 1796 offered to increase the rent from 600 to 1,000, 
and to pay a fine of 1,2,5-0. His offer was, however, declined. 1 

The outbreak of the Irish rebellion of 1798 put a stop to any 
further negotiations with Sir William. It was perhaps because 
the Court were unwilling at that moment to excite Irish Catholic 
feeling that the Court declined to subscribe to a monument which 
the Corporation of the City of Londonderry proposed to put up 
in 1789, in commemoration of the shutting of the gates in the 
rebellion of i688. 2 Be that as it may, it appears that the part of 
Ulster held by the Irish Society and the Livery Companies did 
not suffer very seriously. We know that the trouble in Ulster 
was in a great measure due to the agitation of Protestant Republi- 
cans, and that when it spread to the Catholics it was soon sup- 
pressed, chiefly by the Yeomanry and the Militia ; 3 and we learn 
incidentally from the Drapers' Records that a Corps of Drapers' 
Yeomanry was raised, the value of which was acknowledged by 
the Court. When asked to reimburse the expenses of the said 
Corps, they asked what others, and among them Sir William, 
proposed to do, inasmuch as all had benefited. 4 A request for 
a subscription for the relief of those who had suffered was also 
adjourned. 5 No further notice of the rebellion is found in the 
Minutes of the Court. 

In the year i8op Sir William Rowley once more approached 
the Company with a request for a renewal of his lease. To this 
the Court answered that they had no present intention of granting 
a new lease, and asked him to produce the copy of his rental, 6 
which had been demanded before. It may have been the receipt 
of this rental that finally decided the Company to take over the 
whole Proportion and administer it themselves. At all events, 
when in December 1816 Sir William informed the Court that 
the last life for which the estate had been granted in 1756 
had just died, but that he was entitled under that lease to 
hold the lands for sixty-one years, a term which would expire 
in the following May, he was informed that the Company 

1 Records, + 137, PP- *34 5 *?, i8 4- 2 Ib., + i 36, pp. 518, 531. 

3 Lecky, History of England, ed. 1890, vol. viii, p. iz6fT~. 

4 Records, + 137, p. 391. 5 Ib., pp. 373, 383. 
6 Ib., + i;8, pp. 181, 433, f 11. 

since 1688 

had decided not to renew the lease, but to take the adminis- 
tration of the estate into their own hands. The Clerk, however, 
on his own authority assured Sir William that the Company 
would never lose sight of the interests of the tenants and the 
country ; that they would, as far as possible, give a preference 
to actual occupiers and give them leases of moderate lengths 
upon reasonable terms; that they would admit no middlemen 
and discourage underletting in patches. 1 In vain Sir William 
asked for a lease of two years from the expiration of the existing 
one, in order that he might exercise his power of distress to 
recover the arrears from the sub-tenants, or that the Company 
would guarantee him against loss. Although the Court demurred 
to this, they expressed a hope that Sir William would not 
suffer any great loss from the arrears. They said that they 
were confident that he would not exercise his powers of distress 
improperly, and assured him that, after the term of his lease 
had expired, they would not, by any premature call for rent, 
disable the tenants from clearing off the said arrears. Further, 
presuming that half a year's rent was usually paid when two 
and a half years' rents were due, they promised that they would 
do nothing to disturb that course. 2 This statement throws an 
interesting light on the custom of the day in Ulster. The 
last reference to Irish affairs during the tenancy of Sir William 
informs us that 1^ was contributed by the Court to the Society 
for promoting the education of the poor in that country. 3 

It is somewhat difficult, with the evidence that we have, to 
come to a very definite conclusion as to whether the Company 
had been hard in their dealings with the Rowleys. But the 
constant attempts on the part of the Rowleys to renew the 
leases before they had expired, added to their willingness to 
increase the rents, go far to acquit the Company. 4 Certainly 
the desire of the Rowleys to obtain a freehold interest in the 
land seems a reasonable one, but it is pretty clear that they 
really hoped to obtain the complete ownership. There is little 
doubt that the Company hoped to benefit from taking the estate 
into their own hands, and although they were disappointed 

1 Records, +138, pp. 530, 533. 2 Ib., pp. $41, $43. 3 Ib., pp. 514, jzo. 
4 Cf. also the return of the rents in 1917 which came to over 9,876 gross, 
j/ra, p. 384. What the net revenue was we are not told. 

The Drapers and Ireland 

in that respect for the first few years, 1 yet at least the Court 
was saved the worry of the repeated demands for renewals and 
extension of the leases before they had expired. 

Report of No sooner had the Company retaken the Proportion into their 
Deputation own hands than they considered it necessary to have it surveyed, 
on condition Th accordingly deputed the Master, the Master Warden and the 

of the estate , \ , . 1 , 

in Ireland C-lerk to make a personal inspection or the estate; and from the Ke- 
1817. port which they presented we obtain much interesting information. 2 

The estate was divided into three districts Moneymore, 
Brackasliavgallon, and Ballynascreen with Dunlogan as well as 
seven tracts of land held by freehold tenants at total quit-rents of 
10 us. $d. The whole Proportion was, with the exception of 
the town of Moneymore, practically open country without any 
hedges or timber. In Moneymore, which was the chief district, 
lay the town of that name with some TOO houses, all of them very 
small, except the Mansion House, the Vicarage and the Grist Mill 
The Mansion House was in the occupation of Mr. Miller, the late 
agent of Sir William. In the vicarage lived the Curate, Mr. Olphert, 
the Vicar being an old man. The Mill, at which all the tenants had 
to grind their oats, was let for i 14 i gj. 1 1*/., the smaller houses 
at an average of f 14^. ^d. a year. 

A fair for the sale of cattle and linen was held once a 
month. The business was considerable, especially in linen. It 
was attended by some 1,000 weavers, who brought their goods 
for sale, and 100 linen drapers and commissioners, who were the 
buyers. The yearly value of the linen sold was estimated at 
^30,000 (Irish), and the tolls and customs were let out for 
2,7 14^. sterling. 

The area of cultivated land in this district was about 5,072 acres 
(English), and that of turf-bog 1,2,12, acres. There was no moun- 
tain in this district. The cultivated land (arable and meadow) 
was let out in 277 holdings, at an average rate of about igj-. 6d. 

1 Sir William's rental came to 9,848 i is. $d. or, plus the tolls, 9,876 ?/. <fd. ; 
cf. Printed Report, pp. 3-8. At p. 10 the rent less the tolls is given as 
9,871 6s. nd. The estimated rental of the estate after it was re-set in 1819 
was only 9,616 is. 6d. In time, however, the income increased. Cf. infia^ 
p. 407, note 6. 

2 Reports of Deputation, Cox & Sons, 1841. First Report, June 1817. Cf, also 
Rep. +138, pp. 557 ff. 

since 1688 


an acre, or a total of 3, 394 $s. $d., and the tenants, some of 
whom were substantial men, were believed to be chiefly of 
Scottish descent. The uncultivated land produced no rent. 

In the division of Brackasliavgallon there was no town nor 
village. It was much moire hilly, and yet was more thickly 
populated, chiefly, it was believed, by descendants of the original 
Irish, who lived in isolated cabins, interspersed by a few respec- 
table farm-houses tenanted by men of comparative wealth. There 
w r as also a mill, which was rented at 5-2. nj-. 8*/. sterling. The 
area of arable and meadow land was, according to the latest 
surveys, 4,438 acres, and of mountain land 4,760. The cultivated 
land was let out in 3^5* holdings at a total rental of 3,071 i6s. \d. 
sterling, or an average of i^j. io*/. an acre. 

In Ballynascreen lay the village of Moyheelan, with a mill which 
was let for 64 i u. 4^. sterling. The acreage was 4,15- 1 arable 
and meadow, 6, 3 12, uncultivated mountain and bog. The number 
of holdings, which were mostly small, was 31^, let at a total rent 
ofi,f6$ 8s. 6d. sterling, or an average of us. \d. per acre. 

Inasmuch as the majority of the inhabitants were Catholic, and 
yet with distinctly Scottish traits, it was surmised that they were 
descended from Scottish ancestors who had settled there before 
the Reformation. The inhabitants, who numbered 10,740, were 
thus grouped according to the census of 1 8 1 8 : * 

Brackasliavgallon . 
Ballynascreen. . . 






Total 1791 10,740 



<J c 

T! a 











^^^ > 6 

J34 4347 5^59 55*3 

Among these a few Methodists. f The number of Catholics is noticeable. 

1 Cf. Report 2, p. 95. 

384- The "Drapers and Ireland 

The total estimated gross rental of the Estate in 181-7 was as 
follows : 


No. of Houses about 100 all (except Mansion 
House and that of the Vicar) small 


. ,. d. 
571 6 9* 
114 13 ii 

Average pet- 

5 14 3 

ToJls. . 

27 14 o 





Average Rent 


Bog, &c. 

per acre. 



5072 acres (in 

1 21 2 acres 

3394 9 


about 13,. 6d. 

277 holdings 

of an average 

of i8j^ acres 


4438 acres (in 

4760 acres 

3071 16 


33 j * 

3 f j holdings of 

an average of 


Grist Mill 

J2 12 


4271 acres (in 

6311 acres 

2568 8 


12,. Id. 

3 1 f holdings 

of an average 

of 1 3^ acres 


Grist Mill 

64 12 


4f oo acres 



13,761 acres 


9876 5 


Moneymore . . 

Brackasliavgallon . . 

Ballynascreen . 

Quit Rents paid by 
7 Freehold Tenants 

Totals .... 

* Cf. Reporr of 1817. N.B. This does not quite agree with the statement of the Clerk of 
the Company before the Royal Commission on the Irish Society and London Companies' 
Irish Estates, 1890, p. 199. But he said that his figures were only approximate. 

The Manor Courts, which sat at Moneymore, were two : a 
Court Leet with jurisdiction nearly similar to that of an English 
one, and a Court Baron, having cognizance in matters of debt up 
to ^.oj. Of these the agent of Sir William Rowley had been the 
Seneschal. He had received no salary, but held the Manor House 
free of rent. He received a commission of is. in the pound on 

since i<588 

the rents he collected, as well as fees on the grants or renewal of 
leases, and those accruing to him as Seneschal of the Manorial 
Courts. He also held the Money more Mill on advantageous 
terms, as well as a lease of the customs and tolls of Moneymore 

There were three churches : that of Desertlin in the district of 
Moneymore; that of Desart Martin for the district of Brackasliav- 
gallon ; and that of Moyheelan, or the Cross, for the division of 
Ballynascreen. The living of Desertlin was worth from 600 to 
700 a year, that of Desart Martin 6}o, and that of Moyheelan 
as much as poo, although the number of the members of the 
Established Church in that division was comparatively small. In 
Moneymore the Presbyterians, in Brackasliavgallon and Ballynas- 
creen the Roman Catholics, predominated. But there were also 
some Methodists in all the divisions, and in Brackasliavgallon and 
Ballynascreen a small party of seceders from the Presbyterians led 
by a certain Mr. Carson. The Roman Catholics had their chapels, 
and the Presbyterians their meeting-houses. Nevertheless the 
Deputation reported that there was no ill-feeling between the 
members of the different persuasions. Although the only schools 
were two Sunday schools one at Moneymore and the other at 
Desart Martin the Deputation observed with some humour that, 
judging from the number of petitions, letters and memorials 
addressed to them, the ability to read and write seemed to be 
pretty well extended ! 

In other matters, however, there was much to be desired. 
There was no permanent doctor or dispensary on the whole 
estate ; and, as there was no poor-law relief, there was consider- 
able distress, which had been aggravated by the bad season of 1816". 
This was especially the case in the division of Brackasliavgallon. 1 
Few even of the larger tenants devoted themselves exclusively to 
cultivating their land, but had other occupations. The system of 
cultivation was primitive. Nothing but oats, potatoes, and flax 
was grown, and the rotation followed was irregular ; the same 

1 Mr. M c Kee, however, the son-in-law of the agent, a retired army surgeon, 
had given medical help of late. The first Irish Poor Law Act was i and z Viet., 
c. 5<f, 1837-8. 

1603-3 D 

3 86 The Drapers and Ireland 

piece of land being frequently sown with oats for two successive 
years, and then left for a year or two to produce what grass it 
might, without any seeds being sown. What manuring there 
was was practically confined to the potatoes. Except in the case 
of the larger tenants, most of the oats and potatoes were con- 
sumed by the family ; while the flax was prepared and spun into 
yarn, and generally woven into linen by the women, and then 
sold at the fair. The tenants enjoyed no legal rights on the un- 
cultivated lands, but they took their fuel on sufferance, a system 
pursued because of the influence that could thereby be exercised 
at the time of elections. 

The cabins of the smaller tenants were of mud, with mud 
floors ; thatched generally with reeds or swards, but rarely water- 
tight. The horse, if they had one, the cows, the goats and the 
pigs were lodged under the same roof as the family ; their quarters 
being generally, but not always, divided off by a partition. Some- 
times a hole in the roof served as the chimney, in others the door 
was the only exit for the smoke. The clothing of the people, 
especially in the Brackasliavgallon division, was very bad, gene- 
rally composed of patched and cast-off clothes, in which there 
was a considerable trade with Scotland. 

Though the failure of the Brewery might be explained by the 
preference of the Irishmen for poteen, there was no mention of 
drunkenness. The fees for grinding corn at the mills (toll of 
mulcture) were high, and the tenants were not allowed to send it 
elsewhere. The rents were certainly low, but, as one would 
expect, many of these were in arrears. Nevertheless, the Deputa- 
tion stated that ' they had good reason to believe ' that the greater 
part of them would be recovered. 

The Report ended with the following suggestions : A new 
survey of the estate and a census of the population should be 
prepared. When that was done, the leases should be re-set. Mean- 
while no tenants, whether in arrear with their rents or no, should 
be evicted. Even if such a course were practicable it would be 
* revolting to humanity, and perhaps to moral justice '. But, when 
the leases were re-set, more freeholders should be created, not 
only because thereby the Company would be able to influence the 
elections to Parliament, but because it was desirable to increase the 

BC oo 


a i 


E *? 





since 1688 


number of independent men, who would be inclined to improve 
the character of the cultivation. No further subdivision of 
tenancies should be allowed, and 'if it could be arranged upon the 
principles of humanity and justice ', the smaller tenancies should 
be united, and longer leases at slowly increasing rents granted. 
In this way the tenants would be induced to devote themselves 
more exclusively to agriculture ; while those who could not be 
accommodated should be directed to the pursuit of handicrafts. 
To this end, handicrafts should be developed by apprenticeship, 
and by calling in skilled men from without. These should be 
induced to settle and marry the peasant girls, who on their 
marriage should be ' decently apparelled at the cost of the Com- 
pany '. The tenants should be given definite rights of * turbary ', 
&c., on uncultivated lands at reasonable rents, and regulations 
imposed to secure a better rotation of crops, while the dues for 
grinding corn should be reduced. By these measures the revenue 
of the Company would be increased, the principle of division of 
labour introduced, and the tenants gradually led to a position of 
independence and self-respect. Further they recommended that 
relief in the way of seed should be given, because of the losses 
sustained by the tenants owing to the wetness of the season of 
1816'; that schools and a dispensary should be started, and a 
market-house and an inn built for the accommodation of those 
attending the fair at Money more. Finally they urged that 
Mr. Rowley Miller should be appointed agent, and his emoluments 

These recommendations were all adopted. 1 They were followed 
by other suggestions made by Deputations that visited the estate 
in 1818, i8ip, 182,0, 182,7, 1832, and 1839, all of which are 
marked by sound common sense, and, in religious questions, by 
a tolerant spirit. 

One halt of the yearly revenue was to be devoted to pur- 
poses of development. In the two towns of Moneymore and 
Drapers' Town, which had been lately founded in the division of 

1 The Court resolved to grant 300 for flax and potato seed, and a sum of 
not more than 5,000 towards the erection of the market-house, the inn and the 
dispensary in Moneymore. Records, -f 138, pp. 603, 610. 

3 88 77?? Drapers and Ireland 

Bally nascreen, the * cabins ' were to be rebuilt, and some of ill-feme 
done away with. The streets were to be paved, and better shops 
provided. An inn was to be started for the accommodation of the 
attendants at the market at Moneymore, and a loan made of 
1,000 to start a distillery. This they held would increase the 
demand for corn, employ labour, and discourage illegal distilla- 
tion. No doubt the distillery might be objected to on moral 
grounds, but the Deputation reported that, although most of the 
people drank spirits, drunkenness was not a prevailing vice, and 
that the appearance of the people was good evidence that they did 
not partake of the deleterious stuff consumed by the dram- 
drinkers of London, 

In the absence of any Poor Law, the Deputation urged that 
dispensaries, with attendant surgeons and almshouses, should be 
established, as well as a poor fund for the relief of distress ; while 
to encourage thrift and the use of better clothes, a contribution 
was to be made to the Rector of Maghera, who had started a shop 
for the sale of blankets and clothes at a cheap rate. The articles 
were not to be supplied till the price had been paid by weekly 
instalments; in this way it was hoped that something might be 
done to wean the people from their improvidence, a characteristic 
of the lower Irish, which led them either to go about without 
decent clothing, or to get into debt. 

The more substantial tenants, both in town and country, were 
to be encouraged to improve their houses by advancing them 
money at 4 per cent. In the country, roads were to be made 
and bridges built. Bogs were to be drained, plantations to be 
made, and, to give shelter to the cattle, hedges planted. Loans 
were to be made of seed potatoes and other seeds, and, for the 
purpose of introducing better systems of tillage, Scotch farmers 
should be induced to settle, and to find wives from the resident 
population. It is strange that, with the experience of Howell's 
maidens before them, the Company should have tried the experi- 
ment of promising marriage portions to those whom the Scotch- 
men might select. The plan did not succeed, and in consequence 
the capital set aside for this purpose was subsequently devoted to 
the establishment of a savings bank. 

In 1 8 ip the leases were re-set. The land was re-valued, the 

since 1688 389 

holdings consolidated as far as possible and let at higher rents. At 
the same time the ' suit of mill ' was abolished, and tenants were 
allowed to have their corn ground where they chose. No one 
was to be re-admitted as tenant until all arrears had been paid, 
and those who refused to pay were to be evicted if it was believed 
that they were able so to do. 1 Alienation, underletting, the 
division of the holdings, and the increase of the houses on the 
farms without leave were forbidden. Any offence against 
the revenue laws, tumultuous and illegal risings, the administration 
of unlawful oaths, bankruptcy, or insolvency were to be punished 
by forfeiture of the lease. 

The length of the leases generally depended on the amount of 
the rent and the size of the holding, but those of lands near the 
town of Moneymore were to be only for terms of seven years, so 
that the lands might be used hereafter for adding to the town, if 
such a course was deemed desirable, while the houses were all let 
on leases for twenty-one years. The tenants were to bear all 
charges for building repairs and improvements. Substantial 
persons were to be encouraged to settle on the estate and to take 
farms, and for this purpose game was to be preserved 2 and a con- 
tribution given to the races at Londonderry. 

Those of the poorer folk who, in consequence of the con- 
solidation of holdings, might lose their lands would, it was 
hoped, find employment on the industries which were to be 

The total estimated rents came to 9,61.6 u. 6d. exclusive of 
the turf and bog. This was 2,18 8s. nd. less than the sum at 
which the estate had been valued in i8i7. 3 When, however, the 
turf and bog had been valued and assigned to the various tenants 

1 In 1810 an attempt to distrain the goods of two substantial graziers in the 
Ballynascreen Division who were in arrears was resisted by force. As it was 
believed that they were quite able to pay, they were ordered to surrender their 
farms. Records, + 139, pp. 93, 95. But those who were in bad plight were 
more easily treated. Ib., pp. 153 fF. 

2 In 1 81 1 four gamekeepers were appointed, and some of the gentry holding 
lands in the neighbourhood were granted the right of sporting on the mountain 
town-lands. Records, -f- 1 3 9, p. 149. 

3 Cf. supra, p. 381, note I. 

390 The "Drapers and Ireland since 1688 

and the mills and cabins let, it was hoped that the total rents 
would exceed the sum received by Sir William Rowley. 1 

The most important occupation of the peasantry was that of 
spinning yarn. But as the methods in vogue were antiquated, the 
Deputation recommended that two scutching mills should be 
erected for dressing the flax ; and that a Scotch woman should be 
engaged to teach the system of double-handed spinning. Although 
the yarn thus spun would not be of the finest, the output would 
be increased, and thus the spinners would earn higher wages. 

Unfortunately those hopes were not at first realized. In 1 8 3 2, 
it was reported that, partly owing to over-production, the value 
of linen, as well as the price of cattle, had fallen by one-half To 
meet the consequent distress the Deputation suggested that some 
of the rents should be temporarily reduced. It was also decided 
to abolish the market dues paid by the residents. At the same 
time, to give more employment, the lime quarries were to be 
developed, and borings made to find coal; while about 100 
a year was to be spent in apprenticing ten or more boys to 
handicrafts. These were, however, not to be apprenticed on the 
farms, but in the neighbouring towns. 

I have dealt with these matters in some detail because they are 
evidence of the care with which the tenants were treated, and of 
the efforts made to develop the estate. 

The Company, however, did not confine itself to the promotion 
of the material interests of the tenantry. The livings belonging 
to the clergy of the Established Church were adequate, and 
required no addition, but direct gratuities were given to some of 
the Curates, and a contribution made to the Additional Curates' 
Society. At the same time a new church was built for Desertlin. 
The Piesbyterians were also helped. A site for a new meeting- 
house was given them in Moneymore, and the ministers through- 
out the estate assisted by gratuities. 

As to the Roman Catholics there was more difficulty. It was 
found that the majority of these were poor ; not * because the 
Romish faith induced poverty, nor because poverty led to the 
creed of Rome ', but probably, as the Deputation suggested, because 

1 See opposite page. 




* C 
u < 


S3 *s- 

- + 

* 2 [ 

1 >s 

-}- M 

* VO 


L; ON cr, 




o ** 


rt <^ 

O 00 


s : 

^* ON 


S3 00 

O\ NO 

> *^ 

06 ~ 


rr, \ 

<^> ^ 



.S -3 

C > u 

o .S -a 





2 * 

2 E S 

B i P 

O *^ 

f i "S 

rt 2 o b 


^1 S O 


s s ,' * "- 

S s.s * *" 



u C VO JJ 





S 3 


1^ Ov 

H VO * 

- * ^ ^00 2 

OO c<- 

>. H 

ON O 2 


^- ^J- 

^O *" O 





ct crt B 


- H S 


Freehold Leases 
xi years 

14 years 
7 years 
Yearly tenancy 

Freehold Leases 

a a 


7 years 
Yearly tenancy 
Not set because 

in arrear 

xi years 
14 years 



>,; w 



in arrear 




C <c\ 

^ H 


H M 


- t- 


^ c4 




fN^ O 

rt >^ 




VO w 



* '51 

* 1* 



Ig "1 

| ' 


s j 







'8 .'= 
' ^^5 





.s* 13 

- OT tO 
* t, O 

2 .2 " 




, - m s 

1 !i 


S ^ 

~-a c 

r3 C 

2 ^3 

*t3 *C9 


C ^* 

C >^ 

o O 


** ^ 




^TJ G < 
8 H Ji 

yr : 

rent w 
Arable a 








U K U 

W JvB 




2 y NO c < M 
gj o.E S|l | 

'Sx-S^S-B i 

ti s ^^. 

O J2 S e S 13 
CL,ni ? C ofifi 
J C > 3 w < c 


39 ^ The 'Drapers and Ireland 

the confiscations of the past, and the ill-advised legislation which 
had discouraged the accumulation of property by persons of 
that communion. 1 It followed that the priests were poorly paid, 
and yet, inasmuch as Ulster had been settled expressly for the 
purpose of supporting the Protestant religion, it would be 
unseemly to assist them by direct subventions. In spite of this, 
the Deputation urged that gratuities should be given in exceptional 
circumstances, and that, instead of accentuating religious dif- 
ferences, persons of all denominations should be encouraged to 
live in harmony, and to look on the opinions of their neighbours 
' with a consideration that perchance their neighbours might be 
right, and they in error*. The tolerant principles advocated by 
the Committee were followed. In the year 182,2, it was decided to 
grant annuities of ten guineas a year to the Roman Catholic priests 
of all those parishes, any part of which lay within the Company's 
estate, as well as to the Presbyterian minister at Cookstown. 2 

The same width of view was seen in dealing with the schools 
which were established by the Company. To these, children of 
all denominations were to be admitted. The Protestant and 
Roman Catholic children were to read the Protestant version of 
the Scriptures together, but the plain and simple truths of 
Christianity were alone to be insisted on, and no religious 
teaching should be given which was inconsistent with the tenets 
of the parents. 

As was to be expected, the regulations led to some difficulty. 
Some of the priests tried to resist this reading of the Scriptures : 
the Company, however, persisted; and in i8^p a Deputation 
reported that the Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars were 
on ' the terms of perfect good-will with each other '. Besides 

1 According to the Penal Laws passed after the Revolution of 1688, no Roman 
Catholic could buy, receive by gift, or inherit land, nor hold leases for more than 
thirty-one years. The right of leaving their land by will was denied them ; 
their estates were, on their death, to be divided equally among their sons, unless 
the eldest son turned Protestant, in which case he would succeed to all the land. 
The same disabilities were imposed on a Protestant who married a Roman 
Catholic wife ; and, if a Protestant woman married a Roman Catholic husband, 
her inheritance passed to her heir. Cf. Lecky, Hist, of England, ed. 1878, vol. i, 
pp. 283 ff., and especially pp. 188 ff. 

* Records, + 139, p. 159. 


8 3 


* I 

o rt 




since 1688 


these schools, special Sunday schools for the children of Church- 
men and an infant school at Moneymore were supported. The 
instruction in these free schools was of a primary character. 
More advanced education was left to private effort, but pecuniary 
assistance was given to two gentlemen who had started classical, 
mathematical, and commercial schools, and also to a higher-grade 
girls' school at Tamlaght. 

Nor were the Company neglectful of the love of the Irish for 
the pleasures of the turf. They subscribed liberally to the Derry 
Races, 1 although curiously enough, on one occasion at least, they 
declined a request that hunting should be allowed on their estate. 2 

If we may believe the reports of the various Deputations 3 that 
visited the estate up to the year 1839, testimony which is 
supported by that of the Archbishop of Armagh and by that of 
the Irish Society itself, 4 the result of all these efforts was 
satisfactory. Although, as was to be expected, there was some 
difficulty with regard to arrears of rent, and we hear of one riot 
at the Fair at Moneymore in iSij*, 5 the aspect of that town 
was completely altered : the great majority of the cabins had been 
replaced by decent houses ; the dung-heaps, which formerly had 
been the usual embellishment of the entrances, had disappeared, 
not only within the town, but to a great extent elsewhere. 

1 Records, + 139, p. 82. 2 1821 : ib., p. 202. 

3 The Reports were January 23, 1817; August 3, 1818; August 2, 18195 
August 7, 18205 April 7, 18x7; July 12, 1831; May 2, 1839. They are to 
be found in the Records under these dates, and were also printed for the 
Company by J. L. Cox, 1841. 

4 A Deputation from the Irish Society thus spoke of the condition of the 
Drapers' estate in 1838: c \Ve were very much pleased in going through this 
Proportion. The chief town, Moneymore, is quite an English town, most 
beautifully laid out and managed by Mr. Rowley Miller and his son. The town 
is one of the best we have met with in Ireland. The Company have lately 
established another town called Drapers' Town, which is thriving rapidly. There 
are many thriving plantations of timber here, and the whole appearance of the 
farm-houses, and the town with the church, the market-house and other 
buildings all indicate the kindness of the Drapers' Company and of their 
excellent manager, Mr. Miller.' The Deputation ended by recommending the 
example of the Company to all other Companies, many of whom they charged 
with serious dereliction of duty. Cf. Hill, Plantation of Ireland, p. 787, note. 

5 Records, + 139, p. 43 2. 

1603-3 E 

394 ^e "Drapers and Ireland 

The monthly market at Money more was well attended, and in 
every respect the ' neatness, cleanliness, and air of English 
comfort ', which met them as they entered the town, formed 
a pleasing contrast to the condition of most of the towns and 
villages they had passed through on their way from Dublin. 

The plantations were thriving, and although the rental had 
considerably increased, the tenants were for the most part well 

The educational policy adopted by the Company had been re- 
warded. The number of children receiving free instruction was 
about 1,300, of whom 700 were Roman Catholics. In a few years 
it was hoped that the tenantry would be the * best educated in 
Ireland, since every man would be able to read, write and keep 
accounts, and have a competent knowledge of the Scriptures '. 
No serious difficulty had been found with regard to the religious 
question. Though the proportion of Roman Catholics to the 
Protestants had not varied, the former were as loyal as the rest of 
people. The Protestant services and the Sunday schools were 
well attended, and the members of the various communions were 
living in harmony. 1 

Increase of In the year 1872, the business connected with the Irish estate 

Irish Busl - had so materially increased that a separate book of Irish Minutes 

of Irish was kept, an d was continued until the sale of the estate. 2 A depu- 

Minutes tation of members, elected by ballot, continued to visit the Manor 

i87z-8<f. nearly every year, and made a report, which was brought before 

the Court for approval. Besides this the Court was in close 

correspondence with the Agent, who on occasions of special 

importance was summoned to Drapers' Hall. 

The attention of the Court was more especially devoted to the 

1 In i8zi certain Catholic tenants in the town-lands of Dunnurry and 
Moydamlaght had opposed a lease being given to a Protestant. The Company, 
however, acted firmly, and we hear no more of the matter. Records, + 139, 
p. ^^^. In the following year the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the Brackas- 
liavgallon and Ballynascreen Divisions, to the number of 509, declared they had 
not entered into any associations such as that of Ribbonmen, or other illegal 
associations. They declared a spirit of party to be the greatest obstacle to the 
progress of religion and civilization, and that they would avoid every cause of 
irritation and promote concord and good-will. Records, + 139, p. 143. 

2 These are numbered +77? and + 776 in the Catalogue. 

since 1688 395- 

following subjects the development and administration of the Develop 
estate and the management of the schools. ment of the 

In 1873 the Company were deprived of the services of their faith- Q Stat 5' 
ful Agent by the death of Mr. H. R. Miller. The Company availed A ^ nt ^ 
themselves of the opportunity to settle the salary of the Agent and Miller^ 
to define his duties. His salary was fixed at 900 a year, with 1873. 
the use of the Manor House free of taxes, rates, insurance and 
repairs, except at such times as it might be required for the 
accommodation of the members of the annual 'Deputations '. He Duties of 
was to reside on the estate, and to devote his whole time to the A g en t and 
duties of his office. He was to collect the rents and dues from jjj " a j s 
the tenants, to present a monthly account of the receipts and 
expenditure, and send a report twice a year, or more often if 
necessary, as to the condition of affairs. He was to settle disputes 
with or between the tenants, discharge the expenses of the dis- 
pensaries under the control of the Company, pay the salaries of 
the master and mistresses of the schools, and of other officials; to 
see that the regulations for the management of the estate were 
carried out, and to do everything in his power to promote the 
interests of the Company and the welfare of the tenantry. 1 

He was to be assisted by a clerk, a forester, and by bailiffs over Agent or 
the three divisions. 2 The choice of the Court for the vacant post Surveyor, 
of Agent fell on Mr. Walter Trevor Stannus.' ^ r 

Of the vigorous attempts made by the Company to develop and 8l 3 
improve the estate we have abundant proof The reclaiming of 
bog-land, draining, the prevention of floods, the improvement of the 
plantations, the building and mending of roads, the development of 
railways, the search for coal and other minerals : all these objects 
were continually pressed on, and supported by liberal contributions. 
But the difficulties were great. When bog-land had been reclaimed 
it was allotted to neighbouring tenants, and rival claims had to be 
adjusted. Where the reclamation had been done at the cost of 
the Company, a small charge was made for the turf, and this was 
by some resented. If one man's land was drained, his neighbour 

1 Rep. + 775, PP- 75, 78, 80. 

2 In 1873 it was decided that there should be only one head-bailiff or 
surveyor for the whole estate, assisted by three under-bailiffs. Ib., pp. 103, 
J54j 340- 3 Rep. +77< 3 P. 8j. 

The "Drapers and Ireland 

often complained that it led to the flooding of his own. Some 
tenants, in protecting their own knds by banking up the river, 
or millers with their dams, narrowed the channel and increased 
the danger of floods above, and the claims for compensation were 

The search for minerals was not very successful, and the rail- 
ways did not pay owing to the want of traffic. 1 

The general policy with regard to the tenancies was to forbid 
underletting, 2 to consolidate small holdings, where it could be done 
without injury to individuals, and to induce the larger farmers to 
take their land on leases instead of from year to year. In 187^ 
it was resolved that all farms of the rental of $ and over should 
be held by lease, and in 1877 that all those tenants who paid a 
rent of i? to 2-0 should, if desirable persons, be granted leases 
for thirty-one years. 3 

Meanwhile, tenants were encouraged to improve their houses 
and their farms by loans to be repaid either directly or by an 
increase of their rents sufficient to pay the interest. 4 

1 The following are the most important references : 
Draining and reclaiming 

Kellytone, Rep. +77?, pp *6r, 191; Coltrem, ib., pp. 18 1, 379:+77<5, 
pp. 114, 139; Coolnasclagh Mountain, +775, p. 379; Carndaisy, + 776, 
p. 119. Cf. + 776, p. ^l6. As bog-land became 'spent' (i.e. cleared of all 
peat for fuel) it was apportioned among the neighbouring tenants. Cf. + 775, 
pp. n, nz. 

Overflow of the river Moneymore &c. 

Rep. +77 f, PP. ii, I3>4 8 J i> "4, *4*> *7, *97, 334> 33 6 j 3H> 379> 


Rep. +771, pp. 48, 119, 185, 336, 415-7, 433. Ornamental character of 
some glens preserved, Rep. +771? P- 433- 


Rep. +77?, PP- nc, 379 i +77^, P- 43 


Dungannon and Cookstown, Rep. + 775 3 pp. 88, 118 5 +77<5, p. M- Drapers' 
Town, Magherafelt, and Coleraine, ib., pp. i6i } 311, 311, 464, 467; +776, 
pp. 15, 71, loi. 

Coal and minerals 

Rep. + 775, pp. 3> 3> *3> 6 *> 6 7> "i, *73> 3 Z 3 3 4*- 

2 Rep. +775, p. 3*- 3 Ib -> PP- 94j 181, 179- 
4 Ib., pp. 39, I79 3 **9> Z 9> *97> 337- 

since 1688 


Seed was lent to the poorer tenants, and the breed of cattle 
improved by the purchase of pedigree bulls, which after a certain 
number of years became the property of the tenant to whom they 
were entrusted. One man was assisted in starting a saw-mill, and 
another a freestone quarry. 1 

The Company also interested themselves in promoting the 
welfare of the towns. 

The Deputation of the year 1871 recommended that the Com- Moneymore 
pany should grant a site at a nominal rent for the erection and Drapers* 
of a Hall in Moneymore, if the inhabitants would undertake the 
cost of building. Subsequently it was decided that the Corn 
Stores, part of which were unoccupied, should be utilized for the 
purpose. 2 In 1876 a new weigh-bridge was erected. In 1879 
a loan was made towards the lighting of the town with oil 
lamps. 3 The amateur band, the cricket and athletic club were also 
supported by a contribution ; a Dispensary was maintained at the 
Company's cost, and a clothing club supported, 4 as well as a 
farming society and a cottage garden society. The proposal to 
establish a weekly market in the town was, however, negatived. 5 
Indeed, the hopes of the development of the town which had 
been entertained 6 had not been realized. The Deputations of 1 873 
and 1875- reported that there was little demand for houses in the 
town, that there was little or no business, and that the farming 
society was doing very little. 7 Those of 1878 and 187^ stated 
that there was no improvement and the tenants were careless. 
Nor did the Deputation think that the proposal of a grocer to 
sell spirits would stimulate industry, especially as there were 
already too many public-houses. 8 

For Drapers' Town not so much appears to have been done, 
probably because it was in a somewhat more prosperous condition, 

1 No underletting. Rep. +775, p. 36. Seed, ib., p. 391 j +776, pp. 74, 124. 
Free Stone Quarry, Rep. + 775j p. 68; +776, p. 218. San>-mtll 3 Rep. +775, 
pp. 246, 432; + 776, p. zii. Bulls^ Rep. +775, PP- 171, 4*- 

' Rep- +775, PP- 10, 200. 

3 Ib., pp. 381, 430. It may be noted that in 1875 it was hoped gas would 
soon be introduced (ib., p. 160). 

Ib., pp. 250, 326, 403. 5 Ib., pp. 191, 381. 6 Cf. supra, p. 382. 

7 Rep. +775, PP- 95> *9 l y 1 9 6 - 8 !*>., PP- M4> 33 l ^"-5 3 8 o. 


The 7)rapers and Ireland 


ment of the 
Schools on 
the Irish 

and we are told that the market there was fairly attended. 1 All 
we hear is of the erection of a saw-mill ; of a dispensary, and a 
cricket club ; of repairs to houses; of drainage, of the desirability 
of utilizing the waste water for a drinking trough, and of some 
trouble over a pump. 2 

In 1873 it was resolved to build a Court House and a 'Bride- 
well ' at Magherafelt. 3 

There was no question to which the Company gave more 
attention than that of the Schools. Every ' Deputation ' that 
visited the estate made a careful report of their condition and 
suggested improvements or reforms, which were almost always 
adopted by the Court. 

The primary schools, which had been built by the Company, 
were in 1871 six in number. 4 Though attended by children of 
all denominations, the Deputation reported that the utmost 
harmony prevailed. The subjects of instruction were Reading, 
"Writing, Arithmetic, Grammar, History, and Vocal Music; to 
which Needlework was added in the Girls' Schools. The chil- 
dren who could do so were required to read the Protestant version 

1 Rep. +775, P- I0 - The towns, however, were never very prosperous. 

2 Ib., pp. 101, zoo, 116, 197, 199, 333, 347, 431. 
Rep. +775, PP- 37, 4*j *44 












six months. Report. 

Blackhill . . 
















Cranny . . 





I 2.6 



Inniscarn . . 


I I 






Moneymore . 
















Total 114 159 185- 468 336 

In i86z the numbers on the books had been 633, and the attendance 400. 
It must be remembered that there were no Government Schools in Ireland, nor 
any Board of Education till 1831. Cf. Graham Balfour, The Educational 
Systems of Great Britain and Ireland (Clar. Press, 1898), pp. 81 ff. A report of 
1880 (Rep. + 75 5, p. 41 8) gives the Company's schools as seven. I presume the 
seventh was the Drapers' Town female school, which had apparently been already 
placed under the National Board. There were also the Moneymore infant school j 
the Moneymore classical school, established with the aid of the Company (ib., 
p. 194); the Tamlaght National School, and some Sunday Schools (ib., p. 138), 
such as that of Moneymore, which was bought by the Company in 1879 for 
at the request of the Primate (ib., p. 354). 

since 1688 


of the Bible, but without any comment other than on the gram- 
matical construction. 

The falling-off, both in the numbers on the books and in the 
attendance, since the year 1 862,, was due, they stated, partly to 
the decrease in population, but far more in all probability to the 
anxiety of the Catholic priests to withdraw the children of that 
communion to the National Schools, wherever they obtained the 
control of them. 1 

The management of the Company's schools was vested in 
a Board of Governors, consisting of the clergy on the estate, 
Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic, and the Company's 
Agent. These held their offices ex officio. The rest, composed 
or certain gentry resident in the neighbourhood and the principal 
tenants, were co-opted by the Board. The yearly contribution 
of the Company came to some 600, besides which 100 was 
annually granted in premiums for proficiency and regular atten- 
dance, and another &ioo to be applied to the apprenticing of 
children brought up in the Schools. 2 

This system had been originally started when the Company Question of 
took over the estate in 1817. In 1872, the question was raised transferring 
whether it would be well to transfer these schools to the National S , chls - to 
Board of Education in Ireland, which had been established in 
1831, 'with a view to afford combined literary, moral and 
separate religious instruction, to children of all persuasions as far 
as possible in the same school, on the fundamental principle that 
no attempt should be made to interfere with the peculiar religious 
tenets of any Christian children '. Under the regulations or that 
date the National Schools were divided into two classes, ' vested ' 
and ' non- vested ' ; the first being vested in the Commissioners 
or in trustees, the second remaining the property of individuals 
or of societies. Both classes of schools were under the control of 
patrons or managers recognized by the Commissioners. The 
Government aid granted to * non- vested ' schools only covered 
the salaries of the teachers, the provision of books and other 
necessaries, the charges of inspection and the training of teachers; 

1 Of this practice we have definite instances in the case of Blackhill School in 
1879 and of that of Carnamoney in 1880 (Rep. +775, pp. 359, 4*3)- 

2 Rep. +77?, P- 418. 



4-oo The "Drapers and Ireland 

moreover the grants were only annual, and could be discontinued. 
The grants to the * vested ' schools covered costs of building and 
repairs, and were for longer periods. 

In * non- vested ' schools to which class, in all probability, the 
Company's schools would, if handed over, belong the patrons or 
managers decided whether any, and, if any, what religious instruc- 
tion should be given in the schoolroom ; but if it were not, 
parents or guardians could withdraw their children for the purposes 
of religious instruction elsewhere. In the opinion of the Deputa- 
tion, this regulation had led the parents to send their children, 
when possible, to schools under patrons of the same denomination 
as themselves ; and where there were neighbouring schools under 
patrons of different denominations, the system had become prac- 
tically a denominational system with a conscience clause, rather 
than one of combined secular and separate religious instruction, as 
had been the original intention. The Deputation reported that 
on the question whether the Company's schools should eventually 
be handed over to the National Board, there was much division 
of local opinion, but that, generally speaking, the Presbyterians 
and the Roman Catholics were in favour of it. 

On the merits of the question the members of the Deputation 
expressed no very definite opinion themselves. If, on the one 
hand, the Schools would, under the National Board, tend to become 
more denominational, it might be argued that the parents would 
take more interest in them ; the attendance and the education 
would be better, and the inspection more efficient ; and that the 
Company would be relieved of nearly one-half of the present 
annual charges. 

Inasmuch, however, as the subject of Irish education was to 
come before Parliament in the ensuing session, and considerable 
changes might be made, it was urged by all parties that it would 
be better to postpone the question. 1 

In the year 1874, however, the Deputation reported in favour 

1 Report of 'Deputation* of 1871, pp. i8ff. Legislation was expected 
because of the Report of the Powys Commission in 1870. No Act, however, 
was passed till 1875, when by 38 and 39 Vic., cc. 82 and 96, the raising of 
public loans for erecting houses for teachers in non-vested schools and the levy 
of education rate were authorized. Cf. Balfour, pp. 1046*". 

since 1688 


of taking this step. They pointed out that money was voted 
annually i