1545 thai they got extensive regulation of their work. The provisions were
similar to those in other towns55. The Arnemuiclen porters' regulations, like
those elsewhere, prohibited drunkenness on the job as well as insolence and,
more specifically, insulting someone's mother. The porters were to have
nothing to do with wine. There were later revisions to the rules which made
only minor changes. The porters at Flushing may have been unique in gelling
an annual bonus early in January of each year, at least up to the 1560s56. At
Middelburg the beer porters got ordinances in 1538 and again in 1544, in
both cases with monopolies on the moving of beer. In the cases where there
was a delay in giving formal organization to beer porters it was perhaps be
cause of the extent and strictness of the town regulations under which they
always had to function. Porters also retained their responsibility to see that
all transactions were carried out openly and were fully recorded. The pay for
the work was apparently good and included in some instances freedom from
tax on the beer porters drank. The job was definitely sought after. The rules
on porters were subject to both frequent repetition and revision. Not only did
the length of the ordinances increase over time but also their repetition in
creased57. Things did not change in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Brewers took an active interest in the rules of porters' guilds and that helped
promote an increase in the rules. There was a natural interest in having the
rates of pay for porters under various circumstances fixed and known. At
Flushing in 1752 this was carried so far as slating the surcharge allowed
porters if it snowed and they had to rent sleds to carry the beer. Haarlem
brewers proposed in 1780 that beer porters should be made responsible for
all lcegs they handled and should pay a punitive fine for all kegs they did not
bring back, but that was already the practice in Flushing where, from at least
1752, porters got paid for returned barrels. Rales of pay for doing that were
based on the sizes of the casks. If a porter found a cask anywhere he was re
quired to return it and fined if he failed to do so. Prohibitions of drunkenness
and smoking on the job were common as were requirements of good behav
iour and being available at fixed places at fixed times. In all cases, though,
the rules were more numerous, more precise, and more detailed than before,
and addressed potential, imagined, or incidental historical abuses, even to the
point of concern in one instance about the way that brewers stacked barrels
in cellars515.
Middelburg brewers were in a guild as early as 1271. In that year Count
Floris V of Zeeland granted privileges to the merchant guild in the town and
55. GAVe. inv.nr. 311: Ibis. IOOv-l()2r [1540]; Breen. Rechtsbronnen der stad Amsterdam, 1497,
17; Egmond, 'Dc strijd om het bier'. 1-13: Linger. Bronnen, vol.3, nrs. 216 [1456], 401 [1501] and
625 11545].
56. GAVI, inv.nr. 135; Linger, Bronnen, vol.3, nrs. 625 11545]. 764 [1559] and 842 [1567].
57. E.g. GAVe. inv.nr. 312: fols. I40v-142r: ZA, Verz. Handschr.: inv.nr. 967. 6: J.G. van Dillen.
Bronnen lol de geschiedenis van hel bedrijfsleven en hel gildeivezen van Amsterdam 1512-1632 3
vol.. Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicaliën, Grote serie 69. 78. 133 (The Hague 1929-1974) vol.3, nrs.
130 [1634], 190 [1635], 689 [1643] and 1522 [1663].
58. GAVI, Archieven der gilden: inv.nr. 134 [19 Sept.. 1752], 23, 27: T. Magré, 'De brouwnering in
Haarlem van 1700-1800'. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Unpublished Doctoraalscriptie. Economisch
Historisch Seminarium. 1936, 11-12.
23
