CHAPTER XII

_The Lammas Lands_

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]

[Illustration: Swanswell Gate]

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.

[Illustration: COUNCIL CHAMBER, SHOWING PANELLING]

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.

[Illustration: THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, ST. MARY'S HALL]

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.

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.

[Illustration: BABLAKE AND S. JOHN'S CHURCH]

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.]