|
|
The Economic background: poverty or prosperity?
Shrewsbury was considered by contemporary observers to have been a prosperous
town. Sir William Brereton, later to become M.P. for Cheshire in the Long
Parliament, and a strong opponent of the Crown, passed through the town
in 1634-5 and described it in glowing terms.
“This is a very fair, large, spacious town, famous for that trade of stuff
which is here maintained, and it is one of the richest towns in these parts
of England, Newcastle-upon-Tyne exepted. It is a very great town, governed
by two bailiffs. Here is a very stately market house, a very great, vast
brewhouse of Mr Rowleyes, the brewing vessells wherein are capable of 100
measures; a well-ordered Free-school ****. This town is seated upon the
river Severne, which is hitherunto navigable, though with much strain,
force, and pains, the vessels being hauled up by strength of men against
the stream many miles.” 1
Camden, writing thirty years earlier, described the town in similar terms
and stressed the importance of the trade with Wales.
“This city **** is grown rich by the industry of its inhabitants, by the
cloth manufacture, and by the trade with the Welsh. For hither almost all
the commodities of ales are brought as to one common market, it being inhabited
both by Welsh and English, who speak each other's language” 2
The first assessment of ship-money on the inland towns called for a total
of £500 from Shrewsbury, over one tenth of the total for the whole county.3
Even though this sum was later reduced to £450, it indicates the position
of the town, both within the county and in the country as a whole, it being
one of the highest assessments made. Naturally enough the townspeople attempted
to reduce this assessment by pleading poverty. The excuse most often used
was decimation by plague. A petition from Thomas Lloyd, of St Alkmond's,
to the corporation in 1632 speaks of an attack of plague in that year and
also of one not long previously. Another attack is mentioned in 1635. A
petition of the bailiffs to the Council appealed for a reduction of the
town's ship-money assessment on the grounds that
“ Shrewsbury had been greatly impoverished of late by the plague.”
4
The corporation took strong measures to alleviate the effects of this particular
attack, so that it can be assumed that some severe dislocation of normal
town life had been experienced. The magistrates ordered that there should
“Furthwith be levyed out of every allotment within five miles of the uttermost
liberties of the town of Shrewsbury, the some of £6 out of an entire allotment,
and soe p'portionably out of every part of each allotment as shall be within
the distance aforesaid, for every moneth, til further order shal be herein
taken, towardes the present reliefe of the poor and infected persons within
the towne and libties of Shrewsbury.” 5
The last existing evidence of a decline in the town's prosperity is a complaint
written in March 1642 about the damage caused to the town's trade and commerce
by the late troubles, particularly those in Ireland. 6
In general, despite the complaints of the corporation, which had an interest
in proving the town's poverty, it would seem that Shrewsbury enjoyed a
period of moderate prosperity in the years before the Civil War. The fact
that Shrewsbury was a market centre meant that it would be hard hit by
the war-time disruption of commerce. The main dividing line between the
strongholds of the two sides effectively cut the trade routes between Wales
and London upon which Shrewsbury depended for much of her livelihood. The
towns of central Wales were, themselves, badly ravaged in the war, thus
further injuring the town's prosperity. 7
The economy of Shrewsbury was dominated by the textile industry, with the
Drapers' Company playing a leading role in the affairs of the borough.
A narrative account of the Company and of its rise to power within the
town, already exists in far greater detail than this context merits. 8 Suffice it to say that, by 1623, the staple for the Welsh cloth market
had, as the result of the freeing of the Welsh cloth trade in 1621, become
fixed in Shrewsbury. The Drapers' Company had long opposed the Free Trade
Bill, believing that it would open up the market to competition from the
London merchants but it actually had the effect of giving the Shrewsbury
drapers a virtual monopoly. The fights between the drapers of Shrewsbury
and Oswestry, the London merchants and the Council, which had characterized
the early years of the century thus came to an end, with Shrewsbury being
victorious.
Following the great depression at the turn of the century, the textile
industry followed an uncertain course. The crisis over freeing the market
in 1621 coincided with a general slump in the export of cloth. Currency
manipulations in the Baltic area, combined with instability in the rest
of Europe, caused the old markets for English (and Welsh) cloth to collapse.
After 1622, however, the sales of cloth improved, with 1624 seeing a great
boom. War with France, and an era of bad relations with Spain, caused another
decline in exports, which did not fully recover before the Civil War. The
exact effect that these fluctuations had on the Shrewsbury drapers is uncertain.
Mendenhall, however, claims that
“The decline, after 1623, of controversy and complaint which had previously
seemed almost endemic to the manufacturing and Shrewsbury ends of the industry
is at least negative evidence of their modest, if quiet, prosperity.” 9
The other industries in the town are much less well documented, there being
little information of a conclusive nature. The only surviving petition
to the central government from a guild other than the Drapers' comes, in
1641, from the Fraternity or Company of Corvisours. This complains of illegal
selling of leather by the tanners, which was possible because of the absence
of proper controls in the town and asks for a day to be set aside for the
proper searching and marketing of leather. 10 Brereton's description mentions
the existence of one flourishing brewery in the town. 11 A document from
1637 certifies that William Rowley, William King and Isaac Scott were fit
to be admitted common brewers. These three, together with Thomas Harris,
who had already been admitted, being sufficient to supply the town's needs.
12 Unfortunately, there is no evidence, other than Brereton's comment,
about the size of the vessels, to allow speculation about the degree of
capitalist enterprise involved in this industry.
Outside the town there are two main features of economic interest, the
growth of mining and the condition of agriculture. Coal was discovered
in the Shrewsbury field in 1571, when the inhabitants of the town agreed
to raise the sum of £100 towards the sinking of a coal pit. This move does
not, however, seem to have been as successful as had been hoped, for the
passage of coal up the Severn from Coalbrookdale was still vital to the
town during the Civil War. When the river was blockaded it was recorded
that Shrewsbury was
“In great distress **** for want of coles.” 13
Gough mentions the mining of copper at Harmer Heath, just to the north
of the town, and the fact that this was disrupted when the King arrived
and all the miners left to join the army. 14 This activity can only be
seen as being of minor importance to the town and it would be wrong to
see it as playing a major role in the events leading up to the war. Agriculture
was important, in that the local gentry were to have a strong influence
on the town in 1642 but the condition that it was in is not recorded. All
that is known is that the county had a relatively high percentage of enclosed
fields. 15 Gough mentions the enclosing of Harmer Moss but other similar
actions have not found their way into the local records. 16 None of the
sources mentions any serious anti-enclosure riots, although there does
seem to have been some activity by Clubmen during the war.
There is not enough information to enable any serious attempt at an analysis
of the relative wealth of the different social groups within the town.
Consequently, further analysis of the reasons behind the town's decision
to join the King's side must almost totally ignore the socio-economic theories
so beloved by recent historians of the period. Except for the references
to the poverty caused by the plague, nothing is known about the economic
welfare of the mass of the people. One can only infer from the lack of
references to popular disturbances that there was no widespread popular
unrest. If, as seems to have been the case, the textile industry was moderately
prosperous, unemployment in the town must have been at an acceptable level.
All that can really be deduced from the existing information is that the
Drapers' Company played a vital role in the economic life of the town and
that the decisions taken in 1642 must have involved its members to a considerable
extent.
|