Part 4

Lord Burleigh attempted to bring about a compromise, and instructed a Mr. Carmarthen to endeavour to arrive at some arrangement between the contending parties, but in vain. The issue at stake was a vital one. The Horners claimed exclusive privileges under some Charter which they were evidently able to produce, accorded them by one of the Kings of England, whilst Messrs. Furner and Crayford argued their privileges under the “letters patent” granted by the Queen.

It would seem that the wealth and influences behind the private adventurers were stronger than those of the Company, which was already beginning to feel the pressure of competition from the Pouchmakers and Leathersellers, who dealt in the same kinds of wares, as well as from the introduction of glass vessels, etc., which took place in the sixteenth century.

From the year 1455 onwards, the Horners seem to have fallen into the background and to have disappeared from the arena of public life. This is not altogether to be wondered at, for, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and for nearly 200 years after, City Crafts or Mysteries were the object of predatory attacks of so deadly a character, that though in 1455 we find forty-eight Crafts openly representing the City, in 1575 only twenty-eight Companies were to be found on whom the assessment for wheat could be placed. What the remaining Mysteries did is difficult to say, but no doubt they attempted to carry on their work unnoticed, either urging prescriptive rights, or claiming none, in order to avoid spoliation.

The once important trade, but now the “little craft of Horners” was evidently in this category, and had it not been for the necessity of fighting for very existence, when the export of horns was making their trade impossible by the increase in price of the raw material, they doubtless would have preferred to keep in the background, even at the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. This contention would seem the more reasonable from the fact that had not the previous Charters or Royal grants to the Horners’ Company been of very ancient date, and, consequently, almost forgotten, and had that Craft not been, as it were, keeping from the glare of public observation in order to avoid the cost of “Inspeximus’s,” it is unlikely that the advisers of Queen Elizabeth would have laid her open to the controversy which the grant of letters patent to Furner and Crayford was bound to produce.

It must have been a great blow to the Company when, in the first year of the reign of James I, an Act (c. 25) was passed which repealed the Statute of 4 Edward IV; but in the seventh year of that King’s reign the Horners presented their petition to Parliament, stating, “that by reason of the repeal of the prohibition, the Company had grown so poor and decayed, as in a short time, if remedy be not provided, they and theirs shall be utterly undone;” and the Act is thereby revived except as to the powers of search in Stourbridge and Ely fairs, and a limitation of the price of horns thereby secured. A penalty was imposed of double the value of English horns sold unwrought to any stranger or sent over the sea; one moiety of the penalty to go to the informer and one moiety to the King.

Notwithstanding this Statute, the exportation of horns still continued, and Letters Patent were granted by King Charles I, in the third year of his reign, 1627, again prohibiting the exportation of horns until the Company should first have made choice of the best and most convenient number of the horns to supply the necessary occasions of the realm.

In spite of the protection afforded by these Acts and Letters Patent, the exportation of horns continued.

These were evil days for the Horners’ Craft, and it would appear that the Horners themselves were not entirely guiltless in the matter. Consequently, in 1635, to stem the tide of ill-fortune which seemed to have set in, the Company approached the Mayor and Aldermen to give them fresh rules “for the reformation of the Crafte.” The following rules were allowed and confirmed by the then Lord Mayor, Christopher Clitherow:—

1. Horns to be bought for the General good.

2. None to buy Horns within 20 miles of London.

3. Everyone to pay for his share as the Wardens shall think fit.

4. None to keep above one apprentice, except he hath been a partner or sharer with the said Company seven years at least, in which case he may keep two apprentices.

5. Apprentices shall be bound.

6. No one to be set to work at the trade unless he have served seven years.

7. Every journeyman to serve two years after having been made “free of the Company.”

8. None to enter for their shares until called by the Wardens.

9. Anyone elected a Warden must serve the office or pay a fine of 20 shillings.

10. None shall sue or arrest another without permission from the Wardens.

11. The Wardens may commit offenders to prison with the consent of the Mayor.

For two years the Company exercised their powers under these new rules, but still harder times were in store for the Company.

Whether as the result of an information laid by some member who was suffering under these stringent regulations, or, as would appear most probable, the King’s growing need of money to carry on the coming political struggle between himself and his people, the Horners were suddenly discovered to be acting illegally. Under the powers conferred by the Act of 19 Henry VII, which was no doubt revived for the purpose, no Master, Wardens, or Companies could make any acts or ordinances except such as should be approved by the Chancellor and Treasurer of England or Chief Justice of either Bench, or three of them.

Though doubtless this Act was never intended to apply to alterations or additions to regulations already in force, but rather to the establishment of new Companies, it became necessary for the Horners to comply with the regulations, and though it does not transpire whether they were compelled to pay any fines or not, they finally obtained confirmation of their new rules under the hands of Thomas Coventrie, Lord Chancellor, and Chief Justices John Branston and John Finch, but not until after they applied for and obtained a Royal Charter, and as Charles I, in order to assert Sovereign rights, was unwilling to admit ancient prescriptive claims, care was taken to justify this subversion of the ancient rights of the Gild, by stating in the Charter that the Horners had never been “incorporated.”

The examination of the New Rules by the Judges just mentioned, had revealed the fact that the Horners were a Joint Stock Company holding property in perpetuity in opposition to the Statute of Mortmain. Here was a splendid opportunity for the King to reap a harvest, and nothing remained for the authorities of the Company but to obtain a Charter as soon as possible and to avoid the heavy penalties to which they would otherwise be subjected by assenting to the legal fiction that they had not acted as a corporation, and never had been one, but merely an association in existence from year to year, acting under ancient and well-recognized privileges. Whether this claim was technically correct or not, the antiquity of the Company was so great and the process of proving any breach so lengthy and difficult that no doubt Charles I thought it best to take the cash payment which always accompanied grants and so close the matter. Thus the Charter of 1638, which is the only one now extant, was obtained, and the proceedings of the Company as a joint stock concern holding property in perpetuity were again legalized, though doubtless long before that time the right to hold property and to do all that was required of them as a Craft Gild had been regularly accorded to the members in the persons of their several “Guardians.”

Like many other City Companies, the Horners have been accustomed to believe that this Charter, which in its preamble for obvious reasons takes for granted no previous Charter, was the first and only legal instrument authorizing them to carry on their work as a Gild. Very little reliance, however, is to be placed on the statements of the Charters of this period, which were often little more than a temporary instrument of protection against further encroachments on their resources and powers by the ruling monarch. For this very uncertain privilege large sums had to be paid, sums wrung again and again from the unfortunate City Gilds by threats of suppression.

It is mere than probable that at all times Charters were freely purchasable by those who could afford to pay for them, and, having served their particular purpose, were as easily lost or mislaid. For all practical purposes, however, until the sixteenth century at least, they offer no indication whatever of the antiquity of any Company, even where they seem to state in the preamble that there has been no previous Charter, a statement which should be taken only to indicate that the Sovereign granting the Charter wishes it to be supposed that he, and he alone, is the person to whom the Company is indebted for its privileges, privileges which often existed only in name. In many cases the Charters were really encroachments by the State on the ancient privileges which had been inherited from the earliest times, and which were supported by Municipal law, against which State law waged continuous warfare.

It is widely held by students who are not satisfied to be merely superficial that in very early days aggregate bodies were deemed to have perpetual succession without being “incorporated.” When the King granted to a set of men to be a mercantile community, assembly, or meeting, this was considered sufficient to incorporate them. As illustrating this virtual “incorporation” we may note the words of the eminent jurist, Dr. Williams, in his “Law of the Universities,” published only last year. He says:—“A corporation, the creature of the Crown, may exist by Charter or ‘prescription,’ which presumes a Charter, even in cases where historical evidence makes it morally certain that no Charters ever existed.” Consequently, in the Charters of Edward III (which meant little and were but a receipt for moneys loaned or given), there is no provision for a common seal, liberty to accept or buy land, or to sue and be sued, etc., all these being naturally taken for granted in the case of Gilds or similar organizations then existing. It is no doubt true that in the reign of Edward III Craft Gilds were generally chartered, i.e., had their privileges confirmed by Letters Patent; yet, in still earlier days, as well as after the death of Edward III, it would seem that these bodies exercised their functions under special protection or on suffrance, probably always in return for their “fermes” or annual payment to the King.

If further illustration were required, to demonstrate how great is the right of the Horners’ Company to rank amongst the earliest of the acknowledged Trade Gilds, that proof is to be found in the study of what are known as “Adulterine” Gilds. These were unwarranted or unlicensed Gilds, and from time to time were heavily fined. There is no mention, however, of the Horners having been among such Gilds thus swooped down upon by the King, though lists are given of those who were mulcted from the twelfth century. The Horners could not have escaped had they been unwarranted at the time, and must, therefore, have possessed indisputable rights.

Reference has been made to Richard Baroun and William Karlile.