CITY OF DURHAM 



have been prepared since the two days' notice 

 of the visit which the king had given. They 

 show clearly how the corporation were seizing 

 the opportunity in order to steal from the king, 

 if it might be, some concession or privilege, at 

 the least, though no doubt they ventured to 

 hope for the restitution of the liberties they 

 had so recently lost.™ 



The king made no recorded response to the 

 effusion of the corporation, but continued his 

 progress to the cathedral and spent the next 

 few days mainly at the castle, which he ulti- 

 mately left on 24 April. At the castle some- 

 thing took place which had a tragic ending. 

 For some neglect, perhaps, or for some other 

 reason the king took the bishop aside and 

 soundly rated him ; whereon the unfortunate 

 prelate took it so much to heart that he fell 

 ill and died in less than three weeks. It may 

 be that King James hectored the bishop on 

 behalf of the corporation whom his majesty 

 had already tried to serve by his ill-considered 

 confirmation of the 1602 charter. Whether 

 this is so, or whether some other neglect were 



But what our royal James did grant herein, 



William our Bishop hath oppugnant been. 



Small quest to sway down smallness, where man's might 



Hath greater force than equity or right. 



But these are only in your breast included, 



Your subjects know them not, but are secluded 



From your most gracious grant. Therefore, we pray 



That the fair sunshine of your most brightest day 



Would smile upon this city with clear beams, 



To exhale the tempest of ensuing streams. 



Suffer not, great prince, our ancient state 



By one forced Will to be depopulate. 



'Tis one seeks our undoing, but to you 



Ten thousand hearts shall pray, and knees shall bow ; 



And this dull cell of earth wherein we live 



Unto your name immortal praise shall give. 



Confirm our grant, good king, Durham's old city 



Would be more powerful so't had James's pity. 



The ' great prelate ' is Bishop Matthew who gave 

 the charter of 1602. ' WiUiam our Bishop ' is, of 

 course. Bishop James. ' Secluded from your grant ' 

 refers to the recent Exchequer decree. ' Ancient 

 state ' : they still hark back to one of their main 

 contentions, viz., the ancient grant by Tunstall 

 and long before by Pudsey of what was in dispute. 

 ' Ten thousand ' is, of course, no allusion to the 

 population of Durham since that had not reached 

 10,000 two centuries later. ' Dull cell of earth ' 

 must convey their sense of the lack of trade expansion, 

 vnth possibly some allusion to the ungenial climate 

 of Durham. 



" There is e\'idence that the corporation preferred 

 a petition to the king when he was at Durham, and 

 this was referred, apparently, by the king to Sir 

 Thomas Lake and others. S. P. Dom. Jas. I, iciii, 

 no. 121. See further as to this and the statement 

 prepared on the bishop's behalf to rebut the mayor's 

 claims under Jurisdictions, p. 58. 



charged against the bishop,*" it is certain that 

 his funeral took place at night, obviously to 

 avoid any hostile demonstration. When two 

 months later a more popular appointment was 

 made in the person of Bishop Neile, the delayed 

 obsequies were more fitly celebrated, but mean- 

 while, the night after the interment, riots 

 occurred in the city with threats of damage to 

 the bishop's property, intended as a civic 

 protest against the action of the late prelate." 



It was no doubt the triumph of the bishop 

 in the Exchequer suit which quickened the 

 local desire for Parliamentary representation. 

 The matter was first mooted at this time at a 

 meeting of quarter sessions in 161 5 when the 

 gentlemen assembled considered the proposal. 

 In 1620 there was drawn up ' the humble 

 petition of the knights, gentlemen, and free- 

 holders of the County Palatine of Durham 

 together with the Mayor and Citizens of the 

 City of Durham.' On this was framed a bill 

 giving two members to the county, two to the 

 city, and two to Barnard Castle.*- The bill 

 was passed by the Commons in 1621 and was 

 thrown out by the Lords. The agitation began 

 again in 1626 and in 1629.*^ Cromwell was 

 the first to grant representation to city and 

 county. Cosin withstood its continuance after 

 the Restoration, nor was it again allowed 

 until 1675. The surrendered liberties of 1610 

 were not forgotten meanwhile. Whilst the 

 king was in Durham in 1617 John Richardson, 

 who had been so roughly handled in the tol- 

 booth fracas, drew up under seventeen heads 

 ' by way of breviate ' a description of ' the 

 form and state of the government of the city 

 of Durham used since the time of Edward III.' ** 

 The case is stated very much from the bishop's 

 point of view, and the corporation are attacked 

 for ' their discontented humour and clamour.' 

 Later in the same year the mayor wrote up to 

 London wishing to know when ' the vindication 

 of the city liberties can be heard.'** It does 

 not appear that any such appeal was really 

 tried, but instead Bishop Neile effected a com- 

 promise. In 1627 he demised to Thomas 

 Mann, Thomas Cook, Thomas Tunstall and 



*' The Durham story is that the king found the 

 Castle beer too new ! Mickleton gives different 

 accounts : in one place ' Some neglect or some other 

 reason ' ; in another, a neglect due to some of the 

 bishop's officials. (Mickleton MS. i, fol. 395*.) 



** S. P. Dom. Jas. I, xcii, no. 33. 



*^ It was also proposed to unite the divisions of 

 Bedlington, Norhamshire, and Islandshire with North- 

 umberland (S. P. Dom. Chas. I, x, no. 64). 



** The subsidies and forced loans quickened the 

 desire. Cal. S. P. Dom. 1627, p. 121. 



** To be found in Mickleton MS. i A, fol. 105. See 

 also under Jurisdictions, p. 58. 



" S. P. Dom. Jas. I, iciii, no. 121. 



37 





