CITY OF DURHAM 



et ut habeant omnes liberas consuetudines sicut 

 burgenses de Novo Castello melius et honorabilius 

 habent. Testibus, Radulpho Haget viecomite, 

 Gilleberto Hansard, Henrico de Puteaco, Johanne 

 de Amunde ville, Rogero de Coisncres, Jordano 

 EscoUant, Thoma filio Willelmi, Gaufrido filio 

 Ricardi, Alexandre de Helton, Willelmo de Laton, 

 Osberto de Hetton, Gaufiido de Torp, Ranulpho de 

 Fisseburn, Ricardo de Parco, Michaeli filio Briennii, 

 Ricardo de Puntcardum, Radulpho Bassett, Rogero, 

 Philippo filio Hamonis, Rogero de Epplindina, 

 Patrico de Ufferton et multis aliis. 



It will be noticed that the deed does not 

 create the borough but merely grants certain 

 mercantile and other pecuniary privileges and 

 contains no reference to any right of self-govern- 

 ment. It might be thought that the grantees 

 were the members of a gild merchant, but of 

 the existence of such a body there is no evi- 

 dence.^i Of the privileges granted, the freedom 

 from toll was probably the most important. 

 According to a note of somewhat later date the 

 tolls exacted in the palatinate were — ' at Chester- 

 le-Street from those coming from the south and 

 at Sunderland from the north ; at Wolsingham, 

 Rainton, Houghton and Sedgefield from those 

 travelling north and at Norton from those 

 travelling south, and at Grindon Moor from all 

 directions.' The note finishes ' apud Dunelm 

 veniunt quieti et ibi dabunt tolnetum et capient 

 signa.'^^ 



Unlike the charter to Wearmouth, also 

 granted by Pudsey, the customs of Newcastle 

 are not set out.^^ The adaptation of the New- 

 castle clauses in the Wearmouth charter to 

 meet the conditions of the Palatinate should be 

 noted as likely to apply also to Durham — especi- 

 ally the ' appeal ' clause which permits the 

 burgess to defend himself ' per legem civilem, 

 scilicet, per xxxvi homines.'^ The Wear- 

 mouth charter is also of interest as indicating 

 the rights of the burgesses of Durham to take 

 both timber and firewood under conditions not 

 specified in that charter. The Gateshead 

 charter, also granted by Pudsey,*' contains 

 elaborate provisions limiting the right to wood 

 required for use and not for sale. 



In an eyre held at Durham in 1242 the bur- 

 gesses claimed the exclusive right of buying and 

 selling between the Rivers Tyne and Tees, 



'^ The reference in the Chester deeds to the gild 

 merchant at Durham, Hist. MS. Com. Sth Rep., 355, 

 is an error for Dublin : See Round, Feudal Eng. 465. 



*2 Durh. Treas. Reg. ii, f. 184 d. The entry 

 was made in the 14th century. 



" The Wearmouth charter is printed in Boldon Bk. 

 (Surtees Soc), xli. The Newcastle charter is in 

 Stubbs' Select Charters, 1 10. They can best be 

 studied for the purposes of comparison in Ballard, 

 Brit. Boro. Ch. 1042-1216. 



** See Boro. Customs (Selden Soc), II, xx\'ii. 



« Boldon Bk. (Surtees Soc), ili. 



though they admit a doubt as to Sadberge, 

 then but recently added to the Palatinate. 

 That they were confident in their claim is shown 

 by their seizing the sheep of one of Robert Fitz 

 Meldred's men, which had been sold outside 

 the liberties of the borough without the licence 

 of the burgesses. As at this period Robert 

 Fitz Meldred was one of the most powerful men 

 in the Palatinate, the burgesses must have been 

 either very sure of their ground, or have acted 

 with a singular lack of discretion. The roll also 

 records the claim of the burgesses to seize by 

 way of distress the horses of the squires of 

 knights, and complaints appear of the action of 

 the burgesses in searching for dyed wool in the 

 country districts.^* 



It is somewhat difficult to find any passage 

 in the Newcastle customs sufficiently wide to 

 cover the Durham claim to a monopoly of 

 trading.*'' Such a right was generally of pre- 

 Conquest origin,*^ and it is of interest to note 

 that the monopoly clause was omitted from the 

 Wearmouth charter. The power of distress 

 seems to be within the scope of the Newcastle 

 clause,** and the search for dyed wool indicates 

 that the burgesses of Durham claimed a mono- 

 poly of the wool trade.**' 



The first reference to a lease of the borough 

 appears in Boldon Book,*^ but, beyond the 

 somewhat heavy rent of 60 marks, no other 

 information is given, except that the mill was 

 not included in the lease. From 1183 to 

 Bek's roll in 1308-9 no information has sur\'ived, 

 but in the latter year James the apothecary or 

 the spicer is stated to be the lessor of the 

 borough and the mill.^ The rent was ^^66 

 I3J'. 4//., which did not include the furnaces. 

 Unfortunately the names of the bailiSs for the 

 year in question have not survived, but Spicer 

 was bailiff in 1304 and 1306.** 



There is in 1352-3 a reference to a lease for 

 three years of the borough to Sir Thomas Gray, 

 the bishop's steward, and John of Alverton, but 

 it was not until 1387 that we obtain definite 



*« Durh. Assize R. (Surtees Soc), cases 284-291. 

 There is a separate verdict from each of the four 

 Durham boroughs. 



3' Ballard, Boro. CA. 211. 



** Ibid. Irs'i ; see aUo Chadwick, Studies in Anglo- 

 Saxon Inst. 



*' Ballard, op. cit. 160. 



*o Ballard, op. cit. 211. 



« I'.C.H. Dur. i, 306, 327. 



*2 Boldon Bk. (Surtees Soc), xiiii. 



** The rubric in the roU under which the rent 

 appears is ' Reccptio de baUivis burgorum,' but 

 Spicer is described as ' firmarius.' It should be 

 mentioned that he was a bishopric ofiicial and died 

 rich — dabbling in municipal finance in the early part 

 of the 14th century was apparently not wholly 

 unprofitable. Kellati's Reg. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 1 10. 



55 



