RELATIONS WITH THE BISHOPS BEFORE 1612
As far as is known, no friction arose between the
city and its overlord, the bishop, during the 13th
century. But in 1302, when Bishop Simon of Ghent
proposed to exercise his right of tallage, the citizens
refused to pay, thus expressing the first open sign
of the struggle which was to last for more than 300
years. (fn. 1) The only known reason for the opposition
aroused was that the tallage was an innovation, and
as such was resented by the community of merchant
citizens, by then thriving upon their commercial
activities. In 1305 the matter came before the king
in council. (fn. 2) The city was represented by three men
who had represented it in recent Parliaments, (fn. 3) and
Henry Liswicz, a leading merchant. These claimed
on behalf of the citizens that the quit rents paid for
their tenements covered all services and demands of
the overlord, and that there was no precedent for
the proposed tallage. The bishop based his claim
upon the charters of Henry III, (fn. 4) and in this he was
supported by the council, which ordered the
citizens to pay the tallage, and to choose either to
retain their liberties and accept the bishop's right to
tallage in the future, or to surrender their liberties
and be free of further tallages. A few months later,
represented by Richard of Ludgershall, mayor since
1302, the citizens renounced their liberties and
conceded this one tallage to the bishop.
The city suffered the consequences of this renunciation for a year. But in 1306, on payment of a fine
of 40s. and acknowledgment of the bishop's right to
tallage in the future, their liberties were restored by
royal charter. Master Walter Hervey, Archdeacon
of Salisbury, was appointed by the bishop to assist
the citizens in drawing up an agreement, which
should define the position for the future, and put on
record the mutual rights and duties of them and
their lord. (fn. 5) The articles of this agreement became
the terms of reference in all subsequent dissensions
between the bishop and the city. They expressed a
complete vindication of the bishop's position as
overlord, whose authority and interest took precedence in every aspect of the life of the community.
Such terms, particularly those emphasizing the
subordinate position of the mayor, (fn. 6) could not fail
to be a source of much future trouble, and with
increasing prosperity, the civic pride of the assembly
must have been constantly irritated and frustrated
by the fact that all financial advantages, such as
certain tolls, (fn. 7) the profits from the markets and
fairs, and fines and amercements belonged to the
bishop.
The constitutional struggle between the bishop
and citizens continued at intervals throughout the
14th century. In 1315 the bishop evidently felt it
necessary to secure from Edward II a confirmation
of his charters and at the same time received a grant
of a third fair and another weekly market. (fn. 8)
Towards the middle of the century discontent was
expressed with violence when 33 citizens attacked
the bailiff as he was presiding over the bishop's
court, locked him in, and completely disrupted the
business of the court. (fn. 9) It is possible that these were
the transgressions and contempts referred to in 1357
when a fine of 3,000 marks imposed upon the city
was remitted at the instigation of the bishop. (fn. 10)
Whatever these particular transgressions were, the
bishop was prepared on this occasion to use his good
offices on behalf of the citizens, but only so long as
his rights were acknowledged, and the same year he
secured a ratification from the king of the agreement
of 1306. (fn. 11) The Revolt of 1381 showed no special
manifestations in Salisbury as a result of this local
contest between bishop and citizens, and the mayor
was included in the commission headed by the
bishop, appointed to deal with offenders in the
county. (fn. 12) By 1391, however, there were signs of
unrest in the city, for a general pardon was issued
to the citizens, who, 'in no small number' had risen
in insurrection against the justices of the peace and
formed unlawful assembles. (fn. 13) Three years later, as
part of a general confirmation and extension of his
franchises, the bishop's authority in Salisbury was
once more confirmed by royal charter. (fn. 14) Serious
trouble appears to have followed almost immediately, for in 1395 both parties were summoned to
bring their dispute before the king. (fn. 15) The city was
represented by eight of its foremost citizens,
including John Bitterlegh, William Warmwell,
Richard Spencer, merchants, and all at some time
parliamentary burgesses, (fn. 16) but it once again failed to
win any concessions, and bonds for large amounts
were exacted from the commonalty and from 200
citizens to ensure obedience to the bishop in the
future. (fn. 17)
Possibly the resentment felt at this action by
Richard II determined to some extent the friendliness shown by the commonalty to Henry IV. (fn. 18) In
1406, presumably in return for gifts made by the
city, the king granted it leave to hold land and
tenements in mortmain to the value of 100 marks a
year, (fn. 19) and in 1412 the bishop granted similar permission allowing the citizens in their corporate
capacity to acquire property to the annual value of
£40. (fn. 20) The interpretation of these concessions
proved to be one of the main sources of trouble in
the contest between the bishops and the citizens in
the 15th century. The question whether the city
was holding certain property contrary to the statutes
of Mortmain was raised under Bishop Chandler in
1426, and Bishop Aiscough in 1441 and 1443. (fn. 21) It
caused extended lawsuits with Bishop Beauchamp,
whose careful compilation of records testifies to a
jealous regard for all his episcopal rights. (fn. 22) The
citizens' right to hold the disputed property was
finally settled in their favour in 1473, no doubt as a
result of the good relations they had established
with Edward IV early in his reign. (fn. 23)
These disputes only served to worsen the relations
between the citizens and their lords. The murder
of Bishop Aiscough at Edington in 1450 in the
course of Cade's rebellion was the outcome of a
wider discontent than the strictly local feud between
the citizens and their bishop, but it is significant
that the murderers were led by a Salisbury man. (fn. 24)
Relations with Aiscough's successor, Beauchamp,
were undoubtedly strained from the time of his
accession. During 1452–3 the commonalty was
engaged in preparing a petition for a charter of
incorporation, which John Hall (mayor in 1450) was
chosen to present to the king. (fn. 25) In 1465 a seemingly
insignificant issue arose, which was to stir up even
deeper antagonisms, and result in nine years of
litigation. (fn. 26)
The trouble began over the question of ownership
of a small plot of land in St. Thomas's churchyard,
which William Swayne obtained from the bishop to
build a house for his chantry priest. (fn. 27) The city
claimed that this plot was theirs and not the bishop's.
Both bishop and citizens presented petitions to the
Crown, the former accusing the mayors of defying
his authority during the fourteen years of his episcopate, the latter requesting full jurisdiction over
every aspect of the city's life in return for a fee farm
rent. John Hall, again chosen to represent the city
in London, did its cause no good by his insolent
behaviour before Henry VI and his council, for
which he was imprisoned. The commonalty was
ordered to elect another mayor, which it refused
to do, showing the strength of the resistance from
at any rate a section, perhaps oligarchical, of the
community. The city was then ordered to send at
least eight representatives to London to explain its
action, and subsequently another deputation to
conclude the controversy, but no settlement of the
question at issue was reached. (fn. 28) John Hall was
eventually released from prison and finished his
term of office as mayor. In 1467 the bishop proposed
that the differences should be settled by arbitration,
but this the citizens declined. They preferred
instead to wait until the matter could be put before
the king when he came to Salisbury for the trial of
Sir Henry Courtenay and Sir Thomas Hungerford,
attainted in connexion with the Lancastrian plot.
The city, backed by a resolution of the whole
assembly, again sought to secure all liberties and
privileges in return for a fee farm rent. (fn. 29) The outbreak of civil war in 1470, in which Salisbury played
no special part, postponed any immediate settlement. But negotiations were re-opened in the
following year, and the bishop apparently took a
conciliatory step when he agreed that the mayor
should, by virtue of his office, be one of the city's
justices of the peace. This, however, was no great
concession since it had probably already been agreed
nine years earlier, (fn. 30) and by insisting that the mayor
should take his oath of office either before himself
or one of his officials, the bishop imposed terms
which were unacceptable to the city. The citizens
capitulated on condition that it was on the king's
orders, and on the understanding that the oath was
taken before the bishop in person. The matter of the
mayoral oath was of the greatest significance in the
city's fight for independence, since by it the bishop
received an unreserved acknowledgment of his overlordship, and a promise to serve him, as well as the
king on the one hand and the city on the other. In
1472 the bishop further strengthened his position
by securing letters patent confirming all his rights
and giving explicit recognition of his claims in the
matters which had been at issue since 1465. (fn. 31) The
assembly did not easily accept the situation. At a
meeting in 1473, during the mayoralty of William
Eston, all 42 members present swore separately to
aid him in resisting the concessions to the bishop. (fn. 32)
But they had no legal rights and a complete submission over 68 signatures followed in 1474. (fn. 33)
This settlement was followed by over half a century of comparative peace during which the city
made some headway by acquiring some of the profits
of the fairs and markets. (fn. 34) The assembly apparently
continued to discuss a charter of incorporation, for
in 1496 the names of seven persons were recorded,
who would not agree 'to consent to be made corporate'. (fn. 35) The authority of the mayor was in fact
increased during this period by the gradual change
in the status of the person actually performing the
duties of bishop's bailiff. Gentry, like Sir John
Cheyney and Sir Thomas Arundell, began to
delegate the performance of these duties to the
underbailiff, of whom it was complained in 1537 that
he was not of sufficient 'gravity and substance'. (fn. 36)
The office of mayor, on the other hand, was often
filled by men of the calibre of Thomas Coke,
William Webb, and others not only of standing
within the city by reason of their wealth, but also of
influence in the county through their family connexions and tenure of property. (fn. 37) As a result of this
gradual development, in the next conflict with the
bishop certain powers were claimed for the mayor
as it were de facto, which could not have been
supported de jure.
Incidents during the episcopate of Bishop Shaxton
(1535–9) roused the commonalty once more to
action, and petitions were submitted to Lord
Chancellor Cromwell in 1537. (fn. 38) The bishop's
religious reforms had caused local disapproval. (fn. 39)
There was also anger at the underbailiff's admission
to office of a city serjeant without the sanction of the
mayor. (fn. 40) The two chief items of complaint were the
mayor's position as one of the justices for the city
subsequent to the Act of 1535, which was interpreted by the city as freeing him from the bishop's
commission, (fn. 41) and the delicate question of the
mayor's oath, probably revived by the underbailiff's
statement that the mayor was the bishop's mayor
and not the king's. (fn. 42) After correspondence with
Cromwell, hearings before the Justices of Assize, and
the council, the controversy lapsed on Shaxton's
resignation in 1539. On the whole, however, the city
had taken a step forward in its fight for independence. (fn. 43)
For the rest of the 16th century until 1593 no
open contest arose. Bishop Jewel in 1561 obtained a
confirmation of the charter of 1472. (fn. 44) Throughout
the century, however, the citizens were extending
their administrative powers in such business as
victualling the city, and remained alert to all matters
affecting their dignity. (fn. 45) The possibility of incorporation was always in mind, and it was probably
for this reason that the office of chief steward
was created, and held in turn by Sir Francis
Walsingham, Sir Christopher Hatton, Sir Thomas
Heneage, and Sir John Puckeridge, all holding offices
of state and closely connected with the queen, whose
favour the citizens hoped to secure. (fn. 46) Between 1582
and 1591 a charter of incorporation was openly
discussed, and resolutions on this subject entered
in the ledger book. (fn. 47) After two years of friendly
relations, and a certain amount of co-operation with
Bishop Coldwell (1591–6), the final phase in the
dispute began in 1593. A royal commission for the
collection of a subsidy, which referred to the mayor
as the bishop's mayor of his city of Salisbury,
provoked such opposition that a second commission
worded according to an earlier form was granted. (fn. 48)
This matter together with other grievances led to the
issue of writs of quo warranto, the first challenging
the liberties exercised by the commonalty, the second
challenging the bishop's franchises. (fn. 49) Once again
the mayor's oath was the chief item of contention
among lists of other grievances. (fn. 50) In 1594 the mayor
refused to take the oath in the form required by the
bishop, and two versions of the oath were presented
to the council. No settlement had been reached on
Coldwell's death, and the dispute continued under
his successor Bishop Cotton (1598–1615). (fn. 51) Cotton
was less tenacious of his rights, while the commonalty adopted different methods by bargaining with
the bishop, and taking advantage of the visits of
James I to Salisbury. The main reason given by
the citizens during this period with their requests
for a charter of incorporation were the lack of
effective government through division of jurisdiction,
the decayed state of the city following upon the
uncontrolled influx of strangers, and the insufficient
regulation of the trades. They desired full powers of
administration and a standing commission of the
peace similar to that in other cities. (fn. 52) Nevertheless
it took many more years of petitions, drafting of
charters with the help of such men as Giles Tooker, (fn. 53)
and negotiations with bishop, dean, and chapter
before the charter was finally obtained in 1612. (fn. 54)