Chapter 4

FOOTNOTES:[95]"Prior Richard and Monks" inCornh. Mag., vi. 840.[96]Thomson,Municipal History.[97]Earl Hugh forbade his tenants to meddle with the prior's markets (Dugdale,Warw., i. 159).[98]Burton MS. f. 109a.[99]Dugdale, i. 138.[100]Quoted inInspeximus, 17 Ed. II. (Corp. MS. B. 4); the date there given is Jan. 30, 52 H. III. (1268).[101]Dugdale,Warw., i. 162.[102]Merewether and Stephens,Hist. Boroughs, i. 469. The transcript of the MS. is given in Gross,Gild Merchant, ii. 365. The expression "with others" is very significant; these were probably men from the country, who had hitherto been allowed to trade in the town, and feared the establishment of the guild.[103]Soap was made in the neighbourhood of Coventry about 1300. "Sope about Couentre." Robert of Gloucester,Chron., i. 143.[104]Dugdale,Warw., i. 138.[105]Parl. Writs, i. lii.[106]Lawrence de Shepey summoned to attend a council of merchants at York in 1303 (Ibid.i. 135). He had been burgess for Coventry in 1300.[107]Froude,Short Studies, iii. 54. Edward II.'s overthrow was the signal for a rising against this abbot.[108]Dugdale,Warw., i. 162.[109]It is probable that there were no shops, in our sense, in the fourteenth century. The traders' goods were kept in a cellar below the ground floor (Turner,Domestic Architecture, iii. 36). See also, Dormer Harris,Troughton Sketches, 53.[110]The value of £60 would represent more than £700 at the present time. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries the average price of an ox was 13s. 1-1/4d,; of a sheep, 1s. 5d.; of a cow, 9s. 5d.; and a fowl, 1d. (Rogers,Agriculture and Prices, i. 361-3).[111]Probably a corrody or daily allowance of food from the monastic table during the life of an individual. This ensured for the individual who held it a share in the prayers of the brethren, and sometimes included lodging within the monastery.[112]Lansd. MS. 290, f. 533. It is the earliest trial for witchcraft extant in England. See alsoParl. Writs, ii. Div. 2, App. 269-70.[113]Divers natives of Warwickshire and citizens of London went bail for them.[114]Parl. Writs, i. ii.

FOOTNOTES:

[95]"Prior Richard and Monks" inCornh. Mag., vi. 840.

[96]Thomson,Municipal History.

[97]Earl Hugh forbade his tenants to meddle with the prior's markets (Dugdale,Warw., i. 159).

[98]Burton MS. f. 109a.

[99]Dugdale, i. 138.

[100]Quoted inInspeximus, 17 Ed. II. (Corp. MS. B. 4); the date there given is Jan. 30, 52 H. III. (1268).

[101]Dugdale,Warw., i. 162.

[102]Merewether and Stephens,Hist. Boroughs, i. 469. The transcript of the MS. is given in Gross,Gild Merchant, ii. 365. The expression "with others" is very significant; these were probably men from the country, who had hitherto been allowed to trade in the town, and feared the establishment of the guild.

[103]Soap was made in the neighbourhood of Coventry about 1300. "Sope about Couentre." Robert of Gloucester,Chron., i. 143.

[104]Dugdale,Warw., i. 138.

[105]Parl. Writs, i. lii.

[106]Lawrence de Shepey summoned to attend a council of merchants at York in 1303 (Ibid.i. 135). He had been burgess for Coventry in 1300.

[107]Froude,Short Studies, iii. 54. Edward II.'s overthrow was the signal for a rising against this abbot.

[108]Dugdale,Warw., i. 162.

[109]It is probable that there were no shops, in our sense, in the fourteenth century. The traders' goods were kept in a cellar below the ground floor (Turner,Domestic Architecture, iii. 36). See also, Dormer Harris,Troughton Sketches, 53.

[110]The value of £60 would represent more than £700 at the present time. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries the average price of an ox was 13s. 1-1/4d,; of a sheep, 1s. 5d.; of a cow, 9s. 5d.; and a fowl, 1d. (Rogers,Agriculture and Prices, i. 361-3).

[111]Probably a corrody or daily allowance of food from the monastic table during the life of an individual. This ensured for the individual who held it a share in the prayers of the brethren, and sometimes included lodging within the monastery.

[112]Lansd. MS. 290, f. 533. It is the earliest trial for witchcraft extant in England. See alsoParl. Writs, ii. Div. 2, App. 269-70.

[113]Divers natives of Warwickshire and citizens of London went bail for them.

[114]Parl. Writs, i. ii.

CHAPTER VI

The Seigniory of the Prior and Queen Isabella

Hithertoit had fared ill with the Earl's-men in their struggle with the convent. Were they to be worsted like the men of S. Alban's or Bury S. Edmund's? The former were now utterly broken in spirit. After a hard fight lasting from the days of Henry III., they obtained in 1327 a charter, conferring on them the control over the local courts and the privileges of a free and independent borough. And yet they were powerless. Five years later they voluntarily surrendered their charter into the abbot's hands. They gave up the perambulation of their borough. They took their handmills—the initial cause of the contention—and left them in the churchyard in token of renunciation. They presented to the abbot the town chest with the keys belonging thereto, thus relinquishing all their rights as a free and independent community. Nor did better success attend the Bury S. Edmund's men, who had the same high hopes as the S. Alban's folk, and who in the same year compelled their abbot to concede to them a guild merchant, a community, a common seal, and the custody of their gates. Five years later they too were forced to abandon these claims, and, after a fruitless effort at the time of the Peasant Revolt in 1381,[115]bothtowns sank into apathy, each under the rule of the great local religious house.

But alone among convent towns, a piece of supreme good fortune awaited Coventry. The townsmen, just at a critical time, gained a powerful champion. In 1327, by some bargain between Isabella, widow of Edward II. and the representatives of the Chester family, the rents coming from the Earl's-half passed into the Queen's hands, to become after her death parcel of the duchy of Cornwall, heritage of the princes of Wales. We have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the quarrel which raged for twenty years between the Queen and the prior of S. Mary's convent. The undoubted gainers in this conflict were the men of Coventry; for, helpless under Isabella's repeated attacks, the monks conceded to their tenants those rights of self-government whereof they had stood in need so long.

Soon after the Queen's entry into possession of the De Montalt estate, the prior had many bitter complaints to make of the treatment he received at her hands and at the hands of his "mortal enemies," the men of Coventry. His courts were deserted by the men of the Earl's-half, the profits of his franchise finding their way, no doubt, into the Queen's coffers, as her steward held a court at Cheylesmore. His dues, waifs, heriots, the mournful enumeration proceeds, were withheld, and certain tenements belonging to him seized into "my lady's hand" in spite of charters shown to prove his ample right to the same. Great destruction had been wrought in his woods at Whitmore under colour of the Queen's claim to gather her "estovers," or fuel, therein. And the boundaries about these woods had been violently thrown down, and if "they be not now enclosed to prevent cattle from pasturing therein, they will be ruined for ever past recovery." The men of the Earl's-half lived in the prior's tenements in the Earl's Orchard, detaining the rent, twenty marks a year, "by tort andforce." But this was not the worst. By cover "of the Seigneurie of my said lady," the prior continued, a great part of the rents in Coventry were treacherously withheld, and the monks dared not take distress and force the defaulters to pay "for peril of death." For when their bailiff, Simon Pakeman, went to demand the aforesaid rents without making any distraint for the same, "up came Peter de Stoke and other mad folk ... and assaulted the said Simon with force of arms, and beat and maltreated him, saying ... that if the said prior and convent ever made any demand of the kind in the Earl's-half they would make their heads fly" (ferryent voler les testes).[116]Again and again the prior and convent poured forth their monotonous complaint. Now they "prayed restitution" for the rent of two messuages, "which for two years last past my lady had given to a demoiselle of her chamber."[117]Now they averred that she had put the bailiff of the Earl's-half out of his office, whereby they had lost all profits arising from their franchises. Still the spoliation continued; they fixed the damage the convent had sustained at £20,000,[118]and, turning from the deaf ears of Queen Isabel, besought the King to see justice done for God's sake, "and for love of our Lady, his dear Mother, in whose honour the priory" had been founded, lest the convent should be compelled to disperse.[119]

Meanwhile the men of Coventry were gaining every year important graces from Edward III. Now that the power of the prior was thus diminished, there wasno one to prevent the acquisition of fresh liberties, and their money circulated freely at Westminster, the messengers bringing back in return the precious slips of parchment sealed with the King's seal, the testimony of new rights to be enjoyed by the townsfolk. In 1334 their merchandise was freed from toll in all places throughout the King's dominions.[120]Six years later licence was given them to form a merchant guild,[121]while other kindred societies sprang up, and received licence to hold land in mortmain.[122]In 1341 the King granted a charter to the effect that any inquisition of lands or tenements within the city should be taken by the townsmen, and not by strangers, an important provision at a time when there were frequent lawsuits between the Queen and the prior.[123]

The convent give a graphic description of the effect of such an inquisition upon their holding, and of the plot between the Queen and the Earl's-men which caused the inquiry to be made.[124]"There came the Men of the Earl's-half of Coventry amongst others ... Conspiring and Compassing the undoing of the said prior and of his monks, and the Disinheritance and Destruction of their Church, and making show of their Intent unto my said Lady that her Seigniorie was more largely than she had occupied.... Whereupon the Stewards and some of the officers of my said Lady, without having any Power or Commission from the Court of our Lord the King,took an Inquisition of the said Men, Adversarys to the said Prior and Convent, what were the Bounds in Ancient times of the Seigniorye of the Earl Rondulph ... which men quickly and Maliciously gave up the said false verdict to the Damnation of their Souls, Saying that all the Prior's-half, which is of foundation of the Church, is two little leys (meadows), whereon the profits by year are not above 50s.... and did fasten stakes of Division to Separate the Seigniory of my said Lady from the Seigniory of the said Prior." What made this action so particularly galling was that it was the "Seigniory of the ffoundation" of their "Church" Isabel called in question, though they had held it, they declared, long time before the coming of the Conqueror, and before the Earls of Chester, whose representative the Queen was, had been heard of in England.

The prior's complaints availed nothing; the men of Coventry were in a sure way of victory, and in 1345 the city was incorporated by charter. Three years later one John Ward took his seat as first mayor of the city. The mayor, bailiffs, and community were henceforth to be responsible for the fee-ferm;[125]and power to hear and adjudge certains pleas, hitherto treated of in the county court, was given to the city officers. The prior and his brethren looked upon this as a last indignity. "They are become lords of the said prior, all whome beforetime were his tenants," and in consequence of theinquisition above mentioned, he and his brethren were now "entirely involved within the danger of the mayor and his bailiffs, for they had not a foot of land of their Seigniory" beyond the priory gates.[126]

Wearied of a struggle which had lasted for twenty years, the litigants, the Queen, the prior, and the newly-made corporation allowed the dispute to be set at rest once and for all in 1355, and the "Indenture Tripartite" made between them took the form of a compromise. Each of the three parties agreed to restore or forego the exercise of certain rights, or at least to accept an equivalent. The prior gave up all claim to jurisdiction over the Earl's-men, and the Queen forgave him £10 of the yearly ferm owing to her, while the franchises he thus relinquished—the right of holding view of frankpledge or leet and other courts with the exercise of the coronership—Isabel bestowed on the mayor, bailiffs, and community. These in their turn agreed to indemnify the convent by a payment of £10 a year.

Other matter of contention was laid at rest. The prior's tenants were to be taxable with the Earl's-men, and to serve as mayors and bailiffs with their fellow-citizens. The restrictions on buying and selling, which had given rise to the lawsuit in the former reign, were wholly laid aside. "Any persons of whatsoever condition they be, [may] sell any manner of wares" in the Earl's part, "or buy at what day or time it shall please them, and they shall not be disturbed by the said prior and convent." And although the market was to continue to be held as of old in the Prior's-half, no toll was to be taken according to the ancient custom, except for horses, while all the regulations concerning sale and merchandise should henceforth "be at the ordinance of the mayor and community." The assize of bread, ale, and victuals was to be kept by the mayor; and though the prior was to have all the profits arising from thefines of offenders against the assize, the officers of the corporation could enter the convent half, and, in case the prior's officers neglected to punish fraudulent brewers and bakers, could levy fines upon these evil-doers and see justice done.

Various restitutions were made on the Queen's part, showing that she and her advisers were really intent on a peaceful solution of the difficulty. The advowson of chapels, chantries, and the like, which she had appropriated, were restored to the prior, who, in his turn, forgave all the delinquencies of the Earl's-men against himself.[127]The "Tripartite" was drawn up so clearly, and in so fair a spirit, that in essentials it was never afterwards called in question. Disputes arose between the convent and the townsmen in later days, it is true, but not concerning the all-important matters of trade and jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this compact put an end, once and for all, to the prior's dominion in Coventry. Henceforth in recounting the history of the place, we have little concern with the convent; our subject touches only upon the rule and fortunes of the mayor, bailiffs, and community of the city.

FOOTNOTES:[115]Thompson,Municipal History, 22sqq.Green,Town Life, i. 298.[116]Burton MS. f. 88. This appears to be the sense, but this portion of the document is missing from Burton's folio. I found it on a loose leaf in theLeet Book, copied in Norman French in a modern and rather illegible hand from the deeds which were in the Stanton collection of papers destroyed in the Birmingham library fire. [It is now in Burton's Book Corp. MS. A. 34.][117]Ib., f. 110a.[118]Burton MS. f. 63a. An incredible sum.[119]Ib., ff. 109-12.[120]Corp. MS. B. 7.[121]Ib., 6.[122]These were S. John the Baptist, S. Catherine, the Corpus Christi, and the Trinity guilds, founded respectively in 1342, 1343, and 1364.[123]Inspeximus, 15 Ed. III. (Corp. MS. B. 7). This would be highly important in a trial taking place at the county court, where the sheriff might impanel a jury, not of townsmen, but of those in the country round, who would not be acquainted with the "metes and bounds" dividing the two estates. The Prior of Dunstable was accused by the burgesses of introducing foreign jurors into the town (Cornh. Mag., vi. 837).[124]Burton MS. f. 110a.[125]The fee-ferm rent, representing the King's rights over the fines, forfeitures, etc, taken from criminals, was fixed at £50 a year. The liberties granted to be summed up thus: (1) The townsmen may duly elect their own mayor and bailiffs. (2) They have cognizance of pleas, of trespasses, contracts, covenants, and all other business amongst themselves. (3) There is to be a seal for the recognition of debts. (4) Mayor and bailiffs to have profits of view of frankpledge with the court, to have control over the gaol, fair, market, etc., and in return a ferm of £50 to be paid to the Queen and her heirs (Corp. MS. B. 11).[126]Burton MS. f. 111a.[127]Burton, MS. ff. 98-103.

FOOTNOTES:

[115]Thompson,Municipal History, 22sqq.Green,Town Life, i. 298.

[116]Burton MS. f. 88. This appears to be the sense, but this portion of the document is missing from Burton's folio. I found it on a loose leaf in theLeet Book, copied in Norman French in a modern and rather illegible hand from the deeds which were in the Stanton collection of papers destroyed in the Birmingham library fire. [It is now in Burton's Book Corp. MS. A. 34.]

[117]Ib., f. 110a.

[118]Burton MS. f. 63a. An incredible sum.

[119]Ib., ff. 109-12.

[120]Corp. MS. B. 7.

[121]Ib., 6.

[122]These were S. John the Baptist, S. Catherine, the Corpus Christi, and the Trinity guilds, founded respectively in 1342, 1343, and 1364.

[123]Inspeximus, 15 Ed. III. (Corp. MS. B. 7). This would be highly important in a trial taking place at the county court, where the sheriff might impanel a jury, not of townsmen, but of those in the country round, who would not be acquainted with the "metes and bounds" dividing the two estates. The Prior of Dunstable was accused by the burgesses of introducing foreign jurors into the town (Cornh. Mag., vi. 837).

[124]Burton MS. f. 110a.

[125]The fee-ferm rent, representing the King's rights over the fines, forfeitures, etc, taken from criminals, was fixed at £50 a year. The liberties granted to be summed up thus: (1) The townsmen may duly elect their own mayor and bailiffs. (2) They have cognizance of pleas, of trespasses, contracts, covenants, and all other business amongst themselves. (3) There is to be a seal for the recognition of debts. (4) Mayor and bailiffs to have profits of view of frankpledge with the court, to have control over the gaol, fair, market, etc., and in return a ferm of £50 to be paid to the Queen and her heirs (Corp. MS. B. 11).

[126]Burton MS. f. 111a.

[127]Burton, MS. ff. 98-103.

CHAPTER VII

The Corporation and the Guilds

Afterthe Settlement of 1355 the figure of the head of the great religious house at Coventry fades into comparative insignificance, and all further quarrels between city and convent hardly rise above the level of petty squabbles of no historical moment. The prior is no longer lord of the place; he merely appears as host of the royal folk, kings, and kings' sons, representatives of the ancient line of the Earls of Chester, when they sojourn within the city. The rent of the Earl's-half[128]now swells the revenue of the Princes of Wales, hence the appellation "Camera Principis," or the prince's (Treasure) chamber, the familiar motto on the city arms.[129]

With the disappearance of earl and prior from the foreground of the picture there emerges another figure, the city merchant, type of a newly-enriched class, the future guide of the destinies of the place. Curiously enough, it is this man's work in stone that has best survived the test of time. What has become of the castle of Hugh and Ranulf? It has utterly disappeared; indeed, its very existence has been sometimes doubted; the name "Broadgate" alone recalls the entrance (latam portam) whereto reference is made in one of Earl Hugh's charters.[130]Where is the prioryof Irreys and Brightwalton? Mean streets cover the site, and of the cathedral nought remains but a few bases of clustered shafts in Priory Row and a portion of the North-West tower converted into a dwelling-place. But the outline of S. Michael's spire[131]built by the people is still the wonder of Coventry, and the guild-hall of S. Mary with its glorious roof and window has behind it five hundred years of continuous civic life.

Coventry was now a free and independent corporate borough. The townsmen had power to elect their own officers, and hold their own courts, taking for the common use the profits of jurisdiction, so long as they paid into the royal exchequer the annual fee-ferm of £50 and the prior's ferm of £10. The leading men of the place, most likely the wealthy merchants and others, who had won the charter of liberties from Queen Isabel,[132]now set to work to reorganise courts, elect officials, in short to shape the whole administration to fall in with the new order of things.[133]We know nothing of the manner in which this was done, and as so many of the early records have been lost we can give no account in many cases of theform of municipal rule chosen by the citizens. Here and there curious documents give us a glimpse of the working of certain courts, or the municipal action of this or that body of men. But the information concerning very important points is unfortunately lacking. We are referred, for instance, to the "old custom" of electing officials, but we do not know what the old custom was, and are hence left in ignorance of the manner in which the election was made.

What part the poorer folk—menus gentz—smaller craftsfolk, and working-people played in the struggle for liberty is dark to us, but we may infer from the analogy of other towns,[134]and from the subsequent history of Coventry, that they had but little effective power under the new constitution. The growth of oligarchy[135]in towns is a matter of much debate. How early the few in Coventry engrossed the governing power of which the whole community was—in theory at least—the source, it is impossible in our present state of knowledge to determine. We have testimony as early as 1450 of the great influence of the leading crafts, mercers, and drapers. The evidence—though not always so clear as we could wish—points to a gradual absorption of the conduct of affairs during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by a small official class. In the end this clique succeeded so effectually in freeing itself from every device framed to ensure some regard for the popular will, that the charter of 1621 vested all power—and incidentally considerable official emolument—in a close select body "entirely independent of the rest of the community."[136]How early the citizens became aware of the trend ofaffairs we know not, but it is, maybe, significant that that popular discontent began to manifest itself within a generation after the incorporation of the city. In the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries the commonalty set order at defiance, reviled the mayor in the guild hall, and sought occasion to break out in riot and tumult, while under the veil of religious societies, industrial combinations—akin to the modern strike—formed again and again, and were with difficulty suppressed.

After 1420, when the graphic chronicle contained in theLeet Book[137]begins to be available for our researches, a glimpse is given of a fully evolved constitution in working order. On January 25, the feast of the Conversion of S. Paul, the mayor, chamberlains, and wardens were annually elected, the permanent officials, the recorder, legal adviser of the corporation, and the coroner re-appointed, the justices of the peace selected, while the bailiffs, according to ancient custom, received nomination at the Michaelmas assembly of the court leet. The justices of the peace—with the exception of the recorder—served also as key-keepers of the chest containing the common treasure. The court of portmanmote, mentioned in Ranulf's charter, still survived under various names, and in it pleas for debt were tried by the presiding officers, the mayor, and bailiffs. At quarter sessions the mayor, recorder, and three other late mayors, justices of the peace, dealt with criminal offences, and it was, probably, the activity of these comparatively recently created officials,[138]that broughtabout the degeneration of the leet or view of frankpledge, normally a court of justice for the trial of minor criminal offences, particularly evasions of the assize of bread and beer.[139]By the fifteenth century, the Coventry leet had retained little or nothing of its judicial functions, and merely survived as a court wherein by-laws, binding on the whole community, and grounded on petitions of grievances, received the sanction of the jurats of the leet. Another body, which also possessed legislative functions, was the mayor's council of forty-eight, later known as the common council. While it is from a small select body called the council-house, of which the mayor and aldermen appear to have been ex-officio members, that there sprang the close, corrupt corporation of later times.

COURTYARD, ST MARY'S HALL, COVENTRY

There are certain officials whose elections or appointments are not entered in the regular municipal records, but who, nevertheless, had great weight in the councils of the city. Such were the aldermen, who first appear in 1477.[140]These officials discharged certain police duties in their respective wards and were of the inner council of the mayor. Under the charter of James I. they became permanent justices of the peace, and members of the corporation. While as justice of the peace, key-keeper, head of the electoral jury and jury of the leet, the master of the Trinity guild was one of the foremost figures among the municipal rulers. His connection, and that of his fellow, the master of the Corpus Christi guild, with the mayoralty was very close. Two years before entering office each mayor was master of the Corpus Christi, and two years after quitting it, master of the Trinity guild. The control they exercised over the revenues of the guilds, which were often put to municipal uses, gave these masters much power and authority with the magnates of the city. The guilds joined their funds with those of the wardens to pensiondeserving townsfolk[141]and pay the salary of the recorder.[142]Before 1384 the Trinity guild discharged the ferm of £10 due to the prior, receiving a share of common land to be held in severalty[143]—that is separate from thelands of the community—as compensation. Indeed, the guild officers were so clearly considered as officers of the corporation that when they, together with the city wardens and chamberlains, neglected to present their accounts at the annual audit[144]they were one and all brought to book by the leet, and ordered to remedy their neglect under pain of punishment.

The origin of societies known as guilds is involved in controversy, but they were common throughout all Europe in the Middle Ages, bearing eloquent testimony to the fortifying power of combination. They afforded mutual protection to their members, frequently making good any loss sustained from an insurance fund to which all were contributory, and devoting other portions of their revenues to feasts, almsgiving, and public works. Guilds are best remembered, however, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as monopolist organisations, and a third of all the towns in England, with the possible exception of London, had their merchant guild, or body of traders and handicraftsmen, engrossing the local commerce to the exclusion of all men without their ranks. The craft guild was a century behind the merchant guild in its rise and development. Its members met together to make rules, by which all who practised a particular calling in the locality were to be directed in all affairs connected with their trade or handicraft. They devoted some of their revenue to religious uses, the members frequently supporting some church or chapel, or providing candles for altar or processional lights. Other local guilds not definitelycommercial, but rather social, in character, often called after some saint, were active in the performance of all good works; they clad the poor in their livery, supported churches, colleges of priests and grammar schools, and pensioned decayed and deserving members. At Coventry, in the later fourteenth and earlier fifteenth centuries, guilds rose rapidly, and as rapidly coalesced, or, in the case of those "yeomen" or journeymen fraternities, which served to focus the prevailing industrial discontent, failed to maintain themselves in face of the hostility of other powerful previously existing associations. Two fraternities survived to play a great part in the city's mediæval history, the Corpus Christi guild, founded in 1348, and the better-known society of the Holy Trinity, S. Mary, S. John the Baptist, and S. Catherine, properly a fusion of four different fraternities, founded between 1340 and 1364, and known for brevity's sake as the Trinity guild.

MINSTREL GALLERY ST MARY'S HALL

It is possible that it was to the foundation of the merchant guild of S. Mary[145]in 1340, the kindred associations which sprang up around it, and to the gifts of their members in lands and money that the townsfolk owed the purchase of the incorporation charter.[146]It is frequently found that the same man serves in different years as mayor and master of the merchant fraternity.[147]

The town hall of S. Mary, in which not only the guild feasts were held, but municipal business[148]was transacted, and the town chest, as well as the guild plate,[149]stored, tells by its name of its connection with S. Mary'sbrotherhood. The vaulting of the entrance porch of this building still bears on its central boss a carving which represents the coronation of the Virgin; another of the porch carvings—now weather-worn—recalled the Annunciation, and a scene on the famous tapestry within the hall, the Assumption,[150]so that the guild brethren, could be everywhere reminded of the scenes in the life of their chief patroness. No church, however, recalls the Virgin's name, though materials from an unfinished building, which should have borne that dedication, were transported from Cheylesmore to Bablake, where the stately, early Perpendicular church of S. John the Baptist was rising on ground granted by Queen Isabel in 1342 to the fraternity called after that saint.[151]Both S. John the Baptist's guild and S. Catherine's—the latter connected with S. Catherine's chapel in S. John's Hospital,[152]coalesced between 1364-5 with the guild merchant, to be absorbed later by the all-embracing Trinity fraternity. This fusion of the guilds, which had certainly taken place informally before 1384,[153]was ratified by patent in 1392,[154]when the united revenues were increased to the amount of £86, 13s. 4d. a year. The completion of S. John's church became the especial care of the Trinity guild, and the dues taken at the Drapery, where cloth was sold, were devoted to that purpose, while a college of priests, whose number was in 1393 increased to nine, officiated at this church, and lived on the bounty of the brotherhood.[155]

SMITHFORD STREET

The priests of the merchant guild, as was meet, occupied from the beginning the most honourable place of all. They sang their "solemn antiphonies" in the lady-chapel of S. Michael's, the great parish church of the Earl's-half, a practice which was still continued after the title of the guild became merged in the society of the Trinity;[156]while the guild of the Corpus Christi, composed, it would seem, of the prior's tenants, occupied the corresponding chapel in the parish church of the Trinity.[157]

One guild, that of the fullers and tailors, called after the Nativity, carried on an obscure existence in connection with the since demolished chapel of S. George outside the Gosford gate. The formation of this society was violently opposed by the powers that were in 1384 on the ground that the purpose of its members—"labourers and artificers of the middling sort" and strangers—was to withstand the mayor and officers of the city, and not to promote the welfare of souls.[158]After 1400, further guild-making had come to have little favour with the ruling men of the city. Three several times did the mayor and bailiffs obtain patents forbidding the formation of guilds other than those already existing within Coventry.[159]While the close alliance of the older fraternities and the corporation is shown in the fact that the meetings of the guilds of S. Anne and S. George, formed by journeymen tailors in the first quarter of the century, were suppressed by royal command under the pretext that their meetings were to the manifest destruction of the ancient foundations, the guilds of Holy Trinity and Corpus Christi.[160]

FOOTNOTES:[128]See above, page 70.[129]Cf.the expression "queen's-chamber" as applied to Bristol, where the ferm was paid to the queen-consort.[130]The "Casteldich" is mentioned Corp. MSS. C. 61.[131]On the belfry as continental symbol of independence, see Round,Commune of London, 244.[132]For instance, one of the twelve whose names are handed down in the mayor-lists as winners of the freedom of the city was Walter Whitweb. He was master of the guild merchant in 1353 (Corp. MS. C. 148). Four of the twelve served afterwards as mayor, some others as bailiffs of the city. We may note that the leading families under the prior still continue to take the foremost place after the incorporation. Thus to Lawrence de Shepey, member of Edward I.'s assembly of merchants (Parl. Writs, i. 135), and in 1300 member for the borough (Ib., I. lii.), succeeded Jordan de Shepey whose name is yet commemorated in Jordan Well, second mayor of the city and first master of the guild merchant (Gross, ii. 49). A parallel case is shown in the Kelle family. Robert was burgess in 1298 (Parl. Writs, I. lii.), and Henry one of the founders of the Trinity guild in 1364, and four times mayor of the city.[133]On the solemn consultations thus involved in the case of Ipswich, see Gross,Gild Merchant, i. 23.[134]On the troubles attending the grant of a charter to Norwich in 1380, where the commonalty were "very contrarious," see Hudson,op. cit., I. liv.sqq.[135]Bateson,op. cit., II, lxvi.[136]Charter 17 Jas. I. On the corruption of the Coventry corporation, seeMunic. Corp. Report(Coventry, 1835) 12; Webb,Local Government.[137]Coventry Leet Book, 1420-1555, edited for the Early English Text Society by the present writer; part i. 1907, part ii. 1908, part iii. 1909, part iv. in progress.[138]The mayor, recorder, and four lawful men of the city are allowed to exercise all that appertains to the office of justice of the peace for labourers and artificers in the county of Warwick,i.e.fix the rate of wages (Charter 22 Rich. II. Burton MS. f. 253). For a trial of felons by the justices of the peace, see Sharp,Antiq., 212.[139]Hearnshaw,Leet Jurisdiction,passim.[140]Leet Book, 420.[141]Leet Book, 59.[142]Ib., 681.[143]We learn in 1384 that the annual ferm of £10, due to the prior according to the terms of the Tripartite, was drawn from the coffers of the guild (Leet Book, 2-6). Directly the guild lands were confiscated in 1545 the corporation made a great outcry concerning their poverty. They had, they declared, no lands whence they might derive an income to meet the yearly ferm of £50, and in trying to discharge it one or two of the citizens were yearly ruined (Vol. of Correspondence, f. 63, Corp. MS. A. 79).[144]Leet Book, 295.[145]Gross,Gild Merchant, ii. 49; Toulmin Smith,Eng. Gilds, 231. In the return of 1389 it is stated that several messuages worth £37, 12s. 4d. a year are waiting for the licence of the King and the mesne lords to be given to the guild. No doubt the Statute of Mortmain was often evaded. The corporation records show that the guild held house property as early as 1353 (Corp. MS. C. 148).[146]The foundation of the guild has evidently a municipal reason, since the statute of 1335, by declaring that all merchants might traffic with whomsoever they would, and in what vendibles they chose, effectually did away with this monopoly of the merchant guild (Ashley,Econ. Hist., i. pt. i. 84).[147]Many early mayors were masters of the guild merchant; the cases of Jordan de Shepey and Walter Whitweb have been noted. In William Holm, master in 1356 (Corp. MS. C. 153), we have undoubtedly William Horn of the mayor-lists.[148]Sharp,Antiq., 211. The guild hall was used for municipal purposes as early as 1388.[149]Ib., 212.[150]In Mantes the guild "aux marchands" was one with the "confrèrie de l'assomption de la Vierge" (Luchaire,Communes Françaises, 34).[151]Vict. County Hist., ii. 120.[152]Sharp,op. cit., 159.[153]Leet Book, 3.[154]Rot. Pat.16, Ric. II., pt. i. m. 19. The guilds of S. Mary and S. John were united as early as 1362 (Corp. MS. C. 159). Sharp says that the union took place between 1365 and 1369 (op. cit., 131); but in a deed executed in 1372 the guilds mentioned are SS. Mary, John the Baptist, and Catherine (Corp. MS. C. 165).[155]Sharp,op. cit., 130-2.[156]Sharp,op. cit., 24-5.[157]Ib., 81.[158]SeeVict. County Hist. Warw., ii. 154-6.[159]Corp. MS. B. 35. Letters patent against the formation of new guilds, dated Nov. 18, 8 Hen. IV. (1406), confirmed in 1414 and 1441 (B. 38 and 47). A great deal of confusion and wrong dating exists in the Hist. MSS. Com. Catalogue with regard to this point.[160]Corp. MS. B. 40 (1406); B. 41 (1414); B. 43 (1424).

FOOTNOTES:

[128]See above, page 70.

[129]Cf.the expression "queen's-chamber" as applied to Bristol, where the ferm was paid to the queen-consort.

[130]The "Casteldich" is mentioned Corp. MSS. C. 61.

[131]On the belfry as continental symbol of independence, see Round,Commune of London, 244.

[132]For instance, one of the twelve whose names are handed down in the mayor-lists as winners of the freedom of the city was Walter Whitweb. He was master of the guild merchant in 1353 (Corp. MS. C. 148). Four of the twelve served afterwards as mayor, some others as bailiffs of the city. We may note that the leading families under the prior still continue to take the foremost place after the incorporation. Thus to Lawrence de Shepey, member of Edward I.'s assembly of merchants (Parl. Writs, i. 135), and in 1300 member for the borough (Ib., I. lii.), succeeded Jordan de Shepey whose name is yet commemorated in Jordan Well, second mayor of the city and first master of the guild merchant (Gross, ii. 49). A parallel case is shown in the Kelle family. Robert was burgess in 1298 (Parl. Writs, I. lii.), and Henry one of the founders of the Trinity guild in 1364, and four times mayor of the city.

[133]On the solemn consultations thus involved in the case of Ipswich, see Gross,Gild Merchant, i. 23.

[134]On the troubles attending the grant of a charter to Norwich in 1380, where the commonalty were "very contrarious," see Hudson,op. cit., I. liv.sqq.

[135]Bateson,op. cit., II, lxvi.

[136]Charter 17 Jas. I. On the corruption of the Coventry corporation, seeMunic. Corp. Report(Coventry, 1835) 12; Webb,Local Government.

[137]Coventry Leet Book, 1420-1555, edited for the Early English Text Society by the present writer; part i. 1907, part ii. 1908, part iii. 1909, part iv. in progress.

[138]The mayor, recorder, and four lawful men of the city are allowed to exercise all that appertains to the office of justice of the peace for labourers and artificers in the county of Warwick,i.e.fix the rate of wages (Charter 22 Rich. II. Burton MS. f. 253). For a trial of felons by the justices of the peace, see Sharp,Antiq., 212.

[139]Hearnshaw,Leet Jurisdiction,passim.

[140]Leet Book, 420.

[141]Leet Book, 59.

[142]Ib., 681.

[143]We learn in 1384 that the annual ferm of £10, due to the prior according to the terms of the Tripartite, was drawn from the coffers of the guild (Leet Book, 2-6). Directly the guild lands were confiscated in 1545 the corporation made a great outcry concerning their poverty. They had, they declared, no lands whence they might derive an income to meet the yearly ferm of £50, and in trying to discharge it one or two of the citizens were yearly ruined (Vol. of Correspondence, f. 63, Corp. MS. A. 79).

[144]Leet Book, 295.

[145]Gross,Gild Merchant, ii. 49; Toulmin Smith,Eng. Gilds, 231. In the return of 1389 it is stated that several messuages worth £37, 12s. 4d. a year are waiting for the licence of the King and the mesne lords to be given to the guild. No doubt the Statute of Mortmain was often evaded. The corporation records show that the guild held house property as early as 1353 (Corp. MS. C. 148).

[146]The foundation of the guild has evidently a municipal reason, since the statute of 1335, by declaring that all merchants might traffic with whomsoever they would, and in what vendibles they chose, effectually did away with this monopoly of the merchant guild (Ashley,Econ. Hist., i. pt. i. 84).

[147]Many early mayors were masters of the guild merchant; the cases of Jordan de Shepey and Walter Whitweb have been noted. In William Holm, master in 1356 (Corp. MS. C. 153), we have undoubtedly William Horn of the mayor-lists.

[148]Sharp,Antiq., 211. The guild hall was used for municipal purposes as early as 1388.

[149]Ib., 212.

[150]In Mantes the guild "aux marchands" was one with the "confrèrie de l'assomption de la Vierge" (Luchaire,Communes Françaises, 34).

[151]Vict. County Hist., ii. 120.

[152]Sharp,op. cit., 159.

[153]Leet Book, 3.

[154]Rot. Pat.16, Ric. II., pt. i. m. 19. The guilds of S. Mary and S. John were united as early as 1362 (Corp. MS. C. 159). Sharp says that the union took place between 1365 and 1369 (op. cit., 131); but in a deed executed in 1372 the guilds mentioned are SS. Mary, John the Baptist, and Catherine (Corp. MS. C. 165).

[155]Sharp,op. cit., 130-2.

[156]Sharp,op. cit., 24-5.

[157]Ib., 81.

[158]SeeVict. County Hist. Warw., ii. 154-6.

[159]Corp. MS. B. 35. Letters patent against the formation of new guilds, dated Nov. 18, 8 Hen. IV. (1406), confirmed in 1414 and 1441 (B. 38 and 47). A great deal of confusion and wrong dating exists in the Hist. MSS. Com. Catalogue with regard to this point.

[160]Corp. MS. B. 40 (1406); B. 41 (1414); B. 43 (1424).

CHAPTER VIII

The Mayor, Bailiffs, and Community

Wehave seen that it was the stable and well-to-do classes which bore rule over their fellow-citizens. Men of substance, and they only, were eligible for office, and the terms "degree of a mayor," "degree of a bailiff," used in assessing fines, show that there was some strictness maintained with regard to this property qualification. And indeed it was needful that mayors, bailiffs and the like should be moneyed men, for their responsibilities were great and the turns of fortune curious, for should any source of revenue fail, they were compelled to make up the deficit, and hence were poorer men at the year's end than at the beginning. Thus when the prior refused to pay the murage tax for twenty years, the chamberlains, or treasurers, contributed the sum that was lacking from their own purses.[161]Still, on the whole, the magnates preferred to acquiesce in their election rather than pay £100, 100 marks, or £40 as a fine for refusing to fill the respective offices of mayor, sheriff or master of either guild. Once, indeed, a certain Roger a Lee declined to occupy the office of chamberlain, though he was a man well-to-do, having received £30 in money and plate with his wife, and must—so the prevailing opinion was—have "had right largely of his own," or else "John Pachet would not have married his daughter to him." When solemnly adjured to "come in and exercise the said office,"Roger persisted in his refusal, nor did the imposition of a fine of £20 avail to shake his resolution.[162]

THE CITY KEYS

But having once accepted office, with all its emoluments, risk and toil, a citizen was forthwith raised to a platform, high above the mere "commoner," who had neither lot nor part in the rule of his city. He became one of the "men of worship," whom to insult was a dire offence;[163]and his doings must not be cavilled at, or explained to the vulgar herd. Gravity, decorum, and, above all things, secrecy[164]marked the councils wherein he took part. Seemliness of behaviour was demanded from him; a late mayor must live cleanly, the leet decreed, and not give way after warning to "avowtre, fornicacion, or usure," if he wished to rise higher as master of the Trinity guild, or continue to meet his brethren at the council board.[165]

THE SWORDTHE CITY MACE

Distinguished on great occasions by his official dress, he was surrounded by an atmosphere of form and ceremony, which no doubt had its effect on the outside world. When the mayor went to mass every morning at "seven of the clock" the sword-bearer and officers attended him. A like procession was formed on the way back, for though the underlings might go about their business during service, they were commanded to "hearken" the time of the mayor's coming out of church so as to be ready to accompany him homewards.[166]So sensible were these worthy men of the dignity of their position, that questions of precedence were ever considered of great moment. When Harry Boteler, the recorder, fell into disgrace in 1484 by magnifying his office at the mayor's expense, the council thought it a due punishment that he should yield his place to themaster of the Trinity guild, who thenceforth went by the mayor's side in all municipal processions,[167]an order afterwards rescinded probably to gratify one of Boteler's successors; the mayor from that time walked alone, the master and recorder together.[168]

The labours of the town officials were greatly increased by the all-embracing character of the local legislation. The people of the Middle Ages believed devoutly in the efficacy of the law, and many matters concerning prices, wages, and the like, now known to regulate themselves according to supply and demand, were at times the subject of an infinite amount of often fruitless law-making. Nothing could check the zeal and energy of the local law-givers; no subject was too difficult for them to grapple with, none beneath their consideration. The worshipful men might reverse the whole organisation of the crafts connected with the iron industry at one leet sitting,[169]or, on the other hand, turn their attention to the local supply of halfpenny pies, or the amount of wheat put by the families of the two parishes into the holy cake, or blessed bread, distributed to the congregation. No doubt it was impossible to enforce all these regulations. All the energy of the leet, or council, and the vigilance of the town officers often failed to do away with a long-standing abuse. It was forbidden, under penalty of £10, to throw refuse into the Sherbourne; yet though "great diligence" was made to learn who the offenders were, it did not hinder the commission of the offence.[170]And although, according to the decrees of leet and council, people were compelled to be cleanly, honest and peaceable, I make no doubt that ducks[171]and swine still appeared in the streets,[172]bakers' loaves fell short of the proper weight,[173]and men of craft bore arms in the city, and wounded each other in quarrel.[174]In short, many regulations were mere paper regulations to the end of the chapter.

The mayor and his colleagues had no light work before them on taking office. Numberless details of municipal business went far to fill their days with employment. In addition to his judicial duties, a mayor examined, either in person or by deputy, a great part of the household stuff which came into the city to be sold. He must needs have some acquaintance with matters military, when a threat of invasion or civil war turned him into a captain, and the citizens under him into soldiers, such as they appeared at the half-yearly muster, each armed with such weapons as suited his degree.[175]While, in order to acquit himself with credit in the difficult and delicate relations wherein the citizens were frequently involved with the outside world of politics, a mediæval mayor must gather all the information he could upon affairs of state.

THE OLD STATE CHAIR

The bailiffs, with their work of court-holding, ferm-paying, and fine-collecting;[176]the chamberlains, who overlooked the common pastures, and put the murage money to its proper use;[177]the wardens, who supervised town property and made payment of sundry expenses, delivering up their accounts for the annual audit, were all deeply immersed in business. And the keeping of these accounts was no easy matter, so great a variety of items was included therein, and so frequent were the demands upon the public purse. Now the wardens would be called upon to entertain and reward the bearward of a neighbouring nobleman, or the groups of strolling players who set up their booth in the inn-yardor market-place; or, again, to contribute to the maintenance of the knights of the shire,[178]or lay down the ten pounds, which the mayor took as the "fee of the cloak";[179]now to defray the cost of a civic banquet, or that of the mayor's new fur cap, keeping in the lattercase, the "olde stuffe" for the use of the town.[180]Surely much of the activity of the House of Commons under Edward III. and the House of Lancaster is in the main due to the training many of its members received at home in the local guild-hall or council-house.

A great part of the municipal business in the Middle Ages was carried on by bodies consisting of twenty-four men, a double jury, a number occurring in London as early as 1205-6,[181]in Leicester in 1225,[182]and rather later in Norwich.[183]In Coventry in the fifteenth century twenty-four late officials, frequently including the justices of the peace, brought together by some indirect process of which we have lost the secret, elected the officers for the ensuing year. The same number, and to all intents and purposes the same men, were the jurats of the leet. A council of twenty-four, chosen by the mayor and perhaps identical with the jury of the leet, examined petitions four days before the two great assemblies of this court, in order, it seems, to discuss and decide on their rejection or acceptance by the jury of the leet. Moreover, twenty-four nominees of the mayor reinforced the electoral jury of twenty-four to form the mayor's council of forty-eight.[184]In practice, however, there was no rigid adherence to these numbers; small executive or deliberative bodies frequently met, and on occasions when it was deemed necessary large "halls" or assemblies of indeterminate numbers were summoned by the mayor to testify to the popular will. This calling together of the community, a relic maybe of immemorial custom,[185]affording in its traces of ward[186]organisation evidence of a form of government older and more popular than the system employed by the town rulers in the fifteenth century, reveals a lack of any well-thought-out scheme to ensure the election of representatives. Hence it seems to have been of little avail for purposes of popular control. The members were summoned at the requisition of the mayor, and were frequently to a great extent members of the official class. Hence in the cases of which we have record they did nothing but set the seal of approval to the official policy. Thus in 1384[187]the mayor summoned four or six out of every ward to learn what the common wish was concerning the Podycroft and other common lands, which the Trinity guild kept in severalty in return for the annual ferm of £10 paid to the prior on behalf of the corporation, the assembly was in favour of the continuance of the old arrangement, though it was avowedly a most unpopular one. And no orders of leet availed to check the open discontent of the common folk, who certainly did not feel themselves in any way bound by this assembly. The guild constantly found that their fences were broken down, and their fields overrun by the people at Lammas; and in 1414[188]it was thought necessary to decree that people trespassing (delinquentes) in the enclosures should be arrested, and imprisoned until they had made sufficient amends "by view of the guild master and six of the guild brethren."

But the discontent of the commonalty did not abate, and once more, in 1421, the officers in high place went through the form of consulting their fellow-townsmen. A hundred and thirty-four citizens, summoned at the mayor's requisition to S. Mary's Hall, gave the lie to popular discontent a second time, and approved of the giving over of the Mirefield, the Podycroft and Stivichall Hiron to the use of the guildsmen. But the anger of the townsmen became so hot that in the following year they destroyed certain gardens at Cheylesmore, which, it appears, had been enclosed by well-known townsmen, members of the mayor's council and justices of the peace.[189]

The mayor's council of Forty-eight, one of the most important of the constitutional expedients ever devised by the ruling class at Coventry, met apparently for the first time in 1423. In the previous year, no doubt with the notion of allaying the prevailing discontent, the idea of selecting a definite number of commoners from every ward to form a council to watch over the interests of the commonweal first took shape. There had been "dissentious stirrings" concerning enclosures, and there is little doubt that at the Michaelmas leet there was some speech of giving those outside the corporation some means of checking the alleged malpractices of the municipal rulers. The mayor had been charged to call forty-eight commoners, divers out of every ward, to hearthe chamberlains' accountsfor three years past, and to witness anygrants made under the common seal.[190]But there islittle or nothing to tell of the activity of this body of commoners.[191]On the other hand, at the first opportunity the corporation turned this idea of a council into a weapon for their own defence by providing at the election of the mayor in the following January that there should be one consisting of the staunchest supporters of the town rulers. "It was provided," theLeet Booksays, "that the said mayor should call and take to him the same twenty-four worthy men, that were of his election, with other twenty-four wise and discreet men, chosen to them and named by the said mayor," and that this company should "put in rule all manner of good ordinances" for the benefit of the city.[192]And the worthy men were determined that this good ordaining should be followed by prompt obedience.

"It is and hath been accustomed," says an insertion in 1484 in the records of Leet, "that whatever the foresaid forty-eight persons ordaineth and establisheth for worship of mayoralty, bailiffs and commonalty of this city, according to the law, all the whole body of this city shall be bound thereby."[193]A certain latitude was allowed to the mayor as to whom summons should be sent "when he had need of forty-eight persons," save that he was always warned to require the attendance of "sufficient" men,[194]i.e.of suitable rank. After 1446 we find that the presence of a quorum of twelve persons was sufficient for the transaction of business, the whole body afterwards giving their assent to the measures ordained by this smaller company.[195]And it was most probablythis small working body that was the ancestor of the inner council of the mayor and aldermen, which ultimately, by the charter of James I., gained complete and unchecked control over the municipal affairs of Coventry. The rule of this council gradually became a veritable tyranny. Even the official class rebelled against its dictates. We hear of a majority, "the most part" of the council, and this includes the idea of a dissentient minority. Those who transgressed the commands of this majority, if they had never filled the sheriff's post, lost the freedom of the city; while late mayors or sheriffs lost their official rank. He shall "be exempt," the order ran[196]in the sheriff's case, "from wearing scarlet among his company in all common assemblies, feasts, and processions"; and further, to be punished with fine and imprisonment at the mayor and council's discretion; on a late mayor the same penalty was laid, with the addition that he should be "exempt from his cloke and council"; while any citizens "comforting the disobedient" were to suffer the same penalties. When we learn that this order was framed in 1516 for the correction of John Strong, late mayor andex officiomember of the council, we may form some conception of the tyranny of this body, whose doings even divided the corporation against itself.

Back to Index Next