Chapter 3

FOOTNOTES:[60]Reader,Domesday for Warwickshire, 9: "The countess held Coventry. There are 5 hides. The arable employs 20 ploughs, 3 are in the demesne, and 7 bondmen. There are 50 villeins, and 12 bordars, with 20 ploughs. A mill pays 3s. A wood 2 miles long and the same broad. In King Edward's time and afterwards it was worth 12 pounds, now 11 pounds by weight. These lands of the countess Godiva Nicholas holds to ferm of the king." See alsoVict. County Hist., i. 310.[61]Add MS. Ch. 11,205. Leofric's gifts of lands, etc., with "sac and soc, toll and team," are therein confirmed to Leofwine, the abbot, and the brethren "sicut ... Edwardus, cognatus meus, melius et plenius eisdem concessit."[62]Bateson,Rec. Leicester, 42.[63]Ormerod,Cheshire, i. 10.[64]Dugdale,Warw., ii. 1107. The incident is commemorated in a modern window in Tamworth church.[65]Ormerod, i. 20-6. Dugdale,Warw., i. 137.[66]Ormerod, i. 26.[67]Thompson,Hist. Leicester, 42.[68]Dugdale,Warw., i. 197.[69]See Dormer Harris,Troughton Sketches, 24.[70]Piers Ploughman, Passus v. l. 402. Sloth (a personification of one of the Seven Deadly Sins) says:—"I can nought perfitly my pater-noster ...But I can rymes of Robyn hood, and Randolf, erle of Chestre."It is more likely this earl is meant than his grandfather Gernons.[71]Hales,Percy Folio, i. 264-73.

FOOTNOTES:

[60]Reader,Domesday for Warwickshire, 9: "The countess held Coventry. There are 5 hides. The arable employs 20 ploughs, 3 are in the demesne, and 7 bondmen. There are 50 villeins, and 12 bordars, with 20 ploughs. A mill pays 3s. A wood 2 miles long and the same broad. In King Edward's time and afterwards it was worth 12 pounds, now 11 pounds by weight. These lands of the countess Godiva Nicholas holds to ferm of the king." See alsoVict. County Hist., i. 310.

[61]Add MS. Ch. 11,205. Leofric's gifts of lands, etc., with "sac and soc, toll and team," are therein confirmed to Leofwine, the abbot, and the brethren "sicut ... Edwardus, cognatus meus, melius et plenius eisdem concessit."

[62]Bateson,Rec. Leicester, 42.

[63]Ormerod,Cheshire, i. 10.

[64]Dugdale,Warw., ii. 1107. The incident is commemorated in a modern window in Tamworth church.

[65]Ormerod, i. 20-6. Dugdale,Warw., i. 137.

[66]Ormerod, i. 26.

[67]Thompson,Hist. Leicester, 42.

[68]Dugdale,Warw., i. 197.

[69]See Dormer Harris,Troughton Sketches, 24.

[70]Piers Ploughman, Passus v. l. 402. Sloth (a personification of one of the Seven Deadly Sins) says:—"I can nought perfitly my pater-noster ...But I can rymes of Robyn hood, and Randolf, erle of Chestre."It is more likely this earl is meant than his grandfather Gernons.

[70]Piers Ploughman, Passus v. l. 402. Sloth (a personification of one of the Seven Deadly Sins) says:—

"I can nought perfitly my pater-noster ...But I can rymes of Robyn hood, and Randolf, erle of Chestre."

It is more likely this earl is meant than his grandfather Gernons.

[71]Hales,Percy Folio, i. 264-73.

CHAPTER IV

Beginnings of Municipal Government

Buthow did the men live who inhabited Coventry, who were neither warriors nor monks, but the rank and file of the townsfolk, the mere tillers of the ground and retailers of food and clothing, farmers, bakers, butchers, shoemakers, weavers, and the like? These men owed fealty, according to the position of the land they held, either to the prior or the Earl of Chester. It is with the earl's burghers that the main part of our story lies. It was they who won, after many checks and struggles, such liberties of trading and self-rule as helped to make their city rich and famous in after days. For wherever townspeople found that their lord, whether he were a noble or the King himself, had need of their money or support, they bargained with him for a charter, a duly written and attested document giving them the power to exercise certain rights, such as the collecting of their own taxes or the managing of their own courts, without the interference of his officials. Just as the barons of England gained Magna Charta from John in his need and weakness, or forced Edward I. to confirm the same ere they would give him money to prosecute his wars, so the townsfolk played out the same play in their own much humbler theatre, and drove their bargain with this or that great owner of estates.

For towns on the royal demesne the question resolved itself into one of mere traffic. Was the town richenough to induce the King to grant a charter to the inhabitants conferring on them the liberties of which they stood in need? If so, the money was paid, and the town started on its career of independence. Nobles, too, were often willing to forego their manorial privileges for the sake of a substantial sum of money. But with churchmen and religious corporations the case was different. They were unwilling, under any circumstances, to part with the rights of the Church, "for fear," as the Coventry monks said, "of blemishing their consciences." In growing and prosperous communities, where men suffered by the restrictions laid upon their trade or persons, the attitude of the religious community, which stood to them in place of feudal lord, gave rise to great bitterness of feeling among the tenants. Discontent was in many cases the precursor of riot and bloodshed, showing how fierce was the spirit of resistance among these men, and with what tenacity they clung to the idea of freedom.

The condition of the men of S. Alban's, or those of any town where the inhabitants were serfs, was often miserable, or at best precarious.[72]A serf must perform for his lord frequent and often unlimited service. His offences were punished in his lord's courts of justice. He could not sell or depart from his holding or marry his children without licence. He must grind his corn at his lord's mill, and bake his loaves at his lord's oven.

But from these most oppressive burdens the Coventry men were free. They had in ancient custom a guarantee that their lord could not urge such claims upon them, for they held of him "in free burgage";[73]that is to say, they were quit of all personal service, and merely paid a money rent for house and land. Theywere not compelled to leave their business to carry in the crops on the lord's demesne, or follow him for a great distance to war, or bake at his oven, a custom the men of Melton observed until the days of James I.[74]Still, although they were not entirely at the mercy of their feudal superior, the men of Coventry had, as yet, no voice in the town government. They owed obedience to three powers—the Earl of Chester, the King, and the Prior of Coventry. For any fault or misdemeanour they were summoned to appear at the earl's castle, where the constable fixed their punishment, and the fine they paid passed into the earl's hand. The author of any grave or serious crime was answerable to the sheriff, the King's officer. While the prior, the lord of the soil in the Cross Cheaping, regulated all matters connected with the traffic of the market.

The townsfolk were neither rich nor strong enough to free themselves from the sheriff's jurisdiction, or their trade from the prior's surveillance. But in the reign of Henry II. they struck a bargain with Ranulf Blondvil, Earl of Chester, a great founder of towns, whereby they obtained certain rights and privileges, and some measure of self-government. In his charter the earl granted to his burgesses of Coventry the same customs as those enjoyed by the men of Lincoln, for it was usual for townsfolk to ask that their constitution might be modelled on that of some freer or more important place.[75]Lincoln,[76]in common with most of the larger towns in England, borrowed certain customs from London, and Coventry, in its turn, was toserve as model to other towns later in acquiring freedom.[77]

The Earl's charter, a model of the exquisite penmanship of the twelfth century, runs thus:—

"Ranulf, Earl of Chester, to all his barons, constables, bailiffs, servants, men and friends, French and English, present and future, greeting. Know ye, that I have given to my burghers of Coventry, and confirmed in this my charter,[78]all things which are written in the same. Namely, that the said burghers and their heirs may hold well, honourably, and undisturbed, and in free burgage of me and of my heirs, as they held in my father's time or my other predecessors', better, more firmly and freely. I grant them the free and good laws that the burgesses of Lincoln have better and more freely. I ... forbid my constable to bring them into my castle to plead in any cause; but they may freely have their portmote, in which all pleas pertaining unto me and unto them may be justly treated of. Moreover, they may choose for me one whom they will among themselves, who may be judge under me and over them; who, knowing the laws and customs, may keep these in my council reasonably in all things, every excuse put away, and may faithfully perform unto me that which is due. And if by chance any one fall into my amercement, then he shall be reasonably amerced by my bailiff and the faithful burghers of the court. And whatever merchants they draw thither for the bettering of thetown, I command that they have peace, and that no one do them an injury or unjustly sue them at law. If, indeed, any stranger merchant do anything unfitting in the town, that shall be amended before the aforesaid justice in the portmote without a suit-at-law. These being witnesses ... Robert Steward de Mohaut ... and many others."

We see from the terms of this charter that the Coventry folk had already acquired a certain status as free burghers. Now their liberties were enlarged by a grant of self-jurisdiction. A further grant from Henry II., appended to the confirmation of this charter, limited the fine due from the burghers to the earl for any fault to 12d.;[79]"but if by testimony of his neighbours he cannot pay so much, by their advice it shall be settled as he is able to pay." We can call up a possible picture of the court of portmanmote, to which the charter refers. In some large open space, possibly S. Michael's churchyard, the townsfolk might be seen gathered together for the meetings of the court. Conspicuous among the little group of townsmen would be the bailiff, the earl's representative, a man whose yea and nay was very powerful among the lord's tenants, for was he not there to watch over the interests of his master, and arrange for the payment of fines and forfeitures which were his master's due?[80]By his side some fuller, weaver, baker, or prosperous agriculturalist would probably take his seat[81]as the justice, the elected representative of the townsfolk. A clerk would alsobe present, for from the time of Henry III. court records were strictly kept and enrolled. Probably not all the townsmen attended each meeting, but only such of them as were concerned in any suit, and even these—within reasonable limits—might pleadessoyne, or a valid excuse for absence. What individual part was played by the justice and bailiff in the hearing of suits it is impossible to tell, but we may infer that the misdemeanours of the townsfolk were made known to the court by a jury, drawn perhaps from every street or ward.[82]These men affirmed on their own knowledge, or on common report, that certain offences had been committed within the township. These offences were of a simple, trifling kind, those of a more serious nature being tried at higher tribunals, before the sheriff or the justices in eyre, or possibly in some other court of the Earl of Chester.[83]A presentment, for example, would be made to the effect that Nicholas, the son of William, had let his cows stray over the mowing-grass in a certain field which is in the earl's demesne, thereby causing damage to the extent of fourpence. Nicholas is at mercy,[84]for it is well known that he is guilty, and he is thrown on the mercy of the court. Let him pay the damage, and twopence in addition for the fault.

Or the jury say that Margaret, the wife of Anketil, took from the bakery of William of Stonelei two loaves, value one halfpenny, and afterwards defamed and struck Joan, William's wife, in the open street known as the Broadgate. And Margaret defends (denies) the deed: therefore it is adjudged that she come and make her law six-handed at the next court.[85]Or the jury declare that William, son of Guy, contrary to the assize of bread, whereby, if a quarter of wheat sell for 3s. 6d., the farthing loaf of wastel bread should weigh 42s., gives only 39s. weight of bread in the loaf, to the damage of his customers, the King's liege people.[86]Moreover, William was bidden at the last court to come and wage his law twelve-handed; this he has failed to do.[87]Therefore he is at mercy. The fine is twelve pence. William cannot pay at once, but his pledges are John the Dyer and Thomas atte Gate.[88]

Such cases as these would be the everyday business of the local court; but civil matters also required a great deal of attention. Transfers of land were executed there, being witnessed by the principal suitors of the court. John the Smith, for example, would make over his house in Earl Street with all its appurtenances to Richard the Weaver and his heirs in return for an annual rent of fourpence, and would warrant it to him against all comers.

Certain documents called indentures[89]would then be drawn up in duplicate by the clerk, the names of the chief of the folk present appearing therein as witnesses to the deed. To one of the indentures the grantor fixed his seal, to the other the grantee, each retaining the copy to which the seal of the other party in the transaction was attached by way of title-deed.

34 Far Gosford St

At least twice a year the townsmen appeared before the sheriff,[90]at whose court criminal or "crown" pleasreceived a hearing, and who, in his military capacity, overlooked the muster-at-arms of the townsmen, and fixed what number of archers were to be levied for the King's service. The proceeds, of this court, goods of felons and the like, went to swell the royal treasury. The system of presenting criminals by means of a jury[91]obtained here as in the town court, but in doubtful or serious cases the accused would be condemned or acquitted not in accordance with evidence, but through an appeal to the interposition of Providence by means of trial by ordeal or battle. Thus, a man who was thrown into the water was, if he sank, pronounced innocent, if he swam, guilty; or the one of two champions, who overcame the other in fight, was held to have proved his case. But these irrational methods of trial were falling rapidly into disfavour. The "ordeal" was forbidden at the Lateran Council of 1216, and the Saxons, who much disliked the Norman method of trial by battle, always sought in their local charters to win exemption from the necessity of having recourse to it. Step by step the modern jury system was introduced, which, whatever may be its faults, is the most workable method hitherto discovered of obtaining a more or less unbiassed verdict in any suit.

OLD WHITEFRIARS' MONASTERY, NOW COVENTRY UNION

Another provision of the charter, as confirmed by Henry II., was possibly an expedient to remedy the disasters which had lately befallen the townsmen under Gernons and Hugh. It was necessary, if the town was to grow and prosper, to attract settlers from different parts, and to those seeking a home in Coventry the clause that "newcomers should be free from all [payments] for two years after they began to build" would be most welcome.[92]From this time no doubt the adventof passing or abiding strangers was not infrequent, and the place began to put on the appearance of a thriving little thoroughfare town. The grant of a fair to the Earl's-men in 1217, and one to the prior some ten yearslater, brought stranger merchants within the town-gates.[93]The place was important enough to attract the Greyfriars thither before 1234, and the spire of their church still recalls their presence. More than a hundred years later came the Whitefriars or Carmelites, whose magnificent cloister is now incorporated in the workhouse. A colony of Jews also found shelter in Coventry before the days of Edward I.[94]We know no more than the names, and now and then the occupations of the men of the place in the thirteenth century; for our inquiries among the land-transfers of the time can elicit nothing save the records of the sale of a tenement and curtilage by a William de Artungworth, "le drapier," or their purchase by Richard le Tailleur, hosier, or Richard de Mora, merchant. But even this bare enumeration of trades and callings show the advance made by the men of Coventry since the time when a handful of villeins and bondsmen tilled the lands that had been Godiva's at the taking of the Domesday Survey.

FOOTNOTES:[72]For a list of the manorial services required of villein tenants see Maitland,Select Pleas in Manorial Courts(Selden Soc., i.), 102-4.[73]Green,Town Life, i. 197-8[74]Green,op. cit., i. 199. The Preston men bargained that they should not be required to follow their lord on a warlike expedition lasting more than one day (Ibid.).[75]For Henry II.'s charter to Lincoln see Stubbs,Select Charters, 166.[76]See Gross,Gild Merchant, i. 244-257; Bateson, "Laws of Breteuil,"Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi.; Tait,Mediæval Manchester, 43-4.[77]Nottingham and Winchester received a grant of particular customs after the pattern of Coventry. London was taken as a model by Norwich. See Hudson,Rec. Norwich, i. 12.[78]Dugdale assigns this charter to Blondvil, and I see no reason to differ. If Blondvil were the grantor, then the date would lie between the years 1181, that of Earl Hugh's death, and 1189, the date of the death of Henry II., who confirmed it. I am inclined to think that the charter should be assigned to 1181-2, in which year the men of Coventry paid 20 marks to the king.[79]Corp. MS. B. 2. The charter is dated "apud Merlebergam" = Marlborough. This charter was first printed by the late Mary Bateson in "Laws of Breteuil,"Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi. 98-9.[80]The townsfolk had not yet power to commute the fines and forfeitures for a fixed sum, called fee-ferm.[81]For the association of the feudal lord's representative and the chosen official of the townsfolk in a town court see the case of Totnes (Green,Town Life, i. 252).[82]We infer from analogy that presentments were made by a jury in this court. Norwich was—for judicial purposes—divided into four leets. Each leet was divided into sub-leets, these latter divisions being composed of as many parishes as would furnish twelve tithings. The head-man, or "capital pledge" of every tithing—a band of ten, twelve, or more citizens responsible for one another—made the presentment of anything, which had happened in his tithing, which came under the cognizance of the court. See Hudson,Leet Jurisdiction in Norwich(Selden Soc., vol. v.), xii.-xxvi.[83]It is not clear whether the townsfolk at this period attended the earl's leet or the sheriff's court. They certainly attended the latter court in the time of Edward III. (Madox,Firma Burgi, 108-9).[84]i.e.has to be amerced, or fined.[85]i.e.appear with five of her neighbours, who swear that she is not guilty. This method of clearing the character by oath of the neighbours was called compurgation.[86]Shillings and pence were used as weights. We still speak of "pennyweights" (Maitland).[87]Because no neighbours could be found to swear, therefore he is guilty.[88]Pledges or sureties for the fine. These cases are all imaginary, but drawn from analogous ones to be found in the Selden Society's publications, theNottingham Records, etc. I am by no means sure that such cases as the last two would come within the purview of the portmanmote. On the difficult question of the line between manorial and regal jurisdiction see Hearnshaw,Court Leet of Southampton.[89]So called because the parchment on which the two deeds were written was so cut (indented) that they would exactly fit or dovetail into one another when put together at any future time. Hundreds of these documents are now at Coventry. See Section C of Mr J.C. Jeaffreson's catalogue of Corp. MSS.[90]In cases where the lord of the manor was entitled to hold a leet or view of frankpledge, the tenants were exempt from attendance at the hundred court. In the "view of frank- pledge" each testified that they were enrolled in a tithing or body of mutually responsible persons.[91]The direct ancestor of our modern Grand Jury.[92]The conditions under which strangers were admitted into a town differed with the particular locality. A free craftsman would be admitted to citizenship by purchase. If a serf escaped from his master's estate, and lived unclaimed for a year and a day, he was as a general rule permitted to continue in the town. In Lincoln it was necessary that he should pay the town taxes during that period (Stubbs,Select Charters, 159).[93]Dugdale,Warw., i. 161.[94]Cole,Documents Illustrative of Eng. Hist., 309-19.

FOOTNOTES:

[72]For a list of the manorial services required of villein tenants see Maitland,Select Pleas in Manorial Courts(Selden Soc., i.), 102-4.

[73]Green,Town Life, i. 197-8

[74]Green,op. cit., i. 199. The Preston men bargained that they should not be required to follow their lord on a warlike expedition lasting more than one day (Ibid.).

[75]For Henry II.'s charter to Lincoln see Stubbs,Select Charters, 166.

[76]See Gross,Gild Merchant, i. 244-257; Bateson, "Laws of Breteuil,"Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi.; Tait,Mediæval Manchester, 43-4.

[77]Nottingham and Winchester received a grant of particular customs after the pattern of Coventry. London was taken as a model by Norwich. See Hudson,Rec. Norwich, i. 12.

[78]Dugdale assigns this charter to Blondvil, and I see no reason to differ. If Blondvil were the grantor, then the date would lie between the years 1181, that of Earl Hugh's death, and 1189, the date of the death of Henry II., who confirmed it. I am inclined to think that the charter should be assigned to 1181-2, in which year the men of Coventry paid 20 marks to the king.

[79]Corp. MS. B. 2. The charter is dated "apud Merlebergam" = Marlborough. This charter was first printed by the late Mary Bateson in "Laws of Breteuil,"Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi. 98-9.

[80]The townsfolk had not yet power to commute the fines and forfeitures for a fixed sum, called fee-ferm.

[81]For the association of the feudal lord's representative and the chosen official of the townsfolk in a town court see the case of Totnes (Green,Town Life, i. 252).

[82]We infer from analogy that presentments were made by a jury in this court. Norwich was—for judicial purposes—divided into four leets. Each leet was divided into sub-leets, these latter divisions being composed of as many parishes as would furnish twelve tithings. The head-man, or "capital pledge" of every tithing—a band of ten, twelve, or more citizens responsible for one another—made the presentment of anything, which had happened in his tithing, which came under the cognizance of the court. See Hudson,Leet Jurisdiction in Norwich(Selden Soc., vol. v.), xii.-xxvi.

[83]It is not clear whether the townsfolk at this period attended the earl's leet or the sheriff's court. They certainly attended the latter court in the time of Edward III. (Madox,Firma Burgi, 108-9).

[84]i.e.has to be amerced, or fined.

[85]i.e.appear with five of her neighbours, who swear that she is not guilty. This method of clearing the character by oath of the neighbours was called compurgation.

[86]Shillings and pence were used as weights. We still speak of "pennyweights" (Maitland).

[87]Because no neighbours could be found to swear, therefore he is guilty.

[88]Pledges or sureties for the fine. These cases are all imaginary, but drawn from analogous ones to be found in the Selden Society's publications, theNottingham Records, etc. I am by no means sure that such cases as the last two would come within the purview of the portmanmote. On the difficult question of the line between manorial and regal jurisdiction see Hearnshaw,Court Leet of Southampton.

[89]So called because the parchment on which the two deeds were written was so cut (indented) that they would exactly fit or dovetail into one another when put together at any future time. Hundreds of these documents are now at Coventry. See Section C of Mr J.C. Jeaffreson's catalogue of Corp. MSS.

[90]In cases where the lord of the manor was entitled to hold a leet or view of frankpledge, the tenants were exempt from attendance at the hundred court. In the "view of frank- pledge" each testified that they were enrolled in a tithing or body of mutually responsible persons.

[91]The direct ancestor of our modern Grand Jury.

[92]The conditions under which strangers were admitted into a town differed with the particular locality. A free craftsman would be admitted to citizenship by purchase. If a serf escaped from his master's estate, and lived unclaimed for a year and a day, he was as a general rule permitted to continue in the town. In Lincoln it was necessary that he should pay the town taxes during that period (Stubbs,Select Charters, 159).

[93]Dugdale,Warw., i. 161.

[94]Cole,Documents Illustrative of Eng. Hist., 309-19.

CHAPTER V

Prior's-half and Earl's-half

InCoventry we now enter upon a period where the townsmen not only sought to make good the privileges they had already won, but strove to gain, either by fair means or foul, such fresh concessions as they deemed necessary for their comfort and prosperity. The story of the struggle for liberty in English towns, though little known, is one of great interest. Though the whole thing is on a small scale, yet the narrative of events is no less stirring than the account of the revolt of a great nation. There was as fierce a conflict at S. Alban's among a score or two of men in 1327 as among tens of thousands in Paris at the Revolution. Few leaders of forlorn hopes have shown more desperate courage than the good folk of Dunstable, who were ready to brave not only the terrors of punishment in this world, but in the world to come, for, being cursed with bell, book, and candle by the bishop and their prior, they said that they recked nothing of this excommunication, but were resolved rather "to descend into hell altogether" than submit to the prior's extortions. And conceiving that they were likely to be worsted in the quarrel, they covenanted with a neighbouring lord for forty acres of land, preparing to leave their houses and live in tents ere they would pay the arbitrary tolls and taxes the prior had laid upon them.[95]It is true there were no philosophic fervour about the mediæval burgher, no enthusiasm about liberty in the abstract. What he wanted was some small practical advantage his masters denied him.[96]All the townsman of S. Alban's asked at the beginning of the quarrel was, that he should be allowed to grind his corn at home instead of at the abbot's mill. But wanting this strongly and sorely, and seeing a chance of victory, he was willing to fight for it perhaps to the death.

The struggle for freedom is, in Coventry, at first interwoven with an old quarrel existing between the tenants of the two lords who held the town between them: for we have seen that Coventry was divided into two lordships; on the one hand lay the property of the earls of Chester, the Earl's-half; on the other the Prior's-half, or the convent estate. The government of these two manors was absolutely distinct. The Prior's-men had no lot or part in the privileges conferred in Ranulf's charter, and the Earl's-men none in those the convent won from Henry III. The customs practised by the Earl's-men on one side of the street, and those followed by the prior's tenants on the other, might differ to a considerable extent. They attended different courts; some were compelled to pay dues from which their neighbours were exempt; the prior's tenants might be forced to carry their lord's harvest, or work on his estate; while the Earl's-men, as free burghers, had long since discontinued feudal labour. A priory tenant would stand in his lord's pillory, or hang on his gallows; an Earl's-man met his punishment at the castle, or the sheriff's court. While the convent tenants could very likely bring their butter, horse provender, or coarse cloth to sell in the market free of toll, another owing the earl fealty might have to pay a penny or more before his stall could be set up in the market-place. These differences of tenure, custom, and privilege, naturally bred disputes among the townsfolk, a frequentoccurrence in those places wherein different lords held sway, dividing the allegiance of the inhabitants.

40 far Gosford St.

There appears to have been some ill-feeling arising from a trading jealousy between Earl's-folk and Prior's-folk. The former were disposed, as early as the days of Henry II., to entertain some grudge with regard to the ordering of the market in the Prior's-half,[97]but we know no particulars of the grievance. So hotly, however, did the quarrel rage between them, that there were "debates, contentions, namelie killing of divers men,"[98]in the streets. Doubtless, in the interests of peace, it was better that one or other of the contending parties should become predominant within the town, and force the other to consent to a compromise. The last Earl of Chester being dead, and his successors, the De Montalts, men of little mark, the chance lay with S. Mary's convent; and an enterprising prior, William of Brightwalton, was not slow to avail himself of the opportunity. Hoping, so the convent folk afterwards declared, to allay the strife by uniting the two manors whereof the town was composed under one lord, he proposed to purchase the earl's estate, a scheme to which Roger de Montalt, beingin need of money for a Crusade, was fain to agree. So in 1249 the latter resigned the manor into the prior's hand in return for a yearly rent of £100, with ten marks to the nuns of Polesworth, and by this means the head of the convent became lord of the Earl's-half,[99]Prior's-men and Earl's-men alike holding of him house and land, and owing him rent and accustomed services. Thus the lay lords of this great family slip out of the city's history; the ruling power in the town is the great religious corporation which owed its existence to Saxon piety.

Whatever changes this transfer may have brought about, one thing is certain, it did not establish peace in Coventry. Twenty years later the old jealousy flamed up anew. About 1267 both townsmen and convent took advantage of Henry III.'s necessities to negotiate for a charter, but with a different result. The former obtained a bare confirmation of their ancient liberties,[100]the prior, on the other hand, owing, belike, to his superior command of the purse, or in return for help he may have rendered the King in the late wars, was able to purchase fresh concessions for himself and his men. He was allowed to appoint coroners for the town, and further, licence was given to form a merchant guild among his tenants.[101]The grant of these graces brought about an outbreak in the Earl's-half. Hitherto, it may be supposed, Earl's-folk and Prior's-folk had carried on their trade on fairly equal terms, but the new charter would bring about a revolution. The object of the formation of a merchant guild was to confine the trade of the district to its members; they would become local commercial monopolists. No wonder the Earl's-men resisted the foundation of this society. If it were once established, and they were excluded from its ranks, what a blow would be dealt to their prosperity.

The guildsmen would make it impossible for them to trade under anything like favourable conditions. They might be mulcted by tolls; subjected to the annoying supervision of the guild officials in respect to the weight or quality of their goods; restrictions affecting the time, place, or manner of their selling might be imposed on them; or they might have to relinquish bargains they had closed in favour of the members of the guild merchant.

So when the terms of this new charter were known the Earl's-folk rose in tumult, withstood the priory coroner when he attempted to see the body of a man, slain, no doubt, in these brawls, and prevented their neighbours in the Convent-half from forming the guild according to the permission vouchsafed to them. Nor could the sheriff's officer, sent by the royal order at the prior's request to proclaim these charters and liberties in Coventry, bring the unruly townspeople to obedience. "Certain men, we learn," ran the King's writ, "from those parts with others, armed with force, took Gilbert, clerk to the said sheriff, sent thither to this end, and imprisoned him, and broke" the royal "rolls and charters, and beat and ill-treated the men of the prior and convent."[102]What was the end of the tumult, or the fate of the luckless clerk, we cannot tell, but, as we hear no more of the prior's guild, it seems that this outbreak of the Coventry men "with others" prevented its establishment.

We now enter upon a fresh phase of the quarrel. It is no longer the Prior's-men but the prior himself who is the Earl's-men's enemy. Their whole energy isabsorbed in the effort to free their trade from the restrictions the present lord of the Earl's-half has laid down for them to observe. For the Earl's-men appeared ill-content with the change of masters. Did the prior encroach upon the rights of the townsfolk? Probably not; previously established customs founded on the charter of Ranulf would bar his claims. But though the law may not alter, the interpretation of it may vary from time to time; so may the circumstances under which it is administered. It was so with the customs which had hitherto regulated the Earl's-men's lives. They and their present masters were disposed to differ as to the meaning these could bear, and hence a way was opened for numerous quarrels and lawsuits. Moreover, restraints, which had been borne without complaint in early days under the Chester lordship, were found unendurable when the townsfolk's commerce, and with it their desire for freedom, had increased.

The matter of the merchant guild was only the forerunner of more serious trouble. The townspeople were rapidly growing rich, whether by soap-making,[103]or the manufacture of woollen cloth, or the entertainment of travellers, or a happy combination of all three sources of wealth. Under Edward I. they were able to pave their city,[104]which had now risen to a sufficiently important position to be accounted a borough, and to return two members to the Parliament of 1295.[105]Its prosperity attracted the notice of Edward I., who in 1303 summoned two Coventry merchants to attend a council;[106]and of Edward II., who asked the inhabitants for a loan of 500 marks for the prosecution of the Scotch war. It is smallwonder if the townsfolk were jealous lest this growing prosperity should be checked by the petty regulations the prior chose to lay on them. Was their wealth to be curtailed because, forsooth, the convent officials charged them, not to sell here, or make there, to relinquish a favourable bargain, or never to open stall or shop for sale of goods during certain hours of the day?

The prior in the days of Edward II. was Henry Irreys, and his hand lay heavy on the townsmen. They were not able to live, they complained, "by reason of his oppression." Moreover, like the jolly, illiterate Abbot of S. Alban's named Hugh, who "feared nothing so much as the Latin tongue,"[107]and so oppressed his tenants, Prior Irreys was an ally of Edward II., for it was by "maintenance of the King and of Spencer, Earl of Winchester" (i.e.Despenser), that he was enabled to keep the malcontents in check. In his days arose a second dispute concerning traffic, but at what date we cannot tell. The Friday market had always been held in the Prior's-half, and there only were the Earl's-men permitted to sell their wares on that day.[108]Now certain of them broke through the prior's order, and sold openly in their own houses[109]during market hours. Appeal was made to the law. In vain the townsmen pleaded that by virtue of the clause in Ranulf's charter, giving them the same liberties as the Lincoln folk, they were free to sell their goods when or where they would. Vainly, too, they tried to strengthen their case by declaring that before the prior had purchased the Chester estate they had been wont to hold a fair in the Earl Street, where now their shops stood. These pleas availed nothing, and a verdictwas returned for the prior with £60 damages, the Earl's men being forbidden to sell anywhere but in the Prior's-half during market hours. The prescribed payment must have well-nigh ruined William Grauntpee and other traders concerned in the struggle, for £60 was then accounted a great sum.[110]

It was in 1323 that the townsfolk sought, after a very novel fashion, to rid themselves of their oppressors. Their enemies accused them, whether truly or untruly we cannot tell, of having recourse to the black art, and strange rumours were afloat concerning the unlawful dealings of the citizens with one Master John de Nottingham, limb of Satan and necromancer, who inhabited a ruinous house in the neighbourhood of the town. Witchcraft was not then considered an ecclesiastical offence, but one against the common law, and it was, it seems, before the Court of King's Bench that the approver, Robert le Mareshall, told his story. He had been living, he said, with one Master John de Nottingham, necromancer, of Coventry. To whom, on the Wednesday next before the feast of S. Nicholas, in the seventeenth year of the King's reign, came certain men of the town, citizens of good standing, and promised them great profit—to the necromancer, £20, and "his subsistence in any religious house in England,"[111]and to Robert le Mareshall, £15—if they would compass the lives of the King and others by necromancy. Having received part of the promised payment as earnest at the hands of John le Redclerk, hosier, and John, son ofHugh de Merington, apprentice of the law, with seven pounds of wax and two yards of canvas, the magicians began their work. On the Sunday after the feast of S. Nicholas they fashioned seven magical images in the respective likenesses of Edward II., with his crown, the elder and younger Despenser, Prior Henry, Nicholas Crumpe, his steward, the cellarer of the convent, and Richard Sowe, probably one of the priory underlings who had made himself unpopular. As far as the last-named enemy upon the list was concerned—for upon him they chose to experiment "to see what might be done with the rest"—they were entirely successful. On the Friday before the feast of the Holy Rood about midnight John de Nottingham gave his helper, Robert le Mareshall, a leaden bodkin, with command to thrust it into the forehead of the figure of Richard Sowe. The effect was well-nigh instantaneous. When the necromancer sent Robert on the morrow to inquire how Richard did, the messenger found him crying "Harrow," and mad as mad could be. And on the Wednesday before the Ascension, John having on the previous Sunday removed the bodkin from the forehead of the figure and thrust it into its heart, Richard Sowe died.[112]

Meanwhile the necromancer and the accused gave themselves up in court, consenting to plead before a jury. All, save the necromancer, were admitted to bail.[113]He no doubt looked to receive no mercy, and when after sundry delays the trial came on, the marshal certified that Master John de Nottingham was dead. Another of the accused, Piers Baroun, who had been a burgess at the Parliament of 1305,[114]died also during the interval.

Others had fled from justice, though of these one Richard Grauntpee, without doubt a near relative of the man who had lost his suit with the prior in the matter of the market, afterwards came and surrendered himself in court. Either the sympathy of the neighbourhood was with the accused, or it was thought that Robert's tale was unworthy of belief, for a jury taken from the neighbourhood returned a verdict of acquittal. But the trial greatly embittered the feelings of the citizens, and when the tide turned, and they were able to do the prior hurt, they availed themselves of the opportunity gladly.

Back to Index Next