working life of women seventeenth century - School of Economics ...

CRAFTS AND TRADES CRAFTS AND TRADES 227but such as they buy from the brewers."' To theobjections " that brewers who were free by serviceor otherwise to use the trade of brewing would refuseto take a licence, and when apprentices had servedtheir time there would be many who might do so,"it was replied that it was " not usual for Brewersto take any apprentices but hired servants and thestock necessary for the trade is such as few apprenticescan furnish."' Thus the rise of the " common brewer"signalises the complete victory of capitalistic organisationin the brewing trade. In 1636 Commissionerswere appointed to " compound with persons whowished to follow the trade of common Brewers throughoutthe Kingdom."' The next year returns werereceived by the Council, giving the names and otherparticulars of those concetned in various districts.The list for the " Fellowshipp of Brewers now livingin Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the breath and depthof their several1 mash tunns " gives the names of fiftythreemen and three women, wido~s.~ A list ofsuch brewers in the County of Essex " as hale paidtheir fines and are bound to pay their rent accordingly "'(i.e. were licensed by the King's Commissioners forbrewing) includes sixty-three men and four women,while the names of one hundred and twenty-fourmen and eight women are ghen in other tablescontaining the amounts due from brewers andmaultsters in certain other c~unties,~ showingthat the predominance of women in the brewingtrade had then disappeared, the few namesappearing in the lists being no doubt those ofbrewers' widows.l S. P. D., cxii., 75. Februarp g, 1620.C. R. November 9, 1636.a S. P. D. ccclxxvii., 62, 1637.S. P. D. ccclxxvii., 64, 1637.The creation of the common brewers' monopolywas very unpopular. At Bury St. Edmunds a petitionwas resented by " a great no. of poor people" tothe Justices of Assize, saying that for many yearsthey had been relieved " by those inn-keepers whichhad the liberty to brew their beer in their own houses,not only with money and food, but also at the severaltimes of their breGing (being moved with pity andcompassion, knowing our great extremities and necessities)with such quantities of their small beer ashas been a continual help and comfort to us with ourpoor wives and children : yet of late the commonbrewers, whose number is small and their benefits tous the poor as little notwithstanding in their estatethey are wealthy and occupy great offices of malting,under pretence of doing good to the commonwealth,have for their own lucre and gain privatelycombined themselves, and procured orders fromthe Privy Council that none shall brew in this townbut they and their adherents."' At Tiverton theCouncil was obliged to make a concession to popularfeeling and agreed that " every person being a freemanof the town and not prohibited by law might usethe trade of Common Brewer as well as the fourpersons formerly licensed by the Commissioners, "but the petition that the ale-house keepers and innkeepersmight brew as formerly they used was refused," they might brew for their own and families use;otherwise to buy from the Common Brewers.""The monopoly involved the closing of many smallbusinesses. Sarah Kemp a widow, petitioned theCouncil because she had " been forced to give upbrewing in Whitefriars, and had been at loss bothin removing her implements and in her rents,"asking " that in consideration of her loss she mightl Hist. MSS. Corn., 14 Rep. App., VIII., p. 142.6 S. P. D. ccclxxxvii., 66. a C. R. June 12, 1640. Order concerning the Brewers of Tiverton.