_The Seigniory of the Prior and Queen Isabella_
Hitherto it had fared ill with the Earl's-men in their struggle with
the convent. Were they to be worsted like the men of S. Alban's or
Bury S. Edmund's? The former were now utterly broken in spirit. After
a hard fight lasting from the days of Henry III., they obtained in
1327 a charter, conferring on them the control over the local courts
and the privileges of a free and independent borough. And yet they
were powerless. Five years later they voluntarily surrendered their
charter into the abbot's hands. They gave up the perambulation of
their borough. They took their handmills--the initial cause of the
contention--and left them in the churchyard in token of renunciation.
They presented to the abbot the town chest with the keys belonging
thereto, thus relinquishing all their rights as a free and independent
community. Nor did better success attend the Bury S. Edmund's men,
who had the same high hopes as the S. Alban's folk, and who in the
same year compelled their abbot to concede to them a guild merchant,
a community, a common seal, and the custody of their gates. Five
years later they too were forced to abandon these claims, and, after
a fruitless effort at the time of the Peasant Revolt in 1381,[115]
both towns sank into apathy, each under the rule of the great local
religious house.
But alone among convent towns, a piece of supreme good fortune awaited
Coventry. The townsmen, just at a critical time, gained a powerful
champion. In 1327, by some bargain between Isabella, widow of Edward
II. and the representatives of the Chester family, the rents coming
from the Earl's-half passed into the Queen's hands, to become after
her death parcel of the duchy of Cornwall, heritage of the princes of
Wales. We have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the quarrel
which raged for twenty years between the Queen and the prior of S.
Mary's convent. The undoubted gainers in this conflict were the men of
Coventry; for, helpless under Isabella's repeated attacks, the monks
conceded to their tenants those rights of self-government whereof they
had stood in need so long.
Soon after the Queen's entry into possession of the De Montalt estate,
the prior had many bitter complaints to make of the treatment he
received at her hands and at the hands of his "mortal enemies," the men
of Coventry. His courts were deserted by the men of the Earl's-half,
the profits of his franchise finding their way, no doubt, into the
Queen's coffers, as her steward held a court at Cheylesmore. His dues,
waifs, heriots, the mournful enumeration proceeds, were withheld, and
certain tenements belonging to him seized into "my lady's hand" in
spite of charters shown to prove his ample right to the same. Great
destruction had been wrought in his woods at Whitmore under colour
of the Queen's claim to gather her "estovers," or fuel, therein. And
the boundaries about these woods had been violently thrown down,
and if "they be not now enclosed to prevent cattle from pasturing
therein, they will be ruined for ever past recovery." The men of the
Earl's-half lived in the prior's tenements in the Earl's Orchard,
detaining the rent, twenty marks a year, "by tort and force." But
this was not the worst. By cover "of the Seigneurie of my said lady,"
the prior continued, a great part of the rents in Coventry were
treacherously withheld, and the monks dared not take distress and force
the defaulters to pay "for peril of death." For when their bailiff,
Simon Pakeman, went to demand the aforesaid rents without making any
distraint for the same, "up came Peter de Stoke and other mad folk
... and assaulted the said Simon with force of arms, and beat and
maltreated him, saying ... that if the said prior and convent ever
made any demand of the kind in the Earl's-half they would make their
heads fly" (_ferryent voler les testes_).[116] Again and again the
prior and convent poured forth their monotonous complaint. Now they
"prayed restitution" for the rent of two messuages, "which for two
years last past my lady had given to a demoiselle of her chamber."[117]
Now they averred that she had put the bailiff of the Earl's-half out
of his office, whereby they had lost all profits arising from their
franchises. Still the spoliation continued; they fixed the damage the
convent had sustained at £20,000,[118] and, turning from the deaf ears
of Queen Isabel, besought the King to see justice done for God's sake,
"and for love of our Lady, his dear Mother, in whose honour the priory"
had been founded, lest the convent should be compelled to disperse.[119]
Meanwhile the men of Coventry were gaining every year important graces
from Edward III. Now that the power of the prior was thus diminished,
there was no one to prevent the acquisition of fresh liberties, and
their money circulated freely at Westminster, the messengers bringing
back in return the precious slips of parchment sealed with the King's
seal, the testimony of new rights to be enjoyed by the townsfolk. In
1334 their merchandise was freed from toll in all places throughout
the King's dominions.[120] Six years later licence was given them
to form a merchant guild,[121] while other kindred societies sprang
up, and received licence to hold land in mortmain.[122] In 1341 the
King granted a charter to the effect that any inquisition of lands or
tenements within the city should be taken by the townsmen, and not by
strangers, an important provision at a time when there were frequent
lawsuits between the Queen and the prior.[123]
The convent give a graphic description of the effect of such an
inquisition upon their holding, and of the plot between the Queen and
the Earl's-men which caused the inquiry to be made.[124] "There came
the Men of the Earl's-half of Coventry amongst others ... Conspiring
and Compassing the undoing of the said prior and of his monks, and the
Disinheritance and Destruction of their Church, and making show of
their Intent unto my said Lady that her Seigniorie was more largely
than she had occupied.... Whereupon the Stewards and some of the
officers of my said Lady, without having any Power or Commission from
the Court of our Lord the King, took an Inquisition of the said
Men, Adversarys to the said Prior and Convent, what were the Bounds
in Ancient times of the Seigniorye of the Earl Rondulph ... which
men quickly and Maliciously gave up the said false verdict to the
Damnation of their Souls, Saying that all the Prior's-half, which is
of foundation of the Church, is two little leys (meadows), whereon the
profits by year are not above 50s.... and did fasten stakes of Division
to Separate the Seigniory of my said Lady from the Seigniory of the
said Prior." What made this action so particularly galling was that it
was the "Seigniory of the ffoundation" of their "Church" Isabel called
in question, though they had held it, they declared, long time before
the coming of the Conqueror, and before the Earls of Chester, whose
representative the Queen was, had been heard of in England.
The prior's complaints availed nothing; the men of Coventry were
in a sure way of victory, and in 1345 the city was incorporated by
charter. Three years later one John Ward took his seat as first mayor
of the city. The mayor, bailiffs, and community were henceforth to
be responsible for the fee-ferm;[125] and power to hear and adjudge
certains pleas, hitherto treated of in the county court, was given to
the city officers. The prior and his brethren looked upon this as a
last indignity. "They are become lords of the said prior, all whome
beforetime were his tenants," and in consequence of the inquisition
above mentioned, he and his brethren were now "entirely involved within
the danger of the mayor and his bailiffs, for they had not a foot of
land of their Seigniory" beyond the priory gates.[126]
Wearied of a struggle which had lasted for twenty years, the litigants,
the Queen, the prior, and the newly-made corporation allowed the
dispute to be set at rest once and for all in 1355, and the "Indenture
Tripartite" made between them took the form of a compromise. Each of
the three parties agreed to restore or forego the exercise of certain
rights, or at least to accept an equivalent. The prior gave up all
claim to jurisdiction over the Earl's-men, and the Queen forgave him
£10 of the yearly ferm owing to her, while the franchises he thus
relinquished--the right of holding view of frankpledge or leet and
other courts with the exercise of the coronership--Isabel bestowed
on the mayor, bailiffs, and community. These in their turn agreed to
indemnify the convent by a payment of £10 a year.
Other matter of contention was laid at rest. The prior's tenants were
to be taxable with the Earl's-men, and to serve as mayors and bailiffs
with their fellow-citizens. The restrictions on buying and selling,
which had given rise to the lawsuit in the former reign, were wholly
laid aside. "Any persons of whatsoever condition they be, [may] sell
any manner of wares" in the Earl's part, "or buy at what day or time it
shall please them, and they shall not be disturbed by the said prior
and convent." And although the market was to continue to be held as
of old in the Prior's-half, no toll was to be taken according to the
ancient custom, except for horses, while all the regulations concerning
sale and merchandise should henceforth "be at the ordinance of the
mayor and community." The assize of bread, ale, and victuals was to be
kept by the mayor; and though the prior was to have all the profits
arising from the fines of offenders against the assize, the officers
of the corporation could enter the convent half, and, in case the
prior's officers neglected to punish fraudulent brewers and bakers,
could levy fines upon these evil-doers and see justice done.
Various restitutions were made on the Queen's part, showing that she
and her advisers were really intent on a peaceful solution of the
difficulty. The advowson of chapels, chantries, and the like, which
she had appropriated, were restored to the prior, who, in his turn,
forgave all the delinquencies of the Earl's-men against himself.[127]
The "Tripartite" was drawn up so clearly, and in so fair a spirit, that
in essentials it was never afterwards called in question. Disputes
arose between the convent and the townsmen in later days, it is true,
but not concerning the all-important matters of trade and jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, this compact put an end, once and for all, to the prior's
dominion in Coventry. Henceforth in recounting the history of the
place, we have little concern with the convent; our subject touches
only upon the rule and fortunes of the mayor, bailiffs, and community
of the city.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 115: Thompson, _Municipal History_, 22 _sqq._ Green, _Town
Life_, i. 298.]
[Footnote 116: Burton MS. f. 88. This appears to be the sense, but this
portion of the document is missing from Burton's folio. I found it on
a loose leaf in the _Leet Book_, copied in Norman French in a modern
and rather illegible hand from the deeds which were in the Stanton
collection of papers destroyed in the Birmingham library fire. [It is
now in Burton's Book Corp. MS. A. 34.]]
[Footnote 117: _Ib._, f. 110_a_.]
[Footnote 118: Burton MS. f. 63_a_. An incredible sum.]
[Footnote 119: _Ib._, ff. 109-12.]
[Footnote 120: Corp. MS. B. 7.]
[Footnote 121: _Ib._, 6.]
[Footnote 122: These were S. John the Baptist, S. Catherine, the Corpus
Christi, and the Trinity guilds, founded respectively in 1342, 1343,
and 1364.]
[Footnote 123: _Inspeximus_, 15 Ed. III. (Corp. MS. B. 7). This would
be highly important in a trial taking place at the county court, where
the sheriff might impanel a jury, not of townsmen, but of those in the
country round, who would not be acquainted with the "metes and bounds"
dividing the two estates. The Prior of Dunstable was accused by the
burgesses of introducing foreign jurors into the town (_Cornh. Mag._,
vi. 837).]
[Footnote 124: Burton MS. f. 110_a_.]
[Footnote 125: The fee-ferm rent, representing the King's rights over
the fines, forfeitures, etc, taken from criminals, was fixed at £50
a year. The liberties granted to be summed up thus: (1) The townsmen
may duly elect their own mayor and bailiffs. (2) They have cognizance
of pleas, of trespasses, contracts, covenants, and all other business
amongst themselves. (3) There is to be a seal for the recognition of
debts. (4) Mayor and bailiffs to have profits of view of frankpledge
with the court, to have control over the gaol, fair, market, etc., and
in return a ferm of £50 to be paid to the Queen and her heirs (Corp.
MS. B. 11).]
[Footnote 126: Burton MS. f. 111_a_.]
[Footnote 127: Burton, MS. ff. 98-103.]