BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON 



, version on the charter roll" provides that two bur- 

 gesses were to be elected by the common counsel 

 of the vill and presented to the sheriff, who should 

 select one of them and present him to the cliief 

 justice at Westminster at the time of rendering his 

 account, to be prepositus of the town. The version 

 of the Cartae Antiquae'^ prondes that the two bur- 

 gesses elected should be presented to the chief justice 

 at Westminster and should serve as prepositi. Both 

 versions say that the officials so elected should only 

 be removable by the common counsel of the town, 

 and provide also for the election of four coroners" to 

 keep the pleas of the Crown and to see that the reeves 

 treat rich and poor alike justly. There is some diffi- 

 culty in deciding between the merits of the two 

 charters.** On the whole, the version of the Cartae 

 Antiquae seems the more likely to be correct.'"* Its 

 form was followed by Henry the third's charter of 

 1227," which merely adds that the two prepositi shall 

 be presented to the chief justice by the letters patent 

 of the vill, and this procedure was presumably fol- 

 lowed down to the charter of 1299, though the early 

 Exchequer rolls do not record the presentations. 



The prepositi of 1227 are certainly the bailiffs of a 

 later date; indeed, as early as 1222 the Exchequer 

 addresses a writ to ' the mayor and bailiffs ' of 

 Northampton.*'^ Two prepositi, as we have seen, 

 appear on the Pipe Roll accounting for the farm as 

 early in 1 185. This is an additional reason for pre- 

 ferring the version of the Cartae Antiquae. Dr. Cox 

 assigns the first mayor to the reign of Richard I, but 

 there appears to be no evidence for the existence of a 

 mayor, so-called, save the handwriting of certain un- 

 dated deeds.*' As late as 1 21 2 John addressed to the 

 reeve and good men of Northampton a command to 

 lead the armed forces of the town, which is directed in 

 the cases of London and Lincoln to the mayors of 

 those cities.*' But three years later an unequivocally 

 dated document mentions what may well be the elec- 

 tion of the first mayor of Northampton. On 17 Feb- 

 ruary 1 215 John, then at Silverstone, addressed a writ 

 to his pood men {probi homines) of Northampton : 

 ' Know that we have received William Thilly to be 

 your mayor. We therefore command you to be in- 



tendent to him as your mayor, and to cause to be 

 elected twelve of tlie better and more discreet of your 

 town to expedite with him your affairs in your town.'*' 

 From this date onwards commands directed to the 

 mayor, coupled sometimes with the reeves or bailiffs 

 and sometimes with the good men of the town, occur 

 upon the Close and Patent Rolls,** though the reeves 

 are addressed by tliem selves on matters connected 

 with the Exchequer,*" and under Henry III the title 

 of bailiff soon displaces that of reeve altogether in the 

 royal commands whether on judicial or on financial 

 matters.** 



Wilham Tilly, the first mayor of Northampton, is 

 also mentioned in a letter of Faukes de Brcaute to 

 Hubert de Burgh, which must fall between 1215 and 

 1 224.*' He held land in Flore : *" he, or a relation of 

 the same name, is mentioned in the 1260 custumal as 

 one of the burgesses appointed for levying a duty on 

 the sale of cloths to foreign merchant s,*! and his name 

 occurs in several early town deeds.''- He probably 

 held office for many years, as was usual among his 

 successors in the 13th century."^ The next mayors 

 mentioned by name are Robert de Leycester, who 

 occurs in a lawsuit in I229,''* and Robert le Especer, 

 who accounts at the Exchequer in 1231.'' Six other 

 mayors are named, from 1249 to 1272,** and six from 

 1273 to 1299.*' Under the charter of 1299, now 

 preserved at Northampton,** the burgesses were to 

 present the mayor-elect at the Exchequer every 

 year within the octave of Michaelmas, that he might 

 there take the oath pertaining to his office. From 

 1299 onwards the name of the mayor is enrolled on 

 the Michaelmas Presentationes of the Memoranda Roll 

 in the Exchequer, often accompanied by the names 

 of the burgesses who signed the letters patent pre- 

 senting him.'* The same names recur from year to 

 year, and are clearly those of the leading burgesses — 

 the mayor's colleagues and councillors. In 1478 

 Edward IV granted by letters patent that the mayor 

 might henceforth be sworn in before the town re- 

 corder at Northampton, without coming up to West- 

 minster.^ The re-election of the mayor, usual in the 

 14th century, was restricted in the isth. In 1437, 

 during the fourth mayoralty of John Sprygy, it was 



" Printed Stubbs' Select Charters 

 306-7 J Rot. Cart. p. 45-6. 



'• Coriae Aniiquae G. 15; Doro. Rec. i, 

 30-31. 



'• In 1329 the burgesses said that this 

 unusually large number bad been granted 

 them for the convenience of merchants 

 {pur tie de mercbaunlr>j^ presumably that 

 they might scn'e in rotation. F.gerton 

 MS. (B.M.) 2811, fo. 250. The same 

 number had, however, been granted to 

 Lincoln, Gloucester, and Ipswich in the 

 lame year. Ballard, Borough CbarierSjij 247. 



■•" The copy on the Cariae Autiquae 

 roll follows on a charter dated 1206, so it 

 cannot be strictly contemporary. It is 

 dated at Windsor 17 April, and that on 

 ihc Charter Roll at Westminster 20.\pril. 

 None of the three witnesses to the C.A. 

 version appears on the Charter Roll, which 

 gives only one witness. The version on 

 the Charter Roll has Salopcibir' written 

 for Northampton at one point, and then 

 corrected ; the charter, as far as the 

 dection of officials it concerned, is identical 

 with one to Shrewsbury, dated 20 April, 

 entered next but one on the roll. See 

 Rat. Carl. (Rec. Com.), p. 46. 



'"•This is the opinion of Dr. Tait. 

 It seems probable that the Chancery 

 clerk assimilated the date and this 

 clause of the Northampton Charter to 

 that of Shrewsbury, which he was about 

 to copy. The retention of permission 

 to elect otie reeve from the charter of 

 Ii3<) may have contributed to the 

 confusion. 



" Chart. R. 11 Hen. Ill, Part 1, m. 17. 



•« Mem. R. (K.R.) 5, m. 4. 



" Boro. Rec. ii. 548. All the deeds 

 which I have examined bearing the name 

 of William Tilly appear to belong to the 

 itth century. 



'^ Rot. Lin. Cliius (Rec. Com.), i, 

 123b. 



" Ibid, i, 188. If John meant by this 

 ^rant to secure the loyalty of the towns- 

 men he failed, for in April they attacked 

 the royal garrison in the castle, which later 

 burnt half the town in revenge. Mem. 

 Willi, de Cuvenlrie (Rolls Scr.), ii, 219. 



•• Rol. Lilt. Claus. i, 227b, 233b, 367, 



383 43>- 

 "Ibid, i, loob, 112, 152, 155,1222. 

 "Ibid. 1,517, 550, 567, 586. 

 •• And. Cotresp. (P.R.O.) vol i, 66. 



"> Kol. Liu. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 511b. 



•' CI. 38 (fo. 162 v ). 



" Northampt. Corp. Deeds, Press 

 c. 7 ; Harl. Ch. 85, c. 1 ; Anct. D. 

 (P.R.O.) B 2484; Cott. MS. Tib. E.V. 

 147, fo. 16. 



•' e.g. Robert le Spiccr, thrice ; 

 Robert, son of Henry, five times ; Pente- 

 cost dc Kershalton, four times. 



" liractoii's Kolehook. 



" Mem. R. (K..R.) ii, Adveiilus Vice- 

 comitum Mich. 



•' Roger, son of Theobald, 1249-50 

 (deed at Lichborough) ; Benedict Dod. 

 (Pat.) ; William Gaugy {Rol. Hund.) j 

 Thomas Ken (Mem. R.) ; John le Specer 

 {Rol. Hund.) ; William, son of Thomas. 



•' William le Pessoner {Rot. llutid.) ; 

 John de Staunford (Add. Ch.) ; Robert, 

 son of H-T.ry (Corporation Deeds) ; 

 John le Mcgre (Add. Ch.) ; Philip de 

 Horton (.' rize R.) ; and Peter de Ley- 

 ccstrc (Anc D.). 



•' Boro. Rec. i, 57. 



•• One such presentation is printed by 

 Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 153, and gives 

 the usual formula. 



' Boro. Rec. i, 93. 



