SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



the bishop had considerable powers. It has been mentioned that Durham 

 was farmed out. 1 In 1343 Bishop Bury ordered the escheator to take into 

 his hands the ' town and manor of Hartlepool and answer for the profits till 

 the bishop otherwise directed.'* If the mayor and commonalty wished to 

 endow charities they had to buy a licence from the bishop. 8 Similarly a 

 religious gild could only be founded in St. Nicholas's, Durham, after a licence 

 had been procured.* Again, if Durham or Hartlepool wished to levy an 

 octroi duty to raise money towards the repair of the town walls they had to 

 obtain the bishop's consent. This duty, called murage, was granted to 

 Durham city in 1344, 1378, 1386, and 1407,' and to Hartlepool in 1384, 

 1398, and 1421.' The grant to Durham in 1344 was at once revoked, 7 and 

 it seems from entries in the Chancery Rolls that in the case of both vills a 

 strict audit was taken of the way in which the receipts were spent. 8 



The bishops kept an especially tight hold over Hartlepool until late in 

 the fifteenth century, when their own power decayed. For instance, in 

 1391 some disturbance took place owing to a quarrel between the mayor and 

 commonalty and their neighbours, Sir Ralph de Lumley of Stranton and 

 Matilda widow of Sir Roger de Clifford. The bishop ordered his chancellor 

 to intervene, as unlawful assemblies had been held to the terror of the people. 9 

 Lumley seems to have been the aggressor, as the bishop forced him to give a 

 recognizance to keep the peace. 10 In 1410 another disturbance took place, 

 and this time the mayor and commonalty had to give a recognizance to keep 

 the peace towards certain people, probably non-freemen of the borough. 11 

 The bishop's anxiety can be understood when it is remembered that 

 Hartlepool was the only port in the Palatinate of any size. He claimed a 

 right to levy customs at the port, but the manor belonged to Robert Bruce's 

 family until forfeited to the king by his treason. Even in 1327 the king 

 had attempted to plant officials at Hartlepool, 1 * and in 1334 he actually 

 appointed controllers of customs there. A lawsuit by Bishop Bury forced 

 Edward III to withdraw them. 18 



Little is known of the early history of the gilds of the Palatinate. 

 Bishop le Poor recognized the gild-merchant of Hartlepool, but it either did 

 not possess or did not retain much authority in the government of the town 

 and no craft-gilds are found there. The first mention of craft-gilds is at 

 Durham in 1447, when we find several men, probably the wardens and 

 searchers of an informal shoemakers' gild, giving a recognizance for due 

 observation of an ordinance or statute by which the local shoemakers are 

 prohibited from employing a Scotsman, 1 * and there is a similar recognizance 

 by the fullers." 



In 1450 the weaver-craft obtained the bishop's approval of their ordi- 

 nances and regulations including directions for going in procession to * ger 



I In 1387 the city was farmed for 120 yean ; Dur. Curs. No. 32, m. 8 d. 

 ' Dur. Curs. No. 29, m. 1 5 </. 



Ibid. No. 33 mm. 15 d. and \6J. * Ibid. No. 36,m. n. 



Ibid. No. 29, m. iSJ. ; No. 31, m. 13 ; No. 32, m. 8 ; No. 34, m. 2. 



Ibid. No. 32, m. 4 ; No. 33, m. 21 ; cf. No. 35, m. i6J. 



1 Ibid. No. 29, m. 1 8 d. ' Cf. Dur. Curs. No. 32, m. 8 



Ibid. No. 33, m. 12. " D". Curs. No. 33, m. \*d. 



II Ibid. No. 34, m. 5. " Co/. Pat. 1330-4, p. 545. 

 u Reg. Pal. Dun. (Rolls Scr.), iv, 213-15, 221-2, 264-5. 



14 Dur. Curs. No. 45, m. 23 d. u Ibid. No. 46, m. 23 d. 



255 



