Bailiffs and Canterbury’s Firma Burgi in the thirteenth century

214 Bailiffs and Canterbury’s Firma Burgi in the Thirteenth Century john h. williams A prime source of income for the Crown during the Middle Ages was the fee farm collected annually from each county by the sheriff. Major towns increasingly gained the right to raise or farm their part of the county’s assessment themselves and pay it directly to the Exchequer. Canterbury acquired that right in 1234. The city officers responsible for raising this fee farm and paying it to the Exchequer were the bailiffs. Written records concerned with town governance are rare before the end of the thirteenth century with financial records constituting but a small part of the corpus. Canterbury is fortunate in having three documents concerned with the city’s fee farm in the thirteenth century: - A later copy of an inquest probably dating to 1234 relating to the time when the city was granted by royal charter the fee farm of the city. - Part of the bailiffs’ accounts for the city probably dating to 1256-7, one of the earliest financial records for an English medieval town. - Keeper’s accounts for 1278-80 while Canterbury was in the hands of the king. This paper considers these documents and what they can tell us about the city’s finances during the thirteenth century. It also looks at the roles and responsibilities of the bailiffs and adds some further names to the list compiled by William Urry. Perhaps only eleven English boroughs, including London, have preserved original administrative records from the period before 1272, when Edward I acceded to the throne, with another eleven having records earlier than 1300, although there are later copies of similarly early documents and the records of the Crown chronicle aspects of local administration at this time.1 Financial records, including bailiffs’ accounts, are but a small part of this corpus; there is a fine series of bailiffs’ accounts for Shrewsbury starting in 1256,2 but otherwise for the period before 1300 we really have only a limited number of such records for towns, for the most part those kept on behalf of the Crown when they were in the hands of the king (see below). Throughout the Middle Ages royal revenues from each county, constituting their fee farm, were collected annually, generally by the sheriff of the county. Major BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 215 towns, alongside other moves they made towards at least partial self-governance, increasingly gained the right to raise, or farm, their part of the county’s assessment themselves and pay it directly to the Exchequer, without interference from the sheriff, who might be interested in a financial consideration for himself. From 1234 Canterbury paid its fee farm directly to the Exchequer, except during those intervals of months or years when the city might be ‘taken into the king’s hands’, that is subjected to direct control by the Crown, for financial or other irregularities or misdemeanours, with a financial charge subsequently being imposed on the citizens if they wished to regain their liberties. The key officers in the financial administration of the fee farm for the city were the bailiffs. For Canterbury a few interesting documents have survived relating to the collection of the fee farm of the city (firma burgi) by the bailiffs in the thirteenth century. This paper considers the roles and responsibilities of the bailiffs at Canterbury before looking in more detail at an inquisition (probably dating to 1234), the bailiffs’ accounts perhaps dating to 1256-7 and those produced for the time when the city was in the king’s hands in 1278-80, all of which provide some insight into the financial administration of the city during the reigns of Henry III and Edward I.3 An Appendix extends the list of known bailiffs relating to this time. Canterbury’s bailiffs and their responsibilities Canterbury had a long series of bailiffs or their equivalent, stretching back certainly to 780 where we find Aldhune as prefect (prefectus) of the king in Canterbury. A number of other portreeves (portgerefa) can be identified between then and 1100. Up to this time there appears to have been only a single office-holder at any time and he was clearly an appointee of the Crown, the king’s official representative in the city. About 1156 we find two bailiffs (prepositi) in office together for the first time. From around 1200 the bailiffs appear to change on an annual basis and William Urry suggests that this may indicate that they were elected by the citizenry from this time, although it is only in Canterbury’s charter of 1234 that there is a formal grant of election.4 In looking to see the election of bailiffs as indicating some manifestation of a town taking steps toward local democracy and self-government it is important, however, to remember that the bailiffs, even though they might be elected by the burgesses, were very much considered by the king to be his agents, responsible to him for safeguarding his financial interests, in particular in respect of the annual fee farm for the town, ensuring that accounts of monies due to him and expended by him balanced at the local level.5 From the early thirteenth century onwards towns obtained the right to elect a mayor and it was indeed the mayor who would be expected to represent the burgesses’ interests. In this respect it is interesting that although there are two references to a mayor at Canterbury around the year 1215 the office then apparently disappears and Canterbury only had mayors continuously from 1448.6 Canterbury was certainly unusual among the larger old established towns in this respect, although Norwich also did not have a mayor until the early fifte enth century.7 The important role of the Canterbury bailiffs in collecting the fee farm of the city and then in making disbursements from it at the command of the Crown can be JOHN H. WILLIAMS 216 clearly seen in the bailiffs’ accounts which are considered more fully below in this paper. They can also be found acting in other ways on behalf of the Crown. They acted as law officers of the Crown and in the Pipe Roll summary for 1278- 80 they are recorded as holding the pleas in the city.8 They were also responsible for the city’s prison; in 1251 they were instructed firstly to free from the city’s prison Susanna, the wife of Henry Baldwin, and then to hold her there.9 In 1254 they were instructed to deliver Ralph, the son of John le Turnur, to London, since, although he was arrested in Canterbury, the robbery of which he was accused was committed in London.10 In 1261 the ‘negligence of the bailiffs of Canterbury, as of others of the county of Kent deputed to keep the peace’, is recorded.11 The bailiffs were also expected to implement royal decisions. In 1247 the bailiffs were instructed to hold an inquest into whether the proposal of the Friars Preacher to enclose a way in Canterbury and create an alternative route to the mill of the abbot of St Augustine’s would be to the harm of the city: this was found not be the case and they were then required to implement the decision.12 In 1252 the sheriff of Kent was instructed to hold an inquest before the bailiffs as to whether Sall’, a Jew of Canterbury, had caused damage to the exchange at Canterbury as a result of his building works.13 In 1251 the bailiffs were instructed to release to John de Vallibus the four horses seized from him, if he could demonstrate that they were his.14 In 1253 the bailiffs were instructed to return Henry Baledewin’s messuage and possessions to him after he had cleared himself before the archbishop.15 The bailiffs might be required to organise the supply of foodstuffs and other items for the king. They might requisition wine, transport it or arrange payment for it.16 In anticipation of the king spending Christmas 1254 at Canterbury or Dover instructions were given to the bailiffs to supply large quantities of good bread as well as corn and oats, much smaller quantities of bread to be provided by the bailiffs of Sandwich, Sittingbourne and Wye. The sheriff of Kent had to furnish 1,000 hens, 200 eggs, four boars, 60 hares, two cranes and four swans, with other sheriffs from the South-East also contributing.17 In 1260 the bailiffs had to find, utilising the fee-farm revenues, provisions for the king’s horses and those looking after them.18 In 1254-5 the bailiffs were ordered to buy 150 pairs of shoes for the poor and 165 pairs of shoes were similarly ordered in 1262-3.19 The bailiffs frequently appeared at the head of the list of witnesses to deeds, which would have been published in the borough court20 and they would have had a variety of more routine local roles not evidenced by the surviving records. In carrying out their responsibilities the bailiffs had a clerk and three or four serjeants to assist them, all apparently full-time posts.21 The clerk would have kept the records and the serjeants would certainly have helped with the maintenance of law and order. Some insight into the election process and also into social make-up of the city can be seen in a case coram rege dating to 1259.22 It would appear that on St Matthew’s Day (21 September) the commonalty of Canterbury met to choose the bailiffs for the following year, who would begin their term of office at Michaelmas (29 September). On this occasion the ‘greater and more sensible part’ of the citizens (maior pars et sanior) elected Thomas Chiche and Daniel le Draper while the ‘smaller and more unsound part’ (minor pars et infirmior) chose John Dodekere. After the assembly had dispersed Hamon Doge made John Dodekere swear the BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 217 bailiff’s oath alone. He was subsequently deposed and the case came to court, where Thomas Chiche and Daniel le Draper were confirmed as bailiffs. The election process in an assembly of the citizens appears as a straightforward procedure, but it is worth considering further the phrases maior pars et sanior and minor pars et infirmior. We are perhaps dealing here simply with the majority, which is identified as being more sensible, and a minority, which is labelled more unsound, but is there perhaps some indication here of formal or semi-formal social stratification within the burgess class? It is interesting that two apparently separate choices were made. At Exeter in the elections for a council in 1267 a distinction was made between the majores, the more wealthy citizens and the mediocres, the ‘middle class’, with a number of the members of the council being chosen by the mediocres (Isti sunt electi per mediocres).23 For the 1274-5 Hundred Rolls’ inquisitions at Stamford there were two juries, of majores and minores, those of greater and lesser standing in the town. Northampton similarly had two juries while Lincoln had three.24 Elsewhere tensions between the majores and the minores or between the wealthy office-holding minority and the wider body of burgesses can be noted.25 Could we possibly be witnessing in Canterbury, in no way unexpectedly, the more substantial citizens holding sway over their lesser brethren? The fee-farm accounts: the documents In 1234 Canterbury was granted by royal charter the fee farm of the city, which was set at £60 per annum, payable in two instalments at Easter and Michaelmas. The citizens were also granted the right to elect bailiffs, who would in effect be responsible for the raising of the fee farm and its payment to the Exchequer. William Urry argued that an inquisition within the City Archives, in a fifteenthcentury copy but purporting to date from 1371-2, on the basis of the floruit of the jurors listed actually belonged to the time of the granting of the charter and was specifically drawn up to establish the financial framework for raising the farm.26 This is our earliest insight into the sources of the income streams for the farm. It is subsequently referred to in this paper as the 1234 inquest. Within Canterbury City Archives housed within Canterbury Cathedral Archives are two membranes, stitched together, which constitute CC-F/Z/2 (hereafter referred to as F/Z/2 A and B; a translation can be found on the KAS website.) The two membranes list tolls, profits of the court and revenue from the king’s mill as well as other income collected by the bailiffs, together with payments made. The lists on both membranes, given the consistency of their layouts, would appear to constitute a fair copy taken from one or more originals, although membrane B is less formal (Fig 1). The membrane B hand is very similar but slightly more cursive than that of the main text of membrane A. The various sub-totals are interlined on both membranes and would appear to be in the hand of the main list on membrane B. Membrane A relates to thirteen weeks either side of Christmas; with Christmas Day shown as occurring on a Monday, the number of years to which the document could refer is limited.27 Gregory Palmer is not named as a bailiff but in four instances is recorded organising deliveries of corn from the king’s mill, a responsibility appropriate to a bailiff. Gregory le Paumer was a bailiff with Walter de la Porte in 1252-328 and Gregory Palmer was a bailiff alongside Robert Burre JOHN H. WILLIAMS 218 in 1256-7.29 In 1252 Christmas Day was on a Wednesday but in 1256 it occurred on a Monday. Membrane A also contains an entry referring to the Saturday after the feast of Carniprivium. While Carniprivium usually relates to Shrove Tuesday it can also refer to Septuagesima or Sexagesima Sunday30 and the calendar described in membrane A is consistent with Carniprivium having occurred on Septuagesima Sunday in 1257. BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 219 Membrane B was laid out a little differently to Membrane A, with only Sundays appearing in the left-hand column, other days being indented and mostly introduced by two vertical lines, two vertical lines also introducing the subtotals on both membranes. Perhaps there was a second clerk at work. This membrane relates to a week and a half probably immediately before the feast of St Michael the Archangel (Michaelmas), which is mentioned in two entries. The first week only notes Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday and omits other days of the week, unlike the usual pattern in Membrane A. The following part-week refers in a group to Sunday, Monday and Tuesday for seemingly the final entry of income for the year. In 1252 Michaelmas occurred on a Sunday, in 1253 on a Monday, in 1254 on a Tuesday, in 1255 on a Wednesday, in 1256 on a Thursday and in 1257 on a Saturday. It could be argued, therefore, that Membrane B relates to 1254-5, 1255-6 or 1256- 7. In the expenditure listed on Membrane B a ‘Gregory’ features prominently as making payments on behalf of the city and it would appear that Membrane A refers to 1256-7, the year that Gregory Palmer was known to be bailiff. Could Membrane B be part of the same account roll and also date to 1256-7? The payment from the king of 63s. 3d. for shoes should, however, perhaps be noted. As described earlier, in 1254-5 the bailiffs were ordered to buy in Canterbury 150 pairs of shoes for distribution by the king to the poor at Christmas31 and 165 pairs of shoes were similarly ordered for Christmas in 1262-3.32 Between 1248 and 1262 Henry III seems to have spent little time at Canterbury33 and it could be that the 63s. 3d. recorded was delayed payment for the shoes ordered for Christmas 1254-5, for the king was regularly far from prompt in paying for goods ordered or taken by prise.34 The two membranes almost certainly both refer to 1256-7 with perhaps a second clerk finishing off the year and adding totals and sub-totals on both membranes. Between Michaelmas (29 September) 1278 and the feast (probably of the Nativity) of St John the Baptist (24 June) 1280 Canterbury was in the king’s hands, with responsibility for the fee farm of the city being that of a keeper (custos), Robert de Scotho, who was sheriff of Kent at this time. A summary breakdown of the fee farm for this period, paid to the Exchequer, is recorded in the Pipe Rolls35 and the Fig. 1 (opposite) The bottom of membrane A recto and the top of membrane B recto of bailiffs’ account CCA-CC-F/Z/2 (Reproduced by courtesy of the Chapter of Canterbury). On membrane A (above the stitching) one can see in the left-hand column the successive days of the week, in the second column a description of the income source (for example Eodem die thol’ equor’ ex’m : On the same day the toll of strangers’ horses), in the third column the sum collected and in the right hand column some sub-totals introduced by S’a = Summa : Total. At the top of membrane B (below the stitching) only Sundays are in the left-hand column, other days being noted before entries in the second column. Sums collected are again in the third column, with sub-totals in the last column. There are a number of larger payments here such as 1 mark from the bakers, and 17s. for stallage, probably payments for a period made on that day. Below in a separate section are a number of payments for expenses (Exp’n) incurred over a period, such as the maintenance of the mill for the half-year and stipends of a clerk and three serjeants. The hand of the entries on membrane B is slightly different to that for the entries on membrane A but the same as that of the sub-totals on both membranes. JOHN H. WILLIAMS 220 roll of particulars from which the summary was drawn can also be found in the National Archives.36 This roll, or the contents of it, may well have been produced by bailiffs of the city but for the time being reporting directly to the sheriff. Similar summaries of fee farms during the reign of Edward I while towns were in the king’s hands, for example for Ipswich, Lincoln, Newcastle, Northampton, Southampton, Winchester and York, can be noted in the Pipe Rolls. Apart from that relating to Canterbury thirteenth-century examples of more detailed rolls of particulars are known to the author only for Northampton (1293-4), Lincoln (1293-4 and 1296-7) and York (1293-6).37 The Canterbury example is thus a rare survival and it is the earliest. Canterbury was also in the hands of the king in 1275-6,38 from May 1282 possibly through to June 1286,39 and again in 1305.40 Details of the composition of the fee farm at these times do not, however, appear to have survived. The bailiffs’ accounts and the Canterbury fee farm The 1234 inquest is transcribed in Canterbury under the Angevin Kings.41 William Urry notes42 that the sources of revenue for the fee farm, which totalled £54 0s. 5½d. annually, fell under four headings: 1 pleas and similar cases producing £20 13s. 2d. These were presumably, for the most part at least, issues of the borough court. 2 stallage producing 20 marks (£13 6s. 8d.). 3 a mill and 10 acres of land producing £18. Urry commented that it seemed to be an annual render. 4 thirty-one dwellings and parcels of land producing £2 0s. 7½d. in total. Urry discusses these individual properties in relation to Domesday Book and charters and other documents relating to Canterbury.43 It is best to consider next the fee farm accounts for 1278-80 as these provide a reference point for the earlier bailiffs’ account F/Z/2. On the Pipe Roll for 1279- 8044 the summary of income is as follows: Account of the same sheriff of the issues of the city of Canterbury from the feast of St Michael, year 7 beginning, up to the feast of St John the Baptist this year before the king returns [the city]. The same sheriff renders account of 74s. 2½d. from assessed rent in the same town from the feast of St Michael, year 7 beginning, up to the same feast immediately following, that is for the whole of year 7. And of £21 14s. 6d. [of 61½ quarters of corn and 13½ quarters of rye and mixed corn]45 from the issues of the mill of the king sold during the same time. And of £8 19s. 8d. from stallage during the same time. And of £6 15s.11½d. from the custom of various things for sale during the same time. And 1 mark from the toll for weighing (tronagium) there during the same time. And 40s. from hay sold during the same time. And 14d. from the sale of the hide of one horse at the mill. And £4 from payment (perquis’) from the bakers from the said feast of St Michael, year 7 beginning, up to the feast of St John the Baptist next following and it does not relate to the whole year because the itinerant justices then came there to hold the common pleas. And £11 17s. from the pleas and profits of the court (curie) there during the same time. Sum of this year £59 15s. 10d. And £59 6s. 9½d 46 from the same issues of the same town from BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 221 the feast of St Michael, year 7 finishing, up to the feast of St John the Baptist next following, as is contained in the roll of particulars (particul’) which the sheriff delivered to the Exchequer. Overall total £119 2s. 7½d. There then follows the list of expenditure by the sheriff for the same period. It can be noted that, while the income is broken down for 1279-80, there is only a total for the part-year 1279-80. The expenditure to be set against the income, apart from monies allocated to the monks of Pontigny and Harbledown, is only given for the whole period. Within the National Archives is a roll (perhaps the roll of particulars referred to in the Pipe Roll summary and now referred to here as the roll of particulars)47 which provides the details behind the Pipe Roll entry separated into 1278-9 and the part-year 1279-80. Using the Pipe Roll summary and the roll of particulars it is possible to provide an overall breakdown of the accounts (Table 1). It can be noted that the year and part-year are for the most part consistent, the main differences being the significantly higher income from the court and lower revenue from ‘various customs’ in 1279-80. The roll of particulars provides considerably more information, which can now be examined against the headings in the left-hand column of the table. The rent of assize, or assessed rent, was collected in four unequal parts: 4s. 4d. at the feast of St Andrew (29 November), 29s. in the middle of Quadragesima (the middle of the 40 weekdays preceding Easter), 10½d. at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June) and 40s. at Michaelmas (29 September), the last figure only appearing in the full year accounts. The income from the mill is listed in terms of quarters and bushels of corn, mixed corn and rye delivered from the mill. Stallage was paid in roughly three equal parts, at the feast of St Andrew, at the middle of Quadragesima and at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Stallage is normally what butchers and other tradesmen paid for having a stall in the market; the figures of £8 19s. 8d. for the full year and £7 19s. 8d. for the part-year compare with the £8 3s. 4d. paid by seventeen butchers from outside the city for stalls in the market place of Canterbury (in communi foro Cantuar’) in 1394-5.48 The bakers collectively paid £4 3s. 4d. for the part-year 1279-80 but only £4 for the whole year 1278-9, in that they were not charged while the itinerant justices were present in the city.49 The round sums, in multiples or fractions of a mark (13s. 4d.) suggest a collective group contribution, perhaps from some sort of trade association. The profits from the court, which the bailiffs probably oversaw alongside the coroners, are listed in detail in the roll of particulars, there being 156 separate entries for 1278-9 and 223 entries for the part-year 1279-80 (see Table 2). Description of the matters coming before the court is rather limited but it is possible to go a little beyond the information given and some explanations for the terms employed in the table are offered here. The largest number of entries relates to what can be termed court proceedings. In order to eliminate unjustified accusations those prosecuting a case needed to provide pledges for continuing with it, and defendants needed pledges that they would appear in court. Failure to come to court to pursue an action whether as plaintiff or defender, or indeed for failing in an action, would result in a fine and this could also be adjudged as making a false claim. Those coming to court could pay for the assistance of the court to sort out a dispute. A significant group of entries concerns debt and the recovery of debt and, indeed, JOHN H. WILLIAMS 222 Table 1. Canterbury Custos Accounts 1278-9 and 1279-80 1278-9 ¾ x 1279-80 income Rent of assize £3 14s. 2½d. £1 14s. 2½d. Revenue (exitus) from mill £21 14s. 6d. £22 6s. 3d. Stallage £8 19s. 8d. £7 19s. 8d. Profits (perquis’) from bakers £4 £4 3s. 4d. Profits (perquis’) of the court £11 17s. £17 5s. 2d. Various customs £6 15s. 11½d. £2 19s. 2d. Weighing 13s. 4d. 10s. Hay sold £2 £2 10s. Hide of a horse 1s. 2d. TOTAL £59 15s. 10d. £59 6s. 9½d. expenditure Monks of Pontigny £13 6s. 8d. £13 6s. 8d. Harbledown leper hospital £13 6s. 8d. £10 Exchequer (by means of tallies) £14 £16 Expenses: bailiff @ 2d. per day £3 0s. 10d. £2 5s. 7½d. 4 serjeants @ 2d. per week £1 14s. 8d. £1 6s. serjeants’ Christmas/Easter boxes 2s. 4d. 2s. 4d. clerk’s salary £1 6s. 8d. £1 feeding mill’s horse @ 2d. per day £3 0s. 10d. £2 5s. 7½d. shoeing horse 4s. 4d. 3s. 1d. maintenance of mill 4s. 2d. tithes of mill £2 3s. 4d. £2 5s. 3d. managing salt marshes 5s. 5s. lease of house £1 12s. £1 4s. purchase of horse 15s. Expenses total (£14 11s.) (£11 7s. 1d.) TOTAL £54 18s. 4d. £50 7s. 9d. The total and the various items of income for 1278/9 are those on the Pipe Roll summary. The total for 1279-80 is that given in the Pipe Roll summary; addition of the individual items on the roll of particulars gives a total of £59 7s. 9½d. The expenditure figures are taken from the roll of particulars. It can be noted, however, that £20 is apparently equally divided in the Pipe Roll summary of expenditure between the monks of Pontigny and Harbledown leper hospital whereas in the roll of particulars £13 6s. 8d. is allocated to the monks of Pontigny and £10 to Harbledown leper hospital. BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 223 Table 2. Canterbury 1278-80 Roll of Particulars Perquisita No. of entries Value of entries 1278-9 ¾ x 1279-80 Total 1278-9 ¾ x 1279-80 Total court proceedings Pledge 1 1 1s. 1s. Pledge of a stranger 1 1 6d. 6d. For not coming to court 4 4 8 3s. 2s. 6d. 5s. 6d. For default 19 19 10s. 6d. 10s. 6d. For not pursuing a claim 1 1 1s. 1s. For default in law 1 1 6d. 6d. For failing to win an action (quia cecidit versus ...) 34 69 103 £1 7s. 6d. £3 19s. 6d. £5 7s. For false claim 2 5 7 5s. 4s. 9s. For receiving aid of court (pro auxilio habendo) 15 8 23 18s. 15s. 8d. £1 13s. 8d. For receiving mercy (pro gratia habenda) 5 21 26 9s. 8d. £1 16s. 6d. £2 6s. 2d. For contempt 8 15 23 7s. £3 1s. 2d. £3 8s. 2d. For bail (pro manucaptione) 2 2 2s. 2s. debt Promise 12 27 39 18s. 6d. £1 14s. 6d. £2 13s. For recovering a debt 9 8 17 16s. 2d. £1 1s. 4d. £1 17s. 6d. offences For trespass 26 10 36 £1 15s. £1 16s. 4d. £3 11s. 4d. For forestalling 5 5 4s. 6d. 4s. 6d. For practising a trade without a licence 2 1 3 5s. 4s. 9s. For unjust detention 6 25 31 4s. £1 4s. 8d. £1 8s. 8d. For selling unsound meat 1 1 2 1s. 2s. 3s. payments to the court Fines (misericordiae) 11 1 12 9s. 6d. 1s. 10s. 6d. Perquisites (perquisita) 14 14 £1 16s. 5d. £1 16s. 5d. other For the sale of an ox 1 1 5s. 5s. For pleas and perquisites in the time of Ralph le Fraunceys 1 1 £1 16s. £1 16s. Not specified 1 2 3 9d. 1s. 1s. 9d. TOTAL 156 223 379 £11 16s. £17 5s. 8d. £29 1s. 8d. JOHN H. WILLIAMS 224 some of the entries included within court proceedings may well relate to actions in respect of debt. Among what have been grouped as offences trespass was a general term for minor criminal misdemeanour, as opposed to a felony. It could include acts of violence and bloodshed, affrays, lesser acts of dishonesty and nuisance.50 A common practice in financial disputes was for a creditor to distrain, or seize goods from a debtor against what was due; excessive or wrongful detention of goods was, however, an offence.51 During the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries forestalling acquired the sense of a consensual but illegitimate bargain, in particular the buying up of produce on the way to market to create a monopoly situation, thereby raising prices and profits.52 Three cases of practising a trade without a licence and two of selling unsound meat are recorded. There are also a number of fines and payments to the court for unspecified offences and/or services provided by the court. Other records help us to appreciate the probable range of the court’s competence and the income generated by it. The city’s court was certainly in existence by the midtwelfth century and references to the conveyancing of property being recorded there are frequent from that time. The earliest plea rolls, however, date to around 1300.53 Unfortunately the rolls are not complete and few details of the cases are given, the record often just showing them being carried forward to the next court. We can see, however, that the court certainly dealt with property, debt, distraint and trespass. There are examples of pledges being given, agreements being reached, inquisitions being held, of an appellant who withdrew an action being sent to prison with his pledges fined, and of wills being enrolled.54 No mention, however, is made of the role of the bailiffs in the court. In the earliest account book of the city chamberlain or cofferer dating to 1393-4, some hundred years later, we can also see payments by ward members for becoming a citizen, as well as some larger sums from individuals presumably from outside the city for the purchase of the freedom of the city.55 It is unfortunate that the components of ‘various customs’ are not specified but they are likely to have included tolls on the sale of goods in the market places of Canterbury other than those that had to be weighed or measured before sale (tronage), that income being separately listed. The round figures of a mark (13s. 4d.) for 1278-9 and 10s. for 1279-80 for tronage perhaps indicate that this function had been leased out, with the person undertaking the weighing paying a fixed sum for the year and retaining the daily receipts; such an arrangement was not unusual.56 Throughtoll, the taking of toll on goods passing through the city, was common elsewhere and seems to be well evidenced on bailiffs’ account roll F/Z/2 (see below); it may have been a component of ‘various customs’. Various charges imposed in other towns at this time are noted in the discussion below although there would appear to be little evidence for them at Canterbury. The account also provides details of how the monies raised at Canterbury were to be utilised. A ‘paper accounting system’ was at work with real money in the form of coins not being required to be taken to the Exchequer. Rather the Exchequer was credited with the balance after outgoings by means of tallies. Expenses were deducted for the bailiffs’ remuneration and that of their staff and there were also expenses in running the mill and for its maintenance. Annual payments were made to Pontigny abbey, where Thomas Becket spent time in exile, and also to Harbledown leper hospital. BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 225 Whereas the fee-farm accounts for 1278-80 provide an overview of income and expenditure F/Z/2 is very much a daily calendar of income collected by and payments made by the bailiffs. It is unfortunate that it relates only to fourteen and a half weeks in total, belonging to probably one fiscal year. The analysis below treats the document as referring to a single year (Table 3). The largest number of entries relate to tolls of strangers’ horses, packs and cloths, with simple entries such as Toll of strangers’ horses 6d. It is probable that these tolls do not concern sales at Canterbury but rather are throughtolls.57 Although throughtoll as such is not otherwise mentioned in any of the accounts discussed in this paper one can note that in 1251 the bailiffs were instructed by the king to allow Pilgrim of Lucca and his fellow foreign merchants to pass through Canterbury with one pack each without payment.58 A toll on woad was perhaps similarly a throughtoll but that on onions might rather have been a toll on sales. In comparison with the revenue from the borough court in 1278-80 that listed Table 3. F/Z/2 Analysis of Income No. of entries Value tolls Toll of strangers’ horses and packs 7 12s. 11½d. Toll of strangers’ horses 44 £1 4s. 9½d. Toll of strangers’ packs 2 8¾d. Toll of strangers’ cloths 6 3s. 1½d. Toll on woad 3 16s. 10d. Toll on onions 1 4d. court income Debt recovery 8 10s. Amercements 4 2s. 6d. Perquisites (perquisita) 3 5s. 1d. Agreements 4 8s. Failure in court 2 1s. Chattels of a thief 2 1s. 8d. Trespass 4 4s. Selling sub-standard bread 1 1s. other Rent 2 £1 14s. 10d. Bakers 2 £1 6s. 8d. Weavers 1 11s. 6d. Stallage (and other) 2 £10 17s. Customary payments 1 ½d. Perquisites of chattels (perquisita catalli) 1 10s. Other 9 £3 14s. 4d. JOHN H. WILLIAMS 226 here seems rather meagre, even when a full year’s payments are projected. Again the entries are simple such as From Robert Prophet for trespass 6d. or Amercement of Humfrey Scissor 6d. or From Nicholas le Blakier for a fine for failing against William Russel 6d. A fine of 12d. was imposed for substandard bread. There are also a number of payments that are made probably half-yearly or quarterly. Thus there are two entries for rent: 32d. from the term of St Andrew and 32s. 2d. at the middle of Lent; in the 1278-80 fee-farm accounts rent was paid at four times in the year. The bakers twice contribute 1mark (13s. 4d.). There is 11s. 6d from the weavers.59 There are two payments for stallage, of 17s. and of an unspecified amount within a payment of £10 received from Richard the clerk. As in 1278-80 it presumably represents the sum paid by butchers from outside the town to sell meat in Canterbury. Further income worth £3 14s. 4d. cannot be attributed to a particular income stream. A number of deliveries of corn from the king’s mill are noted, these being accounted for through the use of tallies. We do not have the full list of outgoings for the year but they are similar to those on 1278-80 accounts. There are stipends for a clerk (8s. 4d.) and for three serjeants (13s.), rather than the four of 1278-80. There are also expenses in running the mill (37s. 6d. for the mill horse at 2½d. a day, 28d. for shoeing the mill horse, 12d. for maintenance of the mill for half a year, 4d. to the miller and 4d. to the carter). A sum of 20 marks is paid to Pontigny abbey, as in 1278-80, but there is no payment to Harbledown leper hospital, but rather two, of 32s. and 17s., to the chaplain of Dover castle. The three documents compared The three documents are rather different in content but common income streams can be identified. All contain an element of rent and all include stallage; perhaps the relatively high figures on the two earlier documents indicate trades other than the butchers making a payment. The mill figures prominently in all three accounts; on the first and last it provides over a third of the income but no monetary value is given for the corn delivered in F/Z/2. In F/Z/2 and the 1278-80 accounts there is a payment from the bakers. In F/Z/2 there is also a payment from the weavers. Throughtoll is only present in F/Z/2 where it is in fact the most frequent entry. Tolls on goods sold in the market are, surprisingly, not really in evidence although they presumably formed part of the ‘various customs’ of the 1278-80 accounts, which doubtless also included throughtoll. Canterbury’s fee farm income compared with that of other major towns It was noted earlier that breakdowns of fee farm income of some other major towns for the period when they were in the hands of the king during the reign of Edward I can be found in the Pipe Rolls as well as in some associated documents.60 One cannot be absolutely certain about the relative prosperity of these various towns in the later thirteenth century but a useful reference point is the taxable wealth of the lay subsidy of 1334: York £1620 (the 3rd highest), Newcastle £1333 (4th), Lincoln £900? (9th), Winchester £625 (14th), Canterbury £599 (15th), Southampton £511 (17th), Ipswich £510? (19th), Northampton £350 (29th).61 In looking at the fee BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 227 farms of the various towns, however, we must be aware of historical and other factors. Northampton, despite its relatively lowly position, paid a farm of £120 against £200 for Southampton, £180 for Lincoln, £160 for York, £66 13s. 4d. for Winchester and £60 for Canterbury;62 this reflected Northampton’s previous considerable importance and prosperity in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Lincoln, for its part, was suffering some decline in the later thirteenth century, in great measure as a result of the collapse of the cloth industry.63 How then does the fee farm income for Canterbury compare with that of these various leading towns? Some income from property is a common feature in all the towns, whether as rent, landgable or housegable. The courts of all the towns raised (on an annual basis) between £10 and £20 in fines and other payments for services of the court. Those practising trades or crafts within the towns might be expected to contribute to the fee farm. Bakers and those selling bread regularly made payments, as at Canterbury, and brewing, though not at Canterbury, was also taxed. At Lincoln and Northampton it was a sizeable component of income.64 The contribution of weavers at Canterbury can be paralleled at Winchester and Northampton and fullers were also charged at Winchester and possibly Northampton.65 Throughtoll could raise over £30 annually at York and Newcastle but less than £1 for Northampton; if repeated across the country it would represent a very unwelcome surcharge for merchants travelling long distances with their goods. In addition, those carrying goods into or out of the country might expect to pay port duties, as at Ipswich (£10) or Newcastle (£68 18s. 10d.).66 Charges for the sale of goods at market were a common feature but the income generated varied considerably as indeed do the details of charges made. At York in 1292-3 over £50 was raised on charges for wool; wool was also significant at Lincoln. Tolls on wine, hides, woad, ashes, gloves and cloths are individually mentioned in the various account summaries but at Southampton a single figure is given for 1275-6 of £81 0s. 9½d. for tolls coming from wine, corn, wool. skins, cheese and other things. The weighing of goods for sale (tronage) is specifically noted at Newcastle, Northampton, Southampton and York. Only at Canterbury (over £20) and Ipswich (£5 10s. for the half year) is income from a town mill mentioned. A wide range of income sources can thus be seen to contribute to the fee farms of major towns in England during the reign of Edward I. What seems to be significant about the make-up of the Canterbury fee farm income is the major contribution from the town mill and the generally moderate percentage of income coming from the sale of goods and foodstuffs. Conclusion Canterbury was one of the leading towns in England throughout the Middle Ages and the fee-farm accounts are interesting in being able to shed a little light on the governance and financial administration of the city in the thirteenth century. In spite of its prominence in the affairs of state and as a religious centre and pilgrimage destination, the picture that seems to emerge from the accounts is a fairly ordinary one; perhaps the burgess community, not unexpectedly was somewhat overshadowed economically and otherwise by the major religious houses in the city and indeed the royal presence represented by one of the leading mints of the JOHN H. WILLIAMS 228 realm, and this could help to explain the late permanent appearance of a mayor able to represent the interests of the burgesses. appendix Some further bailiffs for the reigns of Henry III and Edward I As a result of trawling through relevant sections of the aalt website and also original documents at the National Archives it has been possible to extend and refine William Urry’s list of bailiffs for the reigns of Henry III and Edward I as presented in the Chief Citizens. At the beginning of the pleas of the Crown for the city of Canterbury heard by the visiting justices in eyre in autumn 125567 is a list of bailiffs, given by year, for the period since the last visitation.68 The list relates to the seven civic years 1248-9 to 1254-5. The list confirms the bailiffs listed by Urry for 1248-9, 1251-2, 1253-4 and 1254-5. For 1249-50 it is now possible to add Robert Polre alongside John Dodekere, for 1250-1 we now have Richard Samuel and William Samuel and for 1252-3 Gregory le Paumer and Walter de la Porte. There is a similar list at the beginning of the pleas of the Crown for the city of Canterbury heard by the visiting justices in eyre in the first half of 1279.69 The list relates to the eight civic years 1271-2 to 1279-80. It confirms the bailiffs given by Urry for 1271-2 to 1273-4 but there is valuable additional information, including ‘new’ bailiffs for the subsequent years. The text reads: Daniel son of Hubert and Stephen Chiche were bailiffs from Michaelmas Edward 3 [1274] up to the following Easter [1275] when the city was taken into the king’s hands and handed to William de Valennes, who was then sheriff, who held the city as custos for a year and a half [i.e. including 1275-6]. John Holt, Thomas Reynald and William de Stoppesdon were bailiffs for the one year, Edward 5 [1276-7], of which William was only bailiff for seven weeks. Simon Payable and Peter Duraunt were bailiffs during the time that Henry Perot was sheriff, that is Edward 6 [1277- 8]. Robert de Scothor, who is the present sheriff, now has custody of the city.70 A key source for the reigns of Henry III and Edward I comprises the records of the Exchequer. Those accounting for the fee farm of a county or one of the major towns had to make a payment or profer at Easter and Michaelmas, something that is recorded on the memoranda rolls of the king’s remembrancer and also the lord treasurer’s remembrancer under the adventus vicecomitum.71 The process is discussed in the Introduction to The Pipe Roll for 1295, Surrey Membrane.72 The citizens of Canterbury appear in in the adventus vicecomitum making their profer, often through a named person who may or may not be designated ‘bailiff’. Where an individual is referred to as a bailiff one might expect such a designation to be consistent with lists of bailiffs established from other sources and this is very much the case in respect of Northampton73 and would appear to be the case for Canterbury at the end of the thirteenth century. Indeed, using the information contained in the adventus vicecomitum one can reasonably extend the named list of bailiffs gathered from other sources. It should be noted that those offering a profer at Michaelmas did so in respect of the previous civic year while those doing so at Easter did so for the first half of the then civic year. BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 229 John de Oddeker is recorded as prepositus at Michaelmas 1238, indicating that he was bailiff for 1237-8.74 Since John Dodekere is known to have been bailiff in 1236-7 (and indeed 1242-3, 1244-5, 1247-50 and later) it is reasonable to assume that it is the same person having two consecutive terms in offic e (1236-8). There is a problem relating to the period of the list of bailiffs recorded at the 1279 eyre, where there is what would clearly appear to be a correct list (see above). In the adventus comitum entries at Michaelmas 1273 John le Usser is recorded as bailiff, as is John de Sancto Andree at at Easter 1277 and William de Wenham at Michaelmas 1277.75 The most probable explanation is that a wrong assumption was made by the Exchequer clerk that the men acting on behalf of Canterbury were in these cases bailiffs. Between 1289-90 and 1298-9 there are seven instances where the bailiffs on the list compiled by Urry and named ‘bailiffs’ in the adventus vicecomitum are in agreement and there is no clear discrepancy. It seems reasonable, therefore, to add a number of names cited as bailiffs in the adventus comitum in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries to Urry’s list: Stephen le Espicer for 1288-9; Adam Bel for 1292-3 and 1296-7; Henry Danyel for 1299-1300; John Loverd for 1300-1; Robert de Sheleford for 1303-4; Henry Danyel for 1304-5; John Payable for 1305- 6 and John de Staundon for 1306-7.76 Adam Bel is given as bailiff for 1296-777 but Urry names Reginald Hurel and Adam of Bishopgate as bailiffs for the year. Urry wondered whether the ‘plenitude of Adams around this date’ meant that they were not all different men, but the three are present together on one of Canterbury’s earliest rolls of freemen admissions.78 Equally difficult is the appearance of John Lord as bailiff in the adventus vicecomitum for Michaelmas 1303.79 John Loverd, perhaps the same person, was noted above as being bailiff in 1300-1 and we do not know the names of the bailiffs for 1301-2; perhaps there was some overlap of duties. bibliography Britnell, R.H., 1996, The Commercialisation of English Society 1000-1500 (second edn). Butcher, A.F., 1979, ‘Canterbury’s Earliest Rolls of Freemen Admissions, 1297-1363: A Reconsideration’, in F. Hull (ed.), A Kentish Miscellany, 1-26. Cal Cl R: Calendar of Close Rolls, HMSO (London 1892-1963). Cal Lib R: Calendar of Liberate Rolls, HMSO (London 1917-64). Cal Pat R: Calendar of Patent Rolls, HMSO (London 1901-86). Cheney, C.R. (ed.), 1978, Handbook of Dates for Students of English History. The Chief Citizens of Canterbury, compiled by William Urry, 1978, updated as https:// www2.canterbury.gov.uk/media/678220/City-of-Canterbury-Portreeves.pdf. Crook, D., 1982, Records of the General Eyre (Public Record Office Handbooks 20). DMLBS : Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (London 1975-2013); see also http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk/publications/online. Drinkwater, C.H., 1891, ‘Bailiffs’ Accounts of Shrewsbury from May 1275 to April 1277’, Trans. Shropshire Archaeol. and Natural History Society, 3 (3rd series), 41-92. Drinkwater, C.H., 1907, ‘Shrewsbury Paving and Other Accounts 54 Henry III, 1269-70’, Trans. Shropshire Archaeol. and Natural History Society, 7 (3rd series), 193-218. Dyer, A., 2000, ‘Ranking Lists of English Medieval Towns’, in D.M. Palliser (ed.), The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, volume 1, 600-1540, 747-770. Easterling, R.C., 1931, ‘Introduction’, in B. Wilkinson, The Mediæval Council of Exeter, xiii-xxxiv. JOHN H. WILLIAMS 230 Frost, R.H., 2004, ‘The Urban Elite’, in Medieval Norwich, C. Rawcliffe and R Wilson (eds), 235-53. Furley, J.S., 1923, City Government of Winchester. Hill, F.W.F., 1948, Medieval Lincoln. Itinerary Henry III: The Itinerary of Henry III 1215-1272 (bound typescript in TNA: 1923; ref. 942.034 PRO). Lilburn, A.J., 1958, ‘The Pipe Rolls of Edward I’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 36 (4th series), 271-95. Martin, G.H., 1961, ‘The Origins of Borough Records’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, ii, no. 4, 147-64. Martin, G.H., 1963, ‘The English Borough in the Thirteenth Century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 13 (5th series), 123-44. Martin, G.H., 1997, ‘English Town Records’, in R. Britnell (ed.) Pragmatic Literacy, East and West, 119-30. Miller, E., 1961, ‘Medieval York’, in A History of the County of York: The City of York, P.M. Tillott (ed.) (VCH), 25-116. Miller, E. and Hatcher, J., 1995, Medieval England: Towns Commerce and Crafts 1086- 1348. Mills, M.H. (ed.), 1924, The Pipe Roll for 1295, Surrey Membrane, Surrey Record Society 7. Platt, C., 1973, Medieval Southampton. Pollock, F, and Maitland, F.W., 1968, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I (2nd edn reissued with a new introduction and select bibliography by S.F.C. Milsom). Rees Jones, S., 2013, York, the Making of a City 1068-1350. Richardson, H.G. and Sayles G.O. (eds), 1941, Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III. Roffe, D. (ed)., 1994, Stamford in the Thirteenth Century, Two Inquisitions from the Reign of Edward I. Tait, J., 1936, The Medieval English Borough. Urry, W., 1967, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings. Warren, W.L., The Governance of Norman and Anglo-Saxon England 1086-1272. Williams, J.H., 2014, Town and Crown: The Governance of Later Thirteenth-Century Northampton. endnotes 1 Martin 1963, 128; Rees Jones 2013, 218. See also Martin 1961 and 1997; Williams 2014, 4. By the time of Edward I there was a growing royal requirement to see written proof of title or of transactions undertaken. 2 Shropshire Record Office: SA3365/308-323; Drinkwater 1891; 1907. 3 In Canterbury under the Angevin Kings and The Chief Citizens of Canterbury William Urry primarily utilised published calendars of state papers, the borough and cathedral archives and cartularies relating to St Augustine’s abbey and Canterbury’s other religious houses, of all of which he had a deep and intimate knowledge. Since the time that he undertook his research the records relating to the business of the Crown have become more accessible, both through the computerisation of indexes and catalogues at the National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office) and also the making available of an increasing number of documents as digital images on the web. A most valuable internet site in this respect is that of the O’Quin Law Library of the University of Houston Law Centre, which, by arrangement with the National Archives, has been scanning legal records from the time of Henry II onwards and making them available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/ and this source has been used by the author in preparing this paper. It is not always possible, however, to establish from the digital images the membrane number within a given roll, particularly for a verso, and so references to aalt frame nos within a given document have been given. 4 U rry 1967, 82ff; Chief Citizens, 16ff. BAILIFFS AND CANTERBURY’S FIRMA BURGI IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 231 5 Warren 1987, 219;cf. Williams 2014, 60. 6 U rry 1967, 87. 7 Miller and Hatcher 1995, 307; Tait 1936, 291; Frost 2004, 236. 8 TNA E 372/124 aalt 8083. 9 Cal Cl R 1251-1253, 60, 200. 10 Cal Cl R 1253-1254, 98. 11 Cal Pat R 1258-1266, 229. 12 Cal Cl R 1242-1247, 502. 13 Cal Cl R 1251-1253, 225. 14 Cal Cl R 1247-1251, 547. 15 Cal Cl R 1253-1254, 5. 16 Cal Cl R 1242-1247, 133; Cal Lib R 1226-1240, 273; Cal Cl R 1254-1256, 16; Cal Lib R 1251- 1260, 325. 17 Cal Cl R 1254-1256, 149-53. 18 Cal Cl R 1259-1261, 245. 19 Cal Cl R 1261-4, 16; Cal Cl R 1261-4, 167. 20 U rry 1967, 89; Chief Citizens, passim. 21 Cf. Tables 1 and 3; TNA E 372/124 aalt 8083; TNA E 199/19/6. 22 R ichardson and Sayles 1941, clxxv, 38; Urry 1967, 90. 23 E asterling 1931, xxix. 24 R offe 1994, 15; Williams 2014, 335. 25 Miller and Hatcher 1995, 359. See also Hill 1948, 296. 26 U rry 1967, 42, 87, 443. 27 Cf. Cheney 1978, 83ff. 28 TNA JUST 1/361 aalt 3367. 29 Chief Citizens, 33. 30 Cheney 1978, 46; DMLBS: Carniprivium. 31 Cal Cl R 1254-6, 16. 32 Cal Cl R 1261-4, 167. 33 I tinerary Henry III. 34 Cf. Williams 2014, 316. 35 TNA E 372/124 aalt 8083; cf. also TNA E 159/52 aalt 1325; E 368/53 aalt 2701. 36 TNA E 199/19/6. 37 Pipe Roll summaries: Ipswich 1284-5 – TNA E 372/131 aalt 3914. Lincoln 1292-3 – TNA E 372/137 aalt 1866; 1293-4 – TNA E 372/138 aalt 2128; 1294-5 – TNA E 372/139 aalt 2388; 1295- 6 – TNA E 372/140 aalt 3027; 1296-7 – TNA E 372/141 aalt 0209; 1297-8 – TNA E 372/142 aalt 0280; 1298-9 – TNA E 372/143 aalt 0694; 1299-1300 – TNA E 372/144 aalt 0969. Newcastle 1292-3 – TNA E 372/138 aalt 2386; Lilburn 1958. Northampton 1293-4 – E 372/138 aalt 2132, E 372/139 aalt 2145; Williams 2014, 104. Southampton 1275-6 – TNA E 372/120 aalt 6846. Winchester 1275- 6 – TNA E 372/120 aalt 6846. York 1292-3 – TNA E 372/139 aalt 2230; 1293-4 – TNA E 372/139 aalt 2230. Rolls of particulars: Lincoln 1293-4 – TNA E 101/505/24; 1296-7– TNA E 101/505/28; Hill 1948, 214. Northampton 1293-4 – TNA SC 6/1248/8; SC 2/195/57; Williams 2014, 104-56. York 1293-6 – TNA SC 6/1088/13. The author is most grateful to Paul Bischoff for discussing the York accounts with him and providing a transcript of them. It can be noted that the Northampton detailed account is introduced as being that of the two bailiffs of Northampton, even though the sheriff was accounting at the Exchequer. Perhaps the real change was that the bailiffs were now accountable to the sheriff although the daily round continued unchanged. A similar situation can be noted at Lincoln (Hill 1948, 214). Associated with the Northampton account is a rental of property within the town: TNA SC 12/133/38; Williams 2014, 157-98. For towns being taken into the king’s hands, see also Miller and Hatcher 1995, 319. 38 TNA E 159/49 aalt 1007; E 159/50 aalt 1141 (here actually in man’ regine – in the hands of the queen; cf. parallel entry in E 368/49 aalt 1526 in manu R); E 159/50 aalt 1139; E 368/50 aalt 2424. JOHN H. WILLIAMS 232 39 Chief Citizens, 38 for 1282-3; TNA E 159/57 aalt 1846; E 159/58 aalt 1936; E 159/58 aalt 1937; E 159/59 aalt 1159. Urry queries whether John Payable and John de Staudone could be bailiffs in 1283-4 but also gives 1278-9 as a possibility, which perhaps is more likely, given that the city was in the king’s hands in 1283-4. 40 A E 159/79 aalt 0217. 41 U rry 1967, 443. 42 U rry 1967, 43. 43 U rry 1967, 44ff. 44 TNA E 372/124 aalt 8083. 45 A dded above the line. 46 £59 7s. 9½d. is the total adding sub-totals on the detailed account. 47 TNA E199/19/6. 48 CCA CC F/A/1. 49 A similar charge can be noted at Northampton where the bakers were again not charged at the time of the fair, a separate toll on bread also being raised (Williams 2014, 108, 115, 130). 50 Pollock and Maitland 1968, II, 511ff. 51 Williams 2014, 122. 52 Britnell 1996, 92ff; Williams 2014, 123. 53 U rry 1967, 88ff. 54 CC J/B/1, 2, 100iii. 55 CCA CC F/A/1. 56 Williams 2014, 115. 57 cf. Williams 2014, 115. 58 Cal Cl R 1247-1251, 515. 59 A n annual charge of 6d. per loom can be noted at Northampton and a similar one was made at Winchester (Williams 2014, 125). 60 For sources in the following para, unless otherwise specified, see endnote 37. 61 D yer 2000, 755. 62 Platt 1973, 15; Tait 1936, 175, 184; Tait 1936, 184 and Hill 1948, 184; Miller 1961, 34; Furley 1923, 8; Urry 1967, 82. 63 Pers. comm. Paul Bischoff. 64 Williams 2014, 126. 65 Williams 2014, 123. 66 L ilburn 1958. 67 Crook 1982, 124. 68 TNA JUST 1/361 aalt 3367. 69 Crook 1982, 158. 70 TNA JUST 1/369 aalt 0724. 71 TNA E 159; E 368. 72 Mills 1924, i-ii; see also Williams 2014, 357. 73 Cf. Williams 2014, 362ff. 74 TNA E 159/17 aalt 0032. 75 TNA E 159/48 aalt 0874; TNA E 368/50 aalt 1141; TNA E 159/51 aalt 1239. 76 TNA E 368/61 aalt 6938; TNA E 368/64 aalt 7902; TNA E 159/71 aalt 0264; TNA E 159/74 aalt 0192; TNA E 159/75 aalt 0199; TNA E 368/74 aalt 0509; TNA E 159/78 aalt 0212; TNA E 159/79 aalt 0219; E 159/80 aalt 0253; TNA E 368/77 aalt 1747. 77 TNA E 159/71 aalt 0264. 78 Chief Citizens, 40; cf. Butcher1979, 1. 79 TNA E 368/74 aalt 0506.