Chapter XII: The Lammas Lands (2)

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 and _find 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 the _makers_ of 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 particularly detested 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 manufacture in 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 his threat, 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 days after 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 shalbe But 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 make That none shall ride at Lammas but they that ye take When our ale is Tunned ye 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 and fallen 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 borne _behind_ John 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 that their 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, the _Leet Book_ says, he remained in prison.

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 cast They 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] of Laurence, 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 the _Leet 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 "for the _pretense 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 the _Leet 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 360: Ashley, _Econ. Hist._ i. pt. ii. 53. The act was repealed in 1511-12. In 1522 an order of leet was passed in Coventry to the effect that the mayor should warn any baker, who had offended twice against the assize, not to bake any more in the city unless he could find surety that his fault should not be repeated, and further, no victualler or butcher was allowed henceforth to be on the jury of leet (_Leet Book_, 682).]

[Footnote 361: The loaf varied in weight, but not in price, with the price of corn (Green, ii. 35).]

[Footnote 362: Harl. MS. 6,388 _passim_. It is difficult to determine the date of these risings, so great is the variation between the different lists of mayors; and so often do Coventry historians antedate events, owing to the confusion between the old and new styles. It is noticeable that the mayor in 1381 was Thomas Kele, one of the founders of the Trinity guild.]

[Footnote 363: Corp. MS. F. 3. It is here said that the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty "was seized in their demesne as of fee" of the common lands in right of the community. There was much uncertainty among the lawyers of that time as to the entity possessing rights over the common lands.]

[Footnote 364: Cicely de Montalt, in her grant to the prior of the manorial "waste" attached to the Earl's-half, reserves for all cottiers their reasonable pasture (Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 2). Walter de Coventre bequeathed to his fellow-townsmen and their heirs for ever his rights of pasture for all the cattle in all his lands (_Ib._).]

[Footnote 365: To pay for the expenses of the fee-ferm, etc. On enclosures to pay for pageants, see below.]

[Footnote 366: I am indebted for the identification of this piece of land to Mr Beard, late town clerk of Coventry.]

[Footnote 367: The land in question stretched from Whitley brook to Baron's Field, which was enclosed in 1845 as a cemetery.]

[Footnote 368: _Leet Book_, 113.]

[Footnote 369: Corp. MS. F. 4.]

[Footnote 370: An obscure word.]

[Footnote 371: Ear = plough.]

[Footnote 372: Individual profit.]

[Footnote 373: Get possession of.]

[Footnote 374: Put in the pound.]

[Footnote 375: _Leet Book_, 349.]

[Footnote 376: Corp. MS. F. 3.]

[Footnote 377: _i.e._ rehearsing.]

[Footnote 378: _i.e._ petitioner.]

[Footnote 379: _i.e._ slay.]

[Footnote 380: _Leet Book_, 350.]

[Footnote 381: _Leet Book_, 375.]

[Footnote 382: Corp. MS. F. 3.]

[Footnote 383: _Leet Book_, 376 _sqq._]

[Footnote 384: _Ib._, 378.]

[Footnote 385: _Leet Book_, 379-80.]

[Footnote 386: _Ib._, 380.]

[Footnote 387: Corp. MS. F. 4.]

[Footnote 388: See Green, _Town Life_, ii. 315, for a similar case at Southampton. Here one "ancient" man was aged 104 years and more.]

[Footnote 389: Baron's Field is now part of the old cemetery.]

[Footnote 390: Corp. MS. C. 204. The varieties in the nomenclature of the various fields makes it difficult to pronounce decidedly whether Bristowe gained all he desired according to this arbitration.]

[Footnote 391: _Leet Book_, 375.]

[Footnote 392: Bristowe's case was again under discussion in 1475, see Corp. MS. D. 2. This time a verdict, given not by a Coventry jury, but by a jury of twenty-four knights from the vicinage of the city, was favourable to Bristowe, and acquitted him of the charge of assault, etc., brought against him by the corporation.]

[Footnote 393: _Leet Book_, 156.]

[Footnote 394: Laurence was a member of the "council of Forty-eight," _Leet Book_, 521, and a member of both guilds (Sharp, _Antiq._, 235; _Leet Book_, 578). In 1495 Saunders was discharged from all attendance at the mayor's council, the common council, and all other councils to be taken within the city (_Ib._, 564). The common council is first mentioned in 1477. Probably the "Forty-eight" and the common council were identical. The "mayor's council" consisted apparently of such of the "Forty-eight" as he cared to summon. There is no evidence that these councillors were elected by wards.]

[Footnote 395: The prior, in 1498, is said to have refused to pay it for twenty years (_Leet Book_, 592).]

[Footnote 396: _Ib._, 430 _sqq._]

[Footnote 397: _Leet Book_, 436 _sqq._]

[Footnote 398: _Leet Book_, 348. "Cattle surcharging the common to be driven to the pound and distress taken." And yet this very year the corporation declared to the prior that the citizens always had driven their cattle "without number" on the commons.]

[Footnote 399: _Leet Book_, 439. The meadows in question were the Prior's Waste and the close by the New Gate. See above, p. 176.]

[Footnote 400: _i.e._ "eyes."]

[Footnote 401: _Leet Book_, 441.]

[Footnote 402: _Leet Book_, 443 _sqq._]

[Footnote 403: Mayor's reply, _Leet Book_, 457.]

[Footnote 404: In the lord's outwoods, moors, and heaths, which were never under the plough, "he should not be stinted, for the soil is his" (Rogers, _Six Cent._ 90). It is extremely doubtful whether the common lands of Coventry should be included in this category; many of them had been "under the plough."]

[Footnote 405: _Leet Book_, 454.]

[Footnote 406: _Leet Book_, 470.]

[Footnote 407: _Leet Book_, 474.]

[Footnote 408: Corp. MS. C 209.]

[Footnote 409: _Leet Book_, 490.]

[Footnote 410: Fineux, one of the prince's council, was deputed to examine the title deeds on behalf of the town, and Catesby on behalf of Bristowe.]

[Footnote 411: _Leet Book_, 492.]

[Footnote 412: Bristowe seems to have allowed his tenants of Whitley to share in his privilege of intercommoning with the people of Coventry. See above, p. 174.]

[Footnote 413: _Leet Book_, 497.]

[Footnote 414: _Ib._, 496.]

[Footnote 415: Disputes concerning the common lands were usually settled by arbitration, and not before the judges of the King's bench, possibly because the "communitas" had no power to sue in law courts as a legal person (Green, _Town Life_, ii. 239).]

[Footnote 416: Boteler filled the post of steward as well as that of town clerk.]

[Footnote 417: _Leet Book_, 510-11.]

[Footnote 418: _Leet Book_, 483.]

[Footnote 419: It is noticeable that immediately after this the leet gave orders that some of the fields granted to the prior, _i.e._ the field by the New Gate, should be had again "in a perpetual ferm" of the convent.]

[Footnote 420: He said "he had as much power as the mayor, and could arrest him at sessions sitting on the bench" (_Leet Book_, 520).]

[Footnote 421: Unless he would submit to this condition and to take an oath at Candlemas--as the mayor did--he was to be dismissed. Boteler chose to submit.]

[Footnote 422: _Leet Book_, 537.]

[Footnote 423: The records are very meagre about this time. The fact that Laurence was a member of the Forty-eight is an indication that the corporation were well disposed towards him. The fact that the very same mayor who occasioned Boteler's disgrace enforced certain acts of leet against the bakers is also a proof that there was a change of policy in his time at least (_ib._, 518-9).]

[Footnote 424: _Leet Book_, 554, 557.]

[Footnote 425: Corp. MS. A. 6. Corpus Christi guild accounts.]

[Footnote 426: _Leet Book_, 569. This order was re-enacted in 1497; _Ib._, 585. No tanner or butcher was "to make conspiracy ... contrary to this ordinance." Duddesbury had been a member of the Twenty-four, and was mayor in 1505.]

[Footnote 427: _Leet Book_, 553-4.]

[Footnote 428: _Ib._, 559. The continuation of this order shows how restive the people were becoming under the recent regulations, a like surety was to be taken from any one who would not obey orders of leet and be reformed by the mayor and council.]

[Footnote 429: Lists of all the living craftsmen who had held office were compiled in 1449: 16 drapers, 13 mercers, 7 dyers, 2 wire-drawers, 2 whittawers, and 2 weavers are mentioned (_ib._, 246-52).]

[Footnote 430: Drapery granted to the Trinity gild 1365-9 (Sharp, 131).]

[Footnote 431: _Leet Book_, 281.]

[Footnote 432: These words are almost identical with a gloss, written in the margin of one ordinance passed in 1495. For the profits arising from the Nottingham Drapery, see _Nottingham Rec._, iii. 62.]

[Footnote 433: Corp. MS. B. 75.]

[Footnote 434: _Leet Book_, 193. This order was passed in 1440.]

[Footnote 435: In Coventry the wool buyers appear to have been the clothmakers. The dyers in 1415, who were "great makers of cloth," took "the flower of the woad" for their own use (_Rot. Parl._, iv. 75). In 1435 we hear of the clothmakers employing combers to card wool (_Leet Book_, 182), and in 1512 we find that a searcher examined the wool to see that it was free from filth for the clothier (_ib._, 636).]

[Footnote 436: There are no _new_ ordinances relating to the weighing of wool at this time. Most likely the ordinance of 1440 (see above) was often evaded, and it was resolved that a stricter supervision should be exercised.]

[Footnote 437: _i.e._ Godiva.]

[Footnote 438: _Leet Book_, 556-7. Laurence afterwards committed William Boteler to ward for breach of regulations of leet doubtless, but "without authority."]

[Footnote 439: For Robert Barlow, see Corpus Christi guild accounts, Corp. MS. A. 6, f. 5.]

[Footnote 440: _Leet Book_, 564.]

[Footnote 441: _Leet Book_, 567. One of the pieces of "civic poetry" quoted by Sharp, 235.]

[Footnote 442: Sharp, _Antiq._, 235.]

[Footnote 443: _Leet Book_, 574; Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 14. The poverty from which Laurence suffered now had probably not afflicted him earlier in his career.]

[Footnote 444: It is noticeable that this bishop sympathized with the unruly people of York. See Miss Sellers, "The City of York in the Sixteenth Century" in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, ix. 275.]

[Footnote 445: _i.e._ in prison.]

[Footnote 446: _Leet Book_, 578. The MS. has _co'iens_ and _co'ialte_ throughout. Both sets printed in Sharp, pp. 235-6.]

[Footnote 447: _Leet Book_, 578.]

[Footnote 448: One of these, William Huet, probably a tailor or shereman, was one of the nine score wealthy men. In 1464, he--or one bearing this name--had been in trouble with the corporation (_v._ _ante_, p. 138). "Norfolk," the name of one other, was a regular _weaver's_ name in Coventry.]

[Footnote 449: Corp. MS. A. 79, f. 19.]

[Footnote 450: I am afraid that there is nothing further to be learned of Saunders. Professor S.R. Gardiner was so good as to make inquiries at the Record Office whether there were any Star Chamber records bearing upon his case, but none belonging to this period are in existence.]