Chapter 7

It seems that this cordiality was wasted on the men of Coventry, so gladly did they welcome King Richard's rival, the victor of Bosworth, when he took up his lodging at the Bull, in Smithford Street, after the battle.[327]The wardens' accounts record payments made "for brede, ale and wyn and other vitailes that was hadde to Maister Onleys, he then beyng mair, at the comyng of Kyng Henre," the most expensive items of the account being"i pype claret wyn iii li., i pype redde wyn iii li.," with "xx motons," "ii oxen," and 7 "stockfishes," the price of which made a total of £4, 13s. 6d. It is true that the citizens, with their old supreme indifference to political party, also supplied bread and ale "to the feld of Kyng Richard,"[328]and one of their number fought, we know not on which side, at Bosworth, for the accounts record that 2s. 6d. was paid by the Corpus Christi guild "towards the hurt that Thomas Maideford had in the fylde." Two years after Henry kept S. George's feast at Coventry, and also, like his predecessor, saw on S. Peter's day later on in the year (June 29) a performance of the famous mystery plays.

A great council was held at this time in the city, and the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops read in the minster the papal bulls, affirming Henry's right of succession, and threatening with excommunication all such as should rebel against him.[329]The King was still at Coventry when he heard that the Earl of Lincoln, a Yorkist, with help from Burgundy, had landed in Lancashire to support the claim of Lambert Simnel, whom historians call "the organ-maker's son," but who gave himself out to be the son of the duke of Clarence. After the defeat of the rebels at Stoke, near Newark, Simnel, as all the world knows, became a scullion in the royal kitchen. The annals record that another pretender, Thomas Harrington, who also called himself the son of Clarence, was beheaded in this year "on the cunduit by the Bull," and was buried at the Grey Friars'.[330]At the King's second visit at S. Peter's-tide he lodged with Robert Onley, who had been mayor when the battle of Bosworth was fought, and conferred on him the honour of knighthood.[331]After Simnel's rising had been crushed,the good folk no doubt expected to enjoy an era of peace, and in the following year the churchwardens of S. Michael's, and other well-disposed people, "for joy brought to S. Michael's a great bell, and called it Jesus Bell."

Lollardry had never died out, and it flamed up anew when the land was at peace. In 1485 Foxe records that various people of Coventry were "troubled for religion," and compelled to recant, though not without injunction to penance.[332]The annals tell us they bore faggots about the city on the market day, the dread of fire being no doubt more convincing to the suspected heretics than the bishop's logic. But in the next generation both men and women had strength to endure to the end. In 1511 Bishop Blythe held a "Court of Heresy" at Maxstoke, but the accused saved themselves by abjuration, and went through the form of bearing faggots throughout the city. All were not thus to be delivered, however, and a persistent heretic, Joan Ward, who had performed this penance, was handed over to the secular arm to be burned. Seven suffered in the Little Park at Coventry this year (1512), say the city annals (differing in date from that given by Foxe in his account of the "Seven Godly Martyrs burnt at Coventry"), but one, who was not staunch enough for martyrdom, recanted, and did penance "on a pipe head," holding a faggot on his shoulder while his comrades were burning.[333]

Henry's frequent appeals for money must have somewhat lessened the goodwill the Coventry men bore him for his frequent visits[334]and complimentary membership of the city guilds. It was in 1500 that he and his Queen became a brother and sister of the Trinity fraternity.

Echoes reach us of the wars he undertook, which after vast preparations and much ingathering of money, usually ended in a truce or peace. We hear of the depredations of the King of Scots, who in 1496 broke the truce, crossed the border, and after doing all "the harme and crueltee to men, woman, and children ... that he coulde to th'uttermuch of his power," returned in great haste over Tweed, a crossing which occupied him but six or seven hours, whereas in coming over the river two whole days had been taken up.[335]The insult was to be avenged, and two of the most expert men of the city were summoned to meet at a great council to confer upon this matter. The conference naturally ended in a demand for a loan. Henry had in Richard Empson, who succeeded Boteler in the recorder's office, a servant well able to aid him in extorting money from his loyal Coventry subjects. No doubt the citizens were most unwilling to part with their substance. One Richard Smith, by an appeal to the King's "ffader of Derby," the husband of Lady Margaret, and by his "importune and dissimuled sute," managed to gain an abatement of the sum he had originally agreed on, so that others of the city who knew of Smith's wealth were "greatly discouraged" at the inequality of the assessment. Empson was to proceed, said King Henry, as he thought fit, an injunction which may be construed to mean that he was to get all the money he could out of Richard Smith for the King's use.[336]

Yet the citizens prospered no doubt under Henry's firm and sagacious rule, and when they recorded his death chronicler-fashion in theLeet Book, it is with some appearance of regret. In "this year," the account begins, "dyed king Henry the VIIth, the xxii day of April, ... at Rychemount ... and was brought to London in to Pollys[337]with many nobles of therealme and grete nombre of torches, and a grete nombre of peple both on horsbak and a fote. And after iii dayes beying in Pollys he was brought to Westmynster, and ther he lieth and his quene Elizabeth with him in a newe chapell, which he causid to be made in his lyffe, on whoos saule Jhesu have mercy. And his son kyng Henry the VIIIthwas crownyd the same yere at Westmynster the Sonday next after Midsomer day."[338]

If the father had chastised the men of Coventry with whips, the son was to chastise them with scorpions. Loans and subsidies were the order of the day, for the great treasure gathered together by Henry VII. was quickly dissipated by his successor. In 1524 a hundred and ninety-four persons advanced to Henry a hundred and fifty pounds eleven shillings by way of loan,[339]and this is only a single example of what was then a very common arrangement. But the citizens could ill bear the pressure of increased taxation. For some time their prosperity had been waning, for foreign competition had begun to tell upon the English cloth manufacture.[340]Discontent and divisions were rife among them as in the preceding century. During years of dearth the common lands had been ploughed up, and when the dearth was over—when, "thanks be now to almighty God," as theLeet Booksays, "corn is comen to good plente and to easy and reasonable price," the ploughing was still continued, and the cattle of the common folk deprived of pasture.

In 1525 the citizens rose, after their old practice, to resist the enclosure of the common lands. On "Ill Lammas Day," say the annals, "... the commons of Coventre rose and pulled down the gates and hedgesof the grounds inclosed, and they that were in the cittie shutt the Newgate against the chamberlain and their company. The mayor was almost smothered in the throng; he held with the commons, for which he was carried as prisoner to London; he was put out of his office and Mr. John Humphrey served out his year." A special commission under the Marquis of Dorset was appointed to try the rioters. Thirty-seven prisoners were sent to Warwick and Kenilworth Castles, and seven to the Marshalsea.[341]Some suffered at the pillory, others after long imprisonment were pardoned by the King on the occasion of the Pope's jubilee.[342]But the rulers of the city were highly unpopular, and frequent "slanders" were proclaimed against them.[343]

The annals record the discovery of the wildest schemes, which sprang, no doubt, from the misery of the people. In 1523 two men, Pratt and Sloth, were arrested in Coventry on the charge of treason. They confessed that their purpose was to kill the mayor and his brethren, rob S. Mary's Hall, where the common chest was kept, and take Kenilworth Castle. They were taken to London for judgment, but executed at Coventry, and their remains figured on the city gates.[344]The next year a further scheme came to light. This time the King's subsidy was the object at which the plunderers aimed; it was to be stolen from the collectors on the highway to London; the conspirators proposed to seize Kenilworth Castle and to fight there for their lives. These men, Phillips, a schoolmaster, Pickering, clerk of the King's larder, and Anthony Manville, gentleman, were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn.[345]

The "King's Proceedings" of 1536 undoubtedly intensified the misery of the citizens. The monastery was dissolved by the royal commissioners; the cathedral church defaced and its roof pulled off, and the lead,worth £647, stacked within the desecrated building;[346]the house of the Franciscans razed "because the poor people lay so sore upon it;[347]and all monastic property seized into the King's hand." Dugdale, quoting Hales' letter to the Protector Somerset, attributes to the dissolution the state of decay and misery into which the city had fallen in the third year of Edward VI. "There were not at that time," the letter runs, "more than 3,000 inhabitants, whereas within memory there had been 15,000."[348]It is very doubtful whether the high figure is correct, and certainly the population never sank to so low as 3,000. In a petition coming from the people of Coventry in 1548 it is stated that there were "to the number of eleven to twelve thousand housling people"[349]within the city. But it was the sweeping and iniquitous act of confiscation, known as the suppression of the guilds and chantries, rather than the dissolution of the monasteries, which brought the citizens to the verge of ruin. So extensive was the house property belonging to the guilds, and so intimately were these bodies connected with the corporation, that this calamity involved the city finances in the most terrible confusion. Having no property from which to draw the money for the annual fee-ferm of £50, one or two persons, the citizens declared to the Earl of Warwick, were yearly ruined by the tax levied for its payment.[350]The poorer class—of late years greatly increased in numbers—were deprived of the guild charities, the children of a schoolmaster[351]and the less wealthy craftsmen of all hope of provision for old age and an honourable burial after death. The burgesses of Lynn and Coventry protested against the confiscation. There were but two churches in the city, thelatter declared, "wherein God's service is done, whereof the one, that is to say, the church of Corpus Christi, was specially maintained of the revenues of such guild lands as had been given heretofore by divers persons to that use.... If therefore now by the act the same land should pass from them, it should be a manifest cause of the utter desolation of the city." For the people, the petitioners declared, "when the churches were no longer supported, nor God's service done therein, and the other uses and employments of those lands omitted, should be of force constrained to abandon the city and seek new dwelling places."[352]This energetic protest was not without its effect. The citizens were permitted to purchase back the guild lands for the sum of £1315, 1s. 8d., a very large amount in those days,[353]which, in spite of their poverty, they were enabled to gather together.

Once more in Mary's reign, January 31, 1554, when Coventry closed its gates against Lady Jane Grey's father, the Duke of Suffolk, the city became of strategic importance. The city failed to rise, and the Protestant cause in the midlands was for the moment lost. May be the citizens regretted their inertia in the years that followed when in 1556 Laurence Saunders and Robert Glover, martyrs, were led out to die in the Little Park. Of Glover, it is said that he remained "lumpish," being dull of spirit, and fearing that the Lord had withdrawn His favour from him. But a change overtook him on his way to the stake, so that he clapped his hands with joy, "seeming rather to be risen from some deadly danger to liberty and life, than as one passing out of the world by any pains of death."

By this time a royal visit had ceased to be a politicalevent, it became merely an occasion for splendour, or an act of courtesy. Elizabeth visited the city in 1565, being lodged at Mr Hales' at the Whitefriars, and was greeted with much courtier-like compliment by the recorder, but the reception given to her has none of the significance which attaches to the welcome, say, of Margaret of Anjou. Little remains of Whitefriars save the east wing of the cloister with its fine groined roof of the fifteenth century; but an oriel window on the western side is still called after Queen Elizabeth, Coventry saw the great Queen's rival a few years later, when in 1569, in order to be out of reach of her confederates in the north, Mary Queen of Scots was hurriedly conveyed from Tutbury to the city, and placed under a strong guard. She was confined first in the "Bull Inn," and then in S. Mary's Hall. Some years later this Queen'sgrand-daughter, another of the fascinating, luckless Stuarts, was hurried in November 1605 from Combe Abbey to Coventry, out of reach of the plotters of the Gunpowder Treason. This was Elizabeth, later the "winter Queen" of Bohemia. She was lodged for the nonce with Mr Hopkins of Palace Yard.

Queen Mary's Chamber

The old town house of the Hopkins' family still stands in Earl Street, having undergone perhaps more vicissitudes than any other well-known house in Coventry. Once a coaching-inn, known as the "Golden Horse," and a ladies' school, kept by one Miss Sheldrake, it was originally the home of the Hopkins' family, who first appear in Coventry history in the late fifteenth century. Its best-known member, when sheriff of Coventry, suffered much by reason of his openly expressed Protestantism, and fled to Basle in Queen Mary's reign. In this house James II. held his court in 1687, and here were also lodged Princess Anne and George of Denmark. It is a beautiful old seventeenth-century quadrangle with fine exterior lead-work, containing in its upper storey, a stone chimney-piece of classic type, disfigured by a coat of paint, while its banqueting-chamber with its finely panelled plaster ceiling presents a veritable image of decay. The tombs of the family with their busts and togas, 'mid all the panoply of classic memorial and woe, appear in the Cappers' chapel of S. Michael's church.

The chief feature of the Stuart period is the strengthening of the Puritan feeling among the citizens. Either owing to the influence of the Presbyterian Cartwright, who, during his tenure of the mastership of Leycester's hospital at Warwick, established his system of church discipline among the clergy of the county, or from some hereditary instinct, which had led them to embrace Lollardism under the Lancastrians, and furnish martyrs for the faggot under the Tudors, the men of Coventry grew more Puritan year by year. They greatly vexed thesoul of King James in 1611 by refusing to kneel in receiving the Sacrament, a circumstance the English Solomon never forgot, and ten years later he refused to grant a new charter to the city until he was certified by the bishop that the orders of the Church were complied with.[354]Nor did a lawsuit, which the Prince of Wales carried on for many years with the corporation about the rent due to him from the monastery lands as lord of Cheylesmore, improve the understanding between the people and the Stuart kings. When, however, the famous writ of ship-money was first issued in 1635, it was not against the principle, but rather against the unfair assessment of the local tax, that the men of Coventry murmured. The city, they complained, was no longer prosperous, nor was it able to pay a sum so disproportionate to that levied on the remainder of the county. Many were the journeys the diligent town clerk, Humphrey Burton, undertook ere he could get the tax lightened for the citizens.[355]

PALACE YARD

But no readjustment of the assessment of this unpopular tax could win over the hearts of the Coventry men to King Charles. And when in August 1642, a few days before the royal standard was unfurled at Nottingham, Charles appeared before the walls and summoned the people of Coventry to admit him, they refused to allow him to enter the city.[356]This circumstance rankled sore in the King's mind, and it seems that the feeling was shared by his son, for when Charles II. came into his own again, he ordered that the walls of the city where his father had suffered this check should be demolished. The work of destruction, which was begun by the Earl of Northampton on July 22, 1662, occupied nearly 500 men for three weeks and three days,[357]and when it was over the history of Coventry as a fortification comes to a close. Moreover, the title of the bishopric was now transposed, running henceforth not Coventry and Lichfield but Lichfield and Coventry.

King James II., who tampered here as everywhere with the civic constitution in favour of the Tories, his supporters, paid the city a peaceful visit in 1687, was lodged in Palace Yard, and touched for the evil in S. Michael's church, on which occasion "the very galleries crackt again," the throng was so great.[358]This closes the list of notable royal visits to Coventry, and the interest shifts to the varying fortunes of the citizens. Although, as compared with London, provincial towns ceased to be great centres of trade, Coventry never gave itself wholly up to stagnation and decay, but always kept alive some sort of manufacturing activity. At first the settlement of Huguenot exiles gave an impulse to the silk industry, and for nearly two centuries the weaving of silk and ribbons was the main employment of the citizens. In the eighteenth century the manufacture of watches was introduced,[359]but it has been reserved for our own day to see the city again put on that busy, eager, thriving look which must have distinguished it under the later Plantagenets. The cycle manufacture has won back for the city some of the prosperity it once enjoyed. But nothing can bring back the pomp and grandeur and the semi-independence of mediæval times; neither can the modern builder lend it any of the consistent beauty of the architecture of the Middle Ages. Still, unlike Abingdon, Winchester, or S. Alban's, it is a town with a present to work in, as well as a past on which to look back. As for the future, who can tell?

FOOTNOTES:[278]Leet Book, 322.[279]They declared that Cheylesmore was "seyntwary,"i.e.sanctuary. On the evils of rival jurisdictions, and the consequent escape of offenders fleeing from town justice, see Green, i. 311.[280]Leet Book, 326.[281]i.e.umpire.[282]Leet Book, 331.[283]Madox,Firma Burgi, 217.[284]The King was at Coventry at Christmas 1467, doubtless to keep an eye on Warwick's movements (Ramsay, ii. 327).[285]Leet Book, 343. The mayor, William Saunders, dyer, gave £5 to the collection of money for the soldiers, so that poor people might be spared (Ib., 344). Either owing to the fact that the cause was unpopular, or that the people were weary of war, soldiers could not be had under 10d. a day. The air at this time was filled with rumours; one John Baldwin, cordwainer, of Dartmouth, had been committed to ward within the city for delivering treasonable letters in England, though he did it out "of innocence and simpleness," being unaware of their contents (Ib., 340).[286]The first commission of array, dated Stamford, July 5, urged the citizens to send 100 archers against the rebels. The second (Newark, July 10) bade them hasten their preparations and make no risings or assemblies (Ib., 341, 343).[287]See Oman,Warwick the King-maker.[288]Leet Book, 342.[289]A manifesto, issued July 12, calling upon all "true subjects to join Warwick in presenting certain articles of petition to the king" (v.Ramsay, ii. 337), is not mentioned in theLeet Book. The citizens of Coventry did not, it seems, join Warwick, they sent men to Edward (Leet Book, 345-6).[290]Leet Book, 346.[291]Ramsay, ii. 343; Oman,Warwick, 189. Oman says Olney in Northamptonshire.[292]"Item XIIodie Augusti eodem anno dominus le revers (Lord Rivers), tune thesaurarius Anglie, fuit decollatus apud Gosford grene, et dominus Johannes Wodvyle, filius ejus, similiter" (Leet Book, 346).[293]Leet Book, 354.[294]Ramsay, ii. 350.[295]Corp. MS.; see below, p. 152.[296]Leet Book, 355. Troops went from Coventry to support Edward in 1469 and 1470. On both these occasions the men took 12d. a day. But the next year, when the Lancastrians were ruling and a war with Burgundy was in prospect, only 6d. a day was given to the soldiers. Was the Lancastrian cause and war with Burgundy popular then?[297]The square brackets enclose words which are missing in the MS. The records were hastily written at the time, and are much mutilated (Leet Book, 358).[298]Welles, leader of the revolt in Lincolnshire.[299]Jasper Tudor, half-brother to Henry VI.[300]Thomas Neville, natural son of Lord Fauconberg.[301]Query? They landed at Dartmouth and Plymouth.[302]Hastings.[303]Burgundy.[304]Archbishop Neville.[305]Not quite correct. Henry VI. was taken by the Yorkists, July 1465. Hence he had only been in prison five years.[306]S. Paul's.[307]Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, the "Butcher," beheaded October 18, at Tower Hill.[308]Widow, first of the Duke of Bedford, and then of Lord Rivers.[309]Sanctuary.[310]Leet Book, 362.[311]Ib., 364.[312]Leet Book, 366. 33s. was paid to gunners, to "riders in the country and watchmen."[313]Holinshed, iii. 682.[314]Leet Book, 367.[315]Dugdale, i. 143. In theLeet Book(370-1) there is the record of a collection evidently made for this fine.[316]Leet Book, 381.[317]Corp. MS. (Not in Mr. J.C. Jeaffreson's catalogue.) See alsoLeet Book, 381.[318]Leet Book, 393. It must be remembered that S. George, according to legend, was born at Coventry. SeeSeven Champions. S. George's day is April 23. All the characters of the pageant are taken from the shearmen and tailors' play. See below, chap. xv.[319]Leet Book, 393.[320]Ib., 405.[321]Ib., 407.[322]Harl. MS. 6,388 f. 23.[323]Leet Book, 409sqq.[324]Ramsay, ii. 535.[325]Corp. MS. A. 79, i. 8. Written from Burton Monastery, April 2.[326]Leet Book, 523-4.[327]Fretton,Mayors of Coventry, 12. They presented him with £100 and a cup.[328]Leet Book, 530-2. It is not quite certain that the words are to be understood as implying that the citizens fed Richard's soldiers.[329]Gardiner,Henry VII., 53.[330]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 24.[331]Ib.[332]Foxe,Martyrs(1823), xxxix.[333]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 28. The more probable date is 1519 or 1520. In 1521, the next year, one Robert Silkeb was taken and burnt for not believing in transubstantiation (Ib.).[334]He twice visited the city to see the Corpus Christi plays (Sharp,Mysteries, 5).[335]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 17.[336]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 20.[337]S. Paul's.[338]Leet Book, 625-6.[339]Corp. MS. B. 60.[340]In Henry VIII.'s reign the woollen manufacture of Norwich was at a low ebb; the principal cause of this was the manufacture abroad, which led to the export of the raw material to Flanders (Burnley,Hist. of Wool and Wool Combing, 66-7).[341]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 30.[342]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 27.[343]Ib., f. 28.[344]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 29a.[345]Ib.[346]Gasquet,Monasteries, ii. 427.[347]Ib.ii., 265.[348]Dugdale,Warw.i. 146.[349]Harl. MS. 6,195, f. 7.[350]Vol. of correspondence, Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 63.[351]The schoolmaster's salary was discharged by the Trinity guild.[352]Harl. MS. 6,195, f. 7. See also Ashley, pt. ii. 148. The church referred to is the now demolished one dedicated to S. Nicholas, which was supported by the Corpus Christi guild.[353]Corp. MS. B. 75.[354]Sharp,Antiq., 18.[355]Burton on Ship Money, Corp. MS. A. 35.[356]Poole,Coventry, 75.[357]Poole, 80.[358]Sharp,Antiq., 22.[359]Poole, 359-363.

FOOTNOTES:

[278]Leet Book, 322.

[279]They declared that Cheylesmore was "seyntwary,"i.e.sanctuary. On the evils of rival jurisdictions, and the consequent escape of offenders fleeing from town justice, see Green, i. 311.

[280]Leet Book, 326.

[281]i.e.umpire.

[282]Leet Book, 331.

[283]Madox,Firma Burgi, 217.

[284]The King was at Coventry at Christmas 1467, doubtless to keep an eye on Warwick's movements (Ramsay, ii. 327).

[285]Leet Book, 343. The mayor, William Saunders, dyer, gave £5 to the collection of money for the soldiers, so that poor people might be spared (Ib., 344). Either owing to the fact that the cause was unpopular, or that the people were weary of war, soldiers could not be had under 10d. a day. The air at this time was filled with rumours; one John Baldwin, cordwainer, of Dartmouth, had been committed to ward within the city for delivering treasonable letters in England, though he did it out "of innocence and simpleness," being unaware of their contents (Ib., 340).

[286]The first commission of array, dated Stamford, July 5, urged the citizens to send 100 archers against the rebels. The second (Newark, July 10) bade them hasten their preparations and make no risings or assemblies (Ib., 341, 343).

[287]See Oman,Warwick the King-maker.

[288]Leet Book, 342.

[289]A manifesto, issued July 12, calling upon all "true subjects to join Warwick in presenting certain articles of petition to the king" (v.Ramsay, ii. 337), is not mentioned in theLeet Book. The citizens of Coventry did not, it seems, join Warwick, they sent men to Edward (Leet Book, 345-6).

[290]Leet Book, 346.

[291]Ramsay, ii. 343; Oman,Warwick, 189. Oman says Olney in Northamptonshire.

[292]"Item XIIodie Augusti eodem anno dominus le revers (Lord Rivers), tune thesaurarius Anglie, fuit decollatus apud Gosford grene, et dominus Johannes Wodvyle, filius ejus, similiter" (Leet Book, 346).

[293]Leet Book, 354.

[294]Ramsay, ii. 350.

[295]Corp. MS.; see below, p. 152.

[296]Leet Book, 355. Troops went from Coventry to support Edward in 1469 and 1470. On both these occasions the men took 12d. a day. But the next year, when the Lancastrians were ruling and a war with Burgundy was in prospect, only 6d. a day was given to the soldiers. Was the Lancastrian cause and war with Burgundy popular then?

[297]The square brackets enclose words which are missing in the MS. The records were hastily written at the time, and are much mutilated (Leet Book, 358).

[298]Welles, leader of the revolt in Lincolnshire.

[299]Jasper Tudor, half-brother to Henry VI.

[300]Thomas Neville, natural son of Lord Fauconberg.

[301]Query? They landed at Dartmouth and Plymouth.

[302]Hastings.

[303]Burgundy.

[304]Archbishop Neville.

[305]Not quite correct. Henry VI. was taken by the Yorkists, July 1465. Hence he had only been in prison five years.

[306]S. Paul's.

[307]Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, the "Butcher," beheaded October 18, at Tower Hill.

[308]Widow, first of the Duke of Bedford, and then of Lord Rivers.

[309]Sanctuary.

[310]Leet Book, 362.

[311]Ib., 364.

[312]Leet Book, 366. 33s. was paid to gunners, to "riders in the country and watchmen."

[313]Holinshed, iii. 682.

[314]Leet Book, 367.

[315]Dugdale, i. 143. In theLeet Book(370-1) there is the record of a collection evidently made for this fine.

[316]Leet Book, 381.

[317]Corp. MS. (Not in Mr. J.C. Jeaffreson's catalogue.) See alsoLeet Book, 381.

[318]Leet Book, 393. It must be remembered that S. George, according to legend, was born at Coventry. SeeSeven Champions. S. George's day is April 23. All the characters of the pageant are taken from the shearmen and tailors' play. See below, chap. xv.

[319]Leet Book, 393.

[320]Ib., 405.

[321]Ib., 407.

[322]Harl. MS. 6,388 f. 23.

[323]Leet Book, 409sqq.

[324]Ramsay, ii. 535.

[325]Corp. MS. A. 79, i. 8. Written from Burton Monastery, April 2.

[326]Leet Book, 523-4.

[327]Fretton,Mayors of Coventry, 12. They presented him with £100 and a cup.

[328]Leet Book, 530-2. It is not quite certain that the words are to be understood as implying that the citizens fed Richard's soldiers.

[329]Gardiner,Henry VII., 53.

[330]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 24.

[331]Ib.

[332]Foxe,Martyrs(1823), xxxix.

[333]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 28. The more probable date is 1519 or 1520. In 1521, the next year, one Robert Silkeb was taken and burnt for not believing in transubstantiation (Ib.).

[334]He twice visited the city to see the Corpus Christi plays (Sharp,Mysteries, 5).

[335]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 17.

[336]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 20.

[337]S. Paul's.

[338]Leet Book, 625-6.

[339]Corp. MS. B. 60.

[340]In Henry VIII.'s reign the woollen manufacture of Norwich was at a low ebb; the principal cause of this was the manufacture abroad, which led to the export of the raw material to Flanders (Burnley,Hist. of Wool and Wool Combing, 66-7).

[341]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 30.

[342]Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 27.

[343]Ib., f. 28.

[344]Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 29a.

[345]Ib.

[346]Gasquet,Monasteries, ii. 427.

[347]Ib.ii., 265.

[348]Dugdale,Warw.i. 146.

[349]Harl. MS. 6,195, f. 7.

[350]Vol. of correspondence, Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 63.

[351]The schoolmaster's salary was discharged by the Trinity guild.

[352]Harl. MS. 6,195, f. 7. See also Ashley, pt. ii. 148. The church referred to is the now demolished one dedicated to S. Nicholas, which was supported by the Corpus Christi guild.

[353]Corp. MS. B. 75.

[354]Sharp,Antiq., 18.

[355]Burton on Ship Money, Corp. MS. A. 35.

[356]Poole,Coventry, 75.

[357]Poole, 80.

[358]Sharp,Antiq., 22.

[359]Poole, 359-363.

CHAPTER XII

The Lammas Lands

Wehave passed the period wherein the men of Coventry rebelled against their overlord the prior; in the late fourteenth century we enter upon one marked by internal strife. The law passed under Edward II.,[360]forbidding victuallers to hold any municipal office was frequently evaded, and in many towns the great power of this class was a source of endless trouble. Excitements in the guild-hall when the men, whose wages were fixed at statute rate, found they would not avail to buy them proper food, the shouting of angry crowds when the chamberlains at their Lammas ride refused to pull down fences to admit the freemen's sheep and cattle as they had done in times past, must have warned the mayor and his brethren to give heed to their ways. Murmurings were heard at an early date. In 1370 the customs laid on food for the purpose of raising money for murage provoked a rising. In 1387 the townsfolk "cast their loaves at the mayor's head, because the bakers kept not the assize",[361]neither did the mayor punish them according to his office, and again and againwe hear of risings owing to that fruitful cause of trouble, the enclosure of the common lands.[362]

SwanswellGate

Perhaps the townsmen were more sensitive with regard to the Lammas lands than on any other point. From time immemorial they had possessed certain rights over the common and Lammas pastures, which heretofore surrounded the city. There was still a great belt of these, about 2300 acres in extent in 1835, the commons, no doubt, representing the ancient manorial waste—Godiva's wood, two miles long and the same broad—and the Lammas and Michaelmas pastures, the manorial fields of meadow and arable, which were only free after the hay and corn harvest had been carried in. Thus, while there was on the common lands pasture for the cattle the whole year through, the citizens merely shared with various tenants or freeholders the use of Lammas and Michaelmas grounds, driving their cattle on them at certain seasons of the year, namely from Lammas (August 1) or Michaelmas (September 29) to Candlemas (February 2); during the remainder of the year the fields were in private hands. The extent of the common pastures was well known, but the peculiar tenure of the Lammas lands made it a more difficult matter to determine the exact area of pasture, held six months "in commonalty," and six "in severalty." From time to time angry disputes arose concerning the boundaries and extent of these lands, and a series of enclosures, whereof there was such bitter complaint in Warwickshire in the sixteenth century, did much to diminish the broad belt of pasture which once engirt the city. Various questions were, however, set at rest by a settlement in 1860, whereby half of theLammas pasture was made over to the various freeholders who had half-yearly rights over them, and the remaining portion, held in trust for the freemen, was converted into common land for the whole year through. To this day there still remain tracts of breezy and often gorse-grown common at Hearsall, Stivichall, Whitley, Stoke, and Gosford Green. These and the small triangular patch, once known as Grey Friars' Green, form considerable relics of the freemen's pastures. Held, as the common report went, by the commonalty, "afore that any mayor or bailiff was,"[363]in other words before the incorporation of the city—these lands could not be alienated from the burghers' use without their consent.[364]The pastures were, however, frequently enclosed, openly for municipal purposes,[365]secretly for private gain. In the latter case there was naturally no word of consulting the burghers, and although in the former the community gave their consent to the measure, formally summoned by the mayor, the whole system of enclosures was so unpopular that it bred riots and endless discontent.

The whole question can be better surveyed by examining the careers of William Bristowe and Laurence Saunders in so far as they touch the little commonwealth of the city.

Close by Whitley Bridge is a piece of meadow calledAlderford Piece,[366]which is still held by the owners of Whitley Abbey, although they have no other land on the Coventry side of the river Sherborne. Concerning this and sundry other meadows[367]a bitter feud was waged in Coventry during the fifteenth century between the family of Bristowe on the one hand, and the mayor, bailiffs, and community of the city on the other. The account of the struggle, which reveals some of the most interesting personalities in Coventry history, shows how tenacious were the memories of the commonalty where the extent of the Lammas lands was concerned, and how fierce their resentment when these suffered diminution by encroachment.

There are doubts whether William Bristowe, of Whitley, came of gentle blood, though he spoke of his manor in those parts, and wrote himself "gentilman" with the best. His father, John Bristowe, had gained his livelihood in the city as a draper, and growing in wealth and influence, became mayor in 1428,[368]and later justice of the peace and master of the Trinity guild. But he left an ill name behind him, and his acts of encroachment were fruitful of many troubles both to him and his descendants.

Thinking maybe to improve his position and step into the ranks of the country gentry, John purchased an estate at Whitley, a mile or two south of the city gates. Then began those enclosures of the common pastures which were hereafter to be remembered against him. Forty years later the tale of his doings were related by the oldest of his fellow-townsmen.[369]After "the said John Bristowe had boron office within the cite of Couentre, thynkyng that the common people of the seidcite neither durst nor wolde contrarie his doyng ... [he] let sowe with corne dyuers landes and buttes lying in the seid comyn grounde of Couentre fastby Whitley Crosse." But the encroachment did not go unnoticed, nor was the transgressor allowed to have his will. Whereupon, the aged citizens continued glad to remember the stalwart resistance made by a bygone generation, ... "the seid people of Couentre put the hierdlym[370]of bestes of Couentre into the saide corne and eton hit up as corne sowen on their owen common grounde." Nevertheless John did not amend his ways, being assured his good friends, the mayor and corporation, would wink at his misdeeds. But "inordynatly be the fauor of dyuers then officers of the cite of Couentre, dyuers tymes, [he] let inclose parte of the forseid common grounde be diuers parcels, with hegges and dykes, and then aftur dyuers tymes let heire[371]and sowe dyuers of the same closes be hym so wrongfully inclosed, entendyng euer azeyns all good consiens for his singler avayle[372]to approwe hym[373]of parte of the seid common grounde, so that be suche coutynuance hit myght be called his owne lande, wher in trouthe he had neuer right, title, nor other possession therin."

But this was not the least of John Bristowe's encroachments. He laid claim to share with the freemen of Coventry the rights of pasture on the side of Whitley brook nearest to the city, a claim no lord of Whitley had heretofore advanced. But he met with a second check. "Whiche wrong, when the people of Couentre understode hit, they pynned[374]the bestes of the seid John Bristowe at Couentre. Wheruppon the same John made amendes for the seid wrong, and never aftur wolde suffer his cattel occupying at Whitley to passe ouer the seid broke toward Couentre be his will." But after his death, when his son William entered into the inheritance,either the relaxation of the citizens' vigilance or the warm friendliness of men in high places enabled the new lord of Whitley to drive his tenants' cattle across the brook, the natural boundary between the pasturage of the folk of the hamlet of Whitley and the city of Coventry. Moreover the meadows between Baron's Field and Whitley brook were kept several. The citizens did not, however, forget these encroachments, though, for many years, custom sanctioned the double wrong.

The fruit of these evil dealings was seen in the year 1469; a troubled one for Coventry. The mayor, William Saunders, a dyer, one of a craft which had often been, and was again often to be, at variance with the corporation, seems to have had leanings towards the popular side. Wars and rumours of wars brought some distress upon the city, and the mayor gave £5 "in relesynge of pore men that shuld have bor her part" towards defraying the cost "for fifty men to go to York to the king against Robin of Redesdale," for Warwick's party were rising in rebellion, and the soldiers, weary of war, demanded the unheard of sum of 10d. a day as payment. Financial difficulties also beset the corporation. The ferm, as we have seen, had in the previous year fallen greatly into arrears; but the trouble concerning the Lammas lands was to dwarf by comparison all the rest.

It was at this time that William Bristowe by his own deed brought down upon himself the anger of the corporation. From a house in the West Orchard he built a wall, which was found to encroach "by a foot or more" upon the common river; wherefore "it was taken up again." Indignant at this usage, Bristowe brought an action for trespass in the county court against the mayor and community. This was an unwise step on his part, for the corporation at once "remembered," theLeet Book[375]says with unconscious irony, "that hewas suffered to overlay the common betwixt Whitley and Coventry, and had no common there." In other words, Bristowe had continued to tread in his father's footsteps. They resolved forthwith that this should not be suffered to continue. On the eve of S. Andrew, before Sir John Nedam, knight and justice, they demanded what evidence Bristowe could put forth in support of his claim; and heard the testimony of "agyt" men concerning the impounding of his father's cattle in former days when they had been found in the Coventry pastures. While matters were in debate the other encroachment of this family was brought forward. Men told one another how John Bristowe had, by "dyking and hedging," enclosed "divers parcels" of the common pasture by the water at Whitley, and how the father and son had kept these meadows several ever since.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, SHOWING PANELLING

For once corporation and "commonalty" were of one mind as regards the question of the Lammas lands. It was resolved that John Bristowe's work should be undone. So on the Monday after S. Andrew's day the mayor and divers citizens—such is the account of the affair Bristowe gave in his petition to Edward IV. in the following year[376]—"stered, provokyd and comaundyd mony and dyuers rotys personys ... to the number of vc (500) personys and mooe ... [who] in manere of warre arrayed, that is for to say [with] byllys, launcegayes, jakkys, salettys, bowes, arrowes, and with mottokys and spadeys, sholles and axes," with evil intent came to Bristowe's fields. Here they went to work, and "caste down his gatys and his dyches, cutte down his hegeys and his trees ... and mony grete okeys beyng growyng in the hegeys and dycheys of the age of c years and more," carrying away wood, clay and gravel, and "riotously" destroying two "swaneys ereyrs" (nests). The trespassers would even havepulled down the petitioner's mills had not one of his servants induced them to desist by meeting them with a certain money "by way of a fine." And afterwards, Bristowe continued, with a touch of bitterness at this last indignity, "William Pere, oon of the aldermen of the same cite, by the commaundment of the seid late mayre and Richard Braytoft, browght with hym the wayteys of the same cite to the seid riotours in reresyng[377]of their seid rioteys, and like as the[y] hade doon a grete conquest or victori, ... made theym pype and synge before the said riotours all the weye ... to the seid cite, which ys by space of a myle largele or more." And that day, the petition goes on yet more bitterly, "these men were in the tavern setting, avauntyng and reresyng of their gret riotes, saying that if your seid besecher[378]sueyd any persone ... for that cause by the course of your laweys, that they wold slee[379]hym." In this manner, with tossing of tankards and playing of pipes, the meadows and arable lands at Whitley were thrown open to the community at S. Andrew's tide in the year of grace 1469.

William Saunders, the mayor, found the commonalty apt pupils in learning to resent old encroachments; but the pupils soon grew too strong for the master's hand. A fresh trouble arose after Bristowe's claims had been disposed of. The Prior's Waste was held by the convent, but the community was possessed of a somewhat doubtful title to the pasturage of the same. On S. Nicholas' day the people broke out into open riot, threw down hedges round about the Waste and those of other gardens belonging to the convent. The prior professed to be "greatly aggrieved," and proposed to "trouble" the city no doubt with a lawsuit.[380]But the mayor, perceiving perhaps that the matter was one of great difficulty, entreated him to come to terms,and finally granted him as compensation the Waste and a piece of land without the New Gate "to be kept several for evermore," These enclosures were the beginning of troubles. A body of 216 men had approved of this measure, but they were, very likely, selected with a special view to obtaining this approval, as the names of sixty-five of them can be identified with those of past or future municipal officers. At least the common people did not approve of the step. They refused to relinquish their ancient rights over the Prior's Waste and the close by the New Gate, though the leet forbade them to break open the meadows reserved for the prior's use.[381]

But Bristowe did not tamely endure to be cut off from his supposed inheritance. The following year he appealed to the privy council to redress his wrongs; and Saunders, the late mayor, Pere, and another citizen who had been prominent in the affair of the preceding year, were summoned before the council to answer for the matters laid to their charge.

The late mayor and his assistants scornfully denied the bulk of Bristowe's accusation. Whitley, they averred, was no "manor," and claims such as its present owner put forward had been formerly unknown. They gently ridiculed the complaint of the damage wrought among the "gret okes," whereof none, they declared, were more than twenty years old, the value of the whole timber being but 6s. 8d.; but they were fain to admit the felling of twelvesmalltrees, as well as of breaking hedges, and carrying away sundry loads of clay and gravel. But it was not on Bristowe's land, they declared, that these trespasses had been done. The land he asserted to be part of his inheritance was in reality the property of the community, and in the time of Lawrence Cook (he had succeeded Bristowe's father in the mayoralty in 1429) the corporation had held these meadows in thecommunity's name. And this possession dated back to the days before the city's incorporation. "The commonalty of the same city, afore that any mayor or baliff was, were seized thereof in their demesne as of fee, time that no man's mind is to the contrary."

Bristowe's second statement, or "replicacion," and Saunders' "rejoinder," were a mere tissue of mutual contradiction, and the King deputed the Prior of Maxstoke, Sir Richard Byngham, and Thomas Littleton, to inquire into the business, and "make a return under their conclusions respecting the same, in the quindene of S. Michael next coming."[382]What the end of these worthy persons' inquisition was we have no means of knowing. The matter, however, dragged on, with various appeals to justice, until April 1472.

In that year the corporation made a great effort to end the dispute. A large gathering—"these," says theLeet Book, giving about 120 names,[383]"and of other many moo"—assembled in S. Mary's Hall at the mayor's bidding; and being asked "how they wold be demened in that behalf," answered and said, "they wode abyde with the mair and his bredern to the utmost of herr goodes" in the matter; "and as the mair and his cownsaill did in the mater [would] agree thereto." Fortified by this support, the mayor and his council proceeded to seek for means of closing the quarrel by arbitration. On the Wednesday in Whitsunweek the two sheriffs offered to treat on Bristowe's behalf, their labour being undertaken, they confessed, "thorow the speceal meanes and lamentable instaunce of the wyffe of the seid William Bristowe."[384]The mayor and council, "in order that it might not be said that they had refused a reasonable offer," ordered that bills, "endented and ensealed," should be made, setting forth the matter at variance, both parties agreeing to abide by the decision of John Catesby, sergeant-at-law, and William Cumberford. Moreover, a representative of the mayor and community was to be chosen to ride to London and lay the matter before the arbitrators.[385]

As there were, of course, no deeds existing testifying to the rights of the community in this case, measures were taken to prepare documents. "And on the Monday next after the blessed Trinity Sunday"[386]the common lands were viewed by certain great men of the neighbourhood, the Abbots of Kenilworth, Combe, Stoneley, and Merevale, Sir Simon Mountford of Coleshill, Sir Robert Strelley, and William Hugford of Emscote. These, then, had an "examination" of certain of the oldest men of the city. "The whyche old men all and everych of them by himself deposed and swar openly uppon a boke" that the land in question was "common to the commonalty."[387]There was then a "letter testimonial" made to this effect, to which all the worshipful men and these great folk affixed their seals.

The thirty old men—their ages ranged from forty years "and more" to fourscore[388]—were much impressed with the solemnity of the occasion. "In alsmoche," their "letter testimonial" runs, "as for oure gret ages be liklyhode wee may not long abyde in this erthely lyfe, and we knowe verely that hit is medefull to our soweles to witnesse thynges that be true and in oure knowlech, callyng to our remembraunce the unlawefull and wilfull troble whiche William Bristowe dothe azeyns the maire and commonalte of Couentre, claymyng the common ground that lieth betwyxt Baronsfelde[389]withoute the Newe Yate under the kynges park, stretchyng to Whitleybroke, called Shirburne," they affirmed that hisclaim was contrary to old custom, and "open wrong." They told also the tale of John Bristowe's offences in enclosing and sending his cattle upon the pastures.

"And sithen the deth of the seid John Bristowe ... the same William Bristowe, willyng be his power to contynue the forseid wrong done be his seid ffadir, wrongfully put into the same closez, and the forseid other common grounde residue, dyuers bestes of his ffermors of Whitley, seying presumptuously that he and his tennantez of Whitley wolden haue comyn for their bestes at Whitley withoute nombre" in all places upon the said common ground. Whereas this land, on the contrary, had formerly been occupied by the commonalty of Coventry "yearly" at their pleasure to make their "shutynges, rennynges, daunsynges, bowelyng aleyes, and other their disportez as in their owne ground. And these matiers," the record concludes, "be us also declared ben iuste and true, so help us God at the day of Dome."

No records remain to tell us what was the ultimate decision at which the arbitrators, Catesby and Cumberford, arrived. In the July of the next year another set of arbitrators were at work, either party of litigants being bound in an obligation of 100 marks to abide by their decision. According to this verdict Bristowe was allowed to retain possession of the enclosed parts, but the mayor and community were to have "common for beasts from Lammas to Candlemas in the said land if it were fallow, and if it be sown as soon as the corn is carried away," while Bristowe and his heirs were allowed to common with the inhabitants of Coventry on the lands between his estate and the city.[390]

It is very probable that the good folk of the citywere ill-pleased with this decision, which was of the nature of a compromise; for although they were allowed, as of old, the use of the fields during the autumn and winter months, yet they must, according to the terms of the arbitration, admit Bristowe's cattle to a share in their pastures. And the large flocks, which he kept together with those of the prior, and another grazier, devoured, they said to one another, the pasture which of right belonged to their geldings and cattle. It appears that attempts had been made to break up the Prior's Waste and the close by the New Gate, for the leet fixed the penalty of those who should offend in this manner at forty shillings.[391]Men of long memories must have pointed out to the anxious crowds at Lammas these encroachments on the land of the community. "The people come at the opening and overseeing of the common," runs an order of leet for the year 1474, "in excess number and unruly to full ill example." And it was ordained that on this day none should accompany the chamberlains, when they rode out into the fields about the city to throw open the common lands, but those to whom permission had been previously given.[392]

But those whose minds dwelt on these abuses of encroachment and surcharging with others permitted by the corporation found a spokesman and chief of their party in the dyer, Laurence Saunders. To judge from the position of Laurence and his friends, the heads of this party were men of good standing in the town and well-to-do. They could count among their number brethren of the guild, and men "of substance" sufficient to admit of their filling the lower municipal offices, thewarden's post or the chamberlain's. These men had grievances other than the surcharging or enclosing of the common pasture—questions to which Laurence's formal petitions are wholly devoted: their trade was shorn of its profits. In complaints coming from Laurence's followers, we are told that the rulers of the city "picked away the thrift" of the "commonalty"; and reference is made to certain unpopular acts of leet touching the citizens, not only as sharers of the common pasture, but also as makers, buyers, and sellers—in short, as craftsmen.

William Saunders, the father of Laurence, had been mayor in the year the Prior's Waste was enclosed. He must have been a wealthy citizen to rise to the mayor's degree. Since 1434 the family had lived in Spon Street,[393]a convenient neighbourhood for those of the dyer's occupation, as the river flowed near. If he had been of a submissive temper, in all likelihood Laurence would have risen to high places, as his father had done. Owing perhaps to William Saunders's influence, early in life the son once gave his adherence to the municipality, in so far as, when the question of enclosing the Waste was brought forward, his name appears among the two hundred and sixteen who consented to the measures which, on looking back eleven years later, he unreservedly condemned. It was in 1480 that he was chosen to fill the post of chamberlain or treasurer, and probably from that time, as a member of both the guilds, or as a late municipal officer, he was on the roll of those liable to be summoned by the mayor to attend the council.[394]Thechamberlainship was an irksome post. The officers were overseers of the common pasture, and took fines from the owners of strayed cattle. They received the murage dues, which were devoted to repairing the walls and city buildings, giving in an account of the outlay at the end of the year. The murage money was continually running short about this time, as the prior could not be induced to pay his share, and the chamberlains were frequently called upon to make up the deficit.[395]

Back to Index Next