SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



as its boon days were worth los. 6i/J"^ At the same time the tolls of the 

 market amounted to lo marks, which shows that it was well attended." 

 There were also a malt-mill and a fulling-mill.''* 



In the time of Henry VI the manorial court was called ' the Portman,' " 

 and this seems to strengthen Hitchin's claim to burghal privilege. In 1290, 

 however, ' the farm of the borough ' no longer appears in the extent, and the 

 assized rents are all grouped together The amount of the demesne arable 

 had been increased.'* The agricultural element evidently prevailed over that 

 of trade and industry, to which the privileges and standing of a borough 

 would have been valuable. 



Hertford and Hitchin and Ware met with little recorded interference 

 from their lords, but St. Albans deserves to be the classical instance of 

 hatred between a lord and his townsmen. 



The market at St. Albans was established in the middle of the i oth 

 century under the shadow of the wealthy abbey. Its site lay a little off 

 Watling Street, but the road was diverted in order to bring the traffic along 

 it to St. Albans. The town gradually increased in prosperity, and in the fifty 

 years after 12 16 it must have been as flourishing as any in the county. 

 The inhabitants showed the true spirit of burgesses ; but they could not aim 

 at such privileges as Hertford held until they had proved, to the confusion of 

 the Abbot of St. Albans, that they were freemen. The abbots, however, 

 successively governed the estates of the abbey on two principles. They 

 wanted to round off their immunity by buying out other immunists within 

 their precinct. Thus the abbot purchased from Edward I the tolls at Barnet 

 and at St. Albans which had belonged to Hertford.^' Secondly, they stoutly 

 maintained the villein estate of the townsmen with the consequent economic 

 and legal rights over them. 



In 1 26 1— 2 the jurors at the assizes complained that the ' abbot's steward 

 put the freemen of the town to an oath without special royal warrant,' "^ 

 thus tacitly denying their free status ; the steward also forced them to answer 

 in a foreign hundred, against the custom of the town,^' thus ignoring the 

 borough court. 



The abbot naturally took the view that the men were his villeins born. 

 In 1 275 the vill again complained that the abbot claimed a weekly toll on 

 brewing and on the merchandise of the burgesses.''^ He had also distrained 

 the burgesses to do suit at his mill, which they used not to do ; nor did he 

 allow the hand-mills in their own houses, which they were accustomed to 

 have.*" The disputes, however, at first at all events, centred mainly round the 

 question of multure. At Easter 1275 a jury was summoned to decide 

 whether Michael son of Richard Brid ought to grind corn at the abbot's 

 mill, and whether Henry de la Porte ought to full his common and thick 

 cloth at the abbot's fulling-mill or in his own house.'" The jury decided 

 against the burgesses, and their verdict was confirmed in the following 

 year." 



20 Chan. Inq. p.m. 53 Hen. Ill, no. 43. "i Ibid. ^2 jbid. 



23 Ct. R. (Gen. Ser.), portf. 177, no. 40. ^4 Exch. Proc bdle. 144, no. 133. 



*^ See under Hertford Borough. 



26 Assize R. 321, m. I. ^ Ibid. ^8 h^„j_ h^ (Rec. Com.), i, 192. ^s. ibid. 



^'^ Chan. Misc. bdle. 62, file i, no. 15. '^ Ibid. 



