|
Index...
|
The complaints of Prior Deram (concerning the City Wall)
Also the seid Prior & his predecessours ben hurted in diverse places by settyng of the town wall uppon their grounde ; by the which her lyvelode [livelihood] is defalked [reduced] yerely to the summe of xlvj s. viij d. [£2. 6s. 8d.], from the tyme that John Smythyar was Mayre of this Citie [John Smythier, 1403-04] unto this tyme ; of the which the prior desireth restitucion, and howe he shalbe answered here-after.
Also the seid Priour & his predecessours han yerely paid x li. [£10] to the murage of this Citie, where of trouthe save of their good will thei ought to pay no peny ; and where promise was made to the priour nowe beyng that all the Revenuez of the lyvelode for the Murage, which amounteth to make vj perche [6 perches] by yere, shuld have ben made upon his grounde, all oder parties leyd on part [apart, aside], which nowe passeth nott ij perche [2 perches] by yere, but enploye hit to oder reparacions of the seid town wall ; which causeth the seid Priour gretly to be hurted, and contrary to the graunte of the Chartur of the Murage.
The Mayor's answer
As to the xv article conteynyng that the priour & his predecessours ben hurt in diverse places be settyng of the town wall upon their grounde, be the which their lyfflod ys defalked yerely to the summe of iij li. vj s. viij d. from the tyme that Joh. Smythear was Maire of this Citie [1403] unto this tyme, of the which the Priour desireth restitucion, and howe he shall be answered herafter :- To this article the seid Meire & his brethern seyn that the Chartur sued to Mure [enclose with a wall] & wall this Cite be lyklyhod was labored alswell be the aggrement & assent of the predecessour of the seid Priour nowe being in that tyme Priour as be the Maire & Cominaulte then beyng, be concideracion that the prior then beyng, & the Prior nowe, hath a grete lyfflood within the walles of this Citie and their Churche bylte within the same ; which Murage is to the Priour & all his tennauntez within this Citie a full grete suerte and a noble defence yf eny trowbull fell within this lande - which God forbede ! - which moved the predecessours of the seid Priour to suffre, license & aggre the seid town wall to haue his Cours thorough landes of the Seid Priours as it hath thorough all other mennes freholdes without Interupcion or denyer ; and hit is an olde seying that a werke don & made for a Comien-well owe to be no groge to eny particler person etc.
As-to the xvij article which conteigneth that the Priour & his predecessours haue yerely paid x li [£10] to the murage of this Citie where of trouthe save of their goodwill they oweth to paye no peny, and where promyse was made to the Priour nowe beyng that all the revenuez of the lyvelode for the Murage, which amounteth to make vj perches be yere, shuld haue ben made upon his grounde, all other parties leid on part, which nowe passes nott ij perche be yere, but [thei] employ hit to other reparacions of the seid town wall, which causeth the seid Priour to be gretly hurt, and contrary to the graunt of the Chartur Of the Murage :- To this article the seid Meire and his brethern seyn that true it is that the seid priour & his predecessours be certen tyme have yerely payd x li. [£10] to the murage of thys Cytie, which payement is both of dute & good will because their lyffloode within this Citie & their propre Churche may Rest in surte be meanse of the seid Murage, as is a-fore rehersed in the xv article.
And where the seid Priour seith that be promyse all the revenues of the lyvelode for the seid Murage shuld be made on his grounde, all other parties leid aparte, wich revenuez in parte be employd to other parties of the seid town wall :- Thei seyn to this of duete & reason yf part of eny olde wall or yate sodenly fall, hit of reason owe first to be made and to be preferred a-fore other wallying ; for, yf eny Juperdie schuld fall, & nede to defende the Citie, the fewer entreez for enymies be had the more suer is the Citie. And muche better myghten the people of the Citie resorte to defende on parte unwalled then to defend many partes unwalled, which causeth hem in tyme of nede to respite the newe wallyng as casuelte falleth.
And ferther the seid Meire & his brethern seyn that in tyme of Shoteswell, predecessour of the seid Priour, hit was utterly accorded be the Meire & Cominalte of this Citie that the town wall schuld have gon after the comien Ryver of this Citie by the Mylle in the Priory & so directly to the Derne-yate, cald the Bastell. Wheruppon at speciall desire & request of the seid Schoteswell, then Priour, & the Covent in concideracion that somme parte of the wall in diverse places was sett on theire grounde, which thei then seid was to their hurt, although he & euery priour before hadde a-greed thertoo & license of them had, set in recompens therof and of all other hurtes then be the seid Shoteswell expressed, Will. Pere, then Mayre [1461-62], & his brethern, for thoo causes & other then rehersed betwixt theim, confermed to the desire of the seid Shoteswell that certen stewes & seint Osburn pole [St. Osburg's Pool] schuld be enclosed within the walles of the seid Citie, which wallyng in that forme proceded woll cost the seid Citie more be Vc marc then the wallyng afore-tyme be the meire & his brethern purposed wolde have cost, so [for] that cause the meire & the comenalte of this Citie thinken that the Priour & Covent of reason owen to shewe hem grete love & favour etc.
n the 16th day of November 1480 Prior Deram presented an official bill to Mayor William Shore and his Brethren outlining the whole list of complaints which had first been made by Prior Shotswell to Mayor William Pere in 1461-62.
The extensive list included (and these are in addition to the complaints about the Town Wall, which I will discuss below):
On the right is the official part of the Leet Book entry pertaining to the Prior's ongoing quarrel with the City Fathers over the effect of the city wall on his priory lands. The language used back then is quaint, almost foreign looking, in fact. Spellings were not yet standardised, and were often even inconsistent within the same paragraph.
The alphabet itself could also differ from what we are used to seeing. Perhaps the most common example is the Old English thorn, represented by a þ symbol. This was simply short for 'th'. The text on the right was previously filled with words that appeared like þis, þat and þe oþer!
A pair of letters often interchangeable was 'v' and 'u' - the latter often being used where we're now used to seeing the former. A typical example is the word diverse, which appeared in the Leet book as diuerse - nowadays we would normally use the word various instead. For ease of reading I have substituted on the right the letters with which we are more familiar, although a certain amount of lateral thinking is still required to translate the text.
The first complaint we hear, with relevance to the routing of the City Wall, is the Prior claiming that he and his predecessors had been disadvantaged by the wall being erected on their ground in 1403-04 (the time John Smythier was in office as mayor). He said they had reduced their livelihood by £2 6s and 8d yearly.
He also claimed that even though they had paid £10 per year murage (wall-tax), they, owing to their good will, should have paid nothing, and despite all the revenues paid, and contrary to the Charter of Murage, he was only getting two perches of wall built per year, whereas he had been promised six. (A perch was not a consistent measurement, and could vary between 15 and 21 feet.)
The Mayor began his reply by reminding the Prior that by having this noble defence around his land, he had much more certainty in times of trouble, and they no longer had to suffer like their predecessors, who had agreed the building of the Town Wall on their land. The same reasoning was applied to the Prior's regular payments, which guaranteed their livelihoods.
The Prior was also told that the reduced amount of wall being built on his land was because it was more important to repair other damaged parts of the town wall, because in times of jeopardy it would be easier to defend the city if there were fewer unwalled places for the enemy to enter.
The Mayor also reminded the Prior that his predecessor, Shotswell, had previously agreed that the wall be built "after the common river" by the Priory Mill, and direct to Mill Lane gate. However, despite previous priors agreeing to have the wall built on Priory lands, Mayor William Pere had agreed with Prior Shotswell a desire to rebuild the wall to enclose the Prior's pool, although this would cost five marks more than previously - presumably because it would involve the dismantling of the former wall in addition to building the new one.
The mayor concluded that because of the extra safety provided by the wall, and the additional cost to the city for the rebuilding, the prior should show "great love & favour etc.".
My interpretation of all this is that there is no doubt the City Wall was first built on the south side of the river, on the Prior's land, around 1403-04, and later rebuilt farther north at the Prior's request to enclose his pool.
This is your first visit to my website today, thank you!
3,344,753Website by Rob Orland © 2002 to 2024
