Companies

Companies.

I. 52. Letter from the Lord Mayor (Sir Thomas Ramsey (fn. 1) ) to the Lord Treasurer, acknowledging the receipt of his letter in favour of Harny, a bookbinder, free of the Fishmongers' Company, who had been sued in the King's Bench for using the general liberties of the City, and also that Stationers might put their work to persons skilful without offence of the Act of Common Council. The Court of Aldermen had given direction for restraining all suits against the Stationers in matters touching that Act of Common Council, but the case of Harny was still being pursued by an informer (one Lille, free of the Merchant Taylors' Company) under the Statute of Labourers, (fn. 2) Anno Quinto of Her Majesty, wherein it was ordained that none should use any art in which he had not been apprenticed, which, however, was not intended to touch the City's liberties. The Lord Mayor requests instructions maybe given to the Attorney-General to examine into this case, and into the one brought by Langrake against Bolton, a freeman of the Merchant Taylors' Company, for selling chandler's ware, and if it should, appear that all the penalties are to be given to the City, that the proceedings may be stayed.
Sans date (circa 1577–8).

I. 68. Letter from the Lord Mayor to . . . . . . . ., thanking him for the relief afforded to a great number of poor citizens troubled for using the lawful trades of this City according to their ancient freedom, and for having stayed proceedings in the suits against them.
20th November, 1579.

I. 270. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, informing them that, by ancient orders of the City, the White Bakers and Brown Bakers had been kept separate Companies by special ordinances, to prevent inconveniences which would arise if the white baker were permitted to bake brown bread, and vice versâ; and charge had been given in Hallimote inquest to prevent the same. The Common Council had also considered the matter, and thought it necessary and profitable to the commonweal, and for the good assize of bread, that the Companies should remain separate. The White Bakers alleged that they had obtained Letters Patent to incorporate the two Companies into one, although the Brown Bakers wholly disagreed thereto, and by reason of this new Corporation the orders of the Common Council touching baking could not be carried into effect. Although the City had power to regulate matters relating to the victual of the Queen's subjects, they thought it due to the Council to inform them of these facts, and to beseech them to permit the City to deal with matters of bread as they had previously done, notwithstanding the said new Letters Patent.
28th September, 1581.

I. 287. Letter from Sir Francis Walsingham to Mr. Thomas Norton, informing him that the Lords of the Council had determined to recommend Her Majesty to revoke the Letters Patent of the White Bakers. In the mean time the Court of Aldermen should continue the use of the ancient ordinances of the City for the severing of these Companies, notwithstanding the new Letters Patent.
16th October, 1581.

II. 16. Letter from Sir John Puckering, (fn. 3) Lord Keeper, to the Lord Mayor, requesting him to see that William Warren, lately chosen Master of the Musicians' Company, but prevented from the peaceful exercise of his office by some of the members of that Company, be not further interfered with.
29th September, 1594.

II. 100. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer, giving an account of the proceedings taken by direction of his Lordship against the Company of Merchant Adventurers (fn. 4) for the disbursement of the sum of 50l., required "in prest" by Captain Swan for the charges of the shipping of certain poor men to the Low Countries, which they refused to disburse, and stating that in the meanwhile the poor men continued in Bridewell and Southwark.
27th June, 1595.

II. 251. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, reporting the steps taken at their request by the Court of Aldermen to restore Thomas Elliott to his office of Master of the Pewterers' Company, from which he had been formerly removed.
6th February, 1604.

II. 252. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, informing them that the Pewterers' Company had agreed to receive Thomas Elliott again into his office of Master, upon his giving bond to the Company for such plate and other matters of charge as by his office were to be committed unto him, which custom was observed in many Companies; that at first he refused to do as they required; some fresh objections being, however, taken against him, a Petition, signed by two hundred of the Company, had been presented, praying that he might not be put upon them, but that they might have free choice of such as were to hold the place of government amongst them.
17th March, 1604.

II. 273. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Edward Cooke, (fn. 5) Knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, touching the Charter lately granted to the Cutlers' Company, and complaining that this new Charter was contrary to the usage and custom of this ancient City, and requesting him to examine and report upon the differences between the Old and New Charter.
12th October, 1606.

II. 282. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, enclosing a Report from the Court of Aldermen touching the differences between the Company of Skinners and the Artisan Skinners referred to them by their Lordships.
19th March, 1606.

II. 303. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Lord Chief Justice Fleming, (fn. 6) touching the Suit to be brought before him in the King's Bench, by Nicholas Lowe against Thomas Beckford, Master of the Blacksmiths' Company, for proceedings against the said Lowe, who was carrying on the trade of a smith, not being free of the City, and requesting his Lordship to refer the suit to the Court of Aldermen for inquiry.
23rd January, 1607.

II. 305. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, enclosing a Petition from the Grocers' Company, complaining that His Majesty, for the redress of a great annoyance occasioned by the making of starch, had granted Letters Patent for the incorporation of certain persons, allowed and using the trade of starch-making (fn. 7) into one Company, whereby the price of that article would be much increased, and great annoyance and inconvenience caused to the citizens.
5th February, 1607.

II. 241. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, enclosing a Petition from the Poulterers of London, complaining of the wrongs done to them by His Majesty's purveyors.
9th March, 1603.

III. 17. Letter from the Commissioners for Suits to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, enclosing Copy of a Petition referred to them by the King for consideration, from the Silkmen of the City of London, to be incorporated into a Company, and requesting them to consider it, and if they could show any reasons why the request should not be complied with, to send two or three of the Aldermen, sufficiently instructed, to the Exchequer Chamber on the following Thursday, or, in the event of their approval, to certify the same in writing before the time appointed.
Dated from the Exchequer Chamber, 27th June, 1611.

III. 18. The Answer of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to the foregoing Letter, stating that the Company sought to be established was neither profitable nor necessary, but a novelty full of inconvenicences. With respect to necessity, the grounds alleged were the redress of three abuses—1st, falsity in working; 2nd, falsity in dying; 3rd, falsity in weighing, of silk, gold, and silver thread, all of which were otherwise remedied, and in a better manner than they could be by this Company. For falsity in working, the Weavers had by Charter, (fn. 8) the search, view and correction. For falsity in dying, and Act of Common Council (fn. 9) was already ordained; and for falsity in weight, the Statutes of the Realm were excellent, and the Mayor of London was sworn to oversee the Weights and Measures in the City. The inconveniences which would arise are stated to be many, and are given at length.
Sans date.

III. 23. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lord Chief Justice, stating that the Company of Brown Bakers had made complaint to them against one John Littlepage, who, being a white baker, exercised the trade of a brown baker, in baking brown bread, called housewife's bread, in breach and contempt of an Order made by the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen in the time of the late Queen Elizabeth, with the consent of both Companies, and that, finding Littlepage refused to obey the said Order, they had committed him to prison, upon which he had procured a writ of Habeas Corpus, to remove the matter before the Lord Chief Justice. Since they found by daily experience the example of an obstinate person, if he obtained never so little countenance, was enough to disturb a whole multitude, they prayed that, for example sake, the prisoner might be remainded back again, to be detained until he should conform himself
17th September, 1611.

Note in Margin.—Upon this Letter, the prisoner was remanded, and enforced to obey the Order of the Court.

III. 77. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords Commissioners for Suits, against the Petition exhibited to His Majesty by the Company of Feltmakers, (fn. 10) to be admitted to the freedom of the City, as of the Company of Feltmakers, and stating that their Suit had been considered and rejected by the general and free opinion of the Court of Common Council, (fn. 11) a copy of whose Order they enclosed for their Lordships' information.
18th February, 1612.

III. 137. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Chancellor, (fn. 12) stating that he had been informed that a Book of Ordinances had been exhibited to him by the Company of Joiners, for power of search and survey over the several Trades of Coachmakers, Trunkmakers, Gunstock, Flask, and Touch-box Makers, Cupboard Makers, and Boxmakers; and that they alleged the practice and workmanship of those trades, and the timber, stuff and materials used by them were within the compass of their skill and judgment. Having conferred with the Master and Wardens of the Joiners, the Lord Mayor thought it not amiss that they should have the power afforded them, so far as their skill and judgment extended.
16th March, 1613.

III. 145. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, stating (inter alia) that the Cooks had lately very secretly and surreptitiously, upon wrong suggestions, obtained a new Charter from the King with a non obstants to dispense with all Statutes, Proclamations, Orders, &c., and praying the Council to mediate with the King that the said Letters Patent might be referred to the consideration of the Judges to certify whether they were agreeable to law and stood with the Charter and good government of the City.
21st May, 1614.

Note in Margin.—Upon this letter the Cooks' new Charter was referred to the consideration of the Lord Chief Justice Coke.

III. 146. Copy of Letter from the Lords of the Council to Lord Chief Justice Coke, referring to him the consideration of the Cooks' new Charter, and requesting him to suspend the execution thereof, if he thought meet, until he should receive further orders from the Council.
22nd May, 1614.

III. 147. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, forwarding a Petition from the Company of Silkweavers, for whose relief the Council had in April last passed an Order that they should have free liberty to pursue the law against all merchant strangers, and others, importing wrought silk wares from abroad, contrary to the Act 29th Henry VII., (fn. 13) and who prayed that the remedies ordained by law might be afforded them.
Sans date (circa May, 1614).

III. 148. Copy of a Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Chief Justice and Sir Thomas Lake, forwarding a communication from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, setting forth the inconveniences likely to arise by occasion of the Apothecaries, who had for a long time been members of the Grocers' Company, endeavouring to divide themselves therefrom and obtain a separate Charter, and requiring them to call before them some such of the College of Physicians as they might think meet, and also such Apothecaries as should be named by the Grocers or the Physicians, and after hearing the parties to certify their opinion to the Council.
29th May, 1614.

III. 161. Letter from Sir Thomas Bartlett (fn. 14) to the Lord Mayor, forwarding him a Petition from the Company of Pinners (fn. 15) to be admitted to the Freedom of the City in that Company, and commending their case to the consideration of the Court of Aldermen.
11th July, 1614.

III. 178. Order in Council, reciting the complaint of the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen against the Cooks' new Charter, and that they Charter had been referred to the Lord Chief Justice of England for consideration, who having heard the parties, certified:—1stly, That the Charter was against the Common Law, there being a clause of confirmation therein to continue for ever an Act of Common Council made on behalf of the Company, which, for some known inconveniences, the same authority intended to repeal; 2ndly, That it was against the Charters of the City of London, who had power to make Orders and Constitutions, and change the same at their will and pleasure; 3rdly, It gave the Company an unlimited power to search and seize unwholesome victuals, and dispose thereof at their pleasure, whereby they might take it from others and make benefit of it themselves. Further, it was contrary to many Statutes against forestalling, engrossing, and ingrating victuals.

It was against an Order in Council of the 26th March, 1614, directing that no person should have more barrels in his house than should be appointed by the Lord Mayor, and the Orders of the Lord Mayor and Justices, approved by the Lord Chief Justice, for suppressing drunkards, whereby Cooks were prohibited from having more than twenty barrels at one time in their houses; or from keeping beer or ale in other vessels than barrels, or from selling beer or ale in or out of their houses without meat.

For these reasons, and on account of the strange and insuffereable clauses of non obstante dispending with all Acts, Laws, Statutes, Orders, or Ordinances of the King or the Privy Council, Proclamations, &c., then made or thereafter to be made, the Council, concurring with the Lord Chief Justice, declare the Patent unfit to be put in execution, and order it to be suspended and remain in the Council chest, and also direct the Attorney-General to proceed legally to repeal it, unless the Company voluntarily surrender it.

The Lord Chief Justice had certified the Cooks were justly grieved that though the Lord Mayor had suppressed many ale-houses, so many still remained. The Council therefore direct an Order to be immediately issued to the Lord Mayor for suppressing the excessive number of ale-houses within the City, and similar Orders to those to whom it appertained for suppressing many of those near, but without the jurisdiction of, the City, so that the Cooks' Company might not have just cause to complain.
16th October, 1614.

III. 180. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, stating that, having suppressed the unreasonable Charter, surreptitiously obtained by the Cooks' Company, they felt that, on the other side, they must take care that the Company was not wronged by the sufferance of another mischief more intolerable—viz., the excessive number of ale and tipling houses, which had so increased in the City. For which reason they desired to put him in mind how much it concerned the government of the City that such houses should not exceed in number, and required him to make speedy inquiry of the number thereof in the City and Liberties, and whether they had licenses, and of the condition and fame of the owners, and then to reduce them to some reasonable proportion.
22nd October, 1614.

IV. 5. Mr. Recorder's Draft of a Letter to be sent by the Court of Aldermen to Lord Chief Justice Coke, informing him that the Joiners' Company had complained of divers contentious brethren of their Company, who refused to be governed by the Ordinances made by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hobart; that having heard the parties, they found the cause of contention arose upon the refusal of the persons complained of to perform an ordinance for making their masterpiece, a thing which had been hitherto put in practice without controversy or refusal by all manner of craftsmen within the City, the objects being to see that all men who took upon them to be master workmen in any trade, were able workmen; in the event of their being found unskilful, they were shown how to perform the work, and when they were able to do it, they were suffered to work as masters. Of late many journeymen in London, refusing this course of trial, had brought informations in the Exchequer, under the Statute 24th Henry VIII., cap. 5, (fn. 16) supposing it to be a restraint contrary thereto. The Court of Aldermen, considering the disturbance likely to increase if workmen should not be held to the Orders long observed for the good of their traders, desired the direction and assistance of the Council in the matter.
10th November, 1615.

IV. 72. Letter from Sir Robert Naunton to the Lord Mayor, stating that the King having incorporated the Company of Gardeners, (fn. 17) and being solicited by them to give them his Royal recommendation to the City, had directed him to state that as their admission to the Freedom could be no way more prejudicial to the City than that of other Companies which had been voluntarily accorded by the City, but would rather tend to the reformation of any disorders amongst them, and an increase of regular obedience, he requested that the entire Company might be admitted, or at least as many as carried on their trade and dwelt within the City, or within two miles thereof. Should any inconvenience of importunity induce the Lord Mayor to the contrary, His Majesty desired to be forthwith informed fully thereof.
Dated Holyrood House, 20th May, 1617.

IV. 73. Petition of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the Company of Gardeners, to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, praying that such members of the Company as dwelt in London, or within one or two miles thereof, might be admitted to the Freedom of the City. They give thirteen reasons in support of their Petition, and among them they allege that it appeared by the records of the City there were free Gardeners of London many years previously; that their Letters Patent of Incorporation, dated in the third year of the King's reign, (fn. 18) were then enrolled in the Chamber of. London, and that some Members of the Company were sworn Freemen of the City when they were incorporated.

V. 48. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Archbishop of Canterbury, (fn. 19) enclosing Copy of a Petition presented to them by the Company of Stationers, and recommending their complaint to him and the Commissioners as a matter not only falling very hardly upon the Petitioners, but trenching upon the public and invading the ancient Charter and privileges of the City; they did so more earnestly seeing that divers like attempts had latterly been made upon the Companies of London by projectors, who, under fair pretences, coveted their private ends of gain.
Sans date, but signed William Cockayne, (fn. 20) Mayor.

V. 49. The enclosed Petition of the Company of Stationers to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, recites that divers of the Petitioners had been accustomed to print all apprentices' indentures, tables, briefs, proclamations, oaths for freemen, constables, and seavengers, and other things belonging to the Stationers' trade in which they had been brought up and had served as apprentices. That one Roger Woodde, for the benefit of Marine Bayslored, a stranger, had obtained a grant from the King for the sole printing of the foregoing, and all other things to be contained on one side of a sheet of paper or parchment. The Patentees, who were not freemen, were empowered to set up presses, and take apprentices, whereby they would not only undo the Petitioners, but also infringe the custom and liberty of the City. Having complained to the King of the inconvenience of the suit, he had referred the matter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Secretary Naunton, and Sir Edward Cooke, Knight, who were directed to take such course for the Petitioners' relief as they should think fit. The Petitioners therefore prayed the Court of Aldermen to signify to the Archbishop and the rest how prejudicial the suit would be to the freedom of the City, and how grievous to the Petitioners. (fn. 21)

V. 59. Petition from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the King, reciting that upon their former Petition on behalf of the Leathersellers of London, in a cause between the Earl of March (fn. 22) and them, His Majesty had referred the consideration of the matter to the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Edward Cooke, and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, some of whom had reported thereon, and others had not, and they understood that His Majesty, not being satisfied, had determined to hear the matter in person, with counsel on both sides. They therefore prayed that as Sir Edward Cooke and the Lord Chief Justice had borne public place in the City, and were thereby better able to inform His Majesty of the inconveniences incident to the grant desired by the Earl of March, they might be warned to attend His Majesty at the hearing of the cause, and further, that it might be respited until the return of the Recorder from Circuit. Without his Royal assistance, the Leatherseliers' Company were likely to fall to the ground.
Sans date.

V. 68. Letter from Sir Henry Yelverton, (fn. 23) Attorney-General, to the Lord Mayor, stating that, upon information given to the King by some of his servants, that the Brown Bakers had acted as a bodycorporate, whereby the informants aimed at some forfeitures accruing to His Majesty, the matter had been referred to him for examination, and he had heard both parties. The Brown Bakers had thereupon, for their own quiet and peace, prayed the King to incorporate them, which he had granted. The White Bakers, having notice thereof, desired to be satisfied as to the intended Corporation; whereupon, after calling both parties before him, he found the White Bakers were contented with the separation and the incorporation of the Brown Bakers; but they desired that whereas some who used the trade of white baking were free of the Brown Bakers, and vice versâ they should (contrary to the custom of the City, as the Brown Bakers alleged) be returned to the proper Companies whose trades they respectively used. He therefore, by consent of both parties, desired the Lord Mayor's advice on the point, which seemed to concern the customs of the City, that he might proceed upon his certificate accordingly.
28th March, 1620.

V. 69. Petition of the Master and Wardens of the Company of White Bakers to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, praying them to answer the Attorney-General's letter touching the Brown Bakers' Patent, and certifying that both Companies were already incorporated together by the name of Bakers, and that the Petitioners were advised by counsel they could not without great prejudice surrender their Charter, or alter their title, though they would willingly for their peace assent to their severation from the Brown Bakers both in name and trade.
Dated in margin, 6th April, 1620.

V. 70. Answer of the Lord Mayor to the letter of the AttorneyGeneral, stating that the Court of Aldermen had referred the question between the White and Brown Bakers to Mr. Recorder and certain of the ancientest Aldermen, who had reported that the difference, being between brothers anciently united in one body, could not be so great but that the Court of Aldermen, the common fathers of all Companies of London (to whom in such cases all Freemen were by oath bound to resort), might compound the matter, and so settle the present Corporation that a separation need not further be thought of. Neither party seemed altogether adverse to this course; but the Brown Bakers, who were few, desired a short time to acquaint the rest of their number with the proposal, and return their answer accordingly, which had been thought reasonable. As nothing further could be done in the matter until their answer was delivered in, the Court of Aldermen requested the Attorney-General to take no further steps with respect to the new Corporation.
7th April, 1620.

V. 137. Certificate of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, reciting that they had seen an Order of the Council (fn. 24) ratifying two orders made by the Court of Aldermen in the years 1617 and 1619, requiring all Freemen of London using the art of Weaving, not free of the Company of Weavers, to be forthwith translated to that Company; and informing the Council that the Weavers had not acquainted them with all the proceedings in the matter. Certain Weavers, free of other Companies, perceiving that these orders might be pressed against them, had appealed to the Court of Aldermen for relief; whereupon both they and the Company had been heard by counsel, when it appeared the main question was whether Weavers free of other Companies, and using Silkweaving, were, or ought to be, within the ancient Charter of the Weavers' Company. It was decided by the Court, and assented to by counsel on both sides, that the question should be determined by a friendly legal trial, and the Weavers free of other Companies submitted (however the law should decide the question) to such orders for search, government, and apprentices as the Court should think fit. The Weavers' Company, however, had not pursued the matter, nor (so far as the Court knew) had they acquainted the Council with it before the passing of their Lordships' Order above referred to. The Court had, therefore, thought it their duty to represent to the Council that the enforcing of the translation of Weavers free of other Companies to the Company of Weavers would cause much trouble and suits at law, and be a bad example for other Companies, which might be avoided by a friendly trial. If the trial should be against the Company, the Court did not doubt that they would be able to settle such orders as to search, government, and apprentices as would neither prejudice the subject nor give the Weavers' Company just cause of complaint.
[28th October, 1622.]

VI. 11. Order in Council reciting that, upon a complaint made to them against David Parry, Waterman, for refusing to conform him self to the orders and government of the Watermen's Company, (fn. 25) the Council, by an Order of the 20th November last, had referred the determination to the Court of Aldermen, who, having heard Parry, found that he had behaved obstinately against all government of the Company, and still intended to persist therein; and thereupon, and also for his contemptuous behaviour before the Court, had committed him to Newgate. The Council were informed by the Lord Mayor that Parry had procured his liberty by habeas corpus, and had thereby taken new encouragement to persevere in his disobedience; they therefore ordered that he should be committed to Newgate until he submitted himself to the orders of his Company and of the Court of Aldermen, or until the Board should otherwise order.
30th May, 1623.

VI. 13. Petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London to the Lords of the Council, referred to in the foregoing Letter.
30th May, 1623.

VI. 28. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, forwarding a Petition from the Needlemakers (fn. 26) of London, complaining of the making of needles of bad metal, and also of an engine, which, besides being first devised for the working of such deceitful ware, was dangerous to the lives and bodies of the workmen using it; and requesting them to certify the nature and truth of the abuse complained of, and their opinions as to the remedies to be applied, either by suppressing the engine altogether or otherwise.
29th November, 1629.

VI. 29. Certificate from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council thereon, that having called before them the Haberdashers and Tailors, they found that the engine was dangerous; that its use deprived many of their means of living; and that it was worked with bad stuff, to the defrauding of the buyer. They had sent for the workmen using the engine; but they being aliens, not freemen, and living without the City, had refused to come. The Court were of opinion the Council should wholly suppress the engine in all parts of the kingdom, and provide that the price of needles should not be greater than it had been for the last twenty years; and that the goodness of the work, both as to art and stuff, should be submitted to the search and allowance of the Needlemakers of London.
Sans date.

VI. 31. Extract from the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen, containing the Report of Sir Thomas Middleton, Knight and Alderman, and John Gore, (fn. 27) Esq. and Alderman, upon the petition of the Needlemakers, with the order of the Court thereon, and directing Mr. Bacon, the Remembrancer, to prepare a letter, to be sent to the Privy Council, in accordance therewith.
30th December, 1623.

VI. 32. Letter to the Lords of the Council. (A copy of No. 29.)

VI. 42. Petition of divers young men (free of the Goldsmiths' Company), inhabitants of the Strand, to Sir Martin Lumley, (fn. 28) Knight, Lord Mayor, stating that, being established in an open and eminent place of ancient custom for Goldsmiths, and in the high street between the Court and the City, yet tendering their willing obedience to perform His Majesty's desire for the replenishing of the Goldsmiths' Rows (fn. 29) in Cheapside, and to express their love to the City and the Company of which they were members, they had informed the Wardens of their Company (who had neglected it), and they now intimated to his Lordship their willingness to undergo the losses, which were likely to be great, and remove to Cheapside, if some steps were taken that they might have the shops and houses of the Goldsmiths' Rents, now shut up or inhabited by others of meaner trades, at the rates they were given to the Company for the advancement of young men of the same. They therefore prayed his Lordship to consider their case, because, if forced to remove without commiseration of their estate, their wives, children, and families would be undone.
Sans date (1623–4).

VII. 3. Petition of the Master, Wardens, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Pewterers (fn. 30) to William, Earl of Pem broke. (fn. 31) Lord Steward of the Household, praying him to peruse their Petition to the Privy Council annexed, and if he found it fit to be granted, to intercede on their behalf.

VII. 4. Order from the Earl of Pembroke to the Officers of the Green Cloth, to consider the Petition and certify their opinions thereon.
Court at Hampton, 17th September, 1629.

VII. 5. Certificate from the Officers of the Green Cloth thereon, that they found the King had usually sustained at all his extraordinary feasts a great loss of pewter, which they conceived would be much lessened if the course recommended in the Petition were sanctioned.
29th September, 1629.

VII. 6. Petition of the Master, Wardens, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Pewterers to the Lords of the Council, reciting the late Petition of the Goldsmiths for a Proclamation against abuses and for punishment of offenders, and alleging that His Majesty, his nobility, gentry, and commonalty, were wronged by the yearly pilfering of pewter, and that by the defacing, melting, and altering of arms, marks, and ensigns it was utterly lost to the owners. The charge as well of pewter as of plate, jewels, and other things of like consequence was committed to His Majesty's officers and others in each particular place, which was a thing impossible for them to undergo or discover without some mediate means in that behalf. Many burglaries were committed, and great store of pewter was taken from men's houses by ill-disposed persons, and pawned or sold to brokers, tinkers, braziers, and such like, who, collecting a large quantity, secretly conveyed it in barrels beyond sea, to the hindrance of His Majesty's Customs and his agents, the farmers of tin, and undersold them beyond sea. Anciently the custom was that if any man lost any pewter he should come to the Hall and give notice to the Company's officer, with the marks, whereupon the goods were stayed and restored to the owners, and the parties punished; but this custom, by reason of covert and underhand dealing, was not now known. It was always intended that the Pewterers should be included in the Goldsmiths' Petition for a Proclamation, and they prayed that they might be inserted accordingly.
(1629.)

VII. 7. Order in Council referring the foregoing Petition to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, or such of them as the Lord Mayor should think meet, and requiring them to settle such course concerning pewter as they should find best for preventing the abuses, &c., complained of, or to certify their opinions to the Council that such steps for the relief of the Pewterers and the public good might be taken as should be found requisite.
Hampton Court, 30th September, 1629.

VII. 11. Order in Council reciting that the King was informed that persons of mean trades had shops in Cheapside among the Goldsmiths, which it was his express pleasure should be reformed. Sir Heneage Finch and some Aldermen had that day attended on other business, when the matter had been mentioned. It was thereupon ordered that the two Lord Chief Justices, and such other Judges as they should think fit, should consider what statutes or laws there were to enforce the Goldsmiths to plant themselves for the use of their trade in Cheapside, Lombard Street, and the parts adjacent; and to certify the same to the Board.
Whitehall, 18th November, 1629.

VII. 61. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, in answer to their letters concerning the translation to the Company of Brewers of all persons free of other Companies using the trade of Brewers, and stating that having called before them the Masters and Wardens of the several Companies, of which divers persons trading as Brewers were members, they found not only the Companies, but almost all the members so to be divided from their Companies, utterly unwilling to submit to such a translation, but that all were willing to submit to the Company of Brewers, as to taking the oath, obeying their orders, and search, &c. As to a general translation from one Company to another, on the simple consent of the party to be translated, without the liking of the Company of which he was free, the Court were of opinion it would be a great breach of the whole frame of the City's government, as would be seen by a Petition enclosed, (fn. 32) which had that day been received from several of the Companies.
Dated in margin, February, 1630.

VII. 137. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, forwarding them a Petition from the Poulters' Company, (fn. 33) and requiring them to call not only the Poulters, but those of whom they complained, before them, and to give such order that those who used the trade of Poultery and were free of other Companies, might be translated and brought under their rules and ordinances, that so the prices of poultry might be kept down. If any were obstinate, and refused to yield to the directions of the Court, their names and the cause of refusal should be returned to the Board.
Whitehall, 24th January, 1634.

VII. 145. Report from . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the Lords of the Council on the Petition of the Poulters' Company, assigning their reasons why the Petition should not be complied with.
Dated in margin, 16th, June, 1635.

VII. 160. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, requiring them to take security of those persons who had not removed from, and of those Goldsmiths who had promised to remove to, the Goldsmiths' Rows in Cheapside and Lombard Street, to do so by Bartholomew's Day next, or, in default of security, to commit them to prison; and further, to arrange that such Goldsmiths as could not be accommodated in the above places, should be located together in some other principal and open places within the jurisdiction of the City.
15th July, 1635.

VII. 161. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, forwarding copy of a Petition to the Board from Goldsmiths inhabiting Fleet Street, the Strand, and other public places in and near the City, and requiring them to examine the allegations thereof, and, if found true, to take effectual order with the Master and Wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company and their lessees that the shops in Cheapside and Lombard Street might be disposed of, according to the former Orders of the Board, at moderate and indifferent rents; and directing that, whereas the Petitioners alleged there were but thirty-four such shops to be disposed of, and that the Goldsmiths comprehended in the former Orders were one hundred families and upwards, the Court of Aldermen should take means that those who could not be accommodated as above should be fitted in some commodious place in an open street—as Fleet Street or the Strand—and that they should not be permitted to settle in any bye-lanes or alleys, and that they should dwell as near together as might be.
31st May, 1635.

VII. 167. Further Letter from the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen upon the same subject, complaining that nothing had been done, and requiring them to proceed effectually therein, and to cause the former orders of the Board to be speedily performed.
31st January, 1635.

VII. 197. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, reciting their letters of the 15th July and 31st January, 1635. The King had been informed there were yet a great number of houses of other trades both in Cheapside and Lombard Street. The neglect being inexcusable, if not speedily remedied His Majesty would call them to account for it. In the meanwhile the Council, by the King's command, required that all such shops as were not Goldsmiths' in either of those places should be shut up till further order of the Board.
Whitehall, 24th May, 1637.

VII. 199. Order in Council reciting their former orders and letters as to the shutting up of shops other than Goldsmiths' in Cheapside and Lombard Street, and directing that if the Aldermen of the Wards, or their deputies, did not forthwith cause them to be shut, they should be committed to prison by warrant from the Board.
Star Chamber, 7th July, 1637.

VIII. 26. Warrant from the King (James the First) to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen with respect to the Charter granted by him to the Apothecaries' Company (fn. 34) to separate from the Grocers, and commanding that the same be enrolled, and their apprentices admitted as Apothecaries to the Freedom, which had been refused by the Court.
11th April, 1618.

VIII. 56. Order in Council directing the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to hear and determine certain matters in dispute relating to the Watermen's Company.
20th November, 1622.

VIII. 61. Order in Council directing the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to take such effectual course with the Goldsmiths' Company that, in case certain Goldsmiths in the Strand should be compelled by the Court of Aldermen to remove into the Goldsmiths' Rents, in Cheapside, they should be provided with such shops and houses of the Goldsmiths' Rents as were empty, and at such moderate rents as should be thought reasonable, and to accommodate the Petitioners as best they could, without further trouble to the Council; and, in case the Goldsmiths' Company were refractory, to report what was best to be done.
7th August, 1624.

VIII. 155. Same as No. 160, Vol. VII.
15th July, 1635.

VIII. 156. Same as No. 167, Vol. VII.
31st January, 1635.

VIII. 157. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen upon a complaint made to them by the Goldsmiths of the fraudulent marking of a pewter plate with the silver plate mark of the Goldsmiths' Company, and requiring the Court to call before them the maker of the plate, the engraver of the stamp, and any other the Goldsmiths should discover to have practised the like fraud, also the Wardens of the Pewterers' Company, and to take steps to punish the offenders, and to restrain such practices.
31st January, 1635.

VIII. 163. Same as No. 161, Vol. VII.
31st May, 1635.

VIII. 208. Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, informing them that he had granted a Charter (fn. 35) of Incorporation to the Distillers' Company, and requiring them to enrol them as a Free Company of the City.
13th August, 1638.

VIII. 217. Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, intimating that he had been informed they had impugned the Charter granted by him to the Distillers' Company, and had refused to enrol the same, and to admit them and their apprentices as Distillers to the Freedom of the City, and requiring their conformity and obedience therein.
7th December, 1638.

VIII. 219. Letter from Mr. Secretary Windebanke to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, with respect to their continued refusal to enrol the Charter of the Distillers' Company, requiring their conformity without further delay, and stating that His Majesty was resolved, if his commands were still neglected, to use some coercive way for despatch of the business, and by that means vindicate his own honour.
10th September, 1639.

VIII. 223. Letter from Mr. Secretary Windebanke, &c. (Copy of the preceding letter, No. 219.)
10th September, 1639.

VIII. 224. Further Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, with respect to their long delay and refusal to enrol the Charter of the Distillers' Company upon pretence of weakening other Companies, of which these Distillers were members, in bearing the public charges of the City. His Majesty was not satisfied with their allegations, for the most of the Companies had been derived from those that were in times past, without prejudice to the City or the Companies whence they were taken. He therefore again commanded them without further dispute to enrol the Charter, (fn. 36) &c., and intimated that he would not permit further delay, but expected present conformity, as they would answer for their neglect, if not contempt, of his Royal commands.
30th October, 1639.