A HISTORY OF YORKSHIRE 



allusion to these rioters as transgressors against the Statute of Labourers proves some connexion 

 between the Beverley town riots and the Peasants' Revolt.' There is little doubt that the 

 insurrection in Scarborough, though it did not begin until nearly two months after the first outbreak 

 in Essex, had much in common with it. It is clear from the evidence that it was a rising of the 

 poorer classes against the rich, uncomplicated by any serious questions of politics. 



The story is told by twelve men of Scarborough empanelled to give evidence to Henry, Larl 

 of Northumberland, the king's representative. No documents dealing with the defence are extant, 

 but the testimony of the witnesses is unanimous, the details clear, and the course of events probable 

 in a town like Scarborough, noted until a much later date as being the lurking place of a set of 

 hardy, seafaring men, of piratical habits, whose defiance of international law constantly brought 

 England into trouble.' News was brought to Scarborough of the rising in Essex, and on 

 23 June 1 38 1 the town was in a tumult. 



For two days preparation went on amongst the insurgents ; then a band of rioters, nimibering 

 five hundred, under the leadership of Robert Galoun, a shoemaker and a panier-man being 

 prominent in the crowd, rushed through the town. In order to distinguish each other, they all 

 wore white caps decorated with red tails. 



Their attacks were directed entirely against the wealthier classes. Their chief motive seems 

 to have been the desire of plunder, though doubtless opportunities of satisfying private grudges 

 were seized. The houses of the principal townsmen were surrounded, and in several cases serious 

 damage done. Some of the leading citizens were hurried to prison, and only allowed their liberty 

 when they had taken a solemn oath of fidelity to the rioters and to the commonalty of England. The 

 tumult increased in violence, and the streets were filled with crowds of rowdies.' John 

 Stokwith incensed the rioters in a special degree. He was seized, ignominiously dragged through 

 the principal street followed by a hooting mob, and finally lodged in prison. After ,^10 

 had been extorted from him, he was taken before a mob tribunal, some of whom wished to behead, 

 others to hang him, but the majority wished for his money, not his life. He was allowed to go 

 after a bond for ;£iOO had been extorted from him and several other probi homines. But he was 

 rearrested the following day (29 June). Henry de Rooston, his father-in-law, promised that 

 anyone who had claims against John Stokwith would be paid, if they brought their demands to him, 

 even if he had to sell his lands, houses, goods, and chattels to satisfy the claims. Stokwith, however, 

 came to William Marche, a prominent rioter, and in the most abject manner entreated him for the 

 love of God and sake of charity to grant him his life. These appeals the rioters disregarded, but 

 they yielded to the temptation of an additional bribe of 401., and Stokwith was allowed to go. But 

 riot, rebellion, defiance of royal dictates, was the normal condition of Scarborough ; in the first year 

 of the reign of Edward II the poorer class there brought an action against the richer class, in the 

 court of Exchequer, complaining that they were being robbed of their prescriptive rights to have a 

 voice in the election of the town officials.* Probably they got no redress, for in 1356 the Letters 

 Patent providing for the government of the town make no allusion to any assemblage of the whole 

 populace to elect the officers, but dearly show that the elections had practically been seized by the 

 upper class ; ' Bailiffs and all others of the borough, fit for the common officers thereof, be chosen by 

 the oath of certain persons, chosen out of the thirty-six, with the consent of the poor and middle 

 sort.' « 



The Church seems to have upheld the party of order, for William de Manby was seized by 

 the rebels because he refused to join the marauders, who had attacked several men taking refuge in 

 the church of St. Mary. Robert de Aclom, the town bailiff, had been sheltered by the Franciscans: 

 the rebels attacked the monastery, broke down the doors, and dragged out the bailiff and threatened 

 to hang him unless he gave them 20 marks. He, moved by the fear of death, did their 

 bidding. Nor was he the only official victim ; all the royal officers were deposed, and creatures of 

 the insurgents' choice put in their place. But the rising was futile, though even as late as 12 July 

 the tenants of Alice de Wakefield took advantage of the disturbed state of the district and refused to 

 pay the rent they had been accustomed to pay. By 18 October 1382 the town was once more at 

 peace, the king issued a general pardon, from which forty-two people were excepted, and a fine of 

 £2()b XT,!- ^d. was exacted.^" The ringleader, Robert Galoun, and his chief followers seem to have 

 escaped any very serious penalties, though their pardons were delayed for several years." 



In York the revolt seems to have followed the same lines as in Beverley. The final item that 

 occupied the attention of the Parliament of 1380-1 was the 'horrible chose' that had taken place 



* Pat. S Ric. II, pt. i, m. lyd. • W. Cunningham, op. cit. 392. 



' ' Cum magna multitudine hominnm vocatorum rowtes.' 



' C. W. Colby, ' The Growth of Ohgarchy in English Towns,' En^. Hist. Rev. v, 646. 

 ' Rtf. 0/ Municipal Corporations Com. 1835, pt. iii, p. 1713. 



" Pat 6 Ric. II, pt. ii, m. 30, printed in R6ville, op. cit. ; Close, 6 Ric. II, pt. ii, m. 4, printed in 

 Riville, op. cit. u Rg^^ j,p ^^ ^pp_ ^jg_ 



444 



