The corporation quickly found they had reason to repent of their choice. Laurence was a "masterful" man; "where he is subject and servant he would subdue us all if he might get assistance," the mayor complains in a letter written this year to the Prince of Wales. TheLeet Bookgives a specimen of the new officer's insubordination.[396]It appears that labourers had been set to quarry for stone required for repairing the town wall. At the end of the week the two chamberlains, Saunders and his fellow, William Hede, refused, contrary to custom, to give them their wages, Laurence saying "presumptously" to the mayor that "those that set them awork shuld pay for him." The two officers were there and then committed to prison, where they lay for a week. In the end the petitions of their friends obtained a release. Both were, however, bound in £40 to abide by the decision of the mayor and council as to their punishment. The mayor and council fixed upon a fine of £10, and of this they afterwards gave back £6 to the two chamberlains, a piece of liberality which shows that the town rulers knew their cause was weak, or thought it impolitic to push Saunders to extremities while such a strong feeling in his favour existed throughout the city.
Matters did not improve as time went on. TheLeet Bookrelates how Laurence, in spite of the forbearance shown towards him, was "wilfully disposed" against both the mayor and "common people," distraining their cattle and taking "excess" fines for the pound. When summoned before the mayor to "see direction," according to custom, he "many times grudged so to do, and in manner at all times disdained to be led by the said mayor." Finally, on September 20, having obtained licence to leave the city on the plea of business at Southampton, he turned his horse's head in the direction of Ludlow and rode thither, bearing in his hands a petition addressed to the Prince of Wales, who, as Duke of Cornwall, was the lord and special protector of the city. The prince, a child of ten years old, kept his court at Ludlow Castle, at that time under the guardianship of his uncle, the Earl Rivers.
THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, ST. MARY'S HALL
It is very evident that this account of the first falling-out between the chamberlains and the corporation does not go to the root of the matter. Laurence's conduct is more explicable when we turn to the version he gives of the affair in the "Petition of the chamberlains and citizens of Coventry,"[397]for in this document, which he tendered to the prince's council, his finger can be distinctly traced. According to this petition, there were two grievances under which the community then laboured. In the first place the prior, the recorder, Bristowe, and others, withheld from them half of the common lands; in the second, a favoured few "maintained" by the recorder and the mayor, "surcharged" the pasture with what number of sheep they chose, while the common folk of the city were not allowed to go beyond their "stint," the number laid down by the authorities. In a city where there was much clothmaking, and wool greatly in request, there was naturally a good deal of scope for the grazier, and no doubt the men of this calling hadcome to an understanding with the municipality. The chamberlains' duty, however, was perfectly clear. They were enjoined by an order of leet, passed only nine years before, to drive the flocks of those who surcharged the commons to the pound, and take distress from the owners until they should pay the customary fine.[398]This order they accordingly fulfilled, but whether they really asked for what the municipal version calls an "excess" fine there is no means of discovering. But the mayor desired that they should be ruled by his likings and accordingly tried the persuasion of a week's imprisonment. Finding that after their release the chamberlains still persisted in this course, he again and again delivered up the sheep and remitted the fine. Whenever this was done the officers sustained the loss of several shillings, for the charge for every score was fourpence, and there is mention of nine and ten score, and even of 300 sheep driven into the pound. It would seem that in all these matters the mayor was but the tool of the recorder, Harry Boteler, or Butler, who had succeeded to the recordership in 1456, in the room of Thomas Littleton, of famous memory. It was Boteler who, according to the petition, kept Saunders and Hede in prison over the day of the Easter leet, and "wolde in no wyse suffre" them "to speke a worde for the said comown." He, too, urged on them the signing of the recognisance in £40 "to obbeye the meirs commandements" about the pinfold charges, although the chamberlains "grudged" to do so, "in so moche as they were solemply sworen to the contrarie." And from this bond he would not release them, he cried a month later, "for the best pece of scarlet in England." As for the prior's sheep, though four hundred of them weregrazing on the common, "contrarie to old custom," the recorder would not suffer them to be pinned, because the prior, forsooth, was "lord of the soil." And when the chamberlains asked that the closes which the prior kept in severalty might be thrown open at Lammas, it was Boteler who refused, alleging the "composition" made between the prior and the community "in the time of William Saunders beying meir."[399]
"Wher it ought to be comen as all the body of the city knowen; in that the forseid Laurens, on of the said Chamberleins, grugged (grudged) insomoche as the seid mair, decessed, was his fadir and myght not answer for hymself, but said 'that he trusted in God to see hit comen ayen.'"
Then the recorder burst forth:
"That he wold make the seid Chamberlein to curse the tyme that ever he sigh hym and wolde make him to wepe water with his yen,[400]and for to be revenged vppon hym he saide he wolde ryde to complayne vppon him unto our soveraign lorde the Kyng."
The petition ends with a list of the fields enclosed by the prior, the Trinity guild, and others of the city.
It is clear from the recorder's speech that there was expectation of battle toward, and Boteler had no mind to give quarter. Meanwhile Laurence, by his appeal to the prince's council, had stolen a march upon his enemies. A letter, dated September 30, 1480, required that some discreet persons of the city council should ride to Ludlow, bearing a copy of the chamberlain's oath, in order that the prince's council might compose "a variance between certain people of the city about a common pasture." This letter revealed to the corporation the chamberlain's secret mission. "We, your humble and true servants here," the mayor and hisbrethren wrote in reply, "know no variance betwixt any person here for any common pasture but that we among ourselves, by the grace of God, shall amicably and righteously settle." They begged that Saunders' words might not be "printed in the prince's remembrance," and hoped to have license to punish this troublesome citizen, inasmuch as he would raise up "commotions among the people," and by this means discourage "other misruled to presumptuously attempt such things herafter." As the prince still insisted that the suit should be heard at Ludlow, eighteen "worshipful" men, chosen by the common council, set forth on the journey. Among them were numbered the recorder, lately recovered from sickness; the master of the Trinity Guild; John Boteler, town clerk, presumably a son of the recorder; and William Hede, the chamberlain, Laurence's fair-weather friend, who had betimes humbly submitted to the corporation. The wardens, to whom the paying of extraordinary expenses fell, went with the party to pay for the cost of the journey. There was a goodly following of servants, bringing up the number to forty-four persons in all, for the worshipful folk travelled luxuriously, and to secure their comfort a cook and a harbinger were of the company. The cost of the journey—amounting to £15, 11s. 11d.—was afterwards, by decree of the mayor and council, discharged by Laurence Saunders. There is nothing related of the proceedings of the case, save that the decision was against Laurence. TheLeet Booksays, as openly was proved, he intended no "reformacion, ... but feyned matiers to th' entent to have be venged for the due punysshement yeven to him for his obstinacy."[401]So he came home to receive "correction," and in his company there came a gentleman of the prince's council to see that he fulfilled all the commands laid upon him. There was nothing for it now but to bow before the storm. In the presence of the mayor, thecouncil, and divers "commons" assembled in S. Mary's Hall, Laurence, it is said, knelt down and besought the mayor's forgiveness, acknowledging his wrong-doing. He was then committed to ward. After a little time his friends' intercession prevailed, and he was allowed to leave the prison, being bound in £500 to appear at the next quarter sessions. The bond, too—for the corporation were little inclined to allow further complaints to royalty—was to be renewed "till content wer' had" of his "sadde demeasnyng."
But though Saunders had been effectually silenced, the strife he had kindled raged on. Bristowe and the prior, whose transgressions in the matter of surcharging were revealed in Laurence's complaint, were both ready to pour forth counter-claims and accusations against the corporation in the hearing of the prince's council, at the time when Saunders' case was still under discussion. Prior Deram being advised to present his grievances in writing to the mayor and his brethren, tendered, on November 16, 1480, an exhaustive list of them,[402]which list the corporation hardly received in a befittingly serious spirit.
Although in the prior's complaint the matter of surcharging is kept somewhat in the background, there can be little doubt that here the real grievance lay. The mayor and his friends had been perhaps very lenient to the convent in this particular until Laurence's petition to the prince had aroused their scruples, and they may have been forced to revive old regulations concerning the "stint." When the prior argued that as "lord of the soil" he was not "admeasurable," but able to drive on to the pasture what number of cattle he chose, the mayor and his brethren feigned blank ignorance. They did not know, they declared, that the prior was "lord of the soil,"[403]but were of opinion that his action would be"disseizin of the common."[404]They even tried to shield Laurence Saunders when the prior alleged that his "slanders" were a source of great annoyance to the convent. He had been examined, they affirmed, and declared he never "noised" such lands as were held by the monks to be common, but those he had believed were so according to "the black book of the city"; but if Laurence had offended, they continued, he would be pleased to abide by what the mayor and prior chose to command him.
There was another memory that rankled with the monks—the tumult on S. Nicholas' day, 1469, and the subsequent action of William Saunders to prevent the prior from "troubling" the city with a lawsuit. His gardens, Deram indignantly reminded them, and his woods at Whitmoor, had been broken into at that date; and he was not allowed to sue the misdoers at law. Again he was met by a front of stolid ignorance. The mayor and community remembered no such breaking, or any hindrance to the prior's suit, which he was at liberty to pursue. Grievances Deram had to pour forth in plenty. The town wall was built on his land, he complained, though his payment of £10 for murage, of pure good will, for repairing the town wall outside his ground entitled him to some consideration in this matter. The folk of the city gave him hourly torment. They broke down his underwood, birches, holly, and hawthorn in Whitmoor Park, and carried them away; they trod under foot his grass and his corn, damaged his hedges "at their shooting called roving, to his hurt a hundred shillings"; they washed in Swanswell pool,and fished in his ponds "by night and by day," and made his orchard and several grounds a sporting place with shooting and other games, and when "they been challenged by his sergeants they gyven hem short langage, seying that they will have hit their sportyng place." The churchwardens lopped off the boughs of the trees in S. Michael's churchyard, and all manner of filth was deposited in the convent ground, "so that the prior may not have his carriage through his orchard"; while by reason of the refuse swept into the river his mill was "letted to go," and himself and his brethren sorely hurt and discomfited by the stench. At divers times the prior had put up bills against the offenders "in certen sessions, but," he concluded resentfully, "thei ben so supported within this citie and the enquestes so favourable to hem that no reformacion nor punysshement hath ben don."
The mayor and community[405]assured the prior in return that they were most anxious to maintain a friendly understanding with the convent. The authorities of the city, they said, "maken dayly als gret diligens as they can to knowe the stoppers of the seid common ryver, and when eny be perceyved, they ben punysshed after their deserve." As to the breaking of the underwood, every year masters of the crafts, by the command of the mayor, enjoined the members to refrain from this "in eschewyng the doughtfull censures of the Church," and also temporal punishment. But the prior was reminded how "the people of every gret cite as London ... yerely in somer doon harme to divers lords and gentyles hauyng wods and groves nygh to such citees ... and yit the lords and gentils suffren sych dedes ofte tymes of their goode will." And if the town wall ran on the prior's land—as it did on other freehold within the city—the convent owed their security to these fortifications, and ought of right to contribute to their erection andrepair, "because their lyffeloode within this citie, and their proper Churche may rest in surte be measne of the seid murage." The lopping of trees in the churchyard they laid to the charge of the vicar; while as for the fish in Swanswell pool, they profited by the washing there, and thereby grew "the fatter!" Let the prior, the mayor continued, send in the names of the shooters, trespassers, and the like, and bring an action against them; and take proceedings against the casters of refuse—for they were his own tenants—in his own court leet.
The prior fumed at the audacity of this reply, and still more at the delay in returning it, for more than six weeks had elapsed since his bill of complaint had been issued. His rejoinder[406]was drawn up in two days, a briefer space. The mayor had besought him (not without hypocrisy, to Deram's mind) "that he would be as good to the common weal as his predecessors had been," so that "love ... betwixt" him and the city might "continue and dayly better increce"; but he distrusted these professions of peace. "And whereas," he said, "the meire and his brethren prayen hertly to the prior and his convent lovyngly to accept their answeres made to their compleynts, thei think it is (in them) no lovyng desire." "His greves," he reminded them, had been presented in writing "the xvi day of November last past ... to the which the iideday of Januar next followyng" they had returned answer: "by the which I and my bredern," the good man went on, lapsing into the first person in the heat and hurry of his sentences, "thinke is no thyng accordyng for reformacion, but delayes; wherefore I and they desyre and prey you to have us excused of further communicacion.... For we trust to God in [that] our compleynts ben no feyned matiers, but such as shall be proved be credible proves in writyng." "And for your answeres," he added with a touch of irony, "yehave taken longe leysar to conceyve, suasyous-like (persuasive) as it appereth," they would have none of it, "but we trust to haue oder remedye wher trowthe shalbe knowen."
How strangely this dispute sounds in our ears, with its childish display of offended dignity on one side, and half-soothing, half-taunting tone on the other! But the petulant old prior did not long add to the difficulties of the corporation. When John Boteler, the untiring steward, went to London in the following Lent to find out what course the convent meant to pursue with regard to the suit at law between them and the city, he learnt that the enemy was dead.[407]But though the article about surcharging and the minor questions sank into insignificance the dispute about the murage continued for many years, the convent still refusing to pay the tax. At last, in 1498, the matter was set at rest by the bishop's arbitration, the prior paying the annual tax, upon condition that he should in future be made privy to the chamberlains' accounts, in so far as they related to murage.[408]
But though the prior was dead, and Laurence for the moment quiet, the troubles and litigations in which the corporation was involved were by no means past. On Lammas day, 1481, Bristowe, contrary to the tenor of previous arbitration, refused to allow the chamberlains to enter and throw open his field at Whitley, threatening, if they did so, to sue them for trespass. Immediately the recorder, town-clerk, and others rode to Worcester to lay the matter before the prince's council.[409]There it was decided that until the prince could appear to adjust the rival claims neither party should enjoy the use of this meadow. Two experts came[410]by order of the prince's council to examine documents, but Bristowe's were notready, and after a repetition of the old practice of consulting the oldest inhabitants, the decision was postponed. But the common people could not afford to wait the law's delays. After the departure of the lords of the prince's council, says theLeet Book, "divers evell disposed persons in gret nombre of their frowardnesse went to the seid grounde and ther cast down heggs and dikes." Harry Boteler, the recorder, always active when trouble came, went out and bade them "leave off their frowardness." All went back to their work save one, John Tyler, who gave the recorder "froward and unfitting language," and was committed to prison. A riot took place on the Trinity guild feast day, the Decollation of S. John the Baptist, the rioters rang the common bell, and made an attempt to rescue Tyler. Until, the writer of theLeet Booksays with evident relief, "loued (praised) be God, the meir and dyvers of his brethern came among them and sessed them," Tyler being delivered to the citizens under surety for that time.[411]
The news of the riot was not long in reaching the ears of the King. He wrote in great wrath, straitly charging the mayor and his brethren, as they would avoid "his high displesur" and "entende to enjoye the fraunches and liberties of the seid cite," to show no favour to the rioters, and to inform "our derrest son," the prince, of the whole proceeding. The mayor and his brethren were in an extremity of terror, remembering the King's high actions and the confiscation of ten years back after Barnet Field. They sent a letter to the prince at Woodstock by the hand of their steward, beseeching him to be a "gracious mean" for them with his royal father, promising speedily to punish the offenders already "endited for riot and trespass." Meanwhile, they laid the cause of the riot at the door of the real offender. "The common peopull her in gret noumbre," they alleged, "thynken that all the defalt is caused be WilliamBristowe," who had not kept his promise made to the lords of the prince's council with regard to the meadow, nor removed "the bestes of estraunge persones occupeyng in his name the seid common."[412]Of Bristowe and his lengthy suit they were well weary. "The people understondon," the mayor writes hopelessly, "that be his longe defferyngs, cautels, vexacions and troubles, he wold never have conclucion, but find measne of trouble and vexacion to hurt and disheryte the pore commons her of their rightfull common," which he will do, except the prince aid.
Edward IV. was not altogether satisfied with this humble submission. He complained of conventicles that were not suppressed, and evil-doers unpunished, "diuers of yowe in maner supposyng them to be supported and fauored be persones hauying rule in our seid cite."[413]Two of the rioters were ordered to be sent to the King at Woodstock, to be delivered up to Lord Rivers for imprisonment at Ludlow.[414]One of the two was immediately arrested; another "withdrew himself," but afterwards, as it seems, of his own free will, went off to Ludlow to share the imprisonment of his companion. They were released on the following Easter, and returned to the city.
But this rising had at least the effect of precipitating matters with regard to Bristowe. He appears to have desired the whole affair to be settled according to common law; but as the community had no evidence to support their claims, save the testimony of the aged men of the place, they were most anxious to have the affair arranged "according to composition."[415]For fiveweeks the master of the Trinity guild and John Boteler, the steward,[416]lingered in London about the business, and even undertook a journey to Southampton, where the King, being informed of Bristowe's "wilfulness," seems to have inclined favourably towards the cause of the citizens. In the August of the following year their stubborn antagonist gave way and consented to abide by the arbitration of the Prince of Wales. Boteler accordingly hurried off to Ludlow, and a final decision was arrived at in favour, we suppose, of the community; but although such ample details concerning this thirteen-year old dispute are laid before us, nothing is said of the final result.
But although this matter was decided, nothing was done with regard to the other enclosures, and Laurence Saunders became unquiet. He drew up a second list of the meadows that were withheld from the community, and laid it before the mayor and council.[417]It is noteworthy that "Mr" Onley, a member of one of the oldest merchant families within the city, figures in the list as the holder of a "field called Ashmore." The council condescended to explain how and when the enclosures had been made. TheLeet Booksays "they made him privy to the evidence of the city in that behalf." But when Laurence desired a copy of these records to show to "certain people of the city"—old men of his party, no doubt, whose memories reached to bygone times—it was indignantly refused him. The mayor and council would never stoop so low as to furnish all chance comers with the means of cavilling at their proceedings! Then Laurence Saunders burst forth into "untoward" speech, asking to be releasedfrom his bond (the £500?), and showing he would not "otherwise be ruled than after his own will." The matter was shown to the lords of the prince's council, then tarrying in Coventry. By their advice Laurence was committed to the "porter's ward" the Saturday before All-Hallows'; and when, after a week had passed, and he was released "at the great instance" of his friends, it was not without an admonition. The lords told him this was the second time "he had ben in warde for his disobeysaunce and for commocions made among the pepull; they bad hym be war, for yf he cam the IIIdetyme in warde for such matiers, hit shulde cost hym his hedde." The warning was not without its effect. Laurence, for the second time, made a full submission, and also signed a "statute merchant," this time in £200, undertaking that he would be "of good bearing to the mayor and his successors ... for ever"; and four craftsmen, who dwelt near him in Spon Street,[418]were responsible for his conduct in half this sum. Of the fine of £10, which they exacted from him, half was in course of time to be given back, if his submissive temper showed signs of lasting. It might well be thought he would not again question the high ways of the corporation, for by so doing he might involve his friends in ruin.[419]
For twelve years there is no record that Saunders ever troubled the peace of men in high places. During this interval death removed his great enemy, the old recorder; and royal favour—for Henry VII. was ever prudent in such matters—gained the vacant post for Richard Empson. In 1484, three years before his death, Boteler was overtaken by a great disgrace. Hemagnified his own office at the mayor's expense;[420]and, as a punishment, the Forty-eight—with Laurence for the first time on record sitting among the number—decreed that on all public occasions he should not immediately follow the mayor, but should give precedence to the master of the Trinity guild.[421]It may be that this blow broke the old man's proud spirit. He became "of so gret febulness" that the men of the city, fearing that "any casualte of disease by God's visitation [might] come unto him," began to take into consideration the claims of possible recorders. Boteler, however, kept the post until his death, when the King, hearing how "it had pleased our blessed Creatur to calle late from this vncertain and transorite lif unto his great and inestimable mercy"[422]the old recorder, wrote to inquire concerning the candidates for the vacant post.
There are signs that about this time Laurence was looked upon with more favour by those in power.[423]In 1494, however, a change of policy, owing perhaps to the influence of the mayor, a grocer, named Robert Green, caused him to take up his old position. In those days the matter of enclosures was but one among many sources of trouble. In the first place, in that same year, the corporation, perhaps suddenly roused to the doings of the various crafts, thought that they had enjoyed in the past few years more liberty thanthey were disposed to allow. They turned their attention to the pewterers' and tanners' fellowships.[424]Complaint being made concerning "discevable" pewterers' ware, the leet ordained,—that all such as "maken and medle metailles within this cite, as vessels of brasse, peauter and laten," should sell true goods, "medled be due proporcion," and to such merchants as had served an apprenticeship to the craft. Furthermore, the master of the fellowship received orders to seize any faulty vessels and bring them before the mayor and council; the maker, in the event of the charge being proved, was condemned to forfeit the sum of twenty shillings. Then the tanners felt the effects of the energy of the leet. Certain of the craft were wont to buy raw hides "in grete," with the intention, no doubt of selling them at a profit. This practice the court forbade, under pain of a forty-shilling fine, to be taken from buyer and seller alike. The irritation these ordinances called forth among certain members of these fellowships can be illustrated from the records of the leet held the following year. It was then enacted that John Duddesbury, a tanner,[425]and John Smith, a pewterer, for their repeated ill-behaviour to "men of worship," were to be put "under surety from session to session,"[426]until their submissive behaviour should content the justices of the peace.
A highly unpopular measure was the work of the mayor himself. This ordinance looks simple enough, but there is possibly a deeper meaning underlying it. Before his indentures were made, every apprentice was ordered to pay twelve pence towards the common funds,have his name entered in a book prepared for the purpose by the town clerk, and "swear to the franchises" of the city.[427]The apprentices' friends might feel aggrieved at this new exaction; it is less easy to understand why the masters were inclined to resist the measure. That they were so inclined is shown by an order made some six months afterwards to the effect that those who still received apprentices contrary to the ordinance, and continued stubborn, were to be committed to ward andfind surety that they would in future obey all ordinances of leet.[428]The corporation had some motive in binding the apprentices by a solemn oath and enrolling them in this methodical fashion; they evidently wished to keep a tight hold on them for some particular purpose. For a hundred years Coventry had been celebrated for clothmaking, and the sellers of cloth had been the richest men in the city, and members of their fellowship more frequently in office than those of any other occupation.[429]It was important that the merchants and drapers—and of these the corporation was chiefly composed—should be able to keep themakersof cloth, weavers and fullers, well under control; and in attempting this, quarrels may well have arisen. The merchants, thinking they would again arise, determined to weaken the master-makers of cloth by keeping this tight hold over the apprentices, and making them responsible to the corporation.
Certain practices, in all probability lately revived under this mayor or his successor, were particularlydetested by the citizens concerned in clothmaking. Coventry was a great centre for the weaver's industry. For a long time past, in accordance with orders of leet, cloth had been sold on market days in the "Drapery," in S. Michael's churchyard, a house of which the Trinity guild had been possessed for the last 130 years.[430]There was a second selling place, the porch of S. Michael's church, which lay a few yards from the Drapery door. This had been in all probability the traditional sale ground for cloth before the Drapery was fixed on and passed into the possession of the guild. In the church porch the payment of stallage might be avoided, and it may be the makers did not fear for their workmanship the strict supervision of the craft of drapers. In 1455 the sale of cloth in the porch was forbidden by the leet;[431]yet no doubt, in spite of pains and penalties, the weavers or makers still drove their bargains, whenever it was possible, outside the walls of the Drapery. But the municipality resolved that the orders of leet should no longer be set at nought; cloth must henceforward be sold in the Drapery,[432]and not elsewhere.
There was also a fixed place for the weighing and sale of wool, called the Wool-hall, adjoining the Drapery, and likewise the property of the guild.[433]The trade in wool was, no doubt, chiefly in the hands of the wealthy merchants, many of whom were "of the Staple of Calais." The wardens also overlooked the weighing, and took from the owners certain dues "for the profit of the town."[434]These dues must have increased the price of wool, so that the weavers or clothmakers—or whatever body of men purchased the wool for manufacturein the first instance[435]—suffered by reason of such a regulation, and poor householders who bought the wool to weave for their own use were in like case. The enforcement of this order[436]and the consequent collection of dues were bitterly resented, and the citizens, reminded of the traditional "toll freedom" of their market, cried that the city that had been free was now in bondage.
"Dame goode Eve[437]made hit fre,& now the custom for wol & the draperie."
But before Green's year of mayoralty was past, the corporation found that they would still have to reckon with Laurence Saunders. It was on Lammas day, 1494, in the presence—so the mayor and council were "credibly informed"—of forty persons, that he spoke these words: "Sirs, her me! we shall never have our rights till we have striken of the heads of III or IIII of thes Churles heds that rulen us, and if thereafter hit be asked who did that dede, hit shalbe seid, me and they, and they and me." "He shuld constreyn," Laurence went on, "William Boteler to drive his Cart laden with Ots into the Croschepyng, and ther to unlade the seid cart." Now, William Boteler was probably either a forestaller and regrater, who intercepted, in defiance of all manner of ordinances to the contrary, the grain intended to be sold openly in the market, or he had encroached upon the common land. Laurence, it appears, fulfilled histhreat, and cried out to the crowd assembled in the Cross Cheaping or market place: "Come, Sirs, and take the corn who so wyll, as your owne."[438]The whole proceeding utterly scandalised the mayor and his worshipful brethren. On the "Wednesday after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross" they committed Laurence to prison, and fixed his fine at £40. For months he lay there, while two friends, whose names were Alexander Horsley and Robert Barlow,[439]were surety for the payment of this great sum. But this amount meant ruin, and drove Laurence's party to fury. The mayor and council had treated a fellow-citizen no better than one of those hated Scots. And this was not enough. They also bound over this sower of strife "to good bearing," and the next year, whether for the sake of old offences or for the commission of new ones, wiped out his name from among the number of the rulers of the city. Laurence Saunders was "discharged," the order ran, "from the mayor's council, the common council, and all other councils ... taken and kept within this city for the welfare of the same," and forbidden under the penalty of £40 ever to ride out with the chamberlains on Lammas day.[440]
It was an old custom in Coventry to nail up all announcements, which for obvious reasons no crier would consent to proclaim, on the church door, where all might read them. It was in this manner that friar John Bredon, on the occasion of a dispute between his order and the monks, some forty years back, appealed to the citizens to throw off the dominion of the prior, as "the thraldom of Pharaoh." So within eight daysafter Lammas, 1495, some unknown rhymester of the "commonalty" nailed up some verses of his making on the north door of S. Michael's church; forgetting in them neither the oppressive acts which had been lately passed nor the punishment visited on Laurence for the tumult of the preceding year.[441]
"Be it knowen & understand,This Cite shuld be free & nowe is bonde,Dame goode Eve made hit free,& now the custome for woll & the draperie.Also hit is made that no prentes shalbeBut xiii penyes pay shuld he;That act did Robert Grene,Therfor he had many a Curse, I wene.And nowe a nother rule ye do makeThat none shall ride at Lammas but they that ye takeWhen our ale is Tunnedye shall have drynk to your cake."
The final lines recall the heavy fine to be paid by Saunders:—
"Ye have put on man like a Scot to raunsome,That wol be remembered when ye have all forgoten 'Caviat.'"[442]
It may be that, in the face of this wrathful discontent—it was just at this time that the ill-behaviour of John Smith and John Duddesbury to "men of worship" caused the offenders to be watched so closely—the corporation felt some anxiety. At least they thought it prudent to relieve Laurence of the payment of half of the fine they had laid upon him. Of the remaining sum half was paid by the sureties, but £10 was yet due, and in 1496 Saunders appealed to the King. The fruit of his solicitings was a privy seal, addressed to the mayor and sheriffs asking them in charity to take £10 and remit the rest of the fine, as Laurence was now old andfallen into poverty.[443]There was one sentence in the letter very little to the recipients' liking. The King ordered the mayor "to do right" in a variance concerning a common pasture which Laurence had informed his grace to be in the city; "where," as the "men of worship" declared with righteous anger, "no such variance was." It would be folly indeed to smooth the lot of Laurence Saunders or release his friends from their bond. So the great culprit having paid £10 and his sureties a like sum, matters must be set right at Court, and the appeals of Laurence and his party made of no effect. So a "writing of the great and many offences of the said Laurence" was sent to Master Richard Empson, who was then in London, to be laid before the King. The mayor and his fellows awaited meanwhile the issue of the recorder's mediation.
Laurence Saunders, too, had his hopes of Court. "As for Mr Recorder," he said confidently a little later, "I have reckoned with him before the King, and he shall be easy enough." Meanwhile Lammas time was approaching, and he looked for some great movement against the corporation, which that season should bring forth. So he went into the house of the mayor, John Dove, and said: "Master mair, I advise yewe to loke wisely on your self, for on Lammasse day ye shall her other tythyngs, & ffor many of these catifes that loke so hy nowe shall be brought lower; and ye knowe wele amongist yowe ye have of myn x li: of money, which I dought not I shall have ayen on Lamasse day, or elles III or IIII of the best of yowe shall smart. Therfor I advise yowe, ber upright the swerd at your perill, for ye shall knowe mor shortly."
That allusion to the mayor's sword carried a sting. A century ago, Richard II. had ordered it to be bornebehindJohn Deister, the mayor, rather than before him as the custom was, "because he did not do justice." It may be John Dove was secretly afraid. Had he done justice continually? What if the King should visit Laurence with his favour now? Though this man made so light of the mayor's dignity, he was not punished; but all waited for the news from London.
On July 20 Laurence determined to justify his position by putting in his petition of grievances for the third time. He laid before the mayor a list of the enclosed common lands, drawn up from inquiries made among old men of the city the year of his chamberlainship. He asked that the bill might be read aloud in open court, for the sessions of the peace were then proceeding. John Dove was not prepared to do this. It was not a matter to be determined in that court, and besides, he understood that it required no haste. Saunders might come and have his answer on the morrow by nine of the clock. On hearing this the old taunt sprang to Laurence's lips, "Maister meir," he said aloud in the assembly, "hold upright your swerde"; and after expressing his hope of "reckoning with Mr Recorder," he left John Dove to recover his dignity.
As far as we can tell, Saunders' hour of triumph never came, for there was no rising at Lammas; but soon after the scandal at the sessions came a letter from the King, giving the mayor and council full permission to deal with the rebel "after the good and laudable custom of the city." This permission must have afforded them untold relief. As Laurence refused to give any pledge as to his future conduct, they committed him to prison. But he never rested, nor did his friends give up the battle. They interceded at Court, this time with Thomas Savage, the Bishop of Rochester,[444]and it seemed thattheir intercession was likely to bear fruit, for letters arrived to the effect that Laurence should be set free to plead his cause before the King at Woodstock. But the mayor and council would not let him go, for he offered, to their thinking, insufficient surety, letting fall also many seditious words, which are recorded in the Book of Council, and saying, "he wold fynd no other what so ever fell theruppon." Wherefore, theLeet Booksays, he remained in prison.
BABLAKE AND S. JOHN'S CHURCH
Two "seditious bills"—one nailed on the minster door on S. Anne's Day—show how strained the situation was becoming. If ever, during a century and a half, the rule of the Coventry guilds had been as thoroughly detested as now, the feeling had never been put in words that have come down to us with such unmistakable force. Of these attacks, the second has a much loftier tone. After a passing reference to Laurence, lying in prison—
"You have hunted the hare,You hold him in a snare"—
there come, in the first set of verses, a warning to all the great folk that have forgotten to rule justly:—
"Ye that be of myght,Se that ye do right,Thynk on your othe;For wher that ye do wrong,Ye shall mend hit among,Though ye be never so loth."
The poet and his friends—he says in the second set of verses—show outward respect to their rulers, but their minds are full of bitterness:—
"This cyte is bond thad shuld be fre,The right is holden fro the Cominalte;Our Comiens that at lamas open shuld be castThey be closed in & hegged full fast,And he that speketh for our right is in the hall,[445]And that is shame for yewe & for us all;You can not denygh hit but he is your brother;& to bothe Gilds he hath paid as moch as another."
As for the "commonalty," they have no more to lose, the verse goes on to say:—
"For eny favour or frenship the comins with yowe fynde,But pyke awey our thryfte & make us all blynde;And ever ye have nede to the Cominalte,Such favour as ye shewe us, such shall ye see.We may speke feir & bid you goode morowe,But luff with our herts shull ye hav non.Cherish the Cominalte & se that they have ther right,For drede of a worse chaunce be day or be nyght,The best of you all litell worth shuld be,And ye had not help of the Cominalte."[446]
Matters remained for some time at a standstill; then at last, early in November, Laurence's "labour and busy suit" brought two privy seals, containing full directions, to Coventry.[447]The mayor was required to release the prisoner after taking surety in £100, so that he might appear before the King and council and state his case; while two or three of the mayor's brethren sufficiently instructed in the matters to be laid to his charge were to bear him company. At a meeting of the council on November 14, certain citizens, among whom was John Boteler the steward, were appointed to ride to London. There, joined by the recorder and others of the city, who no doubt had already entered on various negotiations connected with this suit, they were to lay an account of Laurence's "demeasner" before the King. Another privy seal had been received, addressed to four friends[448]ofLaurence, who were summoned to London "to th' entent that they shuld testyfie with hym in such matier as he wold allege for his greves." And now the business went quickly forward. "Accordyng which appoyntement the day was kept at London," says theLeet Book, "befor the Kyngs Counceill in the Sterr Chambre, the Friday next after Seynt Martyn day, and ther continied dayly vnto the Tewesday next befor the fest of Seynt Andrew ... at which day befor my lords of Caunterbury, London and Rochestre, the chief Justice Mr ffyneux, and many other lords, the hole matier was hard at large, both the compleynt of the seid Laurence, the answer therunto, the replicacion of the seid Laurence, and the rejoynder theruppon, with the disposicions of the witnesse, and proves of the seid Laurence, wheruppon the seid Laurence was ther and then comyt vnto the Flete, ther to abyde unto the tyme the kyngs pleasur was knowen."
So Laurence Saunders vanished into the Fleet, while Boteler and the rest returned in triumph to Coventry. The corporation remained clearly masters of the field. In a privy seal,[449]received by the mayor and sheriffs the next December, Laurence's complaints were pronounced "feined and contrived," and himself a "seducioux" man, who had "of his great presumpcion and obstinacie not seldom but often tymes disobeyed the liefell ... precepts of you the said mair ... to the right evil and pernicioux example of other, therby embolded and encouraged to offende in like wise." But the King willed that the laudable and prosperous governance of the city should not "surceasse or be sette aparte by the sinistre or crafty meanes of any privat personne," and so the folk of the city were commanded "forthepretense of any right herafter by thaim ... to bee claymed" to make no conspiracies and unlawful assemblies.
As for the details of the trial, of them we know nothing.[450]Boteler kept the complaint and the answer, the replication and the rejoinder, in papers, "whereof the tenor," says theLeet Book, "her ensuen ..." but just at this place occurs an unlucky break. The careful and zealous town clerk was called away, no doubt, at that moment on business of the first importance; there are no further entries made; so there can be nothing told of the trial in the Star Chamber that Martinmas and of the long agony of Laurence Saunders.