SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC irllblUKY 



Nor did Beverley yield to its governors unquestioning obedience. The craft gilds, though 

 subject to the w^ardens, wrere too strong to be disregarded ; the fact that Beverley had a sanctuary 

 attracted lawrless and turbulent people, whose influence would always be on the side of change. 

 Even the ecclesiastical authority, usually stable and unanimous, was in Beverley split into rival 

 factions, for the Archbishop of York, Alexander Nevill, was a lover of strife, his power in Beverley 

 was great, but his ambition greater, and each move in the game was watched with suspicion by the 

 Chapter of St. John's, strong in local prejudice, against the encroachments of an alien authority.^* 

 Thus all the elements for a great social upheaval were crowded within the walls of the town, while 

 the industrial classes were wearied of the supremacy and selfish policy of the rich burghers. 



Taking advantage of the general anarchy, the democratic party seized the government out of 

 the hands of the oligarchical party and placed it in the hands of an alderman, two chamberlains, and 

 twenty-four guardians. The ringleader of the malcontents, who were principally representatives of 

 the tailors, butchers, shoemakers, ' walkers,' and drapers of the town, was Richard de Midleton. 

 From the accusations and counter-accusations brought by the rival factions a fairly clear idea of the 

 main points of disagreement can be gained. Midleton and his followers brought various specific 

 charges against Adam Coppandale and Thomas de Beverley, the leaders of the oligarchic party, and the 

 commission declared them guilty of stealing money, the common seal, and various charters. The 

 democrats posed not only as the defenders of civic morality, but as defenders of archiepiscopal rights.'^ 

 The archbishop ^° was appointed referee and it is clear that he was regarded as a partisan of the 

 commonalty, for Coppandale and his followers fled from the town rather than submit to his judgement. 

 But the meteor-like success of the democratic party was almost over ; the oligarchs rallied their 

 powers, and in five voluminous petitions to the king set forth the grievous wrongs they had suiFered. 

 It is impossible to deny that, though in the early stages of the quarrel right was on the side of 

 the commonalty, success had turned their heads and they had defied the law by acts of personal violence 

 to their enemies. It is difficult to disentangle the main issue from the countless charges and 

 counter-charges that were brought forward ; but one point is clear : it was an inopportune 

 moment for any innovators, however good their cause, to claim royal support. The disturbance 

 throughout the country was so great that the king's advisers would look with suspicion on any 

 demands that savoured of change. The probi homines, as the exiled party called themselves, 

 obtained from Government a mandate that the Beverley officials should appear in the Court of 

 Chancery.'^ But the hold that the revolutionary party had on the people of Beverley is clearly 

 shown by the difficulty that the central authorities encountered in inducing people to carry out 

 their instructions. In the meantime Coppandale and his followers, the leaders of the oligarchic 

 party, probably sure of the support of the council, had given themselves up and were lodged 

 in the Marshalsea. Midleton, the leader of the opposition, urged illness as an excuse for not 

 appearing in London ; the officials in Beverley gave different excuses for not carrying out the king's 

 commands ; Manfeld, the provost, said the offence not being ecclesiastical was beyond his power ; 

 Thomas de Grimston, the bailiff of the Chapter of St. John's,^* frankly owned that he was prevented 

 by fear of his life ; William de Erghom, the Sheriff of Yorkshire, said he could not lay his hands on 

 the delinquents.** But an even more convincing proof of the popular support given to the leaders 

 of the insurrection is afforded by the tentative nature of the king's letter. He tries by persuasion 

 to induce the townspeople to return to their old allegiance ; still, they are only exhorted to meet 

 together and arrange for the peaceful government of the town. 



As Mr. Leach points out, it is clear from the Roll of Accounts for 1386 that both in that 

 and the previous year the accounts were rendered by an alderman and two chamberlains, not by 

 the twelve keepers,^"" so the change brought about by the democrats was not entirely evanescent. 

 Still, the tide of insurrection had begun to ebb : the archbishop would also keep the peace.^ The 

 bonds round which the dispute raged were cancelled, and on 18 October 1382 Beverley received a 

 general pardon, but a heavy fine of 1,100 marks was levied.^ The death of one of the leaders of 

 the commonalty is recorded in 1384 : 'Pardon at the instance of the king's kinsman the Earl of 

 Northumberland to John Rasin for the death of Richard Boston of Beverley, a rebel and chief 

 captain of the late insurrection there.' ' Probably the Government granted the pardon with relief. 

 The leaders of the conservative party were pardoned on the payment of a nominal fine.* But an 



" C. T. Flower, ' Beverley Town Riots,' Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), 19, 81, 



" Coram Rege R. East. 5 Ric. II, m. 25. 



°* P.R.O. Ancient Petitions, 1 1201, 11210 ; C. T. Flower, op. cit. 84. 



" P.R.O. Ancient Petitions, 11205. »« Ibid. 11222. »»C. T. Flower, op. cit. 87. 



™ Close, 5 Ric. II, m. u. Printed in MSS. of Corp. of Beverley (Hist. Rec. Com.), 18, 19. 



I P.R.O. Ancient Petitions, 1 1 242. » Pat. 6 Ric. II, part ii, m. « i. 



• Pat. 8 Ric. II,m. 1 (18 Dec. 1384). ^ 



* Coram Rege R. East. 8 Ric. II, m. 4, printed in Andri5 R6ville, Le Soulhement des Travailleurs d^Anzk- 

 terre, 260-6. * 



443 



