Part 3

We do not know whether the Horners’ Company had any connection with “Horn Fair,” which took place at Charlton, in Kent, and for which Henry III granted a Charter in 1268. Of this fair, Philpot, writing in 1639, tells us it was called Horn Fair because of “the great plenty of all sorts of winding horns, cups and other vessels of horn there bought and sold.” We are, however, on sure ground when we point to an interesting proof of the great antiquity of the Horners’ Company, which comes to us from the official letter books of the City of London. In Letter Book A, fol. 40, 12th Edward I (September 8th, 1284), we find that the ancient Gilds are drawing up Rules for revision by the authorities, an event which, no doubt, took place every few years in early times. The entry includes the following:—“The same day the said John (Pesemers) received the Statutes of the Horners for correction.”

In 1303 (31st of Edward I), an incident took place which illustrates at once the prominence of Horners at the time and the variety of persons who were members of the Gild. The Royal Treasury at Westminster had been robbed. Richard of Pudlicote and William du Palais were accused. During the Inquisition held by the Bishop of London it transpired that amongst the friends of this Richard were several persons, notably one “Jacobus le Horner et Boten^r manens apud Kandelwickestrate,” whose character is described thus:—“It is unknown whether they were aware of the felony—tñ male credunt de eis” (i.e., they have a bad name). As a set-off, however, against this undesirable person, it is recorded that two other Horners, viz., Rogerus le Cornur and Stephanus le Cornur succeeded in arresting Robert le Convers, another actor in the drama.

Throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there is frequent mention made of Horners, many of whom seem to have been persons of great importance. In 1284 we have recorded the name of Thomas att or de Corner, and in 1285 Clement le Cornur. In 1295, of William le Horner, and others are mentioned in the years 1226, 1320, 1342, 1346, 1352 as doing some official act. This frequent mention of Horners to be found in early records does not apply to London only, but to other places. For instance, Peter le Horner, resident at the Heywarde, Cambridge, is mentioned as paying taxes in that town in 1314-1315.

In 1441 (20th of Henry VI), we are told that “at the instance of ‘Sympkin horner of London,’ together with two others, the King directed letters to the Mayor and Bayliffs of Hampton Sandwys, asking how Englishmen repairing to ‘Pruce, Hanze and Danske’ are treated.”

Well might a learned legal luminary, delivering judgment in 1692, say:—“A Horner is a particular Trade and a very ancient Company in London!”

In the year 1362 the Horners were in so flourishing a state that another Craft Gild, the Bottlemakers, who, as we read in the MS. book just referred to, dated back, like the Horners, to “time out of mind,” found it desirable to place themselves under the protection of the Horners’ Company, and, for a period of 115 years, remained under its protection, until, in the sixteenth year of Edward IV the two Companies became amalgamated. The interesting document which authorized the fusion of the two Companies is to be found in Letter Book L, fol. cxvi, of the City of London. It prays that the Company of “Bottell Makers,” which had been for some time intimately associated with the Horners, be united with it and become one and the same Company, and “that from hensfurth the saide persones of both the said Crafts may be as bretheren and accupie and Joyne together as well in all things to be borne and doone within the said Cettie. As in observing,” etc.

The petition to the Mayor and Aldermen was granted, and from that day forward the three bottles as well as three horns have emblazoned the arms of the Horners’ Company.

In the very ancient and interesting book belonging to the Horners’ Company there are two early entries relating to the period during which the two Companies were legally separated though in a certain close relation to each other. The entries, which are identical, are as follows:—“The bottellmakers have continued in the Company of the Horners a hundred fourscore nine yeres and nine monthes, wrytten the last daie of November Anno Dni One Thousand five hundred fiftie and seaven.”

Following upon this remarkable evidence of official recognition as a Craft Gild, carrying with it all the legal privileges which were later conferred by recorded Charters, we find as early as 1376 an entry of the fact that the Horners’ Gild was recognized as the twenty-sixth out of forty-eight “mysteries of the City of London,” and successively sent two of its members to the Court of Common Council, not only to represent the members of the Gild in the election of a Mayor and other officers of the City, but also to form a representative body to withstand all encroachments on their liberties and those of the City generally, which the claims and pretensions of Edward III seemed to threaten.

This event preceded a time of great commercial activity, when many political circumstances compelled the City Craft Gilds to legalize themselves by obtaining from the Civic authorities (now so considerably strengthened by the success of the resistance offered to Edward III), a recognition of the practices which for a very lengthy period they had made use of, in the conduct of their affairs.

Such an application took place in 1391, during the reign of Richard II, on the part of the Horners’ Company. The petition was mainly concerned with the recognition of their right to elect two Wardens to preside over the Horners in accordance with the ancient practice common amongst other Gilds. At this time it would appear that there were no Masters elected, but that the position of Master of a Gild was filled either by the Alderman of the Ward or some other influential and important person, called the “Guardian,” who represented the interests of the Craft on the Council of the Mayor and Aldermen.

According to Madox, in his “Firma Burgi,” it would appear that a still earlier form was to elect an Alderman and two Masters for each Gild. This will readily account for the fact that some aldermanries were territorial, as in the case of the Knighten Gild, whose ruler was Alderman of the Portsoken Ward, others were connected with Gilds apart from locality, and possibly some were ecclesiastical or even commercial. A quaint illustration of this practice is found in the Confirmation of a Norwich Fraternity by Henry V. The members are authorized to elect an Alderman and two Masters, who, when the name of Gild was changed to that of Craft Mystery, became respectively the Guardian or Alderman and Wardens of the Mystery.

The privilege of electing Wardens was always in the forefront of every grant, since it was of great importance to the Crafts to have this right at a time when constant efforts were made to put in representatives and nominees of the monarch, in order to bring the Crafts, and, through them, the City of London, into subjection.

It is highly probable that in 1391 the deputation from the Horners’ Gild on presenting its petition was introduced by one Richard Baroun, Horner, of London, Alderman of Aldgate, and Master of the Gild in 1391. He was not only the Guardianus or Master of the Gild, but a person of great importance during the reign of Richard II, being Horner to the King. His predecessor in the office of Alderman, it is interesting to note, was one William Karlile, Master of the Bottlemakers’ Gild. This fact will help to explain the close relations existing between the two Crafts.

In a newly discovered MS. of great interest which is being edited by E. H. Dring, Esq., there appears the following passage, A.D. 1397 (? 1398):—“And thanne after the presentacion of the said supplication (from the Citizens of London to the King) ther were made mony blank charteres and all the men of every crafte of the said Cite as well as all manne servaunts and maisters were charged to come to the Guylde halle to sette her seales to the said blank charteres.” It must, have been from this MS. that Stow gathered much of his information, and this passage was copied by Fabian in 1516, Grafton in 1659, and Hollingshead in 1577.

Richard II, furious with the citizens of London for assisting the Duke of Arundel, had taken the opportunity of a brawl in the City, to humiliate the citizens. He confiscated their charters and laid the City under a fine of £1,000,000. This was late in 1397, and the following Spring (which until March 25th was A.D. 1397, and after that date A.D. 1398, whence possibly the confusion in dates) the City, which, as we have seen, would be the Common Council, more especially as the King had imprisoned the Mayor and put in a “Custos” to govern, bought back the King’s favour, and, consequently, their own charters, by the most expensive procession and gifts. All the brethren of each Gild, in return for this forgiveness, had to put their seals to these blank charters, which were an acknowledgment of the King’s power and their willingness to do and pay what was left in blank in that charter, so that the King could insert what he chose in the blank spaces, or, as Grafton puts it, “by which he might, when he would, undo any of his subjects.”

Amongst the Companies called upon to do this was certainly the Horners, who would not have been foolish enough to seal the “charters” had they not needed the support of the City in the maintaining their own prescriptive rights based on Royal grants. The term sealing is quite a natural one, inasmuch as no charters were signed until Tudor times.

Doubtless the troubles of the period and the expenses to which the fraternity had been put, caused the Gild to value its rights and to claim further recognition, even to the extent of promoting a special Act of Parliament. They did not seek to obtain a charter, be it noted, which rarely meant any advantage to the unfortunate persons who were practically compelled to accept such charters, but, on the contrary, in most cases proved to be an invasion by the Crown of former prescriptive privileges.

The Horners were successful in obtaining a special Act of Parliament in the year 1465. The Act is worth quoting as showing to what importance the Horners’ Company must have risen by that date.

IV EDWARD IV, C. 8.

“Our soveraigne lord the Kyng perceyving by grevous complaint made in this Parliamente, by men of occupation of horners beynge enfraunchysed in the Cytie of London, howe that the people of straunge landes hath come into this lande, and into dyvers partyes thereof, and hath boughte by the handes of theyr hostes and guydes, the great and chiefe stuffe of Englyshe hornes unwrought, of tanners & bochers, & cary the same over the sea, and there employ the same in dyvers workes, to the great damage of this land and to the finall preiudice of a great numbre of men beinge of the same occupacion: hath by the advice and assent of the sayd Lordes, & at the request of the sayd commons, and by the auctority aforesayd, ordeined established & enacted, that from the feast of Easter, which shall bee in the yere of our Lord God M.CCCCLXV, no maner straunger nor alien by himselfe or by any other, shal buy any Englysh hornes unwrought of any Tanners, bochers, or any other persons Gathered or growing within the sayd city and, xxiii myles on every syde of the sayd city next adioyning. And that no Englishman nor other personne sell anye Englyshe hornes unwrought to any straunger or cause them to be sente over the sea, so that the sayd horners will buy the sayd hornes at lyke pryc as they be at the tyme of the making of this acte, uppon payne of forfayture of all suche hornes so bought, sold, or sent. And that the Wardeins of the sayd mistery for the tyme beyng by the sayd authority shall have full power to serch all manner ware perteyning to their mistery wrought or to be wrought in all places within the sayd citye of London, and xxiii miles on every syde next adioyning to the same citye, and within the Feyres of Sturbrydge and Ely in whose handes they may be founde, and if they by theyr serch fynd any suche ware or stuffe in any place within the sayd citye of London and xxiii miles next adioyning to the same citye or within the Feyres of Sturbrydge and Elye, in whose handes soever they be to sell, that is defective & insuffycient. It shall be lawful to them to take the same ware and stuffe, and bring it before the Mayre of the same citye of London, the mayre & bayliffes of the foresayd Feyres for the tyme beynge, and the same there beyng proved defective to be forfayt: the one halfe thereof to oure Soveraigne lord the king, and the other halfe to the sayd wardens, to be ordred at their pleasure. Provyded alwayes that after that me of the sayd occupacion within this land have taken out & chosen such as many hornes as shal bee nedefull to theyr occupacions: that then it shal be lawfull to them all and every of them and other persons of this realme of Englande, to sel and deliver al the hornes refused, which be not able to be occupyed in theyr mistery to any straunger or other persons to send or cary beyond the sea or elles where, as shal please them.”

This Act of Parliament must have proved of great benefit to the Horners; but with it came greater demands from the Company on the part of the King and the City. The frugal minds of the Craft rulers at once saw the advantage of paying one set of assessments instead of two, and asked that in future the Horners and Bottlemakers might be treated as one Company, and not be called upon to pay the shares of two separate Companies. Thus the prosperity of the Horners, coupled with the increasing demands for money made on the City Gilds, led to the union of the Horners and Bottlemakers just twelve years after the passing of the Horners’ Act, i.e., in 1477 (sixteenth year of Edward IV), facts indicating in no uncertain way that the Horners must have been very firmly established and legally constituted at the time, both in order to make the assessments possible as well as to give them the right to absorb the Bottlemakers.

In the reign of Elizabeth we find the Horners’ Company carrying on its work as a Joint Stock Company. The stock being held in shares or half-shares, it therefore became necessary to place the Wardens, who alone had under the Act just mentioned, power to purchase horns, under some agreement to do so only for and on behalf of the members of the Gild. No doubt many such deeds were executed, but amongst the archives of the Company there are still two extant, the one dated 1590 and the other 1599. The parties to the deed are the Wardens and the rest of the members. The Wardens therein bind themselves to buy, and the other members not to buy, horns in London or twenty-four miles round. The horns bought by the Wardens are to be purchased for the use of the whole Company and to be divided equally between them by the Wardens. In the deed of 1599 the limit within which the purchase and sale of horns was prohibited was altered from twenty-four to one hundred miles “next in and about the City of London.”

From a document in the possession of the Company it would appear that the horn industry was, during the fifteenth century at least, an English monopoly, and from the official documents of Germany, Holland and France the writer has been unable to discover a single record of such an industry existing before 1600. The following interesting sentence from a document which is dated 1455 (thirty-third year of Henry VI), illustrates the contention:—

“Inasmuch as the making of Hornes and other workes perteyning unto the said mystery be not perfectly had nor knowne in any region or place of the world, except in this land only: which causeth the people of other lands & places to resort & repaire unto this Citie for Hornes yeerly, unto the great proffitt & worship of the same Citie, whereas if such people of strange lands might cleerly & perfectly understand the cunning & feat of making of such English Hornes, would not heder repaire yeerly to buy such English chaffer,” etc.

Consequently, the Wardens were expressly authorized the same year by the Mayor and Aldermen to punish any who should reveal the secret of the Craft to any stranger.

So valuable a trade, however, could not remain long unknown to the Continental nations, who were, in other respects, far in advance of England, and consequently the demand for English horns on the Continent became so great that, in spite of the Act forbidding the export of horns, the members of the Gild seem to have done a considerable trade in exporting horns, on the excuse that they were refuse horns. Indeed, so profitable did they find this traffic that, about 1590, two City men, the one a merchant and the other a scrivenour, entered into competition with them and managed to secure from Queen Elizabeth,—no doubt for a substantial payment,—permission to export horns to the Continent, though not themselves members of the Horners’ Company.

The controversy which this occasioned between the Horners and their opponents, Symon Furner and John Crayford, is to be found amongst the records in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum.