PAPER FOR PRESENTATION AT THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS JUNE 2013
'Grain provision in the City of London in the early seventeenth century'
David Carmichael
PhD student
Institute of Historical Research, School of Advanced Study
INTRODUCTION
Grain was an essential commodity in the early modern period as it was the main constituent of
the diet, primarily in the form of bread, porridge or pottage, ale and beer. This paper, which is part
of a wider study into the role of the City of London in the provision of food to the poor and response
to crisis, will investigate the means by which the City of London authorities organised the provision
of corn in 1600-1640 by involvement of the city livery companies. 1
The prerequisite for this system was that the livery companies had sufficient corn in store to
furnish the markets on a regular basis with meal for the preferential benefit of the poor. The
historiography refers to the provision of corn in general terms, as if it was comparable to the
classical granary system or that which operated in some contemporary continental cities, without
clarifying that its purpose appears to have been to provide corn to the poor rather than satisfy the
requirements of the population as a whole.
BACKGROUND
The period of study has been chosen for the following reasons: - it was as at a time of a significant
increase in the population of the City of London and followed severe harvest failure in the 1590s
which had provided some of the impetus behind there- issuing of dearth orders, the enactment of
Elizabethan Poor Law legislation in 1598 and 1601, and after 1630 increased central government
intervention during the personal rule of King Charles I. It was also a period identified by a number of
sources as highlighting the benefits of market intervention. 2
1
The words grain and corn were used interchangeably in the city and livery company records. Corn was
primarily wheat but could include rye and barley. Grain included those crops plus oats. Grain was often used
in the description of imports and exports; the latter from the East (Eastland and the Baltic) was predominantly
rye.
2
World Bank, World Development Report1991: the challenge of Development, (New York, 1991), p. 53. R.
Nielsen, ‘Storage and English Government Intervention in Early Modern Grain Markets’, Journal of Economic
History 57 (1997), pp. 1-33; R.B. Outhwaite, ‘Dearth and Government Intervention in English Grain Markets,
1590-1700’, Economic History Review, 34 (1981), pp. 389-406; M.J. Power, ‘London and the Control of the
“Crisis” of the 1590s’, History, 70 (1985), pp. 371-385; B.E. Supple, Commercial Crisis and Change in England
1600-1642 A Study in the instability of a mercantile economy, (Cambridge, 1959); P. Slack, ‘Book of Orders :
The Making of Social Policy, 1577-1631’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 30, 1979, 1-22
1
At the start of the seventeenth century the City of London was made up of 113 parishes, which
were situated within 25 wards, under the government of the Lord Mayor, and the Courts of
Aldermen and Common Council. At that time the population under the city’s direct jurisdiction was
100,000-110,000 and by 1630, at the time of a census by the Lord Mayor, 130280. 3
The basic unit of administration in the city was the parish vestry, members of which were put
forward to hold office in the local ward and thence to the Court of Common Council. Each ward had
an elected alderman, and deputy, with the former holding a seat on the Court of Aldermen from
which the Lord Mayor was elected. All officers were freemen of the city and had affiliation to one
of the city livery companies of which there were 54 in 1600. 4 Each livery company had a Master and
a variable number of Wardens responsible for the day to day management of company affairs and
who were answerable to a Court of Assistants; the company had a larger number of yeoman and
liverymen plus affiliated freemen. Many of the city aldermen held senior positions within the livery
companies and vice versa. Precepts or orders were issued by the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen
sitting at Guildhall through the Court of Common Council to the Master and Wardens of the livery
companies and to the Aldermen and their deputies of the city wards and from there to the parishes.
At the start of the seventeenth century London imported most of its corn, in the form of wheat,
from counties surrounding the capital but increasingly traded with areas further afield, including
East Anglia, the North East, and Ireland, and from abroad predominantly the Eastlands, or Baltic,
where the main crop was rye. 5 There was an obvious need to store the grain (or corn) brought into
the capital. It is thought that this storage was originally undertaken by bakers but as the population
3
R. Finlay and B. Shearer, ‘Population Growth and suburban expansion’, in eds., A.L. Beier and R. Finlay,
London 1500-1700, The Making of the Metropolis, (Harlow, 1986), pp. 37-59 ; V. Harding, ‘The Population of
London, 1550-1700: a review of the published evidence’, The London Journal 15 (1990), pp.11-128. One of the
difficulties with these figures is the definition of boundaries. The numbers in 1600 does not include the ward
th
of Bridge without which was included at the 26 ward in the census of 1630. At the same time the population
of the city and suburbs was 185000 rising to 355000 by 1640. The 1631 census included parishes within the
city walls and those in the liberties which traversed or were adjacent to the city walls. This included the ward
of Bridge without, south of the River Thames, and the parishes of St Bartholomew the Great and the Less
th
which are not usually included in population estimates. LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 81, No 70, 30 June
1631; J. Graunt, Natural and Political Observations Mentioned in a following Index and made upon the Bills of
Mortality, (Oxford, 1665), p. 173.
4
The livery companies developed from guild and trade fraternities and although they retained part of that role
th
th
in the 16 and 17 centuries, they had acquired wealth, prestige and a membership outside their original
trade. They were used by the city as a source of finance. The ‘Great Twelve’ were the original and for a time
the most prestigious of the companies; further reference will be made to the individual companies. See W.
Herbert, The History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London, (Newton Abbott, 1834, republished New
York, 1968), Vol. I and II.
5
The London grain markets and there development has been covered extensively by N.S.C. Gras, The Evolution
of the English Corn Market from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Century, (Cambridge Mass., 1915) and F.J.
Fisher, ‘The Development of the London Food Market, 1540-1640’, in P.J.Corfield and N.B. Harte eds., London
and the English Economy, 1500-1700, (London, 1990), pp. 62-65.
2
and volumes of grain increased other arrangements were necessary and the city had granaries at
Bridgehouse, Bridewell, Leadenhall and Queenhithe. 6
In 1587, a year after there was harvest failure and when there were concerns about stocks of
food for London and the armed forces, the English Privy Council issued its first Book of Orders for the
relief of dearth. 7 When the harvest failed, the government required provincial and urban
authorities to put into effect the elaborate series of measures required by the Book of Orders:
prevention of hoarding; banning of the export of grain; taking censuses of grain stocks; ensuring the
regular supply of grain or meal to the market; official presence in markets to ensure needs of poorer
sort were met. 8 Interventions by both the Privy Council and the City of London authorities were
often based on anticipated or real harvest failures. According to Hoskins’ analysis, dearth harvests
occurred in 1596 and 1597 and bad harvests in 1594, 1595, and after 1600, bad harvests in 1608,
1622, and 1630. 9 In a separate part of this present study, the price of wheat in London, on which
the Assize (weight) of the 1d wheaten loaf was based, confirms that the highest wheat prices
occurred in those same years, after 1600, plus the addition of 1638. 10
The City of London had already put in place some measures to anticipate ‘crisis’ years in the
sixteenth century and it was the livery companies, an important source of finance for all manner of
projects, to whom they turned.
This paper will present data on the evolution of the system for the provision of corn and delivery
of meal to the markets, the involvement of the livery companies to undertake these dual tasks, and
system’s context within the provision of corn for the city as a whole. Space does not permit
discussion on the granary facilities, their management, and the sanctions taken by the city
authorities against companies who failed to follow their orders.
6
J. Stow, A Survey of London, (Stroud, 2005), pp. 144-146; J. Noorthouck, A New History of London: Including
Westminster and Southwark, (London, 1773), p. 687. Bridgehouse was the administrative centre for London
Bridge and was situated at the south end; Bridewell had been a palace but was converted by Edward VI into a
combined hospital, workhouse and prison, it was on the River Thames on the banks of the fleet; Leadenhall
was in the centre of the city; Queenhithe on the River Thames further east from Bridewell.
7
P. Slack, ‘The Making of English Social Policy, 1577-1631’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, (1980)
30, pp. 1-22. The harvest had failed in 1586 and was poor in 1587. See also Palliser for discussion on the
expanding population within the context of food supplies. D.M. Palliser, ‘Tawney’s Century: Brave New World
of Malthusian Trap? The Economic History Review, (1982) 35, pp. 339-353.
8
J. Walter, Crowds in popular politics in early Modern England, (Manchester, 2006), p. 19.
9
W.G. Hoskins, ‘Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History, 1480-1619’, Agricultural History Review,
12 (1964-5), pp.26-46; W.G. Hoskins, ‘Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History’, 1620-1759’,
Agricultural History Review, 16 (1968-9), pp. 15-31. Hoskins presented data for the price of wheat over the
period 1480-1759 using data from Phelps-Brown and Hopkins, from Bowden for the general price of wheat and
Beveridge for the price of wheat in Exeter. There is insufficient space to discuss his methods.
10
The analysis of the Assize of Bread has confirmed that the lightest loaf, which equates to the highest price of
wheat, was sold in 1608 (8 oz.), 1622 (8 oz.), 1630 (8 oz.), and also in 1638 (8 oz.); for comparison the weight of
the penny wheaten loaf in 1619 was as high as 17 ounces. There is a strong correlation between this series
and the Eton wheat series which has been used by other authors.
3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY AND LIVERY COMPANY GRANARY SYSTEM
The city made use of the financial resources of the livery companies to ensure that there was an
adequate supply of corn available to the poor in the city’s markets. 11 The conclusions from the
historiography vary: Archer, Persson, and Neilsen suggest that the provision and storage of grain
functioned successfully whereas Herbert, Gras and McGrath concluded that it was intermittent in its
implementation and only really worked with pressure from the Privy Council after 1630. 12 The only
clear reference to the delivery of corn, in the form of meal, to the markets was made by Archer who
reported that wheat meal was sold 4d/bushel under the prevailing price during the crisis years of the
1590s; this practice has not been examined systematically for the subsequent years. 13
In 1545 a request by the city was made to the livery companies for loans to buy foreign corn, to
which they promptly complied. The amounts provide an indication as to which companies were
‘substantial’ and also of their ‘comparative wealth’; 14 this proportional allocation to each company
occurs repeatedly in subsequent mayoral precepts and is central to an understanding of the
provision of corn; a later example referred to below is shown in Table 1.
In brief, for the next thirty years the city ordered the livery companies to contribute to the cost of
corn brought into the city. The word ‘tax’ was used but also the phrase ’to be lent’ in these precepts
suggesting that the companies would get a return on the ‘loan’ when the corn was sold on. It was
expected by the Court of Common Council that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen would obtain the best
deal by buying cheap and selling with maximum benefit to both the city and the poor. 15
The proportions of money required from the companies was further confirmed following an
assessment made by the Court of Aldermen; this was for ‘loans’ for corn or ‘any such like thing as
also for setting forth men’ as required: for every one hundred pounds charge a company would
11
This was not the only call upon their resources as the companies were expected to fund loans to the crown,
provide money for the Irish and Virginia plantations, funding of state lotteries, pageants, men at arms,
munitions and monopolous patents, Herbert, The History of the Twelve , Vol. I, pp. 119-120.
12
Hugh Alley’s Caveat The Markets of London in 1598, Folger MsV.a.318, I. Archer, C. Barron and V. Harding
eds., (London, 1988), p. 11; R. Nielsen, ‘Storage and English Government Intervention in Early Modern Grain
Markets’, Journal of Economic History 57 (1997), pp. 23-24; K.G. Persson, Grain Markets in Europe, 1500-1900,
(Cambridge, 1999), pp. 55-62, Gras, The Evolution of the English Corn Market, p. 85; Outhwaite, Dearth and
Government Intervention, pp. 389-406; P.V. McGrath, The Marketing of food, fodder and livestock in the
London area in the seventeenth century with some reference to the sources of supply, (unpublished MA
Thesis, University of London, 1949), pp. 139-140.
13
I. Archer, ‘The 1590s, Apotheosis or Nemesis of the Elizabethan Regime?’ in A. Briggs and D. Snowman eds.,
Fins de Siècle How Centuries End 1400-2000, (Yale, 1996), p. 91.
14
Herbert, The History of the Twelve, Vol. I, pp. 134-135 fn. Herbert also noted that in 1544 the city used loans
from the Crown for foreign corn which was bought by the Bridgemaster and stored at Bridgehouse, p. 139.
Foreign corn was generally bought through the Steelyard merchants (a company based in Cologne) until
dissolution of the company in 1558, p.141.
15
Herbert, The History of the Twelve, Vol. 1, pp. 136-137; LMA, , COL/CA/01/01/017/15, f. 472; LMA,
COL/CC/01/01/020, f. 87
4
produce twelve men in this case to total 400+ for Her Majesty’s ships (Table 1). 16 This proportional
allocation to the livery companies is very important as it is used repeatedly, with some revision, to
assess the companies for pageant money, loans to Kings James I and Charles I, money for the Irish
and Virginia plantations and other loans. It has not been possible to establish how these proportions
were reached, as it is not made explicit in the sources which have been reviewed. It was likely to
have been based on a combination of size, perceived wealth, and tradition.
Table 1. Allocation of the proportion of men and money (total £5037 10s) to be provided by each
livery company (June 1575)
COMPANY
MEN
AMOUNT
COMPANY
Mercers
40
£500
Cordwayners
Grocers
40
£500
Inholders
Drapers
30
£375
Armourers
Fishmongers
23
£250
Bowyers
Goldsmiths
30
£375
Fletchers
Skinners
16
£200
Coopers
Merchant Taylors
35
£437
Carpenters
Haberdashers
30
£375
Plombers
Salters
15
£187 10s
Paynters
Ironmongers
15
£187 10s
Butchers
Vintners
15
£187 10s
Poulters
Clothworkers
22
£275
Cooks
Dyers
5
£62 10s
Tylers
Brewers
10
£125
Masons
Leathersellers
13
£162 10s
Scriveners
Tallowchandlers
5
£62 10s
Woodmongers
Cutlers
3
£37 10s
Plasterers
Pewterers
5
£56 5s
Blacksmiths
Sadlers
5
£62 10s
Fruiterers
Barber surgeons
2
£25
Stationers
Girdlers
4
£50
Woolmen
Curriers
1
£15
Weavers
Note. The ‘Great Twelve’ livery companies are shown in bold
MEN
5
3
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
AMOUNT
£62 10s
£37 10s
£12 10s
£7 5s
£6 5s
£62 10s
£37 10s
£12 10s
£22 10s
£21
£12 10s
£37 10s
£12 10s
£12 10s
£50
£12 10s
£20
£12 10s
£12 10s
£62 10s
£6 5s
£12 10s
Perhaps the most significant episode occurred in 1575 when the city incurred significant losses in
corn trading and it became apparent to the companies that the system by which they loaned money
to the city for the provision of corn was unsustainable. The Court of Common Council invited the
Wardens of the livery companies to suggest ways by which the £2100 loss, accumulated over two
years, and the loss of 200 quarters of corn, could be borne. These losses had arisen in part because
of adverse weather conditions affecting shipments of corn from the east (this usually refers to the
Baltic) resulting in musty unwholesome corn. The city authorities were in effect asking the ‘Great
16
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/020, f. 143.
5
Twelve’ to consult their livery and yeomanry, who provided a substantial amount of the funds, and
provide a solution. 17
The Court of Aldermen organised a committee, with representatives of the twelve companies, and
it was agreed that the companies would to forego the loss of money if the city would give them corn
as part repayment. The decision to take the corn was crucial as the companies undertook thereafter
to buy and store corn instead of underwriting the city for doing so. This was the basis for the
provision of corn for the next hundred years. It must be assumed that the companies felt this was
the better option than to maintain the status quo. Indeed this conclusion was implied in a minute
from Grocers Company Court of Assistants: in summary this stated that the company would rather
have take responsibility for the buying and storing of corn than lend further sums of money to the
city authorities with no guarantee of return on their investment; the separate question of
repayment of existing debt by the city, was to be revisited in two years hence. 18
The city, therefore, required the companies to store corn at their own cost in twelve equal sized
garners made available to them at the Bridgehouse. Although the emphasis was on the twelve great
companies, who had provided members to the committee, the text also included reference to the
contribution required from the inferior companies. In addition the companies were required to have
20 quarters of corn available at 30 days notice to furnish the markets. 19 This additional but separate
arrangement was in place in 1579 and 1580, when the companies were ordered to take 10 quarters
of meal, on a weekly basis, to the markets allocated to them, using wheat laid up in their own
granaries. 20 There was no specific mention of price in the precept contained in the Journal of the
Court of Common Council but it was contained in the copy in the Drapers Company Court minutes:
to provide 10 quarters of meal at 3s 6d per bushel on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays every
week to specified markets; 21 as will become evident the price and restrictions on the sale of meal
became an integral part of subsequent orders.
17
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/021, f. 258. This was also found in the Merchant Taylors’ and Grocers’ records, GL,
CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/001, f. 270b; GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS34010/2, f. 28. Herbert, The History of the
Twelve, Vol. I, pp. 139-144 including footnotes.
18
LMA, COL/CA/01/01/021, f. 371b; LMA, CLC/L/B/001/Ms 11588/001, fol. 296b-297.
19
LMA, , COL/CC/01/01/021, f. 437-440; GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/001, f. 296b-297;
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS34010/3, f. 33-34b. There are minor differences in the texts from the three sources
examined but these do not alter the main conclusions.
20
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS34010/003, f. 44b. The Merchant Taylors were ordered to provide 15 quarters of
meal in 5 quarter aliquots on the Monday of the current week, the Wednesday of the next, and Friday of the
following week to Queenhithe market. GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/001, f. 307b. This does not appear in
the Journal of the Court of Common Council. LMA, COL/CC/01/01/022, f. 83b. This allocation includes
Southwark which does not appear in the allocations during 1600-1640.
21
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/022, f. 442b. Queenhithe: Grocers, Mercers, Drapers, Fishmongers; Newgate:
Goldsmiths, Merchant Taylors, Skinners; Leadenhall: Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers; Southwark: Vintners,
Clothworkers. The template was sent to all of the twelve great companies.
6
In October 1581 the Lord Mayor issued more precise instructions on the provision of corn: 22
•
wheat should be provided according to the previous Act of Common Council,
•
companies were to use single, not multiple buyers,
•
ensure that corn was in store by the last day of March and any action on default to
be left to the Court of Aldermen,
•
certificates of the same were to be provided certificate by April 1st and the same
certificate first Wednesday each month,
•
no company compelled to sell in the markets except by order of the Common
Council.
The matter of the debt was finally settled in 1586 when the ‘Great Twelve’ agreed to take
repayment of 15s in the £1 and cover the losses to the inferior companies; this was only after the
Court of Aldermen agreed to re-examine the issue; this may have been prompted were still asking
the companies for money as well as ordering them to lay up supplies of corn. 23 The explanation for
this request lies in the fact that the city authorities continued to arrange and control the import of
corn from overseas, for which they required payment either directly or as third part agent for the
importers; this was separate from the ‘domestic suppliers’ used by the companies. In April 1586 the
twelve great companies were required to take 500 quarters of wheat from Danzig paying some of
the money immediately and some later; 24 in early 1587 a precept listed the sums of money to be
paid to Aldermen Billingsgate for corn from Amsterdam. 25
In August 1587 the Court of Aldermen agreed that 10000 quarters should be provided by all the
companies and not just the twelve: 26
In October 1587 taxation of all the companies of the city for the provision of 10000 quarters
of wheat proportioned by my Lord Mayor and disbursed according to Late Court of
Common Council. 27
The great twelve great companies were expected to contribute 8088 quarters, almost 81 percent
of the total 10000 quarters; the next twelve 1025, over 10 percent, and the rest the remaining 10
percent. It is not clear how these figures were determined but again must have been based on a
22
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/022, f. 145. There was no recorded response to this list in the court records of the
Merchant Taylors’ or Grocers’ companies. In January 1582 further instructions on the certificates were issued
by the Court of Aldermen. These were to be organised by the water bailiff, Mr Richard Dodde together with
one warden from each company. LMA, COL/CA/01/01/021, f. 280.
23
LMA, COL/CA/01/01/021, f. 371b, 373 and 384; LMA, COL/CA/01/01/023, f. 74b and 241b
24
LMA, COL/CA/01/01/023, f. 288, 294-295.
25
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/023, f. 73b. This is also referred to in LMA, COL/CA/01/01/023, f. 371b and f. 399b.
GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/001, f. 386b, GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS34010/3, f. 160.
26
LMA, COL/CA/01/01/023, f. 463. This was confirmed in October 1587, LMA, COL/CA/01/01/023 f. 472
27
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/023, f. 130.
7
combination of company assets and numbers of brethren. 28 The quantity of 10000 quarters and
proportions allocated remained essentially unchanged until the Apothecaries Company was created
by separation from the Grocers in 1622; although some later precepts referred to lesser quantities of
corn, often rye, when this was imported from abroad.
Although the wording in some of the earlier precepts is misleading, the livery companies were
expected to have their allocation of corn in store by the 31st March of each year and provide
certification of the same on the first Wednesday of each month. However as will be seen companies
rarely had their full proportion in store. The shortfall in provision was evident in 1589 when a
committee at Guildhall decided that the bakers should have 500 quarters of wheat from the
Bridgehouse store and therefore conducted an audit (Table 2); 29 this failure to comply fully with the
precepts was a pattern to be repeated frequently over the next 40 years.
Table 2. Amount of corn held by the companies (and percentage of their allocation) with the
amounts to sell to the bakers (October 1589).
COMPANIES
Amount in store Allocation Percentage
Haberdashers
260
724
36.0
Mercers
350
820
42.7
Grocers
250
874
28.6
Drapers
400
768
52.1
Fishmongers
260
565
46.0
Goldsmiths
380
809
47.0
Merchant Taylors 220
936
23.5
Vintners
300
520
57.7
Ironmongers
214
440
48.6
Salters
60
514
11.7
Skinners
260
553
47.0
Clothworkers
100
565
17.7
Totals
3054
8088
37.8
Note Percentages are expressed to one decimal place.
Amount to sell (quarters, bushels)
42 quarters 3 bushels
57 quarters
42 quarters 2bushels
65 quarters
42 quarters 3 bushels
62 quarters 2 bushels
36 quarters 1 bushels
49 quarters
35 quarters 1 bushels
9 quarters 6 bushels
42 quarters 3 bushels
16 quarters 3 bushels
500
PURCHASE OF GRAIN FROM OVERSEAS
The importation of grain from further afield in the kingdom and from overseas was central to the
city’s strategy for the storage and distribution of grain. The merchants were only likely to bring grain
from overseas, on a repeat basis, if the market for their grain was certain; there were always
alternative outlets on mainland Europe. The Lord Mayor tried to guarantee this when Richard Ball, a
merchant, brought grain from overseas for the city but there was reluctance by the companies to
28
29
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/025, f. 251.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/023, f. 337.
8
take all of this corn and the Bakers Company, in particular, was castigated. 30 In 1612 the Privy
Council urged the Lord Mayor to ensure that the several companies made their full provision of corn
using the large granaries provided by his predecessors at Bridgehouse and Bridewell thereby
preventing regrating and forstalling and as a means of keeping prices down. 31 This was an
opportune moment of the Lord Mayor to reply as he had received a petition from the Eastland
Company stating ‘that if there was no market for their corn in London they should be allowed to
transport it elsewhere in the kingdom’ or ‘into foreign parts’. 32 The re-exportation of corn would
have required cooperation from the Farmers of Custom who were reminded by the Privy Council
that they should not act independently of the Crown in the matter of import and export of corn. 33 It
has not been possible to determine what happened to overseas corn which was not bought by the
livery companies; it is possible that other, unspecified corn merchants would have bought it.
It was not just the overseas merchants who were affected by the London market. In 1622 the
farmers of East Kent had been unable to sell their corn to the sea-port merchants as there was
opposition from the local populace to do so. This left London as the only market which would take
their corn but that market was very uncertain; a petition to the Privy Council from the Justices of
Kent also included reference to the reliance of the county on tillage for its wealth. 34 The early 1620s
was a period of shortages, the Privy Council, while not wanting to undermine the Lord Mayor’s
authority, had agreed that merchants selling cloth abroad via the Eastland Company could return
with corn. If they paid duty on the corn they, or someone else, would be allowed to transport it out
again despite the presence of a general ban on the export of corn. 35 The Privy Council were at the
same time keen to make exceptions elsewhere, they allowed re-exportation elsewhere (Dover), as a
means to encourage importation of corn by the City of London. 36 The Stationers agreed to take 50
quarters, out of a total of 2100 quarters, of foreign wheat at 46s/ quarter plus 4d/quarter costs,
30
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/029/01, f. 33. The reference to the bakers is found in the text of the precept published
in the Court Minutes of the Grocers’ Company. GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/002, f. 704-5.
31
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/03, fols. 72-74, No 69.
32
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/03, fol. 74, No. 70. See also letter from Earl of Suffolk to the Officers of Customs at
London Directs them to suffer the Eastland Merchants to re-transport their corn to foreign parts without
export duties, in case of its not finding sale in England, although, by order in Council, dated January 1613, they
are no longer free of import duties. Calendar State Papers Domestic, James I, 1611-1618, ed., M.A.E. Green,
th
(London, 1858), p. 261, November 28 1613.
33
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/03, fols. 126-7, No. 110; fol. 128, No. 111; fol. 138, No. 118. See also Acts of Privy
Council, 33 1613-1614, (HMSO, London, 1960) pp. 263-4. It was also permitted for French wheat to be reexported if not sold, APC, Volume 33 1613-1614, pp. 309 and 331.
34
th
CSPD, James I, 1619-1623 eds., M.A.E. Green (London, 1858), p. 112 (12), January 11 1620.
35
APC, 1621-1623, p. 423.
36
APC, 1621-1623, pp. 378 and 394.
9
costing a total of £115 16s 8d; 37 the Mercers were ordered to take 120 quarters at the same rate but
the warden responsible only bought 60 quarters at the higher total cost of 52s/quarter. 38
Questions regarding import of corn from the Baltic again came to the fore in the early 1630s
when there were further examples of the livery companies purchasing corn brought into London on
the orders of the Lord Mayor. The mayoral precept included specific instructions on how much of
this corn the various companies should take but it is not entirely clear whether this referred to
wheat brought from Ireland by Mr Burlimarchie (8000 quarters) and Mr Southwood (2000 quarters)
who had both applied for special import licences. 39 It is more likely that the precept referred to corn
(rye) brought in by Alderman Clitheroe, Governor of the Eastland Company. In a precept to the
Grocers, copied to other companies, the Lord Mayor criticised the company for not always helping in
the past but if they now took 500 quarters of rye (half your usual provision) from the Eastland
merchants you will ‘encourage future imports’. 40 There was widespread reluctance to take this rye
even at the reduced rate of 6s/6d per bushel (52s. /quarter) and 18d /bushel under the prevailing
rate for wheat. This was set out in the response from the Grocers’ Company. 41 After subjecting this
matter to ‘great mature deliberate debate’ the Grocers’ Court of Assistants agreed the following
response which included:
They answered in all humble respect unto your Lordships that the Act of the Common Council
which orders the Companies for provision of corne is only for wheat and not for Rie.
They continued by saying their experience, and loss, had taught them:
notwithstanding this great scarcity and dearth that the poore will not use or receive meale
of either barly or rie alone nor yet with the mixture of two third parte of wheat.
This would have required an additional 1000 quarters of wheat to be mixed with the 500 quarters
of rye. The company’s experience was that, even in winter at times of scarcity and high prices, rye
was often left unsold in the markets. The Grocers were also concerned that there had been no
public request for the importation of rye and that merchants had done so in the hope of either
37
Stationers Hall, Letter Book, f. 102a
Stationers Hall, Letter Book, f. 102a ; Mercers Hall, Acts of Court, 1595-1629, ff. 238b and 247. The Lord
Mayor’s Precept was reproduced in these records, the only sources for these precepts.
39
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 63, No. 54; fol. 66, No. 57.
40
GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/003, p. 454.
41
GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/003, pp. 454-455 15 June 1631; see also GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS 34010/6,
p. 422; GL, CLC/L/BF/B/001/MS05445/015, 30 June 1631; GL, CLC/L/SE/B/001/MS30708/003, f. 133, August
1631 who wished to discuss the role of other companies with the Mayor; Leathersellers Hall, Minute Book,
1623-1632, Gov/1/2, 16 July 1631; Goldsmiths Hall, Volume 15 Part 2, No 1538- B39, f. 52; GL,
CLC/L/IB/B/002/MS16967/004, 1629-1646, f. 83; GL, CLC/L/FE/B/001/MS05570/2, f. 912. The figure given in
the Mercers Company records was 6s 6d/bushel being a loss of 18d/bushel; subsequently the Court of Hall
ordered that 58 quarters of Danzig rye should be bought, Mercers Hall, Acts of Court, ff. 330b-331 and 333.
38
10
making a profit or to flood the market and undersell (at 5s / bushel) causing losses to other traders.
They concluded by asking the Mayor to excuse them in this business. 42 The experience of the
Stationers was similar. In October 1630 they had been ordered by the Lord Mayor to buy 140
quarters of wheat using foreign sources whereby they would avoid disturbance to local provision
and local price rises; whereupon they attempted to buy Irish corn. In 1631 they were told to buy 70
quarters of Eastland rye and eventually bought just 14 quarters at 54s / quarter. 43
Despite the concerns about foreign corn, wheat was bought by the companies at good rates in
1634 and again in 1638. 44 However in June 1636 two London merchants, Henry and John Isham,
wrote to the Privy Council asking if the 100 lasts of grain from foreign parts which had lain long upon
their hands and is not ‘fit to be vended in this kingdom’ could be taken to the United Provinces
under license, if they paid customs. There followed a request by the Privy Council to the Farmers
and Officers of Custom to undertake an audit of imported corn and as part of that process the
Baker’s Company concluded that some of the wheat and rye was not suitable to be sold in London. 45
The city and indirectly the Privy Council both played an important role in ensuring that corn was
available from abroad exemplified by the episodes in the early 1630s. However the reluctance of
the companies to buy Eastland rye placed the Lord Mayor under pressure from the Privy Council.
Correspondence between the Lord Mayor and the Privy Council during 1629-1631 is revealing. In
September 1630 the Privy Council asked how Lord Mayor proposed to keep wheat prices down,
while reminding him that he had been given a knighthood by his Majesty. 46 His reply both then and
reiterating the content of correspondence from 1629 stated: 47
As for corn which hath been our desire to keep down the price thereof We have much
wasted our city provision by furnishing the markets with good quantities and at more
reasonable rates than otherwise would have been by foreign by means whereof the price
hath been somewhat kept down that we have remaining in store at least 1500 quarters
42
GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/003, pp. 454-456. The Goldsmiths made the same point about rye:
Common council did not ordain rye but wheat and fresh Company informed poor will not buy the
corn at your Lordships prices even if rye mixed with twice the quantity of wheat remained unsold in
two wards and the company will bear the loss.
Goldsmiths Hall, Volume 15 Q Part 2, NO 1534 B 39, f. 52.
43
Stationers Hall, Letters, ff. 116a-116b, 118b-119a and Records ff. 217b.
44
Mercers Hall, Acts of Court, 1631-1637, ff. 139b-140 and 149; 1637-1641, f. 46b; Goldsmiths Hall, Volume 15
Part 2, No 1538- B39, f 87b.
45
th
CSPD, Charles I, 1636-7, ed., J. Bruce, (London, 1867), p. 2, June 20 1636. A last was equivalent to 10
quarters.
46
th
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fols. 48-49, No. 46, 6 September 1630.
47
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 11, No. 8; LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fols. 51-52, No 50. Both letters also
refer to the provision of sea coals.
11
daily for the provisioning of high markets about London and have given order to the several
companies for the speedy providing of 10000 quarters more.
Shortly after he confirmed arrangements for the corn to be brought from Ireland referred to
above. 48
These letters confirm both the importance the city attached to the use of foreign corn, the
attitude the city had in ‘wasting’ the city provision by furnishing the markets, and the need to
maintain daily stores of 1500 quarters way above any quantity anticipated from other sources.
LORD MAYOR’S PRECEPTS
The Lord Mayor precepts are recorded in the Journal of the Court of Common Council (JCCC) and
provide a record of orders and instructions issued to various individuals and institutions within the
city and liberties. They include orders to the livery companies for the provision of corn, loans to be
raised for the Crown, the plantations in Ireland and Virginia, and many aspects of city administration.
Also pertinent to this study are the precepts issued to the livery companies to deliver corn (meal) to
the markets and to the aldermen of the wards instructing them to oversee that process and to
provide information about the needs of the population.
A more comprehensive picture has emerged from the systematic examination of these precepts
in the JCCC and cross reference to the livery company records, which contain some of the precepts
identified but also some additional ones, often with different details. The evidence shows that the
provision of corn and delivery of meal to the market was not an intermittent activity and that there
ongoing tensions between the interested parties; furthermore an explanation has been found for
increase in company store provision to 30000 (thirty) thousand quarters, albeit briefly after 1630,
has been found.
PRECEPTS ON THE PROVISION OF CORN
The precepts were issued in a standard format with a space for the name of the company, the
amount of corn (usually wheat) which the company was to hold in storage and a date by which the
provision should be made; some precepts contained a full list of the companies and the proportion
of corn each was to provide. 49 Evidence from the company records implies that their Court of
48
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 63, No. 54; LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 66, No 57.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/029/01, f. 282; COL/CC/01/01/038, f. 128b, 1635. This list of company provision of corn
follows a precept ordering the provision of 10000 quarters of corn. The change in proportion occurred
throughout the time that the system for the provision of corn was in operation.
49
12
Assistants would either recommend how much wheat should be purchased or pass the decision to
the Master and Wardens; one of whom would instruct the designated buyer to purchase the
designated amount; unfortunately the outcome of decisions cannot always be found in the records.
Money to pay for the corn had to be raised by the company from within its brotherhood at differing
rates for the Master and Wardens, assistants, livery, yeomanry, and freemen. This money was
categorized as ‘corn money’ either to be paid on entry to the company or on a regular basis;
additional levies would be made at time of need with at least one recorded corn dinner. The money
was held as a loan as it could be paid back to individuals who fell upon hard times or to their widows
and dependants upon their death. This ‘corn money’ was required not only to pay for the corn but
the costs attendant upon granary management, the buying and selling of corn, grinding to meal and
its sale in the market. The sale of corn or meal to the markets produced a regular income to
balance the initial outlay. As indicated previously this was not the only expenditure the company
members were expected to bear. 50
The quantity of corn in almost all of the mayoral precepts was 10000 quarters a quantity that was
set by the city authorities in the late sixteenth century. However in the early 1630s the Privy Council
took a more active role. An audit undertaken in the wards and parishes was reported in a letter to
the Privy Council:
‘In reply to letter respecting a provision to be made of corn, they think "eight ounces of
bread will suffice one body a day, one with another, which will be 15 lbs. per mensem for
everyone." Granaries are provided at Bridewell to hold 6,000 quarters; at Bridgehouse,
9,000; at Queenhithe, 1,000. Conceive that 20,000 quarters will be sufficient for a magazine
to serve the markets weekly. Every Company takes care for its own proportion”.
50
Examples include money for the Irish estates in 1611: Goldsmiths to provide £730 towards the Irish estates
in 1611, Goldsmiths Hall, Volume 14 O Part 3 1604 2 Jam 1 to 1611 9 Jam I No 1532:B39, f. 721; similarly the
Ironmongers were expected to contribute towards £20000 for the Irish plantation in December 1610 in a
minute from March 1611, GL, CLC/L/IB/B/002/MS16967/001, f. 92.
13
This assessment is important as it was from this that the quantity of corn to be stored by the
companies was increased to twenty thousand quarters. 51 A further letter in December 1631 from
the Lord Mayor certified:
“that the number of men, women, and children in the several wards within the City and
Liberties was estimated at 130,280, for whom he thought eight ounces of bread each per
day would be sufficient. 5,000 quarters of wheat per month would therefore be sufficient
to serve the City”. 52
This amount per month equates to thirty thousand quarters per annum; a quantity which was
reiterated a year later in an order from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor:
Order in Council directing the Lord Mayor to certify the names of all persons of the
Companies of London, imprisoned by order of the Court of Aldermen for not making up
their usual proportion of 10,000 quarters of corn, as also what course had been taken for
making the provision, not only of the 10,000 quarters for the magazine of the City, but of
the 30,000 quarters when the season should be thought fit. 53
The Lord Mayor issued a precept for 30000 quarters of corn, on the orders of the crown. 54 This is
recommendation was never fulfilled as indicated in a further letter from the Lord Mayor to the Privy
Council in October 1632 explaining why it was not possible citing the following reasons:
‘decay of trade, want of stowage, great cost of building granaries, the influence of amassing
so large a store in raising the price of corn, loss of corn stored by vermin, shrinking, and
screening. Ten thousand quarters would be a sufficient store if restraint were had of the
newly erected buildings, and the brewers were restrained from using such great quantities
of corn’. 55
51
CSPD, Charles I, 1631-1632, Volume 197 No. 43. The quantity of twenty thousand quarters had been
discussed in February 1619 but the context and outcome are unclear:
Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, stating that the
Companies of the City had formerly exercised a laudable custom of maintaining a magazine of 20,000
or more quarters of wheat, which had lately been omitted, and that they had thought it fit the
custom should be continued. They therefore required a speedy and real supply of so many quarters
of wheat in the proportions usually rated on the several Companies.
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 81, No 70.
52
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 81, No 70. The Privy Council letter implies that 20,000 quarters had been the
norm; the Journals of the Court of Common Council provide no evidence to support this view.
53
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/08, No. 98.
54
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 446b.
55
CSPD, Charles I, 1631-3, p. 428, No. 40.
14
Data from the city and livery company records reveal that the precepts for the provision of corn
were issued throughout the period 1600-1640 (Tables 3a and 3b); there are gaps but it does not
necessarily indicate that no precept was issued in that year. There is no obvious pattern to the data
and certainly no obvious correlation with the years of poor harvest apart from increased activity in
1630-1631 which may have been related to increased interventions from the Privy Council. The
precepts contain the order that 10000 quarters of wheat should be put in store, except in April 1632
when the amount was 30000 quarters or when lesser amounts, often of rye, where brought from
overseas. 56 In some instances there are two concurrent requests: one for the companies to take
Baltic rye, which they largely decline, the other to take Irish wheat with which they generally comply.
It has not been possible to find a response to every precept which has been identified, either in
the city records or those of one of the companies; the discussion or rationale behind the decision to
buy a certain quantity of wheat was rarely recorded. A small sample, from a comprehensive
analysis of over fifteen companies’ records, is shown (Tables 4a and 4b) and reveals a reluctance by
the two of the ‘Great Twelve’, the Merchant Taylors and Ironmongers, to comply with the precept in
full, while a third, the Fishmongers, seemed more likely to do so; this may be because they had some
of the responsibility for the trade in fish, but there is no clear evidence for this. The two inferior
companies fulfilled their obligation to store much smaller quantities; the Brown Bakers perhaps for
obvious reasons.
56
This not always the case as there are some instances when the amount of corn made available by the city
falls short of 10000, Baltic rye in 1631, and grain from Richard Ball in 1612.
15
Table 3(a). Responses of selected Livery Companies, Merchant Taylors and ironmongers, to Lord
Mayor’s precepts for the provision of corn, 1600-1640
COMPANY
Date
November 1600
March 1603
November 1605
October 1606
December 1610
February 1620
August 1621
MERCHANT TAYLORS
Amount Response
(qu.)
(wheat if not
specified)
936
300 quarters
936
300 quarters
936
200 quarter
936
200 quarters
1050
300 quarters
1050
300 quarters
1050
400 quarters
January 1622
February 1625
March 1625
1050
1050
1050
September 1630
April 1632
1050
1050
COMPANY
Date
January 1605
September 1608
December 1610
December 1616
February 1619
January 1622
IRONMONGERS
Amount
Response
(qu.)
(wheat if not
specified)
440
250
440
200
358
150
440
200
358
150
358
50-60
February 1623
70
104
June 1625
February 1627
May 1630
November 1630
358
358
358
358
278
36
208
60
June 1631
November 1631
179
358
April 1632
June 1638
January 1639
January 1640
358
358
340
340
Notes
Foreign wheat
Bought just before precept
LM anticipates poor harvest
Very low price therefore buy
No need to buy more as wheat in store; in
December notes 300 quarters in stock.
Not recorded
At discretion of Master and Wardens
100 quarters
Notes that Lord Mayor invokes Crown
20 +50 quarters Probably same precept as February; 50 quarters
from John Webber at Bridgehouse
300 quarters
Lord Mayor asks what provision has been made
125 quarters
Lord Mayor invokes Crown
358 +75 of
rye
160
100
140
200
Notes
Rest at wardens’ discretion
Rest at wardens discretion
Rest at wardens’ discretion
Corn at 41s/quarter; company cannot afford the
amount all at once
Proportion of 2100 quarters bought in by Lord
Mayor at 46s 4d/quarter. On same date company
buy 104 quarters at 52s/quarter
More to be bought later
Foreign corn
From Norfolk. Lord Mayor has 10000 quarters
coming from Ireland
Eastland rye which company decline
Spend £100 and committee appointed to raise
additional money in Hall
Committee appointed to consider the rest
After viewing samples at different prices
To be added to 60 quarters already bought
16
Table3(b). Responses of selected Livery Companies, Fishmongers, Carpenters, Tallow Chandlers and
Brown Bakers, to Lord Mayor’s precepts for the provision of corn, 1600-1640
COMPANY
Date
July 1612
January 1620
December 1624
February 1629
May 1630
October 1630
June 1630
FISHMONGERS
Amount
Response
(qu.)
(wheat if not
(wheat if
specified)
not
specified)
September 1631
40
565
565
565
325
565
282 ½
(rye)
565
October 1636
January 1640
620
620
COMPANY
Date
CARPENTERS
Amount
Response
(qu.)
Notes
September 1608
February 1612
May 1619
50
50
50
Foreign wheat
£30 would buy 20 quarters at 30s per quarter
Wardens to buy as they think fit
COMPANY
Date
TALLOW CHANDLERS
Amount
Response
(qu.)
(wheat if not
specified)
60
60 quarters
60
60 quarters
70
60 quarters
130
60 quarters
June 1619
June 1625
March 1631
September 1631
COMPANY
Date
40
No decision
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Denied
Notes
Agreed
Agreed
No extra
bought
40 quarters
£30 allocated
February 1632
BROWN BAKERS
Amount Response
(qu.)
(wheat if not
specified)
10
120 quarters
March 1634
15
20 quarters
Foreign corn from Mr Ball
In February unspecified amount bought
Precept passed to granary manager
Passed to Mr Dunkin to fulfil
To make up shortfall not fulfilled in February
Referred to Mr Dunkin
Have Irish wheat coming in and have 200 quarters
of wheat in granary
Decision left with Warden Langton now in charge of
granary
£600 readily available
404 quarters in granary
Notes
Says this is the yearly amount
Says this is the yearly amount
Note that 130 quarters is the yearly quota
Notes
Mr Weller delivered more than needed to
Bridgehouse
At Sabbs Dock
17
PRECEPTS ON THE SALE OF MEAL IN MARKETS
In addition to the precepts on the provision of corn, the Lord Mayor issued orders on a regular
basis for the companies to provide meal to various markets within the city. These precepts were
primarily directed at the great twelve livery companies and to some of the smaller companies on a
less frequent basis Table 6a and b. 57
The first precept of the seventeenth century which has been identified was found in the
Ironmongers records. The instruction was to provide 10 quarters of meal to an unidentified market
for the poorer sort of people in quantities of a bushel, ½ bushel, peck, and ½ peck every week from
21st May. 58 Subsequent precepts included similar instructions often specifying that not more than
one or one half bushel should be sold to any individual thereby preventing corn dealers and others
buying up the meal as recorded in the records of the Merchant Taylors 59:
And to cause the same to be sould in the said mkett to the poorer sort of people: by the
bushel, half, bushel, peck and half peck, and in any wyse above a bushel, to any one person,
upon any one mrkett daye And the same to be sould eight pence in the bushel at the least a
under common price of said wheat, and so after the rate for smaller quantities thereby to
keepe down the price of corne in the said markets, with threats perils if you do not.
Two precepts requiring companies to take meal to market in 1608, a time of high grain prices, are
recorded by the Court of Common Council with both including the phrase that ‘you cannot plead
ignorance’ and that the ‘sheriffs will be involved to ensure compliance’; there is also reference to the
bakers making use of the meal. 60
A departure from the usual precept format is found in the Ironmongers’ Company records:
the Lord Mayor requests that companies make use of the grain brought to the city by
merchants by baking it into white and wheaton loaves to be sold in the market; the one
penny wheaton loaf to weigh 11 ounces and the 3 halfpenny white loaf after the same
weight and that the company retain one penny advantage in the shilling.
This order, the only one identified of its type, was additional to the more usual order for the
company to provide meal to market. The Ironmongers company response was to order several
57
It has not been possible to ascertain whether the companies required to store very much smaller amounts of
corn were ever required to furnish the markets with meal.
58
st
GL, CLC/L/IB/B/002/MS16967/001, 21 may 1600. There are no folio numbers in this document.
59
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS 34010/4-5, pp. 50-51. At this time the Merchant Taylors had no corn in store; the
court decided that the Master and Wardens would provide it.
60
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/028, f. 244b, 245, and 261.
18
brethren, including one Richard Butt, to attend the Lord Mayor and explain that the company did
not know how to grind corn and bake bread. 61
Table 4a. Precepts from the Lord Mayor relating to the delivery of meal to market, 1600-1629
YEAR
1600
1602
1603
1608
1611
1612
1613
1614
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1626
1628
61
PRECEPT
Ironmongers meal to market
PRICE OF MEAL OR OTHER FACTORS
10 quarters for 4 weeks in quantities of one bushel,
½ bushel or ½ peck
Merchant Taylors
Meal to market at 8d/bushel below price
Merchant Taylors
Meal to market4d/bushel below price
Great Twelve plus additional 3 different precepts of meal to market one includes
companies
request to Ironmongers to make bread (see text)
Vintners
Meal to market ‘from time to time’
Great Twelve
Meal to market 6d/bushel below price; second
precept: with failure to supply double quantities
required
Great Twelve
2 separate precepts to sell meal not above 4s
6d/bushel (36s/quarter) and not more than 1 bushel
per person
Great Twelve
No corn to be brought to market unless instructed;
then 6 quarters/week at 5s/bushel (40s/quarter);
increased to 9 quarters / week
Ironmongers
20 quarters of meal per week at not more than 4s
6d/bushel; sell in ½ peck, peck, and ½ bushel and not
more than 1 bushel to each person
Great Twelve
2 separate precepts sell ½ peck, peck, and ½ bushel
quantities and not more ½ bushel per person
Ironmongers
Meal to market
Ironmongers
6 quarters a week at 4d/bushel under price
Ironmongers
6 quarters a week at 4d/bushel under price
Great Twelve
Meal to market 4d/bushel under price
Ironmongers
6 quarters /w eek sell at 6d/bushel under price in ½
peck, peck, and ½ bushel and bushel quantities;
company court says sell at 4d/bushel under price
Drapers
Meal to market
Goldsmiths
Meal to market
Merchant Taylors
Meal to market sell only ½ peck, peck, ½ bushel at
4d/bushel below market price
GL, CLC/L/IB/B/002/MS16967/001, f. 48.
19
Table 4b. Precepts from the Lord Mayor relating to the delivery of meal to market, 1630-1640
1630
Companies
1631
Companies
1631
Ward Aldermen
1632
Various companies
1633
Great twelve
1634
1635
Ironmongers
Fishmongers
1636
1638
Fishmongers
Companies
4 separate precepts this year; double amounts to up
to 20 quarters/week to be sold in usual quantities;
Ward deputies and constables to attend on every
market day to check for miss selling
Double quantities of meal; Brown Bakers selling at
65s/quarter; Ironmongers to sell at 6d/bushel under
price; Drapers sell rye at market 5s/bushel
Audit number of poor and meal prices give ½ peck
per person; ensure poor get meal; get scales and
weights(see text)
Ironmongers 5 quarters per week to market sell at
4s 6d/bushel in usual quantities (NB this may be well
below market price)
Meal to market sell at not more than 4s 6d or (also
quoted) 5s/bushel
Meal to market sell at 5s/bushel
6 quarters meal to Newgate every week sell at not
more 5s/bushel
10 quarters meal to market; no price specified
Meal to market 4s 6d/bushel sell in quantities of ½
peck, peck, ½ bushel not more 1 bushel per person.
In 1612 the Merchant Taylors failed to provide 6 quarters of meal to Leadenhall market and were
told that this deserved punishment in the King’s name. They were ordered to provide 12 quarters,
double the proportion, by the next Monday.62 The Merchant Taylors were again in difficulties in
September 1613 having sold all their corn, with the purchase of more agreed, when they sent a
delegation to the Lord Mayor to query the amount, set at 9 quarters, which they were expected to
provide to market. The outcome of this negotiation is not recorded but the company was required
to provide more, 10 quarters, to the markets in the next year. 63
The companies had continuing concerns about the process of providing meal to the markets: the
Merchant Taylors complained to the Lord Mayor that they fulfilling their obligations ‘in more ample
manner than other Companies’ despite admitting that they did not have their full proportion in
store. 64 The Ironmongers complained to the Lord Mayor that questions had been raised about the
quality of meal provided by their company to the market; as a consequence the Warden and Beadles
produced an example of bread made from the meal to refute this allegation. 65
62
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS 34010/4-5, p. 41.
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS 34010/4-5, pp. 96, 105, and 128; the Grocers were also unhappy at selling below
market price, GL, CLC/L/GH/B/001/MS11588/002, f. 669, 704-5, and 819.
64
GL, CLC/L/MD/B/003A/MS 34010/6, pp. 62 and 80.
65
GL, CLC/L/IB/B/002/MS16967/001, f. 253. It is not stated by whom the complaint was made but the
company may have been worried as they had ordered their granary master, Marshall, to use grain bought the
previous March, f. 250b.
63
20
An important order, of a different type, was made in March 1627 when the Lord Mayor, in the
name of the Crown and Privy and Council, asked the ward aldermen to send in writing, ‘in your
hands’, the quantities you hold in readiness from your companies (my italics); in essence a request to
the wards to ensure they had enough corn. 66 This precept is significant, as it is the first time in the
available literature, that evidence has been found of a more direct relationship between livery
companies and the city wards in facilitating delivery of corn to the poor. 67
There was increased activity in 1630-1631, a time of rising corn prices. The Lord Mayor
repeatedly ordered the companies to provide, in person to Guildhall, certificates of how much corn
they had in store. 68 Two precepts were issued in late 1630, the second ordering the various
companies to double the proportions previously assigned with the following purpose: 69
keep down the high price which Mealmen and others formerly sold at and to cause them to
sell the rates and prices we likely set and sell to the poor ½ peck, peck and ½ bushel and not
above to any individual continue until you hear to the contrary.
This instruction was reissued as a reminder in February 1631 when the companies were also
advised to buy up corn from all over the kingdom to make good any neglect; an edict which was
accompanied by the threat that failure would be reported to the King and Privy Council. 70
In late December 1630, presumably in response to the real or perceived shortages, the Lord
Mayor instructed the ward aldermen to provide information on what ‘wheaton (sic) meale’ was
being sold at excessive rates and that they, their deputies and constables were instructed to visit the
markets, every market day from the 23rd December, to look for offenders. In February 1631 the
wardens of the companies were again instructed to provide double the quantities of meal. 71
The concerns about the functioning of the markets continued as further orders were given over the
next few weeks. On March 5th 1631 amidst concern that the provision of meal to the markets was
not reaching ‘the truly poor’ people, the ward aldermen were ordered to conduct an audit at parish
level to find out how many poor there were and their names; to establish the price of meal in the
markets and to check that it was being sold in ½ peck quantities; they were to sell meal to the poor
in proportion to the number in a house.72
The concern that the meal delivered to the markets by the livery companies was still not getting
to the neediest and deserving people. The precept found in the Journal of the Court of Common
66
See also 1631.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/035, f. 75b.
68
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 245b
69
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 260.
70
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 261b.
71
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 271b.
72
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 278.
67
21
Council refers to ‘poor and feebler sort’ receiving corn every week and lists a more formal
arrangement by which the livery companies were allocated wards, with the names of aldermen. The
poorer wards were to receive more than the richer out of a total of 113 quarters of meal delivered
weekly. 73 In addition the aldermen were to make the companies responsible for the sale by bringing
their own scales and weights and to sell at 6s/bushel. 74 The version which has been transcribed in
the Mercers Company court records is more detailed especially on the rationale for the change in
policy.
The precept began by setting out the problem, essentially that the wrong people were getting
access to the subsidized meal in the markets: 75
that some people part thereof has been bought and taken by country people and other part
thereof by some poor people of this city but yet sent by and for the use of many people of
ability. Whereby the good intended by selling of that corn and the great charge made by
the Companies about the same hath been defeated and those poor people intended to be
relieved much unfurnished
There was also report of the ‘the great trouble round and thronging in the markets and danger
thereupon happening to the weaker and feebler sort’. The decision was therefore made to deliver
the meal, which should have been sent to the markets, to the deputies. The precept that ordered
the Mercers to deliver 9 quarters of meal a week to the ward of Farringdon without and 1 quarter to
Cheape Ward; subsequently the company was ordered to send 9 quarters to Cripplegate Ward. 76
The meal was to be sold in small quantities of ½ peck and 1 peck, after the rate of 6s/bushel. It
appears from evidence that this scheme only lasted a short time. The Goldsmiths Company
provided 5 quarters of the fresh corn on 30th March into two wards, ‘free of all charges’; this
suggests that the costs were being kept to a minimum to help the poor. If the companies failed to
deliver the meal to the wards they had to pay a ‘fine’ of 3s/bushel (24s/quarter) of meal and some
companies too this option; the Goldsmiths delivered a reduced quantity of meal and paid sums of
money over a four week period. It is not clear precisely how the sums of £11 1s 6d, £3 11s, £7, and
£12 were derived. It is not possible to establish whether they were better off paying this ‘fine’
rather than supplying meal which at the prevailing price would have cost the company more. 77
73
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 287 and 287b.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 278b-288.
75
Mercers Hall, Acts of Court, 1625-1631, f. 318b-319.
76
Mercers Hall, Acts of Court, 1625-1631, fos, 318b-319b.
77
Goldsmiths Library, Volume 16, P, No 1534 B40, ff. 41b – 43. Although the court minutes refer to 3s/bushel
other costs have been included as well.
74
22
While this initiative was taking place The Lord Mayor was also using the ward aldermen to provide
information on the Assessment of the Poor in April 1631, 78 monitor the weight of bread, and to
conduct further audits on the role of companies who were thought to be falling down in their role to
furnish the markets with meal. It was also suggested that two honest and substantial men should go
into the houses of bakers, chandlers, and victuallers from time to time to weigh bread, to ensure the
assize was being kept, and to take the name of offenders. 79 There were obviously multiple
pressures on both the livery companies and city authorities at this time: the Lord Mayor asked
repeatedly for money, amounting to £973 10s 4d in payment for a pageant, owing from before
August 1630 and still outstanding in June 1631. 80
These data confirm that the mayoral precepts for the furnishing of the markets, and wards,
continued throughout the period 1600-1640. Unfortunately there can be no certainty all precepts,
and their content, have been found and for that reason any correlation between the frequency of
these orders and grain prices would be speculative; there does appear to be an increase in activity
during the early 1630s. It is possible that the precepts were only issued when a change was
required and not just to maintain existing quantities of meal or frequency of delivery.
AMOUNT OF GRAIN REQUIRED
What proportion of overall consumption did 10000 quarters of wheat stored by the companies
constitute? How many people could be fed from the meal supplied to the markets? The benchmark
for calculations will be the population estimate of approximately 130,000 in 1631.
Fisher estimated that grain imports to London increased from 17,280 quarters in 1579-80, to
68,596 quarters in 1615 and to 95,714 quarters in 1638; his calculations did not include grain
brought in to the city by road. 81 Gras’s estimates on imports, based on corn of consumption of 2 ½
quarters per head of population per year, provides a benchmark only, as his calculations rely on too
many variables. 82 He quoted figures of 500,000 quarters in 1605 and 1,150,000 quarters in 1661; 83
78
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 299.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 292b, 316, and 321b.
80
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 219.
81
Fisher, ‘The Development of the London Food Market, pp. 62-65. It has not been possible to find
comparable data for overland trade in grain. Data on trade from Kent and East Anglia, recorded by the
companies, could have come by cart or by boat along tributaries of the River Thames.
82
Gras, The Evolution of the English Corn Market, p. 77.
83
Gras who applied a figure of 2.5 quarters as an estimate of average consumption per person, derived from
figures at the time of Henry VIII, and multiplied them by the estimated population; confusingly he divided
these figures by 10 to estimate the amount of corn required for ships’ provision, to be eaten by horses and
used to make beer for export.
79
23
Bohstedt suggested that 1 quarter of grain would feed one person for a year. 84 This lower estimate
would equate to 130,000 quarters of grain using our 1631 estimate of population.
One way to calculate total grain requirements is to start from putative individual calorie
requirements and to extrapolate total grain requirements from this. A range of calorie intakes, and
those based on contemporary weights of bread, can be used to calculate how many quarters of
grain, primarily wheat, would have been required to feed 130,000 people. Using data from other
studies, an assumption can be made that calories from grain accounted for approximately 70
percent of intake, of which two thirds, half of the total, were provided by bread; the other third of
grain was used to make porridge or pottage and beer or ale. 85 The ranges of estimates based on a
population are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Estimates of annual requirement of wheat (quarters) needed to provide bread at different
calorie intakes for a population of 130000 and also for the 8 oz loaf in 1631.
Calorie
intake
per day
1500
Calorie intake
from bread
Weight of bread
(ounces)
Quarters of
wheat/day *
Quarters of
wheat / year
10000 quarters
percentage of
estimated total
750
10 oz
217
79205
12.5 %
2000
1000
13.3 oz
288
105120
9.5 %
2500
1250
16.7 oz
362
132130
7.5 %
3000
1500
20 oz
433
158045
6%
1244
622
8 oz
173
63145
16 %
Notes The first four weights are for loaves and the weight of bread obtained from a quarter of wheat
are in avoirdupois ounces. The loaf from 1631 is weighed in Troy ounces and the calorie content
calculated from this (75 kcal per avoirdupois ounce of bread; 83 kcal per troy ounce of bread;
Penketherman’s publication quotes 14 ½ oz. 2 pennies Troy equivalent to 16 oz Avoirdupois).
* One quarter of wheat would produce approximately 500 lbs. (avoirdupois) of bread; the
calculation for the 8 oz. troy loaf has been adjusted; (quarters wheat/day to nearest whole number;
percentages to nearest 0.5 percent).
84
J. Bohstedt, The Politics of Provisions Food Riots, Moral Economy, and Market Transition in England, c. 15501850, (Farnham, 2010), p. 83, fn. 355.
85
R. Floud, R.W. Fogel, B. Harris and S.C. Hong, The Changing Body Health, Nutrition, and Human Development
in the Western World since 1700, (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 56, 156, fn p. 44; M. Murphy, ‘Feeding medieval
cities: some historical approaches’, in M. Carlin and J. Rosenthal, eds., Food and eating in medieval Europe,
(Hambledon, 1998), pp. 117-131. See also C. Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness Work
and Material Culture in Agrarian England, 1550-1780, (Cambridge, 2011), p. 118.
24
This data demonstrates that even at the lowest calorie intake, the grain requirements of the city far
exceeds the 10000 quarters supposedly held in store by the livery companies.
Another approach is to base calculations on the maximum quantities of meal which the
companies supplied to the markets assuming that the companies supplied meal to the market three
days per week throughout the year. In October 1630 the companies, including several of the lesser
companies, were ordered to provide a total of 96 quarters of meal per week. 86 In November 1630
the companies were required to provide double quantities of meal to the market; 87 a figure of 192
quarters of meal which amounts to 245 quarters of whole grain per week or 12740 quarters per
year. If the numbers from when the companies delivered meal to the ward aldermen are used, 113
quarters of meal, 141 quarters of grain; then the requirement would have been lower at 7332
quarters a year. These estimates are within range of the 10000 quarters per year required by the
Lord Mayor but rely on the major assumption that the companies furnished the markets with meal
for which there is no firm evidence.
A third approach is to use the market data to calculate how much bread would have produced per
week from the quantity of meal provided. It was expected that a baker would bake approximately
500 lbs weight of bread from a quarter of wheat. 88 Using the 1631 figure of 141 quarters of whole
wheat which would have produced 70500 lbs of bread; equivalent to 141000 8 ounce loaves, the
weight referred to by the Lord Mayor or if expressed on a daily basis enough bread to provide an 8
oz. loaf to over 20000 people every day for a week; this is equivalent to just over 15 percent of the
population of 130,000.
In fact, in 1630 (see also in section on importation of grain for full quotation) the Lord Mayor
quoted a figure of 1500 quarters of grain per day to provision ‘high markets’. 89 This can be factored
up to 4500 quarters per week (assuming the meal markets only operated on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Fridays; as indicated in the precepts) or 7500 for five days per week; this is equivalent to 234000
and 390000 quarters per year respectively. However both this estimate and the Lord Mayor’s
estimate of 8 oz. bread per day, which apply to the whole population under his jurisdiction,
86
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 245b.
LMA, COL/CC/01/01/036, f. 260.
88
The figure quoted by Webb and Webb and others is 418 lbs., avoirdupois, which is equivalent to just over
500lbs. Troy the weight that would have been in use at this time. This figure does not take into account the
advantage bread baked for the bakers own use. Space does not permit a full discussion of these issues. See
S.Webb and B.Webb, The Assize of Bread’, Economic Journal, 14 (1904), pp. 196-218; J. Davis, ‘Baking for the
Common Good: A Reassessment of the Assize of Bread in Medieval England’ The Economic History Review, 57
(2004), pp.468-9
89
LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, fol. 11, No. 8. This was the Lord Mayor’s response to a request from the Privy
Council as to how he proposed to keep prices down and was reiterated in 1630, LMA, COL/RMD/PA/01/07, ff.
51-52, No 50.
87
25
represent an important departure from the original concept of targeting meal to the poor. The
10000 or even 30000 quarters falls short of the actual quantity necessary to provision the whole city.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence presented confirms that the City of London operated a system to provide corn, in the
form of meal, to the poor in conjunction the livery companies throughout the period 1600-1640. In
the mid sixteenth century the city authorities, using funds supplied by the livery companies, traded
in corn which was stored in the city granaries. Following a hiatus in this arrangement, a committee
set up by the Court of Aldermen and containing livery company members must have concluded,
after lengthy deliberation, that it was in their best interest to take over the provision of grain, rather
than underwrite a system which had the risk of continuing financial loss. The Lord Mayor retained
responsibility for overseeing the arrangements to ensure both the provision of corn and the delivery
of meal to the markets. The Lord Mayor, with indirect involvement of the Privy Council, also
organised some of the overseas trade. Despite setting and agreeing rules of compliance in the
1570s, the companies rarely had sufficient grain in store to fulfil the mayoral precepts. It may be
that the companies felt that it was unnecessary, and indeed wasteful, to have large amounts of grain
lying unused in unsuitable granaries, subject to deterioration and wastage. They therefore decided
to keep just sufficient to furnish the markets with meal as and when required. It has been shown, in
1631 at the very least, that their calculations were sometimes wrong. A separate discussion on
granaries, granary management and sanctions available to the Lord Mayor would provide further
insight into these problems.
Another issue which have not been covered in this paper would be to establish a clearer
understanding of who the recipients of the meal were and whether this made a difference to their
diet and nutrition; indirect measures including annual mortality rates can be considered and the
absence of civil disturbance.
26