The Achievement of Liberties
For a century after the Conquest the town of Gloucester was administered for the
Crown by a royal reeve, though the powers of that office were presumably much
inhibited by the dominant role played by the family of hereditary sheriffs. (fn. 1) The reeve
of Gloucester was mentioned c. 1100, when he was in receipt of a stipend of 40s., (fn. 2)
and again in 1139, when his duties evidently included collection of the landgavel. (fn. 3)
Soon after his accession Henry II granted a charter to the burgesses giving them the
customs and liberties that London and Winchester had enjoyed in the time of Henry
I. (fn. 4) In 1165 the burgesses were allowed to farm the royal revenues arising in the town,
Gloucester becoming only the fourth place to be given that major privilege by Henry
II. (fn. 5) An agreement made the same year between the burgesses and a man called
Ailwin the mercer, for which a fine of 100 marks was paid to the Crown, presumably
settled the arrangements for the burgesses' assumption of the fee farm. Ailwin the
mercer was probably the wealthiest burgess of the time, being himself responsible for
10 marks of the fine (fn. 6) and paying 7½ marks of a royal aid of 100 marks levied on the
borough in 1173; (fn. 7) he may have been the head of the merchant guild, an organization
for which there is, however, no definite evidence before 1200. (fn. 8) Following the grant
of the fee farm a group of burgesses tried to take fuller political control of the borough
by the formation of a commune, or sworn association, which the royal government
deemed subversive. Heavy amercements for that action were imposed in 1170, Ailwin
the mercer owing £100 and other burgesses, apparently 26 in all, a total of £80 13s.
4d.; another offender fled and suffered forfeiture of his chattels. (fn. 9)
The fee farm, fixed at £55 in 1165, continued to be separately accounted for at the
Exchequer by a man called Osmund the reeve (or Osmund Keys) until 1176, (fn. 10) and
the borough was later described as having been at that period 'in the hands of the
burgesses'. (fn. 11) The collection of the royal revenues, the landgavel, profits of court, and
market tolls, implied a considerable degree of control over the borough administration, but it seems unlikely, in view of the fact that Osmund held his office throughout
the period, that the burgesses had also gained the important privilege of electing their
own reeve. Although certainly chosen from the burgess community—he contributed
to the aid of 1173, (fn. 12) held property, including selds, in the town, and was the nephew
of a Gloucester lorimer (fn. 13) — Osmund was probably a royal appointee. His
responsibilities seem to have included presiding over the hundred court, the chief
borough court, for he headed the list of witnesses to a grant made in the court at the
period. (fn. 14)
In 1176 the right to farm was revoked by Henry II and returned to the county
sheriff, (fn. 15) though separate royal reeves, among them Osmund's son Henry Keys,
continued to administer the borough. (fn. 16) The farm was restored by Richard I by
charter of 1194, for which the burgesses paid £100 and accepted an increase of the
farm to £65. (fn. 17) In 1200, in return for another 200 marks, (fn. 18) they received from King
John confirmation of the farm and a new charter which gave them the right to elect
two bailiffs and four coroners, confirmed their freedom from tolls, and, among
various legal franchises, established their freedom from pleading in courts outside the
borough except in cases that concerned land held outside. (fn. 19) The charter marked a
very significant advance in the burgesses' liberties, though it did not in the short term
free them from the vagaries of royal favour. In 1201 or 1202 John returned the farm to
the sheriff; (fn. 20) in 1204 the burgesses paid a fine of 25 marks for the king's protection; (fn. 21)
and in 1206, after payment of a further 100 marks, they recovered the farm. (fn. 22)
From that time the borough retained, in theory at least, uninterrupted possession of
its liberties, freedom from direct royal administration, and control of its revenues,
court, and trade. Its liberties were not, however, secure against future challenges
from the Crown or lesser authorities. The two bailiffs who administered the borough
still exercised their office in the king's name, being referred to as the king's bailiffs of
Gloucester (fn. 23) (or, in the period when Queens Eleanor and Margaret had the lordship,
as the queen's bailiffs), (fn. 24) and the extent to which the king felt able to intervene in the
burgesses' affairs was a matter for his interpretation rather than theirs. Military
requirements could result in a town of such strategic importance having its liberties
temporarily suspended, as seems to have happened at least twice during Edward II's
reign, (fn. 25) while the proximity of the castle, seat of the county administration, made the
townsfolk particularly vulnerable to incursions on their liberties by the sheriff and to
acts of petty tyranny by him or the constable of the castle.
The charter of 1200, which was described in 1391 as that which granted the town
and fee farm to the bailiffs and community, (fn. 26) remained the basis of Gloucester's
liberties for the next 283 years. The liberties it gave were, however, supplemented
and clarified by a number of later charters, which reflect in particular the burgesses'
concern to exclude the county sheriff from their affairs and to uphold the jurisdiction
of the borough court against the claims of external courts. In 1227 they secured from
Henry III freedom from interference by the sheriff in any plea in the borough court,
and in 1256 another charter confirmed to them the right to return writs and excluded
the sheriff from executing summons or distraint in the borough. (fn. 27) The king had
continued to use the sheriff on occasion after 1200 for some executive functions within
the borough, sometimes in ways which seem to have been a slight on the bailiffs'
authority, as in 1216 and 1217 when the sheriff was ordered to give seisin of houses in
the town (fn. 28) and in 1247 when he was the agent for dealing with illegal purprestures. (fn. 29)
Even after the charter of 1256 there remained some judicial processes in which the
sheriff could be involved: in 1276 he presided with the bailiffs and coroners in the
hundred court over an inquisition into a felon's goods, (fn. 30) and at the same period he
took possession of the goods of any outsiders who abjured the realm before the
borough coroners. (fn. 31)
The charter of 1256 also protected the burgesses against being made to answer on
any matter concerning their liberties in any but a royal court; a charter of 1312
confirmed that individual burgesses could be convicted only by a jury of their fellow
burgesses; and another of 1328 made a special confirmation of the clause in the charter
of 1200 concerning external pleading and protected the burgesses against any loss of
liberties on the grounds of non-usage. (fn. 32) The last two charters evidently followed some
severe incursions on the borough's liberties during the disturbances of Edward II's
reign, (fn. 33) and the need to emphasize the borough's status was probably also reflected in
the style of 'bailiffs of the liberty of the town of Gloucester' adopted by the bailiffs
when witnessing deeds in the late 1320s and early 1330s (fn. 34) but not apparently used at
any other period.
Further legal privileges were conferred in 1398 by Richard II who gave the bailiffs
the powers of justices of the peace, labourers, and artificers, as well as re-affirming the
jurisdiction of the court over all pleas arising in the town. (fn. 35) The borough's liberties in
the latter respect were successfully upheld by the burgesses in 1405 when the abbot of
Gloucester attempted to bring an action of novel disseisin against two burgesses
before the assize justices (fn. 36) and again in 1407 when the Marshalsea court meeting at
Cheltenham claimed to hear cases involving Gloucester burgesses. (fn. 37) The importance
attached to freedom from external pleading is also reflected by the fact that it was
enshrined in a clause in the freeman's oath which was in use in the early 16th
century. (fn. 38)
Confirmation of the borough charters was obtained from each king after Richard II
on or soon after his accession, (fn. 39) but no further liberties were added until 1483.
Town Government 1200–1483
Although the basic constitution for the government of the borough was created
under the charter of 1200, there was a further, but short-lived, innovation. Over a
period of at least eight years a man called Richard the burgess witnessed deeds as
mayor of Gloucester (fn. 40) and evidently derived his authority from a royal order of 1228
appointing him as 'superior ex parte domini regis' in the town, to hold custody of it
during pleasure. (fn. 41) Richard the burgess was a major property owner in the town, (fn. 42)
and, if he was the same person who acted as deputy to the county sheriff between 1210
and 1214, (fn. 43) a man of considerable administrative experience; his apparently significant surname was probably acquired by an ancestor who served as reeve of Gloucester
in the mid 12th century. (fn. 44) Richard was twice recorded as performing the representative function of the mayor as leader of the burgess community: he led the burgesses in
a commoning dispute with Gloucester Abbey in 1236 (fn. 45) and a few years later he
advised on arrangements for an endowment made to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. (fn. 46)
The order of 1228 evidently envisaged that he would also head the borough
administration and his functions probably included presiding with the bailiffs over the
hundred court. After Richard the burgess there is no further evidence for the
existence of the office of mayor until its revival in 1483, and, though the surviving
administrative records are few, the absence of any mention of a mayor as witness to
any of the many property deeds seems to preclude the possibility that the office
survived Richard. (fn. 47) The fact that his office originated in a royal order and was
apparently non-elective, rather than evolving organically from the headship of the
guild as seems to have been the case in some other towns, may have made it obnoxious
to the burgesses.
The failure of the office of mayor to establish itself left the two bailiffs (fn. 48) in an
unchallenged position both as heads of the borough administration and as chief
representatives of the burgess community. Under the charter of 1200 the bailiffs were
to hold office during the burgesses' pleasure, but the office was made annually elective
(at Michaelmas) from that time or very soon afterwards. (fn. 49) Its duties included
collecting and accounting for the fee-farm revenues, (fn. 50) presiding over the hundred
court, (fn. 51) and taking responsibility for a wide range of executive and administrative
functions, such a seisin and escheat of property, custody of prisoners, and summons
and distraint, some of which were, however, performed by deputies. The fee-farm
revenues were drawn principally from the landgavel, the amercements levied by the
hundred court and views of frankpledge, and the profits of trade, which included the
market tolls and the annual payments made by unfranchised traders in the borough. (fn. 52)
Out of those revenues the bailiffs had to meet the annual farm, for which they were
required to account personally at the Exchequer in 1256 (fn. 53) but by 1393 employed an
attorney, and various fees and expenses involved in running the borough. They
themselves drew a stipend of £4 in 1264. (fn. 54) The bailiffs were also used by the Crown to
carry out and fund from the farm various administration tasks not directly connected
with the running of the borough. They were sometimes required, for example, to
supply provisions for the royal household (fn. 55) or the army, (fn. 56) oversee repairs to the
castle, (fn. 57) and convey prisoners across country. (fn. 58) The paramount status of the bailiffs
in the borough administration was recognized by the possession of their own seal
distinct from the communal seal. (fn. 59)
The office of bailiff naturally devolved on the wealthiest members of the
community, many of whom were elected for a number of terms. (fn. 60) As many as seven
or eight terms were served by William of Cheltenham and John Payn in the mid 13th
century and by John the draper and the merchants Alexander of Bicknor and Walter
Sevare in the later years of the century, and many of the other bailiffs had three or
four terms. In the 13th and 14th centuries there was none of the reluctance to serve
that was later shown by some of the wealthier burgesses: of the 21 highest payers of
the subsidy of 1327 14 served the office at least once. (fn. 61) Until the early 15th century
men were often re-elected for a number of years, including at that period Roger Ball
who (assuming it was the same man throughout) served in 14 years between 1394 and
1422. As the 15th century progressed, however, most of the leading burgesses seem to
have become reluctant to take on the office for more than one or two terms. That
probably reflects the declining economic fortunes of the town, bringing problems in
collecting sufficient revenue to meet the fee farm, the bailiffs of the year being made
personally responsible for any shortfall. In 1447 the burgesses claimed that the bailiffs
were having to make up £20 of the farm out of their own pockets. (fn. 62)
The impression gained from the lists of bailiffs that town government was
oligarchic is reinforced by a complaint to the Crown in 1290 that the potentes of the
town were levying immoderate tallages on the other inhabitants, (fn. 63) and by an
agreement made with Gloucester Abbey about fishing rights in 1368 which gave
preferential treatment to the bailiffs and leading burgesses (valentiores burgenses). (fn. 64)
The leading inhabitants may have been embodied in some formal organization under
the borough constitution, as at Ipswich, one of four boroughs which had similar
charters to Gloucester's from King John in 1200: there the inhabitants assumed under
their charter the right to appoint 12 burgesses, including, and as an advisory body to,
the bailiffs and coroners. (fn. 65) It is not impossible that such a body existed at Gloucester
from 1200, unrecorded in the sparse administrative records that have survived. The
earliest suggestion found of such a body is in the later 14th century when on two
occasions a group of 12 burgesses — the 2 bailiffs, the 4 stewards, and 6 others —
were named as acting for the town. (fn. 66) Those records may be of isolated instances in
which the authority of six leading burgesses was thought necessary to support the
officers; they may on the other hand record a formal consultative body, convened
regularly to act with the officers in actions taken on behalf of the community.
Apart from the bailiffs, coroners were the only borough officers whose election was
provided for by the charter of 1200. Four were to be elected by the burgesses and,
besides keeping the crown pleas and answering for them before the eyre, their office
was seen as a check on the power of the bailiffs: they were to see that the bailiffs
treated the inhabitants impartially in their government of the town. (fn. 67) The names of the
coroners recorded in the late 13th century and the 14th (fn. 68) show that they were mostly
drawn from the class of wealthy burgess that provided the bailiffs and so would
presumably have had the authority to act in that way. Election of the coroners by the
burgesses evidently gave way to appointment by the justices in eyre; at the 1287 eyre
all four were replaced by the justices. (fn. 69) The development of the office at Gloucester in
the later medieval period is obscure. Its role was presumably diminished by the
bailiffs' assumption of the powers of justices of the peace under the charter of 1398 (fn. 70)
and the office may actually have been absorbed in that of the bailiffs; in 1440 one of
the bailiffs was also serving as a coroner. (fn. 71)
Other officers who probably existed from 1200, thought not found recorded before
1264, were the two serjeants or under-bailiffs. The serjeants, who were provided with
gowns each year, (fn. 72) and by the late 14th century carried official maces, (fn. 73) deputized for
the bailiffs in their administrative functions and were involved particularly in
performing such tasks for the hundred court as empanelling juries, summoning
defendants, and collecting amercements. (fn. 74) In 1287 one is recorded as acting as keeper
of the town gaol, (fn. 75) also a function performed by delegation from the bailiffs. (fn. 76) At the
beginning of the 16th century and probably from an earlier date the serjeants were
required to execute a bond at the beginning of their annual term of office as a
guarantee of faithful service to the bailiffs. (fn. 77) Porters of the town gates had existed
from at least 1143 (fn. 78) and were receiving a regular stipend from the bailiffs in 1264 (fn. 79)
but were later paid by the muragers. (fn. 80) More than one clerk was employed by the
bailiffs in the 1260s. (fn. 81) Separate officials were appointed to levy and apply the murage
from at least 1298, apparently holding office for the term of the current royal grant. (fn. 82)
The office survived until at least 1410 but by the 1390s the muragers had become
merely collectors, handing the balance of the fund over to the borough stewards to be
applied by them. (fn. 83)
The principal organ of government in the borough was the hundred court, which
was so called by the late 12th century, (fn. 84) Gloucester claiming the status of a separate
hundred. (fn. 85) The court met, probably weekly, in the building called the Boothall or
guildhall, (fn. 86) and frankpledge sessions of the court were held twice a year. (fn. 87) No
hundred court records survive until 1502, after the major reorganization of the
borough constitution in 1483, so it is not clear to what extent its functions went
beyond the hearing of pleas. It certainly had a role in property transactions, many of
which were witnessed by the court (fn. 88) and at least some enrolled there. (fn. 89) Regulations
for the butchers' company in 1454 and for the cooks' company in 1482 were approved
at the view of frankpledge and the former record also implies that admissions to the
freedom of the borough took place in the court before the bailiffs. (fn. 90) It seems probable
that up to 1483 the hundred court was the main forum for administrative business and
that the promulgation of bylaws for the regulation of trade and the general running of
the borough, and perhaps also the election of officers, were among its functions.
The court's jurisdiction in purely legal matters was defended and enhanced by the
provisions in the various royal charters that protected the burgesses against pleading
in external courts and upheld the authority of ancient customs of the borough in
determining pleas heard there. Its fullest extent, as defined by Richard II's charter of
1398, included the hearing of assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor. (fn. 91) The
legal franchises claimed by the burgesses in 1287 included infangthief, the use of the
gallows being shared with the county sheriff, (fn. 92) but in 1306 they appear to have been
claiming to execute justice on all perpetrators of felonies within the borough. (fn. 93) The
right to take the goods of felons, together with those of fugitives and outlaws, was not
secured until 1398. (fn. 94)
If there was any organ of government apart from the court it may have been some
form of guild meeting. At the beginning of the 16th century it was recorded that at a
'merchants' guild' held on St. Thomas's day (21 December) each year the balance of a
sum of £500 left to the town by Thomas Gloucester (d. 1447) was handed over by four
'conservators' to their successors. (fn. 95) If such meetings were convened before 1483 they
presumably provided another forum for discussion and decision on communal
matters, for the terminology employed by the charter of 1200 and by later documents
makes it clear that the guild comprised all those inhabitants who had full burgess
rights. The charter granted both legal and trading franchises to 'the burgesses of
Gloucester of the merchants' guild', (fn. 96) and the common seal of the borough that was in
use c. 1240 bore the legend: 'sigillum burgensium de gilda mercatorum Gloucestrie'. (fn. 97) In 1409 and later those acquiring the freedom were sworn in as 'burgesses' to
the 'merchants' guild'. (fn. 98)
An important development in the borough administration before 1483 was the
emergence of an organization for administering those communal funds which were
not appropriated to the fee farm and not therefore the direct responsibility of the
bailiffs. A growing body of property and rents came to the community through new
buildings, or extensions to existing buildings, on the waste land of the borough, and
there were also lands given to it for certain communal purposes or held in trust for the
hospitals or for other charitable or pious uses. Four stewards of the borough,
apparently elected annually, were recorded from 1357 acting with the bailiffs in
administering and leasing communal and trust property, (fn. 99) and there was presumably
a separate treasury for receiving the profits from communal property in 1364 when a
distinction was made between the landgavel rent owed from a piece of land to the
bailiffs and stewards and a rent owed to the stewards alone; (fn. 100) the communal treasury
was recorded by that term in 1412 when the filing of deeds was among its functions. (fn. 101)
The rents received by the stewards from the communal property amounted to £12 3s.
2d. by 1409, (fn. 102) and by 1455 the property comprised c. 25 burgage tenements and
various shops and other parcels of land. (fn. 103) The stewards' other main source of income
was the fines paid by those admitted to the freedom. Out of their income they were
required to maintain the common property, including the Boothall, and by the early
15th century they were also administering the funds raised by virtue of royal grants of
pavage and murage. (fn. 104) Their responsibility for maintaining the pipes and conduits of
the public water supply probably dated from 1438 when the community acquired the
system. (fn. 105)
The number of the stewards suggests that each had particular responsibility within
one of the four wards into which the town was divided. The wards, named from the
cardinal points and apparently based on the four main streets, were recorded from the
mid 13th century when their inhabitants were responsible for taking felons and for
supplying members of coroner's inquests. (fn. 106) In 1327 they were also being used as units
for tax assessment. (fn. 107)