Market Integration and how dearth impacted Hull’s early modern grain Market

In the previous blog post Hull’s mercantile enterprises were shown as being instrumental to Hull’s ability to survive the subsistence crises of the 1580s and the 1590s. Hull’s authorities performed preventative measures, taking advantage of the port’s maritime trade which brought grain into the city itself. Therefore, it is a reasonable progression to investigate Hull’s own internal market; considering how the market was made accessible and fair to all buyers, whilst also questioning how the city’s authorities moderated, monetised and maintained the flow of grain goods within the market. 

During the subsistence crises of 1580s and 1590s Hull had the ability to provide grain for itself, whether through internal or external trade. The city was comfortably integrated within the larger national market network. As fluctuations in domestic food prices and availability became a nationwide concern, Elizabeth’s Privy Council ordered that “that no transportation of Corne or Victual be, but from porte to porte within this Realme, and that but in cases needfull, as for the prouisions of London, shipping, or such like” (A New Charge, 1595). There is an emphasis given to the internal circuit of grain movement – English grain is to remain limited to this country and no external trade should be conducted. Through the legalities and licensing around the transportation of grain the state retained authority over the grain market, ensuring ‘sufficient sureties’ of grain would flow throughout the country. 

In 1596/7 Hull’s city authorities were ordered to find 20,000 quarters of grain (barley, malt, wheat, peas/beans) from neighbouring counties, which was then to be distributed within the national market. Much of this grain was to be delivered to London. This rural to urban flow of goods is to be expected; larger towns and cities provided better market opportunities, as they allowed goods and grain to be bought and sold to a much larger clientele. Hull acted, like any urban centre, as a hub of interchange and communication, and outlying rural farmers, manufacturers and trades people would come into the city to trade their goods. A large proportion of Hull’s commercial operations was centred around the dock and although there was obviously a need for local businesses such as cloth workers, brewers and bakers, port-related commerce was dominant throughout the city.  

The movement of agricultural goods into Hull was not always an easy task. In 1577,  the Bench Book IV, describes how the market was suffering as the roads to the city were impassable:  

Fforasmuch as the highe waies to this towne are of laite greatly decased on every side the saime, and growen to be so fowel and especially on Holderness side that hardly any loden horses can gitt to this towne. By meanes whereof it is greatly to be doubted that corne will in this markitt growne is be very deare […] it is thought a good idea that some corne & especially wheate & rye be bought & provided to save ye markitt as nede shall require & thende darthe may be avoided & the scarcitie provided for as much as reasonably may be.” [C BRG/2/178]

Here we see that the maintenance of the road networks was essential to the existence of the city market. The entry reveals that as the goods could not get to the city and that corn prices had inflated, the stores were possibly running low and that there needed to be an intervention before dearth occurs. This entry reveals how fragile this market network is; if the town is not provisioned via local internal routes, then the townspeople would fear dearth and famine.

Entry into Bench Book IV detailing the deteriorating roads into hull, slowing or altogether stopping the wares of peripheral sellers entering the Town, 1577 [C BRG/2/178]

In Tudor England, the role of the market was central to the wellbeing of the town. It was the principal hub of exchange, communication and culture. It was the main source of revenue for both town and peripheral sellers, and as much of the commercial exchanges were based upon a currency of credit (whether that be to pay later, pay in instalments or in exchange for work), Tudor towns were arenas of bargaining and bartering. Hull’s core market was held on both sides of Marketgate, which later became known as Butchery, Market Place and Lowgate. By 1469, this was limited to the southern boundary of Whitefriargate (below Silver Street and Scale Lane). In the map below (1610) we can see the faint outline of the market cross behind Trinity Church and the breadth of the streets which would allow for expanse of the market. At this moment in Hull’s history, the market accommodated all kinds of produce from livestock, dairy, fish, grains, to textiles, and metal work.   

Speed’s plan of Hull 1610, available in the Searchroom at HHC

The market was a sensual overload: the smell of fish, animals, cheese, processed goods, the sounds of bartering, livestock, and the ongoings of city life. It was a perfect scene for both legal and illegal activities, the unremitting motions of market business provided hiding places to avoid the watchful eyes of burgesses, officers and the market clerk. The market required order, both from a monetary stance allowing for regular and accurate collection of tolls, but also to maintain a civilised and organised structure to the chaos that was the Elizabethan market. 

Organising the Market

Hull’s market was carefully organised, from which stalls sit next to which and from what time the market began and ended. These appear as simple arrangements, yet when reading the archival material, it is evident that there was a conscious desire to maintain order, allowing for a more accessible and fairer market experience. In 1608, the Bench Book details the market orders which outline the order of the stalls and the market’s opening hours. Basic instructions ordered that “all sellers of salt fishe by retaile and stande to the southward of the bull ring on the west syde” or that “over against towarde the Gate House to begyn to sett stall, or place people to stand, and so the northward: And first of that ranke townes people of Hull to be placed, and next theme pedlers & petie chapmen with small wares” (C BRG/2/376). The list of requirements goes on in a similar manner, detailing the manner of stalls from fruit, rope, nails, dishes, glass and woodware, and where these stalls should locate themselves. In these instructions we see the aldermen take a keen interest in the organisation of the marketplace, but underneath these designs there is a strong sense of control and regulation. 

Entry into Bench Book IV of Market orders, containing the organisation of market stalls and importance of the market bell [C BRG/2/376]

It was a varied market which needed discipline, among these regulations we see the audible boundaries set in place. The mechanisms of the marketplace were conducted by the toll of the market bell. Although, somewhat symbolic in nature the market bell played an important role as it signified the beginning of fair and open exchange – “The market bell is to have a tyme sett downe when to be ronge. And the Toll to be gathered before.” (C BRG/2/376). The perceptible command of the bell signalled that all wares should be in order, tolls collected and that the market is to commence. In 1566, the city’s ordinances make it clear that “no man [should] sell any corne in the markitt or open any seeke before tenne of the clocke, that ye markitt bell be ronge and yt be solde before two of the clocke at afternone, And yt none bye ay corne before teime of the clocke upon peine is forfete of the same corne”(C BRG/2/68). To sell corn before 10 am or after 2pm becomes a punishable act, and those penalties were set down by the mayor and his associates. The upholding of this order maintained a free market, ensuring that the distribution and accessibility of grain goods was equal and fair.   

Manipulation of the Market 

There was opportunity for those with access, owning and trading in grain to manipulate and control the grain market. Money could be made in these periods of subsistence crises, the more the grain was needed the higher the sellers could inflate their prices, manipulate the weights of bushels and conceal their stores. Grain resources were serially monopolised throughout early modern England and concerns of the criminality within England’s food supply endures throughout this period of history. The criminal offences of Forestalling (buying victuals before they make their way to market, therefore adverting the flow of supply chain), Engrossing (the act of buying up all or large quantities of corn to sell later) and Regrating (buying grain to sell again later either in the same market or local area) are present concerns in dearth legislation. The 1595 reissuing of dearth orders, as “stay of dearth” continues throughout England, were directed towards county officials. It required that there should be a smaller company of men to monitor, observe and maintain the trade of goods. It covers hoarding, pre-arranged bargains, household stores and the distribution of stores among the community, it allows for these officers to search and obtain excessive quantities of grain. It attempts to keep a fair flow of grain towards the market:  

Neither shall you from the beginning of the Market, to the full ende thereof, keepe or cause to be kept any of your said Corne out of the open sight of the Market: neither shall you carry away from the Market Towne any kind of Graine that was brought thither which you haue not there sold, but shall leaue the same there in the Market Towne in some place knowen, so as it may be brought into the open Market the next Market day at the first opening of the Market, there to be sold as afore was limitted. And yet neuerthelesse, you shall bring to the Market such other quantitie of Graine as shall bee limitted, and so continue at euery Market day the bringing into the open Market, the quantitie of Corne that shall be limitted. (A New Charge Given, 1595)  

Official grain trade was limited to take place in the market where it could be watched. In an  attempt to keep engrossing to a minimum, grain was to be sold once and in one place so equilibrium and equality was maintained.

The prices and origins of goods became constant concerns in the early modern market. The manipulation of the market saw the poor unfairly treated in times of need, at the same time those with access gained greater control of the market. In 1569, a letter from Lord Huntingdon, with the instructions prohibiting Hull to export grain without the Council of the North’s knowledge, sets the atmosphere for how grain exchange is acknowledged within the written accounts. It has accusatory tone throughout and identifies an episode of engrossing stating that “the said maior and aldermen being informed that [several] psons did engrose and gitt into their custody great quantitie of corne and butter where for the worth [that] they bought in ye markkit by means wherof bothe corne and butter dothe growe […] very deare”, “have appointed Antony Bownsall and John Bell to see yt no man upon one markitt  day doe buy above two mettes of corne in the markitt and they present all such as by any great quantitie of butter in the markitt” and that any pruchases within the market by a sole individual should only be  “sufficient for their own provision is be spent in their howses” (C BRG/2 /111b). The authorities are therefore required to monitor the market, making sure no one buys beyond their means. Here we see how the reality of buying up of victuals, which adverts the flow of supply to the market with the means to sell on at an inflated price, had direct consequences within Hull’s market. This early accusation was most likely accurate, as later accounts of the Mayor’s household grain stores come into question. It shows there was an operation which saw prices of grain goods inflate, subjecting the townspeople to an inaccessible market and provoking this reprimanding response demanding Hull authorities enforce market laws.  

Entry into Bench Book IV of a copy of a letter revived from Lord Huntingdon prohibiting Hull’s export of grain without the Council of the North’s knowledge [C BRG/2/111B]

Felicity Wood (University of Hull)