_The Mayor, Bailiffs, and Community_
We have seen that it was the stable and well-to-do classes which bore
rule over their fellow-citizens. Men of substance, and they only, were
eligible for office, and the terms "degree of a mayor," "degree of a
bailiff," used in assessing fines, show that there was some strictness
maintained with regard to this property qualification. And indeed it
was needful that mayors, bailiffs and the like should be moneyed men,
for their responsibilities were great and the turns of fortune curious,
for should any source of revenue fail, they were compelled to make up
the deficit, and hence were poorer men at the year's end than at the
beginning. Thus when the prior refused to pay the murage tax for twenty
years, the chamberlains, or treasurers, contributed the sum that was
lacking from their own purses.[161] Still, on the whole, the magnates
preferred to acquiesce in their election rather than pay £100, 100
marks, or £40 as a fine for refusing to fill the respective offices of
mayor, sheriff or master of either guild. Once, indeed, a certain Roger
a Lee declined to occupy the office of chamberlain, though he was a man
well-to-do, having received £30 in money and plate with his wife, and
must--so the prevailing opinion was--have "had right largely of his
own," or else "John Pachet would not have married his daughter to him."
When solemnly adjured to "come in and exercise the said office," Roger
persisted in his refusal, nor did the imposition of a fine of £20 avail
to shake his resolution.[162]
[Illustration: THE CITY KEYS]
But having once accepted office, with all its emoluments, risk and
toil, a citizen was forthwith raised to a platform, high above the
mere "commoner," who had neither lot nor part in the rule of his city.
He became one of the "men of worship," whom to insult was a dire
offence;[163] and his doings must not be cavilled at, or explained to
the vulgar herd. Gravity, decorum, and, above all things, secrecy[164]
marked the councils wherein he took part. Seemliness of behaviour was
demanded from him; a late mayor must live cleanly, the leet decreed,
and not give way after warning to "avowtre, fornicacion, or usure," if
he wished to rise higher as master of the Trinity guild, or continue to
meet his brethren at the council board.[165]
[Illustration: THE SWORD]
[Illustration: THE CITY MACE]
Distinguished on great occasions by his official dress, he was
surrounded by an atmosphere of form and ceremony, which no doubt had
its effect on the outside world. When the mayor went to mass every
morning at "seven of the clock" the sword-bearer and officers attended
him. A like procession was formed on the way back, for though the
underlings might go about their business during service, they were
commanded to "hearken" the time of the mayor's coming out of church
so as to be ready to accompany him homewards.[166] So sensible were
these worthy men of the dignity of their position, that questions of
precedence were ever considered of great moment. When Harry Boteler,
the recorder, fell into disgrace in 1484 by magnifying his office at
the mayor's expense, the council thought it a due punishment that
he should yield his place to the master of the Trinity guild, who
thenceforth went by the mayor's side in all municipal processions,[167]
an order afterwards rescinded probably to gratify one of Boteler's
successors; the mayor from that time walked alone, the master and
recorder together.[168]
The labours of the town officials were greatly increased by the
all-embracing character of the local legislation. The people of the
Middle Ages believed devoutly in the efficacy of the law, and many
matters concerning prices, wages, and the like, now known to regulate
themselves according to supply and demand, were at times the subject
of an infinite amount of often fruitless law-making. Nothing could
check the zeal and energy of the local law-givers; no subject was too
difficult for them to grapple with, none beneath their consideration.
The worshipful men might reverse the whole organisation of the crafts
connected with the iron industry at one leet sitting,[169] or, on the
other hand, turn their attention to the local supply of halfpenny
pies, or the amount of wheat put by the families of the two parishes
into the holy cake, or blessed bread, distributed to the congregation.
No doubt it was impossible to enforce all these regulations. All the
energy of the leet, or council, and the vigilance of the town officers
often failed to do away with a long-standing abuse. It was forbidden,
under penalty of £10, to throw refuse into the Sherbourne; yet though
"great diligence" was made to learn who the offenders were, it did not
hinder the commission of the offence.[170] And although, according to
the decrees of leet and council, people were compelled to be cleanly,
honest and peaceable, I make no doubt that ducks[171] and swine still
appeared in the streets,[172] bakers' loaves fell short of the proper
weight,[173] and men of craft bore arms in the city, and wounded each
other in quarrel.[174] In short, many regulations were mere paper
regulations to the end of the chapter.
The mayor and his colleagues had no light work before them on taking
office. Numberless details of municipal business went far to fill
their days with employment. In addition to his judicial duties, a
mayor examined, either in person or by deputy, a great part of the
household stuff which came into the city to be sold. He must needs have
some acquaintance with matters military, when a threat of invasion or
civil war turned him into a captain, and the citizens under him into
soldiers, such as they appeared at the half-yearly muster, each armed
with such weapons as suited his degree.[175] While, in order to acquit
himself with credit in the difficult and delicate relations wherein the
citizens were frequently involved with the outside world of politics, a
mediæval mayor must gather all the information he could upon affairs of
state.
[Illustration: THE OLD STATE CHAIR]
The bailiffs, with their work of court-holding, ferm-paying, and
fine-collecting;[176] the chamberlains, who overlooked the common
pastures, and put the murage money to its proper use;[177] the wardens,
who supervised town property and made payment of sundry expenses,
delivering up their accounts for the annual audit, were all deeply
immersed in business. And the keeping of these accounts was no easy
matter, so great a variety of items was included therein, and so
frequent were the demands upon the public purse. Now the wardens would
be called upon to entertain and reward the bearward of a neighbouring
nobleman, or the groups of strolling players who set up their booth
in the inn-yard or market-place; or, again, to contribute to the
maintenance of the knights of the shire,[178] or lay down the ten
pounds, which the mayor took as the "fee of the cloak";[179] now to
defray the cost of a civic banquet, or that of the mayor's new fur
cap, keeping in the latter case, the "olde stuffe" for the use of
the town.[180] Surely much of the activity of the House of Commons
under Edward III. and the House of Lancaster is in the main due to the
training many of its members received at home in the local guild-hall
or council-house.
A great part of the municipal business in the Middle Ages was carried
on by bodies consisting of twenty-four men, a double jury, a number
occurring in London as early as 1205-6,[181] in Leicester in 1225,[182]
and rather later in Norwich.[183] In Coventry in the fifteenth century
twenty-four late officials, frequently including the justices of the
peace, brought together by some indirect process of which we have
lost the secret, elected the officers for the ensuing year. The same
number, and to all intents and purposes the same men, were the jurats
of the leet. A council of twenty-four, chosen by the mayor and perhaps
identical with the jury of the leet, examined petitions four days
before the two great assemblies of this court, in order, it seems,
to discuss and decide on their rejection or acceptance by the jury
of the leet. Moreover, twenty-four nominees of the mayor reinforced
the electoral jury of twenty-four to form the mayor's council of
forty-eight.[184] In practice, however, there was no rigid adherence
to these numbers; small executive or deliberative bodies frequently
met, and on occasions when it was deemed necessary large "halls" or
assemblies of indeterminate numbers were summoned by the mayor to
testify to the popular will. This calling together of the community,
a relic maybe of immemorial custom,[185] affording in its traces of
ward[186] organisation evidence of a form of government older and more
popular than the system employed by the town rulers in the fifteenth
century, reveals a lack of any well-thought-out scheme to ensure the
election of representatives. Hence it seems to have been of little
avail for purposes of popular control. The members were summoned at
the requisition of the mayor, and were frequently to a great extent
members of the official class. Hence in the cases of which we have
record they did nothing but set the seal of approval to the official
policy. Thus in 1384[187] the mayor summoned four or six out of every
ward to learn what the common wish was concerning the Podycroft and
other common lands, which the Trinity guild kept in severalty in
return for the annual ferm of £10 paid to the prior on behalf of the
corporation, the assembly was in favour of the continuance of the old
arrangement, though it was avowedly a most unpopular one. And no orders
of leet availed to check the open discontent of the common folk, who
certainly did not feel themselves in any way bound by this assembly.
The guild constantly found that their fences were broken down, and
their fields overrun by the people at Lammas; and in 1414[188] it was
thought necessary to decree that people trespassing (_delinquentes_) in
the enclosures should be arrested, and imprisoned until they had made
sufficient amends "by view of the guild master and six of the guild
brethren."
But the discontent of the commonalty did not abate, and once more, in
1421, the officers in high place went through the form of consulting
their fellow-townsmen. A hundred and thirty-four citizens, summoned
at the mayor's requisition to S. Mary's Hall, gave the lie to popular
discontent a second time, and approved of the giving over of the
Mirefield, the Podycroft and Stivichall Hiron to the use of the
guildsmen. But the anger of the townsmen became so hot that in the
following year they destroyed certain gardens at Cheylesmore, which,
it appears, had been enclosed by well-known townsmen, members of the
mayor's council and justices of the peace.[189]
The mayor's council of Forty-eight, one of the most important of the
constitutional expedients ever devised by the ruling class at Coventry,
met apparently for the first time in 1423. In the previous year, no
doubt with the notion of allaying the prevailing discontent, the idea
of selecting a definite number of commoners from every ward to form
a council to watch over the interests of the commonweal first took
shape. There had been "dissentious stirrings" concerning enclosures,
and there is little doubt that at the Michaelmas leet there was some
speech of giving those outside the corporation some means of checking
the alleged malpractices of the municipal rulers. The mayor had been
charged to call forty-eight commoners, divers out of every ward, to
hear _the chamberlains' accounts_ for three years past, and to witness
any _grants made under the common seal_.[190] But there is little or
nothing to tell of the activity of this body of commoners.[191] On the
other hand, at the first opportunity the corporation turned this idea
of a council into a weapon for their own defence by providing at the
election of the mayor in the following January that there should be one
consisting of the staunchest supporters of the town rulers. "It was
provided," the _Leet Book_ says, "that the said mayor should call and
take to him the same twenty-four worthy men, that were of his election,
with other twenty-four wise and discreet men, chosen to them and named
by the said mayor," and that this company should "put in rule all
manner of good ordinances" for the benefit of the city.[192] And the
worthy men were determined that this good ordaining should be followed
by prompt obedience.
"It is and hath been accustomed," says an insertion in 1484 in the
records of Leet, "that whatever the foresaid forty-eight persons
ordaineth and establisheth for worship of mayoralty, bailiffs and
commonalty of this city, according to the law, all the whole body
of this city shall be bound thereby."[193] A certain latitude was
allowed to the mayor as to whom summons should be sent "when he had
need of forty-eight persons," save that he was always warned to
require the attendance of "sufficient" men,[194] _i.e._ of suitable
rank. After 1446 we find that the presence of a quorum of twelve
persons was sufficient for the transaction of business, the whole body
afterwards giving their assent to the measures ordained by this smaller
company.[195] And it was most probably this small working body that
was the ancestor of the inner council of the mayor and aldermen, which
ultimately, by the charter of James I., gained complete and unchecked
control over the municipal affairs of Coventry. The rule of this
council gradually became a veritable tyranny. Even the official class
rebelled against its dictates. We hear of a majority, "the most part"
of the council, and this includes the idea of a dissentient minority.
Those who transgressed the commands of this majority, if they had never
filled the sheriff's post, lost the freedom of the city; while late
mayors or sheriffs lost their official rank. He shall "be exempt,"
the order ran[196] in the sheriff's case, "from wearing scarlet among
his company in all common assemblies, feasts, and processions"; and
further, to be punished with fine and imprisonment at the mayor and
council's discretion; on a late mayor the same penalty was laid, with
the addition that he should be "exempt from his cloke and council";
while any citizens "comforting the disobedient" were to suffer the same
penalties. When we learn that this order was framed in 1516 for the
correction of John Strong, late mayor and _ex officio_ member of the
council, we may form some conception of the tyranny of this body, whose
doings even divided the corporation against itself.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 161: _Leet Book_, 597. They were afterwards reimbursed when
the suit was decided against the prior.]
[Footnote 162: _Leet Book_, 619.]
[Footnote 163: See Green, _Town Life_, ii. 256, for examples of the
punishments of those who insulted officials. In Coventry two men--John
Smith and John Duddesbury--for their ill-behaviour to "men of worship"
were, in 1495, put under surety from session to session until their
submission should content the justices of the peace (_Leet Book_, 569).]
[Footnote 164: Six of the mayor's council met every Wednesday. The
sergeant kept the council-house doors so that no unauthorised person
might enter (_Ib._, 516).]
[Footnote 165: _Leet Book_, 544. The mayor was to be deprived of his
"cloke" (_i.e._ official rank) and council, of which body he was an
_ex-officio_ member.]
[Footnote 166: _Leet Book_, 662.]
[Footnote 167: _Leet Book_, 521. The recorder was the legal adviser of
the corporation.]
[Footnote 168: _Ib._, 642.]
[Footnote 169: _Ib._, 180.]
[Footnote 170: _Ib._, 455.]
[Footnote 171: _Ib._, 27.]
[Footnote 172: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 173: _Ib._, 24.]
[Footnote 174: _Leet Book_, 28.]
[Footnote 175: Green, _Town Life_, i. 127.]
[Footnote 176: The bailiffs by their oaths were compelled to pay all
due ferms and fees, and to be present on court days and sessions of the
peace (_Leet Book_, 224).]
[Footnote 177: See the chamberlains' accounts (_Ib._, 54-5).]
[Footnote 178: _Leet Book_, 107. Knight's fees to be paid by wardens,
and not by chamberlains.]
[Footnote 179: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 180: _Leet Book_, 334. If the cap cost more than 13s. 4d.,
the surplus was to be paid by the mayor.]
[Footnote 181: Round, _Commune of London_, 237-8.]
[Footnote 182: Bateson, _Rec. Leic._, i. 34-5.]
[Footnote 183: Hudson, _Norwich_, xxxv.]
[Footnote 184: See below, p. 93.]
[Footnote 185: Any business touching the public weal--such as the
payment of a royal debt, granting away of town property and the
like--could not be transacted without the official consent of the
community. Thus in 1422, when the mayor summoned sixteen of the
magnates to weitness the sealing of deds relating to town property,
"it was perceived by the mayor and all present that it would be
more expedient ... for the mayor to summon these following and many
concitizens" (_Leet Book_, 40).]
[Footnote 186: Those who were summoned for purposes of consultation
came according to their wards. Thus in 1384 it was determined that the
mayor should summon four or six citizens out of every ward (vico), who
should testify "tam pro seipsis quam pro tota communitate ville," what
the general will was concerning the enclosure of certain meadows by the
Trinity guild (_Ib._, 5).]
[Footnote 187: _Leet Book_, 5.]
[Footnote 188: _Ib._, 20.]
[Footnote 189: The commons destroyed Julius (? Giles) Allesley's
gardens without the Grey Friar Gate (Harl. MS. 6,388, f. 16). Giles
Allesley was mayor in 1426. Attilboro, a member of the usual council of
twenty-four, who took part in the election of the mayor (_Leet Book_,
22), and Southam, a justice of the peace (_Ib._, 44), had gardens which
encroached on the common lands, for which they were allowed, when the
survey was taken, to pay a composition (_Ib._, 50-1).]
[Footnote 190: _Leet Book_, 42. These grants were given to enable
certain citizens to dispense with the ordinary regulations of leet;
probably much favour and affection were shown in the granting of them.]
[Footnote 191: We cannot tell whether this council even met. In 1423 we
hear that the chamberlains' accounts were audited in the presence of
the mayor and "48 honest and legal men" elected by the aforesaid mayor
to hear the accounts (_Ib._, 54). Query, were these the commoners, or
the mayor's council of Forty-eight?]
[Footnote 192: _Leet Book_, 44.]
[Footnote 193: _Ib._, 520.]
[Footnote 194: _Ib._, 157.]
[Footnote 195: _Ib._, 228.]
[Footnote 196: _Leet Book_, 647-8.]