LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO 1451 (fn. 1)
Coventry appears to have belonged to Godiva,
wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, during the middle
years of the 11th century. (fn. 2) The earliest version of
the Godiva legend states that on Godiva's return
from her ride Leofric freed the people from servitude
and confirmed the gift by his charter. (fn. 3) Certainly
according to the only genuine charter relating to the
foundation of the Benedictine abbey (c. 1043) Abbot
Leofwine was granted the judicial and economic
rights of sac and soc and toll and team over his lands
and men as fully as Earl Leofric had. (fn. 4) There is,
however, no historical evidence of a charter granted
to Coventry by Leofric, and it seems probable that
the whole of Coventry anyway belonged to Godiva in
her own right, the abbey being founded in her
territories but endowed by Leofric with lands elsewhere. (fn. 5) At all events on Leofric's death in 1057 (fn. 6)
Godiva administered the place herself until her
death in 1067. (fn. 7) It was then taken into the king's
hands and in 1086 was farmed of the king by one
Nicholas. (fn. 8) It is not known when the town was
granted to the earls of Chester, but it has been
suggested that the original recipient was Hugh,
second Earl of Chester, for his support of William
Rufus in 1088. (fn. 9) Between 1101 and 1113 the town
came to be divided into two fairly equal parts called
'halves'. One remained in the hands of Richard, Earl
of Chester, who had succeeded in 1101 at about the
age of seven; the other was obtained for the priory
with the aid of forged charters by Robert de
Limesey, Bishop of Coventry, the Benedictine house
having by this time come into his hands as bishop
and titular abbot. (fn. 10) From the time of the fraudulent
creation of the Prior's Half the history of Coventry
was profoundly affected by a division of allegiance.
The tenants of the southern half, or Earl's Half,
owed obedience to the earls of Chester and later to
the Crown, and those in the northern half to the
prior.
THE STRUGGLE WITH THE PRIORY.
During the 12th century the priory was concerned
with the consolidation of its territorial gains, with
claims to certain judicial rights, and with obtaining
its freedom from too close control by the bishop.
Bishop Limesey died in 1117 and c. 1130 the
forgeries were extended to include clauses exempting
the house from episcopal control. Later advantage
was taken of Stephen's presence in the city in 1147
to obtain royal confirmation of the forged charters. (fn. 11)
Meanwhile Earl Richard was succeeded in 1120
by his cousin Ranulf le Meschin who held the
earldom for about ten years before being then succeeded by his son, Ranulf de Gernons. (fn. 12) Ranulf (II)
played an important part in the civil wars of
Stephen's reign, and after his seizure at Northampton in 1146 obtained his liberty by surrendering his
castles, but immediately attacked Lincoln and
Coventry in order to recover them. In 1149 by a
treaty with the king he was reinstated as lord of the
castles of Chester, Lincoln, and Coventry. (fn. 13) Within
the next four years he granted a charter of liberties
to the burgesses of Coventry. (fn. 14)
This charter provides a clue to the system of local
government which had been evolving in the Earl's
Half during the period of flux just described. Ranulf
granted that his tenants should hold in free burgage
as in the time of his father, and that they should have
the same laws and customs as the citizens of Lincoln.
So that they should not be attached to answer in the
castle court they were granted their own court, or
portmote, where all causes relating to the earl and to
the burgesses were to be heard. They were also given
the right to elect from their own number a justice
(justicia) who would know their laws and customs
and who would judge wisely with the earl's advice.
Anyone incurring a penalty to the earl was to be quit
on payment of 12d. or less at the discretion of his
neighbours. Merchants from elsewhere bringing
goods into the town were to be allowed to trade in
peace, but if they committed an offence they were to
be brought before the justice in the portmote.
Immigration by men of substance was encouraged
by exemption from all financial obligations for two
years from the time they began to build houses in the
city.
The charter was confirmed by Henry II in 1182, (fn. 15)
and a new charter was granted by Ranulf de
Blundeville (Ranulf III) between 1200 and 1208. (fn. 16)
This confirmed most of the clauses of the earlier
charter, but there were differences, some of which
imply development within the Earl's Half during the
later 12th century. The grant of a justice was confirmed and the jurisdiction of the portmote was more
definitely stressed. The earl's constables were
forbidden to summon burgesses to plead in the castle
court, which suggests that they had been attempting
to do so. Any offender was to plead before (per) the
earl's bailiff and the burgesses at the portmote instead
of depending on the witness of neighbours. The
incentive to newcomers to build their own houses
was omitted, suggesting that there was less need to
encourage the development of the town. A request
by the prior in 1205 that pleas concerning tenements
should be heard only before the king or his chief
justice indicates that he was already suspicious of the
powers of the burgesses and the portmote and was
preparing to contest its jurisdiction. (fn. 17)
Apart from granting the elements of self government to their own tenants, the earls of Chester
confirmed their predecessors' gifts to the priory and
defined the relations of the tenants of the two halves.
Hugh (II) and Ranulf (III) gave over St. Michael's
and its chapels more firmly into the prior's hands. (fn. 18)
In a charter of between c. 1161 and 1175 Hugh
forbade his officials and tenants to enter the prior's
market or to interfere with the priory lands to which
he granted immunity from all tolls. He also laid
down in some detail the bounds between the two
halves. (fn. 19)
In 1227 the priory obtained from Henry III a
charter confirming the judicial privileges listed in a
forged writ of Edward the Confessor and granting to
the tenants of all its lands quittance from suits of
shires and hundreds. (fn. 20) As the century progressed
the priory made a bid to obtain equality with the
Earl's Half and even a position of supremacy in the
town. In this it was helped by the waning fortunes
of the earldom of Chester. Ranulf (III) died in 1232 (fn. 21)
and his Coventry possessions passed eventually, in
1243, to his niece, Cecily, who married Roger de
Montalt. (fn. 22) In 1250 Roger and Cecily granted Prior
William de Brithwaulton in fee 60 librates of land in
the manor of Coventry with certain reservations
including the manor-house of Cheylesmore and its
park. (fn. 23) It was later claimed (fn. 24) by the priory that the
60 librates represented the whole manor apart from
the reservations, but it is not clear how justified this
interpretation was.
In 1267, however, the priory obtained perhaps the
most important charter of its history. (fn. 25) This confirmed the privileges (fn. 26) accumulated by the priory
over the years by means of forged charters made
respectable by royal confirmations, including
exemptions for the priory and its tenants from all
jurisdictions apart from that of the king and his
justices. (fn. 27) The forged foundation charter of Leofric,
the forged licence of Pope Alexander II, Edward the
Confessor's forged charter of confirmation, and the
quittance from suits of shires and hundreds, were all
confirmed. In addition quittance of view of frankpledge and of the sheriff's tourn was also granted,
and the prior's own coroners were to answer for the
priory's tenants before the justices in eyre. Finally
the priory and its tenants, now called burgesses, were
granted a guild merchant with all the liberties and
free customs belonging to it. If the priory's guild
merchant had actually come into being the monks
would doubtless have achieved the supremacy they
coveted. They did not, however, reckon either with
the reaction of the tenants of the Earl's Half, by now
a community with a sense of its corporate importance, or with the unforseeable vesting of the manor
in the hands of Queen Isabel.
Moreover, in spite of the apparent achievements
of 1267, the priory was in an impoverished state.
Indeed it was in danger of dispersion and was calling
upon its tenants for an aid. (fn. 28) The townsmen were in
a stronger position. They resented the privileges
granted to the prior in 1267 and early in the following
year obtained from Henry III confirmation of their
own fundamental charter of liberties granted by
Ranulf (II). (fn. 29) Almost immediately after the issue of
this confirmation there was a report that some of the
townsmen had prevented the prior's coroners from
viewing a corpse and the prior's tenants from
enjoying the privileges of their guild merchant. The
king thereupon ordered the sheriff of Warwickshire
to publish and preserve the liberties of the priory,
but some of the inhabitants imprisoned the sheriff's
clerk, trampled on the king's writ and rolls, and beat
and maltreated the prior's tenants. (fn. 30) No more was
heard of the priory's guild merchant.
Nevertheless it was acknowledged in 1280 that the
prior was overlord of part of Coventry and mesne
lord of the rest of it, holding the Prior's Half direct
from the Crown and the Earl's Half from the de
Montalts. (fn. 31) Although at this time more services were
required in the Earl's Half than in the Prior's (fn. 32) local
government as set up in the Prior's Half was
distinctly more feudal, (fn. 33) whereas in the Earl's Half
something like corporate self-government had been
attained. Apart from being burgesses with a portmote and justicia of their own choice, the earl's
tenants had a reeve, who became the bailiff of the
13th century, and their own chamberlain. (fn. 34)
During the 14th century important steps were
taken towards the unification of Coventry and the
long conflict with the priory was eventually resolved.
In 1330 Queen Isabel came into possession of the
overlordship of the manor of Coventry, (fn. 35) and soon
after, in 1336, she was in dispute with the priory
before the council in Parliament. (fn. 36) She alleged that
while the prior was mesne lord of land which formed
part of the manor - the 60 librates granted in
1250 (fn. 37) - this was only a portion of the manor, and
the view of frankpledge of the manor had not passed
with the grant since it belonged only to the overlordship which remained hers.
The outcome of the case is not recorded. It is
clear, however, that from that time onwards the
priory's influence in the town began to wane
rapidly. Isabel's right to the manor was confirmed
in 1337, (fn. 38) and in 1341 it was even declared that 'all
the town of Coventry' belonged to her. (fn. 39) She meanwhile proceeded to promote the granting of a series of
privileges to the townspeople which culminated in the
emergence of Coventry as a self-governing borough.
Between 1334 and 1348, and in particular after
1340, charters, licences, and confirmations followed
one another with a frequency partly occasioned by
the concurrent struggle with the priory for control
of the town, and partly by the fact that the manor
of Coventry, which included the Earl's Half, was
held by the queen mother only for her life. Thus not
only Isabel, but the king and the Black Prince, on
whom the reversion of the manor had been settled,
also had an interest in the privileges granted to
Coventry.
Edward III had already in 1334 granted to the
merchants of Coventry exemption from toll, pavage,
pontage, and murage throughout the kingdom, (fn. 40)
a privilege which was extended in 1344 to cover
other specified duties. (fn. 41) In 1340 the king granted to
Coventry a guild merchant, (fn. 42) and in the next year
judicial rights were added to commercial ones. The
king granted that all inquisitions in the town before
the king or his justices respecting contracts or
trespasses or lands and tenements in the town should
be made by Coventry men and not by outsiders, so
long as the king or the commons were not themselves
involved. (fn. 43) This privilege was resented by the
commons of Warwickshire (fn. 44) but the grant was
confirmed in 1378. (fn. 45)
In October 1344 Coventry received from the
queen mother the right to elect a bailiff. (fn. 46) Soon
afterwards, on 20 January 1345, this privilege was
superseded by a royal charter which, among other
things, declared that the men of Coventry should
have a communitatem inter se. (fn. 47) Dugdale declared
that the charter made Coventry a corporation (fn. 48) and
later Gross considered that this use of the word
communitas made the Coventry charter the earliest
known formal grant of incorporation to an English
borough. (fn. 49) Gross's opinion has tended to be
followed. (fn. 50) The clause in question had not, so far as
is known, been used before in any borough charter,
and no doubt it was intended to have somewhat the
same effect as a formal grant of incorporation would
have done in the 15th century, but one need hardly
go beyond that point. (fn. 51) As Gross himself has shown,
boroughs were already acting as if they had corporate
existence long before this charter was issued. (fn. 52) What
is really important is that from a practical point of
view the charter was a landmark in Coventry's
history for it greatly extended the rights of the
townsmen. The men of Coventry were to elect from
themselves annually a mayor and bailiffs, who were
to have cognizance of all pleas. They were to have a
common seal for taking Statute Merchant recognizances, and custody of a prison for the correction
of malefactors. The first mayor, John Ward, was
probably elected in January 1346 and the series of
mayors is from that year unbroken. (fn. 53)
In 1346 the king extended still further the
privileges of the mayor and bailiffs by granting to
them the market and fair previously held in the
town by Queen Isabel and the right to elect a
coroner. Royal grants of the same year gave to the
burgesses cognizance of all pleas within the liberty
and view of frankpledge of the manor of Cheylesmore
(Coventry) as well as the town of Coventry, together
with return of writs, chattels of felons and fugitives, and
all fines. They were also to have a gaol. Whether this
was a second prison is uncertain but it is unlikely. (fn. 54)
It seems probable that the privileges granted in
1345 and 1346 were intended to extinguish any
remaining claims of the priory within the Earl's
Half. At all events the priory immediately questioned
them in the Court of Common Pleas in 1346. (fn. 55) There
it not only opposed the claim of the mayor and
bailiffs to cognizance of pleas within the manor of
Coventry, which included the town, but even denied
the legal existence of the mayor and bailiffs. Once
more the prior claimed that he was the mesne lord
of the Earl's Half and that such grants could not be
made by others to his tenants. He was, however,
unsuccessful, and, although in 1348 the priory
obtained a confirmation of its charters, including
Hugh (II)'s definition of the boundary between the
two halves, (fn. 56) its position had clearly weakened -
so much so that in 1355, in a document known as
the tripartite indenture, it finally abdicated its claim
to supremacy. (fn. 57) This agreement, between the queen
mother, the prior, and the mayor and bailiffs,
redefined the boundaries of the two halves and
settled conflicting jurisdictional claims. A depleted
Prior's Half was in effect to consist of Bishop Street,
St. Nicholas Street, the manor of Whitmore, the
priory precinct, and a small area just north of it,
instead of approximately half the town as it had in
1182. The prior quitclaimed to the mayor and
commonalty the portmote throughout the whole
town and the other franchises named except view of
frankpledge for his own tenants in the Prior's Half
and assizes of bread and wine and other victuals,
with the proviso that, if the prior failed to keep the
assizes in his half, the franchises should be taken
over by the mayor and commonalty. The prior was
to have all rents due to him. He quitclaimed to
Queen Isabel his right in the leet at 'Wolepitelideyate' (fn. 58) and she, in her turn, granted it to the mayor
and commonalty. The prior's tenants in the Earl's
Half were not to be distrained by the prior but were
to be answerable to the mayor and bailiffs. Very
important clauses in the indenture were those giving
to the prior's tenants in the Prior's Half the right to
hold office as mayors, bailiffs, or other ministers, if
chosen, to be taxed with the townspeople, and
similarly to bear all charges. The prior agreed not to
disturb the trade of the Earl's Half. The coroner,
who was to be appointed by the mayor and commonalty, was to do his office in both halves of the town.
The queen, the mayor, and commonalty, and the
people of the Earl's Half agreed to release to the
priory Whitmore Park and other lands where they
had rights of common. Queen Isabel remitted to the
priory £10 of the rent of £107 due to her, with the
proviso that, if the priory infringed any of the rights
of the mayor and commonalty, this remission would
be void. Similarly the mayor and commonalty were
to pay £10 a year to the priory so long as this agreement was kept. The hope was expressed that the
agreement would bring to an end the disputes
between the two halves and, apart from minor
bickerings, it did. It was in fact a victory for the
Earl's Half and it was the administration which had
developed among the earl's tenants which was to
govern the town and also the hamlets brought within
its jurisdiction. (fn. 59)
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT TO 1420.
With the sealing of the tripartite
indenture the quarrel between the two halves was
resolved. The way was now open for town government to develop on peaceful and permanent lines
on the basis of the charter rights already obtained
by the tenants of the Earl's Half. During the later
14th century, the practical details of administration
and the principles on which they were based begin
to be apparent. Holy Trinity Guild was founded in
1364 for the maintenance of two chaplains to
celebrate divine service daily in Holy Trinity
Church for the good estate of the king, Queen
Philippa, and their children. (fn. 60) With its growing
influence in the town, its amalgamation with the
Merchant Guild of St. Mary, St. John's Guild, and
St. Katherine's Guild by 1392, (fn. 61) the main guild
structure in Coventry was laid down. With the death
of Queen Isabel in 1358 and of the Black Prince in
1376, the manor of Cheylesmore ceased to play any
significant part in the history of Coventry and royal
interest became less intimate.
The court leet became the medium through which
the town was governed. Each 25th of January at a
session of the leet in St. Mary's Hall the mayor, the
coroner, and the chamberlains were elected by a
jury of twenty-four and took their oaths, and the
keys of the treasury were placed in the custody of
the mayor, the master of Trinity Guild, and three
others, each having one key. (fn. 62) The leet was held
before the mayor and two bailiffs, and the twentyfour jurats took their oath before the business of the
day began. The leet received and acted on petitions (fn. 63)
and held inquests on them if necessary. (fn. 64) To deal
with finance and to make ordinances it enlarged
itself to forty-eight. (fn. 65)
The mayor's functions were administrative,
legislative, and judicial. (fn. 66) He exercised them through
the court leet, with the assistance of the other
officials of the town (the bailiffs, the chamberlains,
the wardens, the serjeant, the master of the Trinity
Guild, the coroner, and the recorder), through the
portmote or town court, the mayor's court, and the
sessions of the peace. By authority of the charter of
1345 the mayor and the clerk appointed by the king
took recognizance of debts according to the Statute
Merchant; the mayor kept the larger part of the seal
and the king's clerk the smaller. (fn. 67) In the portmote,
the mayor and bailiffs dealt with petty actions
relating to personal affairs and to lands and
messuages within the liberties (fn. 68) and as early as 1346
they demanded cognizance of a plea relating to
tenements in Coventry being heard in the Court of
Common Pleas. (fn. 69) The mayor, bailiffs, and chamberlains were responsible for town lands and made
grants of leases to tenants; (fn. 70) in 1403 the mayor and
bailiffs were empowered to try a suit of novel
disseisin. (fn. 71) The mayor had his own account which
was brought in to the leet after his year of office. (fn. 72)
Apart from this the chamberlains and the wardens
were concerned with the town's finances, rents from
lands belonging to the commonalty being paid to the
chamberlains. (fn. 73) The mayor's legislative function
was exercised through the leet, which made
ordinances. (fn. 74) His judicial function was exercised
through the leet, the portmote, and the sessions of
the peace. The mayor was frequently a justice of the
peace and sometimes of oyer and terminer, (fn. 75) until
by a charter of 1399 it was declared that the mayor,
the recorder, and four lawful men chosen by the
mayor should thenceforth form the commission of
the peace. (fn. 76) In 1377 the justices of the peace and
justices of oyer and terminer for Warwickshire had
been warned not to interfere in Coventry, (fn. 77) and this
was confirmed in a charter of 1399, when the
Coventry justices were granted authority with full
powers as justices of the peace except in cases of
felony. (fn. 78)
The early history of the coroner in Coventry is not
altogether clear. The Prior's Half had been granted
coroners in 1267 (fn. 79) and in 1346 Coventry was granted
its own coroner (fn. 80) who was elected by the mayor and
bailiffs through the twenty-four jurats (fn. 81) and was
responsible for taking the new mayor's oath. (fn. 82) His
general duty was to safeguard the rights of the
Crown and he answered to the mayor rather than to
the sheriff of Warwickshire. (fn. 83) Of the recorder in
Coventry even less is known. He appears in the
charter of 1399 (fn. 84) among those to be justices of the
peace; it is therefore presumed that the office already
existed.
The bailiffs were the successors of the reeve, (fn. 85) who
was almost certainly the successor of the justicia
(fn. 86) and
as such they exercised a judicial function through
the portmote and in this sense were in effect the
predecessors of the mayor. In 1344 Queen Isabel
had granted to the people of Coventry the right to
elect a bailiff to render account of the issues and
profits arising to her from the town, (fn. 87) but the
position of the bailiffs as members of the governing
body of the town was made clear in the charter of
1345. (fn. 88) They were concerned in the granting of town
lands to lease (fn. 89) and they dealt with the payment of
money from the town's funds. (fn. 90) They were always
present at the court leet as the mayor's right-hand
men. (fn. 91)
A chamberlain certainly existed in 1268, (fn. 92) and
appears frequently in deeds of the later 13th
century. (fn. 93) The chamberlains were elected by the
twenty-four jurats and took their oath at the leet to
render account faithfully. (fn. 94) One of their duties was
to be responsible with the mayor and bailiffs for the
granting of town lands on lease and they were the
officials who were responsible for receiving rents. (fn. 95)
In the Prior's Half the leet continued to function
as the 'Bishop Street leet'. It served for Bishop
Street, Cook Street, St. Nicholas Street, and Dog
Lane, the main part of the depleted Prior's Half
within the liberties. In 1411 it was let to farm to
Thomas de Bedworth, smith, who paid 26s. 8d.
and the toll of horses yearly to the prior's steward. (fn. 96)
THE ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT, 1420-1451.
Before 1420 lack of evidence makes it
difficult to say just how far government by mayor,
bailiffs, and commonalty had developed. In that
year, however, the leet book begins and a far more
complete picture of administration and legislation
through the leet and of the duties of the various
officials in the early 1420s emerges. (fn. 97) By then the
commonalty had initiated its policy of acquiring
lands to provide a useful source of revenue. In 1417
the mayor and commonalty obtained a licence to
acquire in mortmain lands within the town and its
precincts to the annual value of £40 for, until then,
they had no common possessions and the building
of the walls had proved a costly undertaking. (fn. 98) The
ownership by the corporation of large areas of the
town was to become a characteristic and longstanding feature of local government in Coventry.
The leet met at Easter and Michaelmas, when the
mayor and bailiffs presided over twenty-four jurats
to make ordinances on bills submitted to them. It is
not known how the jurats were appointed, but they
were elected, possibly by the mayor. (fn. 99) The composition of the body of jurats varied slightly from leet to
leet and obviously had a very close connection with
that of the twenty-four electors who chose the mayor
and other officers on 25 January. The jurats
consisted of former officers and of those who were
later to hold office; they clearly formed a close body
of the more wealthy and outstanding members of
the community. (fn. 1) Most of the ordinances are
recorded in the leet book, but some were endorsed
on the bills and never enrolled in the mayor's
register; (fn. 2) these are consequently lost for no original
bills exist. A number of ordinances regarding
administration was made both at the Easter and
Michaelmas leets; at Michaelmas 1422 it was
ordained that the mayor should choose forty-eight of
the most discreet commoners, some from each ward,
to hear the chamberlains' accounts and to witness
grants under the common seal. (fn. 3) The leet also
ordered payments to be made or work to be performed by the chamberlains and wardens. (fn. 4) It was
the custom in this period for the bailiffs to be elected
at the Michaelmas leet, and to hold office until the
following Michaelmas. The Michaelmas leet was
also the occasion when the 'great enquest' (possibly
the forty-eight commoners) chose the twenty-four
constables and when collectors were appointed for
each ward. (fn. 5)
The election of all officials except the bailiffs took
place on 25 January each year, before the outgoing
mayor and the bailiffs appointed the previous
Michaelmas; (fn. 6) the new mayor, coroner, chamberlains, wardens, and serjeant-at-mace took up their
duties on 2 February (Candlemas). (fn. 7) On the day of
election the holders of the city's keys were appointed
- the mayor, the master of the Trinity Guild or
the recorder, and three others. (fn. 8) Election was by
twenty-four electors who, as has been noticed, seem
to have had a close connection with the twenty-four
jurats, the personnel of the two bodies being
strikingly similar. On some occasions ordinances
were passed by this body in the same way as at the
leet sessions.
The mayor's council first appears in the leet book
immediately after the routine business of the
elections of the mayor and other officials in 1421. (fn. 9)
Its membership is not revealed and it appears to have
met for special purposes and not regularly. It seems,
however, to have had some close connection with the
forty-eight. (fn. 10) In 1423 the chamberlains rendered
their account before the mayor and the forty-eight
chosen by him for that purpose, and two months later
the mayor and his council made ordinances regarding the accounts. (fn. 11) Grants under the common seal
were to be made only in the presence of the fortyeight. (fn. 12) In January 1423 it was provided that the
mayor should call the twenty-four who elected him
and twenty-four wise and discreet men of his own
choice, and he and these forty-eight were to order
and put in good rule ordinances profitable to the
city. Thus in September of that year the mayor made
a hall of forty-eight, (fn. 13) of whom twenty-one had been
electors in January, eleven had previously been
electors or jurats, and fifteen were new names chosen
by the mayor, but who later became electors or
jurats. In fact the electors chose the mayor and the
mayor selected those who were to be electors. Then
in January 1424 the mayor chose twenty-four
together with the twenty-four electors to form his
council. (fn. 14) Four of his choice later sealed the bag
containing the common seal and sixteen were
witnesses to indentures together with the mayor and
the master of the Trinity Guild. (fn. 15) On various
occasions the mayor or the mayor and his council
made halls of thirty-three, forty-eight, or sixty-nine,
or other numbers representing the wards and these
were usually made up of the twenty-four electors
or jurats, who seem to have been fairly evenly spread
over the wards, with a few other names from each
ward. This was the nearest approach to a representative body and usually dealt with financial matters
which concerned the people themselves and with
leases of city lands. In 1421, before the ordinance
requiring the presence of the forty-eight for the
sealing of grants under the common seal, the mayor,
the master of the Trinity Guild, the master of the
Corpus Christi Guild, the bailiffs and eleven others
met in St. Mary's Hall to witness the sealing of
indentures for town lands, but this body (sixteen of
the mayor's council or of the forty-eight) did not
consider itself sufficiently representative and called
in representatives of all the wards - four from
Much Park Street, five each from Gosford Street,
Jordan Well, Broadgate, and Smithford Street, six
from Spon Street, seven from Bayley Lane, ten each
from Earl Street and Well Street, and thirteen from
Cross Cheaping. (fn. 16) The presumption was that the
majority of witnesses to a lease should live in the
neighbourhood of the property concerned.
There is some difficulty in distinguishing between
the types of business transacted by the leet, the
mayor's council, the forty-eight, and a hall of whatever number. Orders of leet were diverse. They dealt
with administration, for it was the leet that required
the mayor to choose the forty-eight commoners (fn. 17)
and ordered the chamberlains and wardens to
perform various duties. They dealt with craft
matters including settling disputes between crafts (fn. 18)
and requiring commodities sold on certain days to be
placed for sale in certain places. (fn. 19) They also dealt
with wage rates by assenting to the ordinances
of the justices of the peace for the payment of
artificers and labourers according to the Statute of
Labourers. (fn. 20) In addition they were concerned with
regulations for the slaughtering of animals, (fn. 21) the
cleansing of rivers, ditches, and pavements, (fn. 22) fixing
fines for non-performance of the duties laid down, (fn. 23)
complaints relating to the water supply, (fn. 24) and with
questions concerning the common lands. (fn. 25) In short
the leet considered complaints and petitions put
before it in the form of bills and made by-laws for
regulating the everyday life of the citizens. The
twenty-four electors, during the first few years, were
also concerned with questions of administration but
later their work was complete when the elections
were finished.
The mayor and his council also dealt with
administration, for it was an order of council which
resulted in the keeping of the mayor's register, (fn. 26)
although when they ordained that a new extent for
murage be made their ordinance had to be confirmed by the leet. (fn. 27) They also dealt with cleansing
the streets and they ordered the serjeant or constable
to collect any fines due for offences. (fn. 28) They initiated
and organized the great survey of the common lands
in 1423. (fn. 29) The forty-eight were called to decide how
much money should be collected for certain loans
and gifts, (fn. 30) while a hall representative of the wards
was called when an inquest was taken. (fn. 31)
These early records of decisions of the leet and of
the mayor's council clearly show that this was a period
of great activity, that the whole pattern of local
government was being overhauled and more strictly
regulated, and that the city's finances were being
organized more thoroughly than ever before. Not
only were the mayor and bailiffs acquiring lands,
whose revenues were to provide funds for the
payment of officials and for repairs to the walls and
gates, (fn. 32) but all officials who had the handling of any
of these moneys had to account to the body of
forty-eight commoners, (fn. 33) and constables were
forbidden to take any money for arrests. (fn. 34) John
Leeder was one of the more important architects of
the constitution. After his election as mayor in 1421
and the making of ordinances by his council, he
delivered a proclamation. (fn. 35) This began with the
assizes of bread and wine, then made rules for
keeping streets, rivers, and ditches clean, forbade
regrating, and laid down regulations for the sale of
commodities at certain places. It also decreed that
no craft should make ordinances without first submitting them to the mayor and his council. The body
responsible for authorising such ordinances was to
consist of the mayor, recorder, bailiffs, and eight or
twelve of the general council. Leeder also required
that bills should be delivered to the mayor four days
before the meeting of the leet, so that he could take
general counsel of the city beforehand, and that
every previous mayor and bailiff and every
commoner should attend the leet. Here is the mayor
in action as administrator, master of the leet, master
of the council, and as legislator, making regulations
for the social and economic welfare of the city. Lack
of records make his judicial function not so apparent.
The mayor and bailiffs, or mayor, bailiffs and
commonalty, were recognised as the representatives
of the citizens, charters and letters patent being
addressed to them, (fn. 36) and they were the central figures
of government by leet and council. The bailiffs had
an exceptional position since they were the only
officials elected at Michaelmas and were thus the
only link between the old officials and the new ones
elected in January. They would be future candidates
for the mayoralty, and either had been or would be
members of the jury, of the body of electors, or of
the mayor's council, often being included among the
electors during their year of office. They also
attended all meetings of the leet (fn. 37) and were required
to be present at some of the special sessions of the
council, when, for instance, craft ordinances were
inspected. (fn. 38)
The period shows some important developments
in the position and duties of the chamberlains and
wardens and their offices become more closely
defined; indeed the electors of 1425 made an
ordinance that wardens were thenceforth not to be
elected as chamberlains and the leet confirmed this
the following Easter. (fn. 39) The chamberlains accounted
for the money received for murage. Their expenses
were recorded on files kept in the mayor's bag and in
their account books (fn. 40) and consisted of charges for
completion of and repairs to the walls and gates, (fn. 41)
for equipment and buildings required by the city, (fn. 42)
for care of the common lands, for inclosures where
necessary, and for certain measures to keep the city
clean. (fn. 43) The wardens accounted for money received
in rents from lands and houses held by the mayor
and bailiffs; allowances were made to them for
reductions in rent in the case of any too poor to pay,
as well as for empty houses. (fn. 44) They paid out money
for new properties bought by the mayor and bailiffs,
for legal advice, for officials' expenses on specific
occasions, (fn. 45) for the mayor's fees, for the expenses of
the M.P.s, (fn. 46) and for such outstanding items as the
new cross to be put in Cross Cheaping. Their
expenses were entered on rolls which were kept in
the mayor's bag in St. Mary's Hall. (fn. 47)
The office of town clerk seems to have been in
existence during the early 15th century, but there is
little evidence about his position and duties at this
time. The mayor's register was kept under the
supervision of the recorder (fn. 48) so that, although a
large part of the leet book was the work of two later
town clerks, (fn. 49) it cannot be proved that any of the
originals from which it was compiled were themselves written or kept by their predecessors. The
town clerk occupied a room in St. Mary's Hall for
which he paid, from 1430 onwards, a rent to the
Trinity Guild. (fn. 50) The leet appointed Symkyn Birches
at Michaelmas 1439 to be town clerk for life for the
customary salary and fees. (fn. 51)
THE CREATION OF THE COUNTY OF THE CITY.
For at least a century the position of
Coventry in Warwickshire was in question; the city
was by far the largest and most important place in
the county and, although in 1340 certain men of the
town pleaded poverty and that the place was neither
city nor borough and used to be assessed with the
county, (fn. 52) it was the tendency during the 14th
century for Coventry to be assessed separately from
the county. In 1323 the town was to provide £100
for the expedition against the Contrariants, (fn. 53) in 1335
it was assessed at £40 for service against the Scots, (fn. 54)
and in the years about 1380, whenever a fifteenth or a
tenth was levied, it was assessed separately from the
county. (fn. 55) In 1387 the mayor and bailiffs obtained a
grant that neither they nor any tenant of the town
should be burdened with the collection of tenths,
taxes, tallages, or aids outside Coventry. (fn. 56) This
apparently was not fully observed for an order of the
leet of 1441 decreed that henceforth no one living in
the town should be a collector for the fifteenth
in Warwickshire outside the liberties of the
town. (fn. 57)
In 1445 the mayor and his council were suing for
the grant of a charter to enlarge the franchises and
liberties of the city and agreed to levy £100 to
cover expenses. (fn. 58) In September 1451 Henry VI
visited Coventry. He complimented the mayor and
his brethren on their good rule and was apparently
impressed by the city's defences and loyalty, for he
promised the bailiffs that they should thereafter be
sheriffs. This was speedily followed by a visit to
London by the recorder, one of the bailiffs, and five
others to obtain advice on the terms of the charter, (fn. 59)
which was granted at the end of November.
Coventry became a county in itself, known as the
county of the city of Coventry. (fn. 60) The bailiffs
became also sheriffs of the county of the city and the
following places were included in the county of the
city: Radford, Keresley, Foleshill, Exhall, Ansty,
Caludon, Wyken, Henley, Wood End, Stoke,
Bigging, Whitley, Pinley, Asthill, Horwell, Harnall,
Whoberley, part of Sowe, and Stivichall within the
liberties. (fn. 61) The sheriffs were to be chosen as the
bailiffs had been and were to take their oath before
the mayor, who was to certify their names into
Chancery. They were to hold monthly courts within
the city; they were to receive all writs, bills, precepts,
and mandates formerly addressed to the sheriff of
Warwickshire and were to account yearly before the
barons of the Exchequer. The coroner of the city was
to become the coroner of the county of the city and
clerk for the recognizance of debts, when the office
fell vacant, retaining the custody of the lesser part of
the seal. The mayor and his successors were to be
clerks of the market and to have all rights pertaining
to the offices of steward or marshal of the king's
household. Instead of being assessed with Warwickshire the hamlets were now assessed with the city of
Coventry and came within its full jurisdiction and
administration.