Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:04:24.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics in the Marketplace: Gerrard Winstanley's London Bankruptcy, 1643

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

J. D. Alsop
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the casualties of the economic malaise occasioned by the English Civil War was the business career of an obscure thirty-four-year-old junior freeman of the London Merchant Taylors' Company. Had circumstances been otherwise, Gerrard Winstanley would never have gone on to become the eventual leader and spokesman of the Diggers or to develop some of the most innovative and challenging socioeconomic theories of the seventeenth century. Winstanley's bankruptcy of 1643 did not, of course, create by itself one of the foremost radicals of the English Revolution. But scholars are agreed that the failure provoked a significant break in the continuity of Winstanley's life that forced him to change his livelihood and to transport himself from London to Cobham in Surrey, the location of his Digger radicalism. Furthermore, Winstanley never forgot the experience. Throughout his writings of the later 1640s, the bitter contempt and frustration engendered by his financial failings were obvious. They also colored his perceptions of England's current character and its errors. His portrayal of all commerce as dishonest and corrupt is one of the most striking features of his writings:

For matter of buying and selling, the earth stinks with such unrighteousnesse, that for my part, though I was bred a tradesmen, yet it is so hard a thing to pick out a poor living, that a man shall sooner be cheated of his bread, then get bread by trading among men, if by plain dealing he put trust in any.

And truly the whole earth of trading, is generally become the neat art of thieving and oppressing fellow-creatures, and so laies burdens, upon the Creation, but when the earth becomes a common treasury this burden will be taken off.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 97 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Petegorsky, David, Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War: A Study of the Social Philosophy of Gerrard Winstanley (London, 1940), pp. 123–24Google Scholar; Hill, Christopher, ed., Winstanley: The Law of Freedom and Other Writings (London, 1973), pp. 12, 19Google Scholar; Lutaud, Olivier, Winstanley: Socialisme et Christianisme sous Cromwell (Paris, 1976), pp. 40–41Google Scholar. For Winstanley's removal to Cobham, see Alsop, J. D., “Gerrard Winstanley's Later Life,” Past and Present, no. 82 (1979), p. 75Google Scholar.

2 Winstanley, Gerrard, The New Law of Righteousnes, in The Works of Gerrard Winstanley, ed. Sabine, George H. (Ithaca, N.Y., 1941), p. 188Google Scholar.

3 Guildhall Library (G.L.), microfilm 351/56 (Merchant Taylor presentment book), vol. 2 (unfoliated), and microfilm 316/20 (Merchant Taylor apprenticeship binding register) 10:91. Petegorsky incorrectly reported the date as February 21, 1637, and this has been followed by all subsequent writers. For further information on Gater and the following evidence, refer to J. D. Alsop, “The Origin of a Radical: Gerrard Winstanley, 1609–1648” (forthcoming), on which this paragraph is based. As the following demonstrates, the statement by G. E. Aylmer that no records have survived of Winstanley having set himself up as a London tradesman is erroneous (Aylmer, G. E., “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley,” in Radical Religion in the English Revolution, ed. McGregor, J. F. and Reay, B. [Oxford, 1984], p. 93Google Scholar).

4 G.L., MS 4415/1 (Saint Olave, Old Jewry, vestry minute book), fol. 90v. Note also G.L., microfilm 316/20, 12:6. Winstanley had not been included in the 1638 scavenger assessment (G.L., MS 4415/1, fol. 86).

5 G.L., MS 44151/1, fols. 91, 97, 100v, 107, and 115v. During the years Winstanley contributed, the poor rate was assessed on sixty-four or sixty-five householders.

6 G.L., microfilm 316/20, 12:6.

7 See Grassby, Richard, “Social Mobility and Business Enterprise in Seventeenth-Century England,” in Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth-Century History Presented to Christopher Hill, ed. Pennington, D. and Thomas, K. (Oxford, 1978), pp. 365–67Google Scholar.

8 The extent of the dowry Susan King brought to the marriage is not known, but it was not likely to have been really substantial. Susan was already aged twenty-six and was probably in service (the marriage took place in the parish of Saint Martin's Outwhich, not in her father's parish of Saint Lawrence Jewry). William King enjoyed modest prosperity. His London residence was rated for tithe rent in 1638 at £12 (the precise medium valuation for this parish). He inherited sufficient copyhold land in Cobham, Surrey, to provide the status of a yeoman, and, by the later 1650s, he had managed to purchase additional property at Cobham. Dale, T. C., The Inhabitants of London in 1638, 2 vols. (London, 1935), 1:272Google Scholar; Clarke, A. W. Hughes, ed., The Register of St. Lawrence Jewry, London, 1538–1673, Harleian Society Registers (London, 1940), 70:33Google Scholar; Public Record Office (PRO), Probate (PROB) 11/320, fols. 103–4, and Exchequer (E) 179/251/22 (Barber Surgeons' Company) fol. 7.

9 PRO, Chancery (C) 9/412/269 (Winstanley, October 26, 1660).

10 Rutt, John T., ed., Diary of Thomas Burton, 4 vols. (London, 1828), 1:156Google Scholar.

11 PRO, E 179/252/5, fol. 3.

12 The depositions consist of PRO, C 9/412/269 (Gerrard Winstanley, October 26, 1660), C 6/44/101, no. 1 (Francis Barnes, November 10, 1660), no. 2 (Edward Lewis, February 6, 1661), no. 3 (Robert Westerne, January 26, 1661), C 5/415/123 (Robert Westerne, November 4, 1661), and C 24/867/102 (John Nixon, February 6, 1662, and Robert Hayes, February 7, 1662). No previous study has utilized all this information. Petegorsky's influential account of Winstanley's bankruptcy depended on PRO, C 9/412/269, which was also later used by Vann, Richard T., “From Radicalism to Quakerism: Gerrard Winstanley and Friends,” Journal of the Friends' Historical Society 49 (1959–1961): 44Google Scholar. I am grateful to R. J. Dalton for bringing to my attention PRO, C 24/867/102, as well as material relating to the administration of the 1660–62 case (PRO, C 31/35, fol. 234; C 38/142, unfoliated; and C 33/216, fols. 31v, 228, 528).

13 Liu, Tai, Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in the City Parishes (Newark, N.J., 1986), pp. 72, 77–78Google Scholar; PRO, State Papers (SP) 28/350/5, pt. 1, fol. 5, and PROB 11/237, fols. l–9v. Although Hill refers to this man as “Richard Aldsworth,” this was not the contemporary Richard Aldsworth who was free of the Merchant Taylors' Company and resided in Watling Street (Hill, ed. [n. 1 above], p. 12; G.L., microfilm 315/19, 9:259, and microfilm 316/20, 9:295).

14 PRO, C 9/412/269.

15 PRO, C 6/44/101/2.

16 PRO, C 9/412/269. The difference included cloth valued at £20 entered in Aidworth's accounts for April 12, 1641, which Winstanley stated he did not receive, and cloth worth £13, which Winstanley returned to Aldworth on August 3, 1641, for which he never secured a discharge. The remaining £29.11.3 is not identified.

17 Considering seventeenth-century practices, this is not inconceivable (Grassby, Richard, “The Rate of Profit in Seventeenth-Century England,” English Historical Review 84 [1969]: 723)Google Scholar.

18 PRO, C 6/44/101/2, C 9/412/269, and C 24/867/102.

19 This information has been provided by R. J. Dalton, who intends to publish an account of the 1641 event in the near future. I remain indebted to Mr. Dalton for bringing this episode to my attention.

20 G.L., MS 4415/1, fols. 90v–115, and 4409/1 (Saint Olave, Old Jewry, churchwardens' accounts), fols. 247–79.

21 Grassby, , “Social Mobility and Business Enterprise in Seventeenth-Century England” (n. 7 above), pp. 369, 378Google Scholar, and passim, and “The Rate of Profit in Seventeenth-Century England,” passim.

22 PRO, C 6/44/101/1–2.

23 Thirsk, Joan and Cooper, J. P., eds., Seventeenth-Century Economic Documents (Oxford, 1972), p. 40Google Scholar.

24 G.L., MS 4415/1, fols. 121, 122, and 124. The immediate consequence for the apprentice Christopher Dicus is not known, but he eventually secured the freedom of the company and established himself in the nearby parish of Saint Lawrence Jewry (PRO, PROB 11/231, fol. 139).

25 The former is Lewis's figure, the latter Winstanley's. Lewis accepted Winstanley's version of this episode but suggested that Winstanley's memory of the precise amount was faulty; his own calculation was based on the account books (PRO, C 6/44/101/2 and C 9/412/269).

26 Ibid. The £1 surplus was a consequence of the cloth turned over to Aldworth on May 3, 1643.

27 PRO, C 24/867/102 and C 9/412/269. James Winstanley was the most prominent of three brothers who all became London freemen. They were sons of Thomas Winstanley, a yeoman cum gentleman of Haigh in the parish of Wigan, Lancashire (PRO, PROB 11/232, fols. 227v–28, and 319, fols. 286–6v; G.L., microfilm 317/21, p. 313).

28 Sabine, ed. (n. 2 above), p. 315.

29 Winstanley, Gerrard, The Saints Paradise; or, The Fathers Teaching the Only Satisfaction to Waiting Souls (London, n.d.; originally published in 1648, this edition was dated by Thomason, July 1658 in Thomason Tracts, E 2137/1), p. 60Google Scholar. Note also Hill, ed. (n. 1 above), p. 12.

30 PRO, C 9/412/269.

31 For the first, see Petegorsky (n. 1 above), p. 123; Sabine, ed., p. 6. For the second, see Hill, ed., p. 12 and passim; Hayes, Thomas Wilson, Winstanley the Digger (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 G.L., MS 4415/1, fols. 90v, 96v, 100v, 106v, 107, 115, and 115v.

33 Ibid., fol. 110.

34 PRO, E 179/252/5, fol. 3; 16 Car. I, c. 9.

35 G.L., MS 4415/1, fols. 106, 113, 117, and 124.

36 PRO, E 179/147/577.

37 PRO, SP 16/492/66–103.

38 Thirsk and Cooper, eds. (n. 23 above), p. 635.

39 Note the quotation from Winstanley, The New Law of Righteousnes (n. 2 above), quoted in the opening paragraph above, and Sabine, ed. (n. 2 above), pp. 137, 510–12.

40 PRO, PROB 11/237, fols. l–9v.

41 Ibid.; PRO, C 6/44/101/2 and C 9/412/269.

42 We do not, however, possess Winstanley's own statements on Peake, only the narration of them by Barnes and Lewis (PRO, C 6/44/101/1–2).

43 Alsop, J. D., “Gerrard Winstanley: Religion and Respectability,” Historical Journal 28 (1985): 705–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 PRO, C 9/412/269. The statute referred to was 21 Jac. I, c. 16. This issue was only briefly mentioned in the depositions from both parties in the dispute. It might be noted that 1660 saw civil action on other long-standing commercial disputes of the Civil War period. For example, PRO, High Court of Admiralty (HCA) 13/73, Augus t 1660, The Gift of God.

45 Page, W., ed., The Victoria History of the County of Berkshire (London, 1907), 2:282Google Scholar.

46 Alsop, “The Origin of a Radical” (n. 3 above).

47 Malden, Henry E., “The Civil War in Surrey, 1642,” Surrey Archaeological Collections, 22 (1909): 109–13Google Scholar; White, John, The First Century of Scandalous, Malignant Priests (London, 1643), p. 6Google Scholar.

48 Malden, Henry E., ed., The Victoria History of the County of Surrey (London, 1902), 1:409–20Google Scholar. the most recent assessment is that the burning, looting, and general destruction of private property by soldiers engaged in enforcing military exactions, punishing civilians, or depriving the enemy of resources was not extensive during the civil wars. Loss was more likely to occur in the process of creating town defenses or as a consequenc e of siege and assault (Porter, Stephen, “The Fire-Raid in the English Civil War,” War and Society 2 (1984): 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Propert y Destruction in the English Civil War,” History Today 36 (August 1986): 36–41Google Scholar.

49 For the former, although Winstanley correctly noted that Aldworth died in 1649, on three occasions he stated that they had ceased their dealings together eight years before the latter's death (PRO, C 9/412/269).

50 This was supported by Westerne (PRO, C 6/44/101/2 and C 5/415/123), while Winstanley was supported by Nixon (PRO, C 24/867/102).

51 The report by Lewis and Barnes was that when confronted in person with the demand, Winstanley did not deny the existence of a debt. Instead he requested that the subpoena be held in abeyance, and Winstanley would within a week's time when he came to London pay whatever sum he was legally responsible for on consultation with Westerne. Winstanley brought up the topic of Philip Peake, who he said owed him £114. Stating that he had always intended to use that debt to pay off the money still due to Aldworth's estate, he sought Lewis's assistance in recovering the debt from Peake in Ireland (PRO, C 6/44/101/1–2). Winstanley denied the first portion of this report and was wholly silent on the second (PRO, C 9/412/269). It is difficult to determine why Lewis and Barnes would have needed to concoct the story about Peake, or—if so—why Winstanley did not refute it. Yet, Winstanley had no reason to mention Peake if, as he asserted, he had long been free of any liability to Aldworth. The fact that Lewis was seeking payment of £114.15.3 and that Peake was reported to owe Winstanley £114 seems highly coincidental. Elsewhere in his face-to-face business dealings Winstanley demonstrated a tendency towards ill-considered action that he later regretted, and this appears to be another example of the same.

52 Alsop, , “Gerrard Winstanley's Later Life” (n. 1 above), pp. 78–79Google Scholar. The documents are PRO, C 5/581/55 and C 6/244/96.

53 Hardacre, Paul H., “Gerrard Winstanley in 1650,” Huntington Library Quarterly 22 (1958–1959): 348Google Scholar.

54 Sabine, ed. (n. 2 above), pp. 188, 137.

55 Alsop, “The Origin of a Radical.”

56 Sabine, ed., pp. 548–50.

57 Grassby, , “Social Mobility and Business Enterprise in Seventeenth-Century England” (n. 7 above), pp. 368–69Google Scholar.

58 Winstanley, , The Saints Paradise (n. 29 above), pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

59 Seaver, Paul S., Wallington's World: A Puritan Artisan in Seventeenth-Century London (Stanford, Calif., 1985), pp. 125–32Google Scholar and passim.

60 Winstanley, Gerrard, The Mysterie of God Concerning the Whole Creation, Mankinde (London, 1649), p. 10Google Scholar.

61 Winstanley, , The Saints Paradise, p. 10Google Scholar.

62 Seaver, pp. 125–26.

63 Hill, ed. (n. 1 above), p. 25 and passim; Aylmer (n. 3 above), p. 94. Aylmer has written, “Setting aside both his earlier and his later career in business, Winstanley's ideas should surely stand or fall in their own right. Ideology-hunting, or reductionism, is an intellectual game at which we can all play” (p. 94). He is obviously correct that the value of Winstanley's beliefs is not assessed by reference to their origin. Nonetheless, the question of how Winstanley's ideas originated and developed is an appropriate historical concern possessing considerable significance.

64 Alsop, “The Origin of a Radical” (n. 3 above).

65 PRO, C 6/44/101/2.

66 Most of Winstanley's references relate to merchandising as a tradesman, although his later experience as a grazier may not have been irrelevant, and, at one point, he uses the example of a cattle sale to make the relevant point (Sabine, ed., p. 511). Winstanley himself attributed his second economic failure to the burde n of military taxation and free quarter, and (probably) extensive cattle death (ibid., p. 315; Winstanley, , The Saints Paradise, pp. 60, 110Google Scholar).

67 Sabine, ed., pp. 197, 638; Thomas, Keith, “Another Digger Broadside,” Past and Present, no. 42 (1969), p. 65Google Scholar.

68 Winstanley, , The Mysterie of God Concerning the Whole Creation, Mankind, p. 10Google Scholar, and The Saints Paradise, pp. 10, 57–58, 60; Sabine, ed., p. 137. These early rejections contain no explicit mention of the oppression of one's fellow man as an inherent feature of commercial activity.

69 Winstanley's comments appear as illustrations within religious arguments, but it may be that they helped shape the content of those beliefs as well.

70 See Hill, Christopher, “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley: A Rejoinder,” Past and Present, no. 89 (1980), pp. 150–51Google Scholar.

71 Hill, , “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley,” pp. 150–51Google Scholar; Sabine, ed. (n. 2 above), pp. 289, 332, and 496. the initial, more orthodox position is found in Winstanley, , The Mysterie of God Concerning the Whole Creation, Mankinde, pp. 5–6Google Scholar, and The Saints Paradise, p. 45 and passim.

72 Sabine, ed., p. 511.

73 Hardacre (n. 53 above), pp. 345–59.

74 Alsop, , “Gerrard Winstanley's Later Life” (n. 1 above), pp. 78–79Google Scholar.

75 Smith, Nigel, ed., A Collection of Ranter Writings from the 17th Century (London, 1983), p. 182Google Scholar.

76 PRO, PROB 11/316, fol. 399v.

77 For the example of Samuel Chidley, a midcentury radical who combined material with idealistic motivation and was repeatedly vexed by allegations of corruption and chicanery, see Gentles, Ian, “London Levellers in the English Revolution: The Chidleys and Their Circle,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29 (1978): 281–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.