Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1

present. The sentence that describes in general terms the component parts of the council unfortunately is ambiguous. 66 The mayor, with the other worthy men (whose names are written on the other side of the folio) together with the commonalty." Was there in addition to the forty-eight, whose names are given, another body of people representing the rank and file of the city, and corresponding to the great multitude, who attended when the twentieth penny was under discussion? or did the scribe intend the sentence concerning the names to apply both to the worthy men and the commonalty. The last seems the more reasonable interpretation, especially as the communitate, which precedes the sentence "quorum nomina scripta sunt," has been tampered with. But whichever interpretation is accepted, the fact remains that these two entries taken together throw considerable light on the government of the city.

By the help of the freemen's list a very large number of the owners of these names can be identified. The first twelve names on the list would suggest, even without the entry on the opposite folio, that they were important civic office bearers. Johannes de Gyseburn,2 Robert de Howom,3 Rogerus de Moreton, Thomas de Howom5 were all mercers and had been mayors. Thomas Gra first appears in the freemen's list as mayor, the date of his freedom and the nature of his trade are omitted, probably he was

[ocr errors]

6

1. Ibid., p. 35. The entry has been tampered with; the first "communitate has been crossed through and then a series of dots placed below. There are three places left in the list of names which occupy a whole folio, and the experts consulted were not agreed as to whether the vellum had been written upon and names erased or whether the surface had been rubbed by constant reference. The names are placed in two columns. There is no division between the twelve, twenty-four and forty-eight, nor any indication on the folio of the reason for inserting the names. But the scribe seems to have begun with the twelve on the left hand column, then entered the twenty-four parallel with the twelve and continued the names in the same column, thus leaving a blank space opposite, under the names of the twelve. When beginning the list of the forty-eight, he has placed them in the left hand column until the space was filled. Thus the names of Johannes de Bolton, Johannes Quiglay and Willelmus Redehode ought to be included with the twenty-four.

2.

The Freemen of York, op. cit., pp. 39, 67, 68, 69. 3. Ibid., pp. 40, 65.

[blocks in formation]

4

son of William Gra, mercer, who was twice mayor and was summoned to assist the council about affairs of state in 13571; by inference he was a mercer too. Johannes de Barden2 a dyer and Johannes de Santon a draper3 had both been drapers had both been mayors; Richard de Thoresby a hosier, Robert Savage a mercer,5 William Beverley and Willelmus de Tykehill, whose trades are not mentioned, had been chamberlains and bailiffs. Thomas Thurkyll's presence is inexplicable; he took his freedom in 1365, but apparently his trade was unknown and he held no official position.8 Nine of these names had already appeared in a list of the twelve in the year 1377.9 It is clear that the highest division of the city council consisted of the wealthy merchant class, that the preponderance of members were mercers, though other trades were not excluded, and that these aldermen as they were already called, had served the city in the capacity of mayor or chamberlain and bailiff.

The following twenty-four names present two difficulties ; Hugo Charters and Johannes de Usfleet seem to have no right to occupy positions of authority. Charters was a tailor, who fourteen years later became bailiff; Useflete, a mariner, had obtained his freedom the previous year by patrimony, and never figures again in the roll. Exclusive, however, of these two men, the list gives twenty-three names, seventeen of whom have been bailiffs, eighteen chamberlains, twelve both chamberlain and bailiff, all had held either the one or the other office. Service was the key that opened the door to the twenty-four as it had to the twelve. But the personnel of the twenty-four can be still more clearly realized. The names of four-Johannes Welande, Willelmus de Helmesley, Thomas Smyth and Johannes de Qexley -are missing from the freemen's list. Of the remaining twenty,

1. Rolls of Parliament, vol. II., p. 457.
2. The Freemen of York, op. cit., p. 75.

R. H. Skaife, Register of the

Guild of Corpus Christi Surtees Society, vol. 57, p. 239.

3. Ibid., pp. 37, 74.

4. Ibid., pp. 41, 55, Drake Eboracum, p. 361.

5. Mem. Bk., p. 59. Drake, op. cit., p. 361.

6. Ibid., p. 46. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 74. Ibid.

8. Ibid., p. 63.

9. Ibid., p. 30.

seven are mercers, there are two dyers, two drapers, and the skinners, tanners, ironmongers, butchers, barbers, goldsmiths, cordwainers, tailors and mariners each send one representative. Obviously both twelve and twenty-four are drawn from the same class. In both there is a preponderance of mercers; in neither does the artizan figure. The remaining forty-five names, for the christian name of the forty-seventh only is given, and a space is left for the forty-eighth, include two merchants, Johannes de Cesay1 and Johannes Sevenhous. Is it possible that here is a solution of the disconcerting presence of Johannes de Usefleet and Hugo Charters among the twenty-four. By a scribal error have Johannes de Cesay and Johannes de Sevenhous taken places among the forty-eight, which ought to have been occupied by Johannes de Usefleet and Hugo Charters ?3

Johannes1 and Willelmus Benetson, Willelmus Abbot, Willelmus de Wekelyngton, Johannes de Parker remain unidentified, and the trades of Johannes Fourner, Alexander Glasyer, Robert Walker and Thomas Parchemener can only be inferred from their names. Godescallus Armurer appears as Godescalcus de Smithusen, Johannes Cole de Mikelgat as Johannes de Mikelgat, Robertus Christendome as Robertus Christiane in the list of freemen; still in an age when nomenclature was irregular, a man often taking a second name from his trade or his birth place or some physical peculiarity and both names being used indifferently, it is surprising that the process of identification yields such good results. The list includes all the leading trades of York, still it would be premature to state that the forty-eight were elected members of the different craft-gilds of the city. Two sadlers, two cordwainers, two marshalls, two walkers, two coopers, two shearers, two pinners, two ironmongers, two barbers, a bower, a fisher, an armourer, a challoner, a parchment maker, a packer, a currier, a taverner, a carpenter, a cap maker, a goldsmith, a clerk, a fourner, a potter, a baker, a cutler and a glover figure on the roll. It is impossible to deny the

1. Ibid.,
p. 65.

2. Ibid., p. 49.

4.

3. Hugo Charters became bailiff later in 1394. Drake, op. cit., p. 362. Solvit iijs, iiijd. usque idem festum [Purif. 1396]. Freemen of York, p. 99.

op. cit.,

representative nature of the list or to think it the result of fortuity. Some few of the names leave an opportunity for selection, Johannes Lambe may be a cordwainer or a chapman ;1 Willelmus de Stokton a sauser 1346, or a tanner 1349, or a pinner 1353, or a wiredrawer 1358, or a mercer 1368;2 and John de Collwich carpenter 1345, or a mercator 1368; Willelmus de Howson a pestour 1345, or a potter 1364, or a coseour (?) 1366. The barbersurgeon Willelmus de Bolton was probably the son or grandson, (the name occurs twice in the roll in 13575 and 1375,5) of an illustrious York surgeon, who in 13486 was summoned to Bamborough to extract an arrow from David de Brus, who was lying wounded there. He received six pounds for his expenses. The other member of the craft Johannes de Beverley may have been chamberlain in 1369 and bailiff in 1373,7 but the name was too common in York, (there were twelve freemen of that name before 1379,) to allow of any definite deduction. The line of demarcation between the forty-eight and the twenty-four is not very striking, goldsmiths, ironmongers, barbers, cordwainers are common to both, possibly mercers too. The most that can be said with accuracy is that the mercers predominate in the twelve, the mercantile crafts in the twenty-four, and the manufacturing crafts in the forty-eight. But one fact emerges very clearly the distinction between twelve, twenty-four, and forty-eight was one of office, not trade. Few or none of the forty-eight had held any qualifying official position. From the evidence afforded by the Memorandum Book, it is impossible to say whether the claim of the forty-eight to take part in the government of the city was based on election or on their position in the gilds. But it is significant that the only occasion on which a full official list of the ruling council in the fourteenth century in York has come to light, the assembly should have been so representative.

1. Ibid., pp. 41, 48.

2. Ibid., pp. 40, 44, 49, 53, 66.

3. Ibid., pp. 38, 66.

4. Ibid., pp. 39, 61, 64.

5. Ibid., pp. 52, 74.

6. P.R.O. Exchequer K. R. Accounts, 48.

7. Freemen of York, pp. 61, 67. Drake op. cit., 361.

If the scribe considered the meeting was exceptional, he carefully abstains from drawing attention to the fact, the formula in which it is announced is similar to that constantly used throughout the fourteenth century. The insertion of names is the unique feature. Certainly there is nothing to justify any deduction that the meeting was the result of any great upheaval, by which oppressed craftsmen wrested from a reluctant oligarchy of wealthy merchants power to manage their own affairs and an important share in civic administration. The great revolutionary movements, which went on all over the Continent during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, have no counterpart in York. England was behind the Continent in industrial development, and in the fourteenth century it is doubtful whether the industrial world was sufficiently differentiated to admit of capital driving labour from a participation in civic government. It is possible that the meeting of July, 1379, might be unique in its highly organized and representative character, and in the completeness of its attendance roll; but that it was typical of the general arrangement of the council of the fourteenth century, a mayor, assisted by well-to-do merchants and "the better of the crafts1" is incontrovertible. The gradual development of the power of the mercers and their monopoly of civic government belongs to the next century.2

4

An analysis of the hundred meetings that are chronicled brings out distinctly that when the commonalty were interested they attended. Ordinances of considerable importance affecting the whole life of the city and the general conduct of its affairs were passed in 1370,3 1371, 1372,5 1379;6 new regulations were passed with regard to the election of the mayor and the date of the election of the chamberlains in 1374;7 the whole commonalty, to use the vague and inaccurate term, were present when these measures were enacted and gave their consent. In 1378, when a tenth was

1. W. Hudson op. cit. pp. xlviii., xlix., 61.

2.

York has in the MSS. belonging to the Merchant Adventurers' Company materials which throw considerable light on this subject.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »