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, 8.

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

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 1371,4 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.

demanded by the King for the better equipment of the ship sent by the people of York to Southampton for the service of the State, the commonalty attended.1 They were present also when the ordinance was passed, by which anyone taking his case into another court, before he had applied in the court of the mayor, bailiffs and commonalty should be fined £40.2 They were in attendance in 1394, when an important regulation was passed that no bondman should be admitted to the freedom of the city.3 In 14011 a dispute arose about the retention of the ancient custom of the twentieth pennyworth; the commonalty in a great multitude attended the meeting. It is obvious, therefore, that whether they attended as an organized part of the government of the city under a technical name or as a hetereogeneous body, the commonalty could make their power felt, when the question at issue was sufficiently momentous.

7

The substitution of sheriffs for bailiffs, when York became a county, led to the creation of a new official, a recorder,5 "learned in law and of good repute," to assist in the city's councils-John de Morton was recorder in 1410;6 the sheriffs do not figure often in the Memorandum Book but a copy of the regulations of the sheriff's tourn, unfortunately undated, is given. The jury consisted of twelve men from the four parishes near which the offence had been committed. A similar method was followed in the case of presentments before the coroner in cases of sudden death, and if a jury of twelve men of the hundred made presentment of a crime, the justices referred it to the oath of a jury from the four vills that were nearest to the scene of the crime. If the sergeant of the sheriff found difficulty in collecting the whole

7. Ibid., pp. 137-139, translation p.

Pollock and Maitland, vol. I., pp. 558, 559. Stubb's Constitutional History, vols. I., 117, 430; II., pp. 214, 284; III., p. 418.

8. C. Gross Coroners' Rolls. Selden Soc., XXX-XXX11., xl. Somerset Assize Rolls passim. Pollock and Maitland op. cit., vol. II., pp. 647, 648.

of his fees or the amount of the action, he was empowered to seal up the door of the room of the delinquent until it was paid.1

There were many minor officials connected with the municipality. The first reference to the sergeants does not place that body in a favourable light. John Waleys, sergeant, was warned, that if his behaviour to the Mayor and councillors (bonz gentz) did not improve he would be dismissed; he had to find two sureties for his good behaviour.2 The same day 3 Feb., 137 six additional sergeants were chosen, and this number was continued until 1378; but by 13805 the number had been reduced to six; in 13816 the names of their sureties were inserted, and in 1382 an elaborate account of the exact district for which each sergeant was answerable was also added to the list."

In 1389 an ordinance was passed that the six servants attached to the council chamber were in the future to have twelve marks, £8, at Easter and Christmas, and two liveries one for winter, one for summer. The ordinance was certainly required, for it was undoubtedly scandalous that the city's servants should have been in such dire poverty that they were driven to asking alms throughout the city.8

An extremely interesting list of the constables and subconstables," who guarded the city walls, is given for the year 1380. The mayor himself kept the keys of Micklegate; Robert Warde, a bailiff, those of Monkgate; Hugh Dannok [Dymock], a former bailiff, those of Layrethorp; William de Selby afterwards mayor, those of Bootham.10 But all the constables and subconstables were men of satisfactory status. There is no hint in the Memorandum Book that the men of York followed the evil

1. There is some ambiguity about this passage. If a semi-colon is inserted after partie then the better translation would be the total of a suit, i.e., the sum of the various items for summons, distress, distraint, etc.; but if left unpunctuated then it would seem to mean the amount of the action, i.e., the amount of the damages, plus costs possibly. Pollock and Maitland, vol. II., pp. 596-7.

2. Mem. Bk., p. 18.

3. Ibid., p. 19.
4, 5. Ibid., p. 20.

6. Ibid., p. 19.

7. Ibid., p. 24.

example of the men of Chester, who in the reign of Edward i., bribed the city officers to connive at their evading their duties, as watchers of the walls; nor is there any evidence that any tenants were bound by their tenure to watch the city. In Chester sixteen tenants were forced to perform this disagreeable duty, for three nights each year, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and St. Stephen's Day.1

The excessive care bestowed upon the watch was obviously caused by the disturbed state of the city in 1380. The connexion between the York disturbances and the Peasants' Revolt under Wat Tyler is not clear, but the riots of the two opposing factions. under John de Gisburn, the deposed mayor, and Simon de Quixley, who had been forced by his adherents to take the office, obliged the government to appoint a commission of investigation.3 It is almost impossible to gain a clear idea of the affair from the mass of evidence brought before this commission. One fact, however, shows how important it was that the watch of the city should be in trustworthy hands. For it is clear from the evidence that John de Gisburn and his followers had had an armed encounter with Quixley's adherents at Bootham Bar, they had forced their way into the city and continued the disturbance.1 Each party flings the most reckless charges at the other,5 Gisburn was a thief, a friend of thieves, a coiner of false money; Quixley on the other hand had seized and imprisoned innocent men, forced them to give bonds for debts they owed to various people in York; in these charges there is an echo of the Jews' riots in the reign of the first Richard. On 3 March, 1382, a mandate was issued by the council that Quixley was to compel the rioters to build up again the property they had broken down under a penalty of £100 each, and Quixley himself had to enter into a bond of £5,000 to see the commission executed. There is a very distinct temptation to regard the affair as a rising of the poorer craftsmen against the richer merchants, but there is little evidence to support this theory. The one hundred and twenty rioters, 1. R. H. Morris, Chester, pp. 187, 235.

2. A. Réville, Le Soulèvement des Travailleurs d' Angleterre, app. 256. Rolls of Parliament, vol. III., 96, 97.

3.

4.

Close Rolls, 4, Rich. II., m. 27.

Coram Reg. Mich, 5 Ric. II., 11, m. 35.

5. Close Rolls, 5 Ric. II., m. 25; Réville, op. cit., 180.