THE RELATIONS OF THE BISHOPS AND CITIZENS OF SALISBURY (NEW SARUM) BETWEEN 1225 AND 1612. By FANNY STREET, M.A., F.R. Hist. Soc. CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION. Distinction between Old and New Sarum. (Note on the error of this name.) II. FOUNDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. (A) Original grants and their significance. III. FORMULATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CITY. (B) Composition between Bishop and Citizens. (c) Municipal Constitution, 1306-1465. IV. LATER CONTROVERSIES. (A) Incidents of period 1306-1465. (B) Dispute with Bishop Beauchamp, 1465-1474. (c) Incidents of period 1474-1537. (D) Controversy with Bishop Shaxton, 1537-9. (E) Incidents of period 1539-1593. (F) Dispute with Bishop Coldwell and its sequel 1593-8. V. THE FINAL EMANCIPATION OF THE CITY. (A) The granting of the new charter. (B) Government under the new charter. VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. H.M.C.R. I. H.M.C.R. IV. British Borough Charters Dictionary of National Biography Gleanings from the Archives The Gild Merchant Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission Vol. I., 1901. Vol. IV., 1907. Ballard. Bateson. Hemmeon. Swayne. Detailed particulars of these references are given in the Bibliography. The history of the relations of the Bishops of Salisbury with their citizens offers an interesting example of municipal development on the land of an ecclesiastical lord. It exhibits many characteristics which are to be found in the history of other cities similarly placed, such as Exeter, Wells, and St. Alban's. Successive Bishops acted as good landlords, in that they did their best to increase the city's opportunities of trade and to secure ever wider privileges for it; but they were singularly tenacious of their rights of control and unwilling even to sell or commute these so as to leave the citizens free to govern themselves. The citizens, on the other hand, while accepting all that their lords conferred upon them, began to struggle for independence as soon as their community was well established, and maintained the conflict with varying success until they achieved their purpose. In the course of the struggle they opposed the Bishop's claims by every means, but, because of the weight of evidence on his side, throughout the 14th and 15th centuries in vain. Not till the 16th century brought a general attack upon the power of the Church did they gain any measure of success; for complete freedom they had to wait till the beginning of the 17th century, when at last they succeeded in achieving self-government and freed themselves from the Bishop's jurisdiction. The Lordship of the Bishops of Salisbury over the city of that name dates from the founding of the new city in 1220, when the see was transferred from Old to New Sarum,1 and the building of the new Cathedral was begun. More precisely it may be dated from the grant made in 1225 by Bishop Richard Poore2 to the citizens who had begun to settle at the new site; this grant was subsequently confirmed by the Charter of King Henry III. dated January 30th, 1227.3 No such relationship between Bishop and citizens appears to have existed in the older city from which the see was tranferred, According to Domesday, Sarisberie was held 1 See below for note on these names. 2 Printed in the Tropenell Cartulary, ed. Davies, pp. 187-8. by the Bishop, but there is no mention of any borough, although, as Mr. Ballard points out, the Sheriff of Wilts accounted to the King for its third penny, and it had been the site of a pre-Conquest mint. The area of the Bishops' jurisdiction was 50 hides, and the seignorial franchises granted to them by the charters of subsequent kings were very extensive, as is clear from the long list of jurisdictional rights granted by King John.2 But none of these privileges, however advantageous to the Bishops' tenants, were such as to imply a municipal organization. The right to hold a fair at Old Sarum annually for seven days:-" tres dies ante festum Sancte Marie Septembris et post festum tres dies et in die festi". -was granted by Henry I.3 "ad communam canonicorum Sar' Ecclesie," and subsequently confirmed with many other grants by Henry II., but this was not granted to the Bishop at all. It would appear, nevertheless, that some municipal organization developed at Old Sarum during the reigns following the Conquest and the settlement of the see at that place. Dr. Gross quotes from the Charter Rolls a grant of a gild merchant made directly to the Burgesses of Saresberie by King John in 1200, in which there is no mention of the Bishop. "Johannis Dei gratia, etc., Sciatis nos concessisse burgensibus nostris de Sarisbir' ut habeant. gildam mercatoriam ad Sarisbir' The charter refers also to charters granted by Henry I. and Henry II. and appears therefore to be a confirmation of older rights. Thus it seems clear that in the older city, while the Bishop was 1 Ballard, Domesday Boroughs, pp. 10, 43, 120. 2.Quoted in an inspeximus by H. III. S.C. pp. 178-80. See below. 3 Printed in B. & H. Appendix pp. 721-2 from Bp's Records. Conf. of H. II. in H. M.C.R. I. 1901, p. 368. Gild Merchant, II., p. 209. Dr. Gross' references to the gild merchant in Salisbury appear to ignore the difference between the two cities. The illustrations given by him in Vol. II., pp. 209-10 are printed continuously as if referring to the same place. Thus the extract quoted above, which relates to Old Sarum, is immediately followed by a mention of the composition of 1306 between the Bishop and the citizens of New Sarum, and a quotation of the clause in it which prescribed the first formation of a gild merchant in the younger city. But, as will be seen later, the two organisations were distinct and not continuous. The disputes about markets between Old and New Sarum recorded in the Hundred Rolls in 1274 (H.R. II. 266 b), show that the city was not transferred as was the see. lord of the soil and occasionally, as Sheriff of Wilts, custodian of the castle,' he was never lord of the city. In the new city, subsequently founded on his demesne and under his protection, his relationship with the citizens was naturally closer. The lordship of this new city was retained by successive Bishops, in spite of repeated attempts of the citizens to free themselves, until 1612. In this year they succeeded in their endeavour, securing by charter from James I., control of the city by its own officials, while the Bishop retained exclusive jurisdiction over the Close. NOTE ON THE NAME OF THE CITY. Throughout the preceding introduction, for the convenience of distinguishing between the old and new cities, the incorrect but commonly used forms, Old Sarum and New Sarum, have been employed. The error arose in the first place through confusion between the abbreviation Say for the full name Saresberie or Sarisberiensis, and the regular contraction for the genitive plural ending "rum." The form Sarum, or Sarrum, thus created became current in the course of the thirteenth century but was not adopted at any precise date as the regular name of the city, to be used in legal documents and upon official seals, Mr. R. L. Poole, in his Report on the Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury,3 points out that on the same documents in the 14th century are found the common seal of the city, "nove civitatis Saresburie," and that of the mayoralty "majoris Sarrum"; thus both correct and incorrect forms were in use at the same time. Sarum or Sarrum when once in use, is treated as indeclinable but of varying gender. In the documents read for the purpose of this thesis it is most. often construed as feminine singular, e.g., "civitas Nove Sarum," which, as Mr. Poole notes, indicates the influence of the old "civitas Nove Sar[esberie].” B & H., p. 30. 2 Numerous illustrations are given by Canon Wordsworth in Wiltshire Notes and Queries, March, 1904, and by W. Clark-Maxwell in the same publication, Dec., 1904. 3 Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, Vol. I., 1901, p. 342. The earliest instance found of expressed dissatisfaction with the current use of the form Sarum is that by the Rev. W. H. Jones in 1871,1 but he throws no light upon the source of the error. This, however, was clearly explained by Mr. H. J. F. Swayne in 1886,2 in the course of his researches into the Municipal Archives during his tenure of office as Recorder of the city. II. THE FOUNDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. (A) Original Grants and their significance. The new City of Salisbury owed its creation to the Bishop on whose land it lay. The new Cathedral, founded by Bishop Richard Poore in 1220, was the determining cause of its growth. From the numerous legends which surround the story of the choice of its site one important fact emerges: the new Cathedral was built upon a portion of the Bishop's own land. A 15th century copy of an older chronicle not now extant says:-"predictus locus, qui jam est civitas, fuit unum maris vocatum Merifield pro averiis pascendis et pertinens manerio de Mulford."4 A more precise statement appears in Bishop Beauchamp's Representation, made to the King in the course of his dispute with the citizens between 1465 and 1474; according to this the Cathedral was built upon a certayn voide ground, called Maryfield, parcell of the maner of Milford, of olde long tyme and at that tyme perteyning to the Bishop, as by right of his churche."5 In 1274, the manor of the Bishop of Salisbury is described in the Hundred Rolls as "maneria de Wodeford et Muleford," though in Domesday no land under these names is assigned to him.7 Hatcher suggested that the name of the manor was changed at some time unknown between 1Wilts Arch, Mag., XIII., November, 1871, pp. 49-50. Gleanings from the Archives, No. 52, Introduction. Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Dec., 11th, 1886. 3 Maris=marish or marsh. T.C., p. 185; Introd., pp. xix-xx. 5 Muniments of Bishop of Salisbury, in Diocesan Registry, Liber Niger, fol. 163a. Printed in B. & H. p. 164. 6 H.R. II., 279b, 3 Ed. I., 1274. Domesday fol. 66a. |