CITY OF DURHAM 



bailiff, and John Richardson as steward. When 

 these gentlemen took their seats in the court 

 room on Mayor's Day 1609, and proceeded to 

 open the court in the bishop's name, they were 

 opposed by a concerted arrangement between the 

 six mayors who had served under Matthew's 

 charter. One of them tried to pull the bailiff 

 out of his chair. Another coming to his aid 

 succeeded in hustling the unfortunate man 

 out of the Tolbooth, whilst confederates seized 

 the bishop's court books and threw them into 

 the street. Below in the market-place invective 

 was heard against bailiff and steward, many of 

 the inhabitants congregating about them and 

 calling aloud to commit them to the stocks or 

 even to duck them in the pant hard by. At 

 last with much ado the two officers effected their 

 escape from the crowd, carrying the tale of their 

 outrageous treatment to the bishop. It was not 

 possible to brook an insult such as this, and 

 Bishop James hoping, it may be, to make an 

 example of the rebellious corporation began a 

 suit in the Court of Exchequer instead of 

 dealing with the matter, as he might have done, 

 in the ordinary assize. The suit was heard in 

 Easter Term 1610. The depositions of the 

 various witnesses in response to the lengthy 

 interrogatories form one of the most useful 

 sources of information that we possess in regard 

 to the corporation history. Opportunity was 

 taken not only to discover the main question at 

 issue but to elucidate other matters, such as the 

 customs of the city in respect of fees, commons, 

 fairs, and so forth. The hearing was adjourned 

 from term to term, being completed in June 

 1610, when the Exchequer decree was issued. 



The bishop recited all the rights for which 

 he contended, laying claim to all the local courts, 

 fees, commons, and their privileges. He asserted 

 that the mayor merely pretended that he was 

 principal of the courts to the manifest disherison 

 of the bishop ; that the defendants being of the 

 greatest wealth in the city had conspired to 

 deprive the bishop of his rightful possessions 

 in the city ; that they had tried to usurp 

 privileges, and, in order to give colour to their 

 action, had procured and obtained a new 

 grant of incorporation and in virtue of this 

 strove to challenge and take away the privileges 

 mentioned ; that before and since the assault 

 they entered the tolbooth and claimed certain 

 rights — e.g., the clerkship of the market, assize 

 of bread and ale, etc. ; that they started new 

 tolls, erected a mayor's court, nominated their 

 own steward ; that they set forth in speeches 

 their claim ; that they used the common lands 

 as their freehold ; that they held court leet for 

 cases determinable only in the sheriff's turn. 

 The defendants in their responsive plea urged 

 their charters. They asserted that the city 

 was a body corporate by prescription. They 



produced what is evidently Pudsey's charter in 

 order to prove their mediaeval corporate status.'* 

 They claimed gilds, tolbooth, '^ clerk of market, 

 courts leet, borough court as belonging to the 

 corporation. If they conceded that the bishop 

 was in the last resort the owner of the common 

 lands they had the right of pasture thereon. 

 They claimed all burgages, messuages, and 

 tenements in the city connected with the cor- 

 poration as theirs. Then with some historical 

 retrospect they mentioned controversy before 

 Privy Council upon such matters as were now 

 in dispute. After Pilkington's incorporation 

 there was no difficulty, they said, until recently. 

 Finally they laid stress on the fact that they 

 enjoyed their liberties until Edward Hutton 

 and John Richardson by the bishop's appoint- 

 ment disturbed them. The bishop in reply 

 to this reaffirmed his points. He funher said 

 that the town was governed by the bishop's 

 bailiff until about 10 Elizabeth, when Richard 

 Raw, then bailiff, assigned the office to some of 

 the burgesses, reserving his fee of 20 nobles. 

 Then the town got a grant from Pilkington of 

 alderman and assistants with courts, fees, etc. 

 After Raw came William Mann, as bishop's 

 bailiff, who assigned as Raw did. Under 

 Bishop Hutton the townsmen renewed their 

 grant of alderman with the grant of a new fair, 

 but these two grants were not confirmed. The 

 clerkship was an ancient office granted under 

 patent. The bishop strongly maintained his 

 rights over the commons. Once more the 

 defendants replied denying the bishop's seisin 

 of streets, wastes, soil, and burgages : these had 

 always been corporation property. The tol- 

 booth was not the bishop's, and any building 

 thereon had been merely of devotion and 

 Christian charity for the relief of a poor cor- 

 poration. Raw and Mann made no assignment 

 of fees as alleged. Burgage fines were not paid 

 to the bishop, nor did the gilds originate with 

 him. Eventually the final hearing came on in 

 London. Serjeant Hutton, Mr. Prideaux, and 

 Mr. Topham were counsel for the bishop, and 

 for the mayor and other defendants Serjeant 

 Nicholls, Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Brown. It 

 appeared that the bishop was seised of city and 

 borough, of the courts, fees and so forth, and 

 that the appointment of baihff rested with him, 

 whilst all the matters claimed by the city were 

 his. Accordingly it was ordered that the 

 bishop should hold the tolbooth, shops and 

 houses, fees, markets, fairs, and the old rights 

 of stallage, pickage, and scavalhire, appointing 

 his bailiff to receive the same. In fact, all 

 the points in dispute were conceded to the 

 bishop, and it was decreed that the defendants 



'* See below, pp. 54-5. 

 72 See above, pp. 22, 34. 



35 



