INDUSTRIES 



the brewers so far to comply with the Act as 

 to take them into their service in place of 

 workmen of their own nationality. 



In a return made in 1582-3 there were 

 ten foreign brewers in the ward of Bridge 

 Without, with seven draymen and nine 

 coopers.* In a later return of 1583 there 

 are only five Dutch brewers in St. Olave's and 

 two in St. Saviour's, with five coopers and 

 one drayman in the former parish.* 



Of the Southwark brewers named in these 

 various returns probably the most famous, 

 certainly the one of whom we are able to 

 gather the most information, was Wessell or 

 Vassal Webling. He first appears in the 

 list of 1567 as the servant of his brother 

 Nicholas and is then said to have been in 

 this country for two years, a period which is 

 consistent with neither of those given in the 

 May and November returns of 1571. 

 Nicholas Webling, whose provenance is 

 stated to be the dominion of the Bishop of 

 Munster, received letters of denization from 

 Queen Elizabeth on 14 January 1561-2.^ 

 Wessell Webling, described as from the 

 dominion of the Duke of Cleves, received the 

 like privilege on 18 October 1568.* As in 

 1 57 1 he appears as his own master and 

 Nicholas's name is in neither of the two 

 lists, it must have been some time before 

 this year and after 1567 that some litigation 

 took place in the court of Chancery, wherein 

 Wessell Webling was the complainant against 

 a certain Thomas Dolman, who had married 

 Nicholas's widow, Elizabeth.* Although there 

 are the usual contradictory statements made by 

 each of the parties we can possibly form some 

 idea from them as to the value of a successfiil 

 foreign brewery in Southwark at this period. 

 Wessell Webling set out that about 

 October immediately preceding, his brother 

 Nicholas, then deceased, had bequeathed to 

 him some piece of money to the intent that 

 he might join in the trade of beer-brewing 

 with Elizabeth in her widowhood. Wes- 

 sell being a very young man (the return 

 of November 1571 gives his age as twenty- 

 two) and not very skilful of things had 

 entered into a full agreement with Elizabeth, 

 whereby they arranged to bear each an 

 equal share of the expenses of the busi- 

 ness with an equal division of the profits. 

 This partnership had continued for six 

 months, at the end of which Thomas 



1 Kirk, op. cit. ii. 291-4. 



2 Ibid. 329-33. 



^ Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. II, m. 10. 

 • Ibid. TO Eliz. pt. 5, m. 33. 

 s Chan. Proc. ser. ij. bdle. 199, No. 27. 



Dolman, who had then married Elizabeth, 

 taking advantage of the complainant's inex- 

 perience in the trade of beer-brewing, had 

 solicited him for ;^200 as the moiety of the 

 said six months' profits. He had assured 

 Wessell that these profits would be found to 

 amount to a much greater sum when the 

 accounts were made up. Elizabeth had 

 made common cause with her husband and 

 menaced the complainant that if he would 

 not pay the ;^200 it would be much worse 

 for him, ' reviling him with divers unseemly 

 and opprobrious words.' Whereupon the 

 complainant, being a stranger born and having 

 no friends or kinsfolk of whom to take 

 counsel, had given in and inadvisedly pro- 

 mised Dolman the ;^200. The six months' 

 profits had not amounted to ;^8o for both 

 parties, and when Dolman had been asked to 

 let off the complainant from his promise he 

 had referred the matter to one John Alsoppe, 

 a London haberdasher, in accordance with 

 whose opinion he had agreed to act. John 

 Alsoppe's opinion had been that it was ' both 

 friendly and conscionably ' that Dolman 

 should take half of the profits and that 

 Wessell should stand only to the losses of the 

 desperate debts for his rash dealing therein. 

 By this decision the complainant was willing 

 to abide, but the defendant continued to 

 threaten to sue him upon his promise, 

 affirming that the profits of beer-brewing for 

 the period stated should arise much above 

 ;£400. 



To all this Thomas Dolman makes 

 answer. He premises that the tenement 

 and brewhouse in St. Olave's had been let 

 by one Thomas Cox about Michaelmas last 

 to the complainant and Elizabeth for the 

 term of fifteen years. He then corroborates 

 the complainant as to the agreement between 

 him and Elizabeth, but adds that during the 

 six months' period of their partnership Wessell 

 procured subtily and craftily that Elizabeth 

 being sole should become bound to him that 

 her husband she should afterwards marry, if 

 she married any, should not intermeddle with 

 any score, tail-books of account, reckonings 

 or servants in the house. After the defend- 

 ant's marriage to Elizabeth the complainant 

 was very unquiet with her, so much so that 

 the defendant, being weary of the joint 

 occupation of the stock and brewhouse, 

 agreed with Wessell that he should pay him 

 ;^200 in consideration of the profits gained 

 by the joint occupation and of the conveyance 

 of the whole interest of the defendant and 

 his wife to him. Since the promise had been 

 made the defendant had left off his joint 

 occupation, and the gain accruing to the 



II 



385 



49 



