supervision of traders and prices

Throughout almost the entire period of this study, the supervision of traders, their goods and the prices which they charged, formed an integral part of the work of the view of frankpledge. During the thirteenth century statutes had already been issued to regulate trade in a general way, principally through magna carta and its affirmation in 1297, which stated that there should be one common measure throughout the kingdom for various classes of items such as ale, corn and cloth. However,

it was not until 1324 that specific regulations were made to control the prices of goods. A statute of 1324 laid the foundations of price control by establishing the assize of bread and ale - two commodities which formed an important part of the diet of the general population; it also regulated other goods, but to a lesser extent. i The work of supervising these regulations devolved upon the local community through the view of frankpledge, either at the hundred court presided over by the sheriff or, as in Carshalton, at the lord’s private court.

The statute of 1324 was wide-ranging in its application since it not only defined prices of goods but also regulated the size of t r a d e r s ’ measures and stipulated the amount they could take as profit. As regards bread,

it defined the relationship between the price of a — 69 —

quarter of wheat and the price and weight of a loaf of bread, (with allowances for different qualities of wheat and different types of bread) while, at the same time, it specified the amount of profit for the baker. It stated t h a t , after he had deducted his expenses for f u e l , servants and rent, a baker was entitled to make a profit of 4d on each quarter of w h e a t . To make it easier for the view to check that bakers were observing the regulations, each baker was to have his own mark for his bread. The same set of regulations also affected the price of the b a k e r ’s raw materials, as it limited the amount of grain which the miller could take as his allowance for grinding the corn, usually called the miller's toll. In the case of fraudulent bakers who sold underweight bread, the penalties laid down in the statute depended both on the scale of the underweight and the number of offences, ranging from fines for the first offence to the pillory for frequent o f f e n c e s .

The assize of ale was organised in a similar fashion; the selling price of ale depended on the selling price of barley which, in turn, was based on the price of wheat. The statute quoted the following example - when a quarter of wheat was sold for 3s Od or 3s 4 d , one quarter of barley should be sold at Is 8d or 2s O d . Brewers should then be able to sell their product at the rate of two gallons for Id in cities, three gallons for Id in towns

and four gallons for Id in the countryside. As with bakers, allowances were made for market forces and local differences, so that brewers were expected to adjust their prices if the price of grain rose or fell. Penalties for infringing the regulations were defined as fines up to the limit of 2s Od for the first three offences. If the brewer persisted in offending, he was to be punished with the tumbrel, * or some other correction’, and still pay a fine.

As with bread, price controls could only be effective if measures were standardised and, for this purpose, the same statute set out the means of standardisation, using a local committee to oversee brewers' measures. It declared that , at a local court , a group of six men were to gather together all the measures used in the locality - a l l the 'Gallons, Pottles and Quarts' from taverns and such places - and have the names of the owners clearly inscribed on them. It went on to state that 12 men should act as jurors and that the brewers should appear before them with their measures, so that these could be checked against the standard measures. These measures were to be 'sealed with the king's seal* and kept securely in the custody of the local bailiff who was responsible for summoning the brewers to have their measures c h e c k e d .

Having established the constraints of measurement and price, the local jurors appointed an agent called the ale taster who had the task of assessing the quality of the product and applying the regulations. Quality assessment was an important part of his work, as brewers might make a product which obeyed the regulations about measurement and price, but it might be so heavily diluted and adulterated that, in practice, it broke both sets of regulations. Since the only means of assessing the quality and strength of ale was by tasting it, a resident ale taster, known as Tastator or Gustator Cervisie, was appointed who had the function of checking the price, the measures, and the quality.

While ale and bread were the main subjects of the assize, the statute also dealt with other fraudulent or questionable traders. These included butchers selling bad meat, forestallers selling goods cheaply before the market officially opened, and regrators, who bought goods at wholesale prices and retailed them at a high price. In practice, the statute established a basis for trade by regulating the weights of coins, wool, tallow and cheese, and standardising ounces, pounds, gallons and bushels. At the same time, it empowered the view to charge traders who were using ’f a lse’, or non-standard, weights and s c a l e s .

This wide-ranging and comprehensive piece of legislation was altered to some extent by further legislation in 1349. At this date controls were extended to cover wages as well as prices because of economic changes resulting from the first outbreak of the Black D e a t h . Wages, however, were not included in the work of the view and they were supervised by justices on specially appointed c o m m i s s i o n s.2 While fixing wages, the statute of 1349 also issued price regulations, but it differed from the earlier statute by including other traders, such as fishmongers, innkeepers and poulterers, and allowing traders to charge 'reasonable prices' and make 'moderate gains'. Because allowance was made for costs of transport, there was no attempt to define the prices on a countrywide basis similar to the statute of 1324, but anyone making an excessive profit was faced with a fine which was double the amount that he made. These regulations were to be proclaimed by the sheriff in all local communities and also announced in church. In this way, by a gradual process of legislation, the local community, through the view of frankpledge, became responsible for deciding which prices were reasonable, according to local conditions.

The regulations contained in these statutes formed the basis of trade supervision in Carshalton, where it affected the following traders: a) brewers and sellers

of ale and b e e r , b) bakers, c) millers, d) butchers, and e) fishmongers. While the fourteenth-century statutes established the main outline of the work of the view, both local conditions and general economic changes affected this work, and this present study examines the extent of change over 350 years.

As a general rule, the view regulated trade by a system of fines. According to this system, each trader paid a sum of money, or fine, which allowed him to trade and, in effect, he was paying a local tax on his business to the lord of the manor. Traders normally paid these licensing fines twice-yearly at the meetings of the view, but they had to pay additional fines if they infringed specific regulations. Some traders practised multiple occupations and paid for several licences at one time.

a) brewers and sellers of ale and beer

The trade of brewing and selling ale and b e e r , which was supervised by the ale t a s t e r , provided work for the view in varying amounts throughout almost the whole period of the records. It remained far longer under the supervision of the view than any other trades.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, brewing was generally a part-time or occasional occupation. People

who were licenced to brew, brewed once or twice a year for family or local consumption and paid a fine of about 4d a year. This kind of occasional brewing was often done by women, especially widows, as a way of earning extra money, but it was probably not a trade carried out by the poorest people, since it required a certain amount of capital investment. It needed space, often in the form of a separate brewhouse, with a hearth for fermenting the barley, and equipment, such as tubs, pails and vats, as well as raw materials like fuel and barley. 3 Some of the brewers may have shared their e q u i pment, since people in Carshalton with the same surnames were carrying out occasional brewing, which suggests that they were sharing or lending or passing on equipment to other members of the same family. Certainly the records show that it was a family activity - William Bockley was brewing in 1359 and 1360, then Matilda Bockley, who was probably his widow, was brewing in 1380 and 1381, and she was followed by Roger Bockley in 1392. Similarly both William and John Vincent were occasional brewers, as were members of other families with the surnames Colecock, Foller, P a p e l o t , St il lego and Whythend. *

The amount of work for the view arising from brewing was at its peak during the fourteenth century, when an average of 25 brewers was recorded at each meeting. The

roll for 1359 shows the distinction between the supervision of brewers and the presentation of those who had infringed the regulations. 15 brewers were listed, without payements, while seven were fined for 'breaking the assize'. ^ In 1360, 15 brewers paid additional amounts because they were selling ale in non-standard measures, and two others paid extra for selling ale untasted by the ale taster. ^

The fourteenth-century records show that it was normal practice for the view to collect both types of payments from brewers after they had brewed and that the size of the payments depended on the number of brews they had made. For example, when John Piper was presented at the view for brewing 33 times, for selling in non­ standard measures and for failing to send for the ale taster, he paid a total of 6s Od. ^ However, during the fourteenth century, most brewing was an occasional occupation, with ale being made largely for domestic consumption and only the surplus being sold off.

In addition to checking on the extent of brewing and the quality of the brew, the view was also required to exercise control over the selling of ale and the premises where it was sold. An example of this occurred In 1381, when John Foller was charged with continuing to sell ale for three days after he had taken down his sign, called

an Alstake, at the ale festival Cin feria servi si e') . At the same time, his brother, Hugh, together with Geoffrey Whytend, was fined for refusing to sell ale ’outside their h o u s e ’, which meant that they were selling at the back door where they could charge what they liked, instead of in public and under supervision. ®

While the trade of brewing still predominated among the other trades supervised by the view, the number of brewers paying to brew began to fall in the fifteenth century, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. average period: date average 1350-99 25 1400-49 16 1450-99 13 1500-49 4 1550-99 0 1600-49 0 1650-99 0 brewers % of total 43 28 22 7 0 0 0

In the fifteenth century the work of the view changed as the trade of brewing tended to become concentrated in the hands of families who brewed year after year. In the early part of the century, there were still some families who brewed occasionally for household use. However, in the later fifteenth century, the change was more marked,

with a move away from occasional brewing into professional brewing all year round. There were other changes as well - one of these occurred in 1476 when the view laid down regulations to control the amount of brewing, stating that no resident should brew more than once at any one time. After he had made and sold his ale, then his neighbours were permitted to brew if they wished, but with the same restriction. The view also set the price at 2d a gallon, with a penalty of 6d for overcharging. ^

A further change occurred in 1479 when the licence to brew took on a new form. This happened when three or four individuals applied in advance for an annual licence on payment of a lump sum, rather than paying in retrospect for the number of brews they had made, While payments were still being made for occasional brewing, the numbers were much reduced. The development of annual licences appears to mark a change to professional brewing carried out all year round by just three or four families. Another indication of this change to professional brewing is the description given to them of 'common b rewers’ to distinguish them from the occasional brewers. This change may have been caused by external factors - possibly the introduction of hops and the production of beer, which had better keeping qualities than unhopped ale. The use of hops allowed

manufacturing to take place at a steady rate all year round, not just when there was a demand, and the product could be stored until it was required for sale. However, payment for an annual licence did not free brewers from having to pay fines for infringing the regulations and, in 1484 for the first time, a brewer, who was fined for selling in illegal measures, also had a penalty of 3s 4d imposed against committing a further offence. ii

For the first time also, there was a direct challenge by a brewer to the supervision and regulation of the view. Nicholas Scoryer had brewed twice but refused to pay any fines. He stated that the Carshalton view had no rights of jurisdiction over him because his brewhouse was located at Stonecourt, which he claimed was a separate manor, not subject to the Carshalton view. Scoryer was taking advantage of the unresolved status of Stonec o u r t , which was occasionally described as ’the manor of Stonecourt' and was sometimes a free tenement, while at other times it was considered to be a customary tenement of the lord. The view, however, did not accept his claim and he was distrained for his fines, being the only brewer to be distrained for non-payment. 12

Further statutory legislation reduced the supervision of the view over brewing in the late fifteenth century as JPs at the quarter sessions gradually took over the

responsibility for brewing licences. This process began in 1495 when JPs were given authority to stop ale being sold, if they thought fit, and were empowered to demand guarantees in cash from ale house keepers as a condition of good behaviour. This marked the beginning of the control and licensing of the sale of ale and beer by an agency outside the manor.i3

In the sixteenth century the number of occasional brewers declined gradually and most applicants for licences were professional brewers, paying 12d a year in advance for the right to brew all year. Since the same people were brewing year after year, the trade became concentrated in the hands of a small group, leading to a degree of stability in the trade and a regular supply of beer. The abundant supply of ale and beer may have caused the view to issue an order in 1536 safeguarding the sale of church ales - the order stated that no brewer should brew ale in Carshalton for eight days whenever the churchwardens were selling ale for the benefit of the church. i * (Church ale was a strong ale made and sold in aid of church funds, usually at Whitsun, or at the time of the patronal f e s tival.)

Some brewers also paid for licences to retail; for example, in 1527 three brewers, who were retailers, were ordered to sell beer openly from their houses and

have a reliable supply for sale, 'at whatever time they shall be required, any of them having two gallons or more

in the h o u s e ’. i^

The growth of professional brewing also led to an increase in the number of retailers of beer and ale. Retailing, like brewing, provided a steady income, but it involved less capital investment, since the licence cost less and retailers could sell directly from their houses without having to provide much storage space. In some cases, the retailers were not only selling ale and beer but also applied to sell bread and other foodstuffs. The view exercised control over these multiple retailers to the extent of banning two of them from trading, but no reason was given for the ban. i^

By the second half of the sixteenth century, the work of the view had changed completely and only retailers of beer and keepers of ale houses still came within its jurisdiction. Some of these were charged with selling their products in non-standard measures, usually described as 'stone pottes', which were probably stoneware vessels imported from the Rhineland and not of standard sizes. However, in an exceptional example in 1557, no ale retailers paid fines and two of them were stated to be selling 'by legal measures'. i^ Outside

influences began to affect the work of the view during — 81 —