_Beginnings of Municipal Government_
But how did the men live who inhabited Coventry, who were neither
warriors nor monks, but the rank and file of the townsfolk, the mere
tillers of the ground and retailers of food and clothing, farmers,
bakers, butchers, shoemakers, weavers, and the like? These men owed
fealty, according to the position of the land they held, either to the
prior or the Earl of Chester. It is with the earl's burghers that the
main part of our story lies. It was they who won, after many checks
and struggles, such liberties of trading and self-rule as helped to
make their city rich and famous in after days. For wherever townspeople
found that their lord, whether he were a noble or the King himself,
had need of their money or support, they bargained with him for a
charter, a duly written and attested document giving them the power
to exercise certain rights, such as the collecting of their own taxes
or the managing of their own courts, without the interference of his
officials. Just as the barons of England gained Magna Charta from John
in his need and weakness, or forced Edward I. to confirm the same ere
they would give him money to prosecute his wars, so the townsfolk
played out the same play in their own much humbler theatre, and drove
their bargain with this or that great owner of estates.
For towns on the royal demesne the question resolved itself into one
of mere traffic. Was the town rich enough to induce the King to grant
a charter to the inhabitants conferring on them the liberties of which
they stood in need? If so, the money was paid, and the town started on
its career of independence. Nobles, too, were often willing to forego
their manorial privileges for the sake of a substantial sum of money.
But with churchmen and religious corporations the case was different.
They were unwilling, under any circumstances, to part with the rights
of the Church, "for fear," as the Coventry monks said, "of blemishing
their consciences." In growing and prosperous communities, where men
suffered by the restrictions laid upon their trade or persons, the
attitude of the religious community, which stood to them in place
of feudal lord, gave rise to great bitterness of feeling among the
tenants. Discontent was in many cases the precursor of riot and
bloodshed, showing how fierce was the spirit of resistance among these
men, and with what tenacity they clung to the idea of freedom.
The condition of the men of S. Alban's, or those of any town where the
inhabitants were serfs, was often miserable, or at best precarious.[72]
A serf must perform for his lord frequent and often unlimited service.
His offences were punished in his lord's courts of justice. He could
not sell or depart from his holding or marry his children without
licence. He must grind his corn at his lord's mill, and bake his loaves
at his lord's oven.
But from these most oppressive burdens the Coventry men were free. They
had in ancient custom a guarantee that their lord could not urge such
claims upon them, for they held of him "in free burgage";[73] that
is to say, they were quit of all personal service, and merely paid
a money rent for house and land. They were not compelled to leave
their business to carry in the crops on the lord's demesne, or follow
him for a great distance to war, or bake at his oven, a custom the
men of Melton observed until the days of James I.[74] Still, although
they were not entirely at the mercy of their feudal superior, the men
of Coventry had, as yet, no voice in the town government. They owed
obedience to three powers--the Earl of Chester, the King, and the Prior
of Coventry. For any fault or misdemeanour they were summoned to appear
at the earl's castle, where the constable fixed their punishment, and
the fine they paid passed into the earl's hand. The author of any grave
or serious crime was answerable to the sheriff, the King's officer.
While the prior, the lord of the soil in the Cross Cheaping, regulated
all matters connected with the traffic of the market.
The townsfolk were neither rich nor strong enough to free themselves
from the sheriff's jurisdiction, or their trade from the prior's
surveillance. But in the reign of Henry II. they struck a bargain
with Ranulf Blondvil, Earl of Chester, a great founder of towns,
whereby they obtained certain rights and privileges, and some measure
of self-government. In his charter the earl granted to his burgesses
of Coventry the same customs as those enjoyed by the men of Lincoln,
for it was usual for townsfolk to ask that their constitution might
be modelled on that of some freer or more important place.[75]
Lincoln,[76] in common with most of the larger towns in England,
borrowed certain customs from London, and Coventry, in its turn, was to
serve as model to other towns later in acquiring freedom.[77]
The Earl's charter, a model of the exquisite penmanship of the twelfth
century, runs thus:--
"Ranulf, Earl of Chester, to all his barons, constables, bailiffs,
servants, men and friends, French and English, present and future,
greeting. Know ye, that I have given to my burghers of Coventry, and
confirmed in this my charter,[78] all things which are written in the
same. Namely, that the said burghers and their heirs may hold well,
honourably, and undisturbed, and in free burgage of me and of my heirs,
as they held in my father's time or my other predecessors', better,
more firmly and freely. I grant them the free and good laws that the
burgesses of Lincoln have better and more freely. I ... forbid my
constable to bring them into my castle to plead in any cause; but they
may freely have their portmote, in which all pleas pertaining unto
me and unto them may be justly treated of. Moreover, they may choose
for me one whom they will among themselves, who may be judge under
me and over them; who, knowing the laws and customs, may keep these
in my council reasonably in all things, every excuse put away, and
may faithfully perform unto me that which is due. And if by chance
any one fall into my amercement, then he shall be reasonably amerced
by my bailiff and the faithful burghers of the court. And whatever
merchants they draw thither for the bettering of the town, I command
that they have peace, and that no one do them an injury or unjustly sue
them at law. If, indeed, any stranger merchant do anything unfitting
in the town, that shall be amended before the aforesaid justice in
the portmote without a suit-at-law. These being witnesses ... Robert
Steward de Mohaut ... and many others."
We see from the terms of this charter that the Coventry folk had
already acquired a certain status as free burghers. Now their liberties
were enlarged by a grant of self-jurisdiction. A further grant from
Henry II., appended to the confirmation of this charter, limited the
fine due from the burghers to the earl for any fault to 12d.;[79] "but
if by testimony of his neighbours he cannot pay so much, by their
advice it shall be settled as he is able to pay." We can call up a
possible picture of the court of portmanmote, to which the charter
refers. In some large open space, possibly S. Michael's churchyard,
the townsfolk might be seen gathered together for the meetings of the
court. Conspicuous among the little group of townsmen would be the
bailiff, the earl's representative, a man whose yea and nay was very
powerful among the lord's tenants, for was he not there to watch over
the interests of his master, and arrange for the payment of fines and
forfeitures which were his master's due?[80] By his side some fuller,
weaver, baker, or prosperous agriculturalist would probably take his
seat[81] as the justice, the elected representative of the townsfolk.
A clerk would also be present, for from the time of Henry III. court
records were strictly kept and enrolled. Probably not all the townsmen
attended each meeting, but only such of them as were concerned in any
suit, and even these--within reasonable limits--might plead _essoyne_,
or a valid excuse for absence. What individual part was played by
the justice and bailiff in the hearing of suits it is impossible to
tell, but we may infer that the misdemeanours of the townsfolk were
made known to the court by a jury, drawn perhaps from every street
or ward.[82] These men affirmed on their own knowledge, or on common
report, that certain offences had been committed within the township.
These offences were of a simple, trifling kind, those of a more
serious nature being tried at higher tribunals, before the sheriff or
the justices in eyre, or possibly in some other court of the Earl of
Chester.[83] A presentment, for example, would be made to the effect
that Nicholas, the son of William, had let his cows stray over the
mowing-grass in a certain field which is in the earl's demesne, thereby
causing damage to the extent of fourpence. Nicholas is at mercy,[84]
for it is well known that he is guilty, and he is thrown on the mercy
of the court. Let him pay the damage, and twopence in addition for the
fault.
Or the jury say that Margaret, the wife of Anketil, took from the
bakery of William of Stonelei two loaves, value one halfpenny, and
afterwards defamed and struck Joan, William's wife, in the open street
known as the Broadgate. And Margaret defends (denies) the deed:
therefore it is adjudged that she come and make her law six-handed
at the next court.[85] Or the jury declare that William, son of Guy,
contrary to the assize of bread, whereby, if a quarter of wheat sell
for 3s. 6d., the farthing loaf of wastel bread should weigh 42s., gives
only 39s. weight of bread in the loaf, to the damage of his customers,
the King's liege people.[86] Moreover, William was bidden at the last
court to come and wage his law twelve-handed; this he has failed to
do.[87] Therefore he is at mercy. The fine is twelve pence. William
cannot pay at once, but his pledges are John the Dyer and Thomas atte
Gate.[88]
Such cases as these would be the everyday business of the local court;
but civil matters also required a great deal of attention. Transfers of
land were executed there, being witnessed by the principal suitors of
the court. John the Smith, for example, would make over his house in
Earl Street with all its appurtenances to Richard the Weaver and his
heirs in return for an annual rent of fourpence, and would warrant it
to him against all comers.
Certain documents called indentures[89] would then be drawn up in
duplicate by the clerk, the names of the chief of the folk present
appearing therein as witnesses to the deed. To one of the indentures
the grantor fixed his seal, to the other the grantee, each retaining
the copy to which the seal of the other party in the transaction was
attached by way of title-deed.
[Illustration:]
At least twice a year the townsmen appeared before the sheriff,[90] at
whose court criminal or "crown" pleas received a hearing, and who, in
his military capacity, overlooked the muster-at-arms of the townsmen,
and fixed what number of archers were to be levied for the King's
service. The proceeds, of this court, goods of felons and the like,
went to swell the royal treasury. The system of presenting criminals by
means of a jury[91] obtained here as in the town court, but in doubtful
or serious cases the accused would be condemned or acquitted not in
accordance with evidence, but through an appeal to the interposition of
Providence by means of trial by ordeal or battle. Thus, a man who was
thrown into the water was, if he sank, pronounced innocent, if he swam,
guilty; or the one of two champions, who overcame the other in fight,
was held to have proved his case. But these irrational methods of trial
were falling rapidly into disfavour. The "ordeal" was forbidden at the
Lateran Council of 1216, and the Saxons, who much disliked the Norman
method of trial by battle, always sought in their local charters to win
exemption from the necessity of having recourse to it. Step by step the
modern jury system was introduced, which, whatever may be its faults,
is the most workable method hitherto discovered of obtaining a more or
less unbiassed verdict in any suit.
[Illustration: OLD WHITEFRIARS' MONASTERY, NOW COVENTRY UNION]
Another provision of the charter, as confirmed by Henry II., was
possibly an expedient to remedy the disasters which had lately befallen
the townsmen under Gernons and Hugh. It was necessary, if the town was
to grow and prosper, to attract settlers from different parts, and to
those seeking a home in Coventry the clause that "newcomers should be
free from all [payments] for two years after they began to build" would
be most welcome.[92] From this time no doubt the advent of passing
or abiding strangers was not infrequent, and the place began to put
on the appearance of a thriving little thoroughfare town. The grant
of a fair to the Earl's-men in 1217, and one to the prior some ten
years later, brought stranger merchants within the town-gates.[93] The
place was important enough to attract the Greyfriars thither before
1234, and the spire of their church still recalls their presence. More
than a hundred years later came the Whitefriars or Carmelites, whose
magnificent cloister is now incorporated in the workhouse. A colony of
Jews also found shelter in Coventry before the days of Edward I.[94] We
know no more than the names, and now and then the occupations of the
men of the place in the thirteenth century; for our inquiries among
the land-transfers of the time can elicit nothing save the records
of the sale of a tenement and curtilage by a William de Artungworth,
"le drapier," or their purchase by Richard le Tailleur, hosier, or
Richard de Mora, merchant. But even this bare enumeration of trades and
callings show the advance made by the men of Coventry since the time
when a handful of villeins and bondsmen tilled the lands that had been
Godiva's at the taking of the Domesday Survey.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 72: For a list of the manorial services required of villein
tenants see Maitland, _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_ (Selden Soc.,
i.), 102-4.]
[Footnote 73: Green, _Town Life_, i. 197-8]
[Footnote 74: Green, _op. cit._, i. 199. The Preston men bargained
that they should not be required to follow their lord on a warlike
expedition lasting more than one day (_Ibid._).]
[Footnote 75: For Henry II.'s charter to Lincoln see Stubbs, _Select
Charters_, 166.]
[Footnote 76: See Gross, _Gild Merchant_, i. 244-257; Bateson, "Laws of
Breteuil," _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvi.; Tait, _Mediæval Manchester_, 43-4.]
[Footnote 77: Nottingham and Winchester received a grant of particular
customs after the pattern of Coventry. London was taken as a model by
Norwich. See Hudson, _Rec. Norwich_, i. 12.]
[Footnote 78: Dugdale assigns this charter to Blondvil, and I see no
reason to differ. If Blondvil were the grantor, then the date would lie
between the years 1181, that of Earl Hugh's death, and 1189, the date
of the death of Henry II., who confirmed it. I am inclined to think
that the charter should be assigned to 1181-2, in which year the men of
Coventry paid 20 marks to the king.]
[Footnote 79: Corp. MS. B. 2. The charter is dated "apud Merlebergam" =
Marlborough. This charter was first printed by the late Mary Bateson in
"Laws of Breteuil," _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvi. 98-9.]
[Footnote 80: The townsfolk had not yet power to commute the fines and
forfeitures for a fixed sum, called fee-ferm.]
[Footnote 81: For the association of the feudal lord's representative
and the chosen official of the townsfolk in a town court see the case
of Totnes (Green, _Town Life_, i. 252).]
[Footnote 82: We infer from analogy that presentments were made by
a jury in this court. Norwich was--for judicial purposes--divided
into four leets. Each leet was divided into sub-leets, these latter
divisions being composed of as many parishes as would furnish twelve
tithings. The head-man, or "capital pledge" of every tithing--a band
of ten, twelve, or more citizens responsible for one another--made the
presentment of anything, which had happened in his tithing, which came
under the cognizance of the court. See Hudson, _Leet Jurisdiction in
Norwich_ (Selden Soc., vol. v.), xii.-xxvi.]
[Footnote 83: It is not clear whether the townsfolk at this period
attended the earl's leet or the sheriff's court. They certainly
attended the latter court in the time of Edward III. (Madox, _Firma
Burgi_, 108-9).]
[Footnote 84: _i.e._ has to be amerced, or fined.]
[Footnote 85: _i.e._ appear with five of her neighbours, who swear that
she is not guilty. This method of clearing the character by oath of the
neighbours was called compurgation.]
[Footnote 86: Shillings and pence were used as weights. We still speak
of "pennyweights" (Maitland).]
[Footnote 87: Because no neighbours could be found to swear, therefore
he is guilty.]
[Footnote 88: Pledges or sureties for the fine. These cases are all
imaginary, but drawn from analogous ones to be found in the Selden
Society's publications, the _Nottingham Records_, etc. I am by no means
sure that such cases as the last two would come within the purview of
the portmanmote. On the difficult question of the line between manorial
and regal jurisdiction see Hearnshaw, _Court Leet of Southampton_.]
[Footnote 89: So called because the parchment on which the two deeds
were written was so cut (indented) that they would exactly fit or
dovetail into one another when put together at any future time.
Hundreds of these documents are now at Coventry. See Section C of Mr
J.C. Jeaffreson's catalogue of Corp. MSS.]
[Footnote 90: In cases where the lord of the manor was entitled to hold
a leet or view of frankpledge, the tenants were exempt from attendance
at the hundred court. In the "view of frank-pledge" each testified
that they were enrolled in a tithing or body of mutually responsible
persons.]
[Footnote 91: The direct ancestor of our modern Grand Jury.]
[Footnote 92: The conditions under which strangers were admitted into
a town differed with the particular locality. A free craftsman would
be admitted to citizenship by purchase. If a serf escaped from his
master's estate, and lived unclaimed for a year and a day, he was as
a general rule permitted to continue in the town. In Lincoln it was
necessary that he should pay the town taxes during that period (Stubbs,
_Select Charters_, 159).]
[Footnote 93: Dugdale, _Warw._, i. 161.]
[Footnote 94: Cole, _Documents Illustrative of Eng. Hist._, 309-19.]