4 ]' illage Clubs and Associations. 



Ainio l>oiiiiiii, 1608. Jacobi V, oppon ye Feast of St. Stephen, was read 



this account : — 



'Walter Marks, for ye use of 10^., 20.v. 



George White ,, 4^., cS.v. 



, . , William Hamock ,, 5^., lOs. 



Keceived of -, ^^^^^ ^^^^,^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ 



Thomas Langfield ,, -tO*-., is. 



VThomas Symmes „ 40s., 4s. 



From 1605 to 1607 Georg Shord failed to pay the interest 

 due, so in the latter year appears this minute : " At this vestrie 

 John Evance, who, together with John Marks, was in bond for 

 Georg Shord, brought in 20.s., the one-half of the money, soe yt, 

 by ye general consent of ye whole vestrie, he was released 

 from his bond." And in 160(S John Marks took "ye 20s. for 

 which he was in bond in ye behalf of Georg Shord, upon him- 

 self, to return in ye principal at ye next vestry." These 

 bondsmen were not well-to-do patrons of their fellows, for 

 Marks himself was a borrower in 1609. This parish had a 

 capital sum of about 50Z., w^hich it applied to loan purposes. 

 The disposition of the interest earned, namely one half to the 

 increase of capital and the other half to the relief of the poor, 

 is interesting in view of the fact that modern credit societies 

 cannot use their profit except to create a reserve fund or for 

 some piiblic puT-pose of general utility to the locality. 



The Civil War and the Revolution of 1688 seem to have 

 checked, for a time, the development of village associations, 

 but after the middle of the eighteenth century the villages 

 reorganised them for mutual protection and assurance. The 

 Annual Report of the Registi-ar of Friendly Societies. 188;}, 

 contains a statement by J. M. Ludlow to the effect that 

 there w^ere then seventy-seven English Friendly Societies 

 which had been in existence for a century or more. The 

 earliest of these dated from 1687 and the latest from 1780. 

 Corresponding with the growth of the friendly society move- 

 ment in the towns, from the beginning of the eighteenth 

 century, there was a similar movement in country villages. 

 Although no organic connection between the village guilds and 

 friendly societies can be traced the methods of organisation 

 and the objects are very similar. Both guild and friendly 

 society had its procession, with a special service at church and 

 its feast, both had a rule tliat disputes between members of the 

 society, or between a member and the society, especially with 

 regard to their various interests in the society, should be 

 submitted to arbitration ; both started on a basis of moral 

 endeavour and good-fellowship. Further, as in the case of 

 the guild, the friendly society subscriptions were at first 

 informal, uncontrolled by rule, and the chief l)enefit was 

 derived by the heirs on the death of a member. The chief 



