Chapter XII: The Lammas Lands (1)

We have 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 again we hear of risings owing to that fruitful cause of trouble, the enclosure of the common lands.[362]

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 the Lammas 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 called Alderford 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 seid cite 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," the _Leet Book_[375] says with unconscious irony, "that he was 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.

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 have pulled 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 twelve _small_ trees, 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 the community'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 the _Leet 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 his claim 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 city were 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, the warden'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] The chamberlainship 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]

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. The _Leet Book_ gives 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. The _Leet Book_ relates 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.

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 had come 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 were grazing 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 his brethren 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. The _Leet Book_ says, 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, the council, 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 and repair, "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 iide day 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, "ye have 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 not ready, 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 the _Leet 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 the _Leet Book_ says 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 William Bristowe," 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 five weeks 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. The _Leet Book_ says "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 released from 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 IIIde tyme 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. He magnified 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 than they 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.