POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY TO 1545
WARWICK was already a borough by the time of
the Domesday survey, but scarcely anything is
known of its customs or of the privileges then
enjoyed by the burgesses. Soon after 1086 the
Crown granted the borough to the earls of Warwick,
and it became one of the few medietized boroughs in
England. It is noteworthy, moreover, for the high
degree of its dependence on the earls and for its
almost complete failure to develop corporate organs
of government. It may be contrasted even with
Leicester, another borough notable for 'the completeness of its medietization from royal control into the
hands of magnates'; for Leicester gradually acquired
borough institutions and a corporate existence. (fn. 1) The
economic backwardness of Warwick may go far to
explain its failure to win, or perhaps even to seek, a
greater measure of self-government. It is impossible
to judge to what extent the town may have suffered
from its dependence on the castle. The earls were
certainly not oblivious to the condition of the town
and they secured a number of benefits for it, but
these seem to have been at least partly designed to
enhance the earls' own wealth and dignity. (fn. 2)
The Domesday survey (fn. 3) throws little light on
administrative arrangements in pre-Conquest Warwick, or indeed on those of 1086. Most of the
burgesses, occupying the king's 113 houses and the
112 of his barons, paid geld to the king, but there is
evidence for the existence of a small privileged group
of burgesses who may have been geld-free. Nineteen
burgesses held their houses 'with sac and soc and all
customary rights'; they thus presumably enjoyed
the king's share of issues arising from their houses,
but there is no means of knowing whether they were
entitled to hold their own courts.
The existence of a body of substantial burgesses
is possibly reflected in the custom of Warwick
regarding military service. Ten burgesses were
required to accompany the king on expeditions by
land, and any who failed to go when summoned used
to pay £5; when he went by sea the king was to
have four boatswains or £4. It may be that the
nineteen burgesses were of thegnly rank and were
responsible for performing the first of these obligations. Stephen Stirman, listed among the barons
holding houses in Warwick, may have been one of
the boatswains, or steersmen. (fn. 4)
The farm of the borough is not separately given
in the Survey, but is combined with that of the
county. Before the Conquest the king had received
£65 and 36 sestars of honey (or £24 8s. instead of
the honey) from the shrievalty and from the borough
and the royal manors in Warwickshire. In 1086 the
pleas of the shire, the borough, and the manors
together contributed £145 of weighed silver, £23 for
dogs, £1 for a sumpter horse, £10 for a hawk, and £5
as a gift to the queen. In addition the king had 24
sestars of honey, with another 6 sestars from the
borough, each worth 1s. 3d.; of this the Count of
Meulan took 6 sestars and 5s., that is one-third.
Besides these sources of revenue the king received
in 1086 the former perquisites of Earl Edwin; these,
the third penny of the pleas of the shire and of the
profits of the borough, had already before the
Conquest been attached to the earl's nearby manor
of Cotes. (fn. 5)
This is the only evidence which the demands of
the royal Exchequer provide about the administration of Warwick, for the town was granted to the
earls soon after 1086, perhaps in 1088 when the
earldom was created. The earldom was then
assigned the lands which in 1086 had been held by
Turchil, and the first earl, Henry de Beaumont, also
acquired the estates held in 1086 by his brother
Robert, Count of Meulan. (fn. 6) Thus it was that most of
the rural estates in Warwick came into the earls'
hands. Of those in Myton in 1086, one was held
from the king by the Count of Meulan, another from
Turchil by the same count, and the third from
Turchil by St. Mary's College. (fn. 7) The remaining rural
estate, Cotes, was held by the king in 1086 and was
presumably included in his gift of the town to the
earls.
The administration of affairs in the town was
largely in the hands of three of the earls' officials : (fn. 8) a
steward, who was responsible for holding courts; a
bailiff, who accounted for the profits of courts and
stallage (and occasionally certain other revenues
besides); and a rent-collector - also occasionally
styled bailiff. (fn. 9) It was these last two who were
sometimes addressed as 'the bailiffs of Warwick', (fn. 10)
and for whom Henry de Beauchamp (d. 1446)
proposed to provide new maces. (fn. 11)
This administrative structure was retained when
the Warwick lands passed into the hands of the
Crown. Although a few officials remained, they were
generally replaced, at first by experienced Exchequer
officials (fn. 12) and later by men from court. (fn. 13) The office
of bailiff was therefore frequently carried out by
deputy. John Bache was described as 'underbailiff' in 1503, (fn. 14) and during Edward Ferrer's term
in the same office (1509-35) his duties were carried
out successively by three resident officials: John
Northcote (1510-16), Richard Horlebatte (1516-17),
and Richard Fisher (1517-35). (fn. 15) The first two were
also rent-collectors in the town. John Ray, deputy to
Thomas Wriothesley (later Earl of Southampton)
from 1535, (fn. 16) was described as 'baly' of the town in
1551-2; (fn. 17) Thomas Martyn was under-steward in
1547-8 and still in 1551. (fn. 18) Thus by the middle of the
16th century local men had experience, if only as
deputies, of local government.
From at least the later 13th century the earls
apparently held separate courts for the town and the
suburbs. In 1264 the value of the town court was
combined with that of the tolls, but a second court
at the castle was worth £3 a year. (fn. 19) In 1279 the
courts were held on Mondays and were worth
£6 13s. 4d. a year. Trial by battle could be waged
there in cases of felony, a fact which reflects the
unprivileged status of the town. The earls also, in
1279, had gallows and a tumbrel, and they enjoyed
the assize of bread and ale; (fn. 20) in 1284-5 the earls
were said to have had the assize from time immemorial. (fn. 21) In 1315-16 the courts 'within and
without the town' were again valued at £6 13s. 4d., (fn. 22)
and in 1324 the profits amounted to £6 19s. 2d. ; (fn. 23) by
1369, however, they were valued at £5 (fn. 24) and in 1401
at only £3 a year. (fn. 25) One other court, a court of piepowder, had been held since 1261 when the earl
granted a fair to the burgesses. (fn. 26)
Much more is known about the conduct of the
courts in the 15th and 16th centuries. (fn. 27) Courts were
held for the town within the walls and for the
suburbs outside, the latter taking place at the castle
- in fact at the castle gates, as is sometimes stated. (fn. 28)
For each of these areas there were two views of
frankpledge a year and a variable number of 'small
courts'; the town courts were held on Mondays, the
castle courts on Wednesdays, and the views were
always held just after Hocktide and Michaelmas.
The views dealt with a wide variety of commonplace
offences, such as the breaking of the assizes of bread
and ale, nuisances in the streets, the neglect of
ditches, and surcharging the common pastures. A
'small court' was sometimes combined with a view
of frankpledge, but altogether there might be as
many as 58 'small courts' a year, or as few as seven; (fn. 29)
they always seem to have been more numerous for
the town than for the suburbs. The 'small courts'
dealt mostly with pleas of debt and trespass. The
profits from the courts were highly variable. From
views and 'small courts' together, they were as large
as £8 16s. 10d. in 1422-3 and £4 12s. 6½d. in 1451-2;
in 1479-80 they were £1 13s., in 1500-01 £1 0s. 8d.,
in 1522-3 £2 7s. 8d., and in 1545-6 £2 3s. 11d. (fn. 30)
In the town itself the chief officers appointed by
the courts were four constables, one each for High
Pavement, Castle Street, Jury Street, and Market
Place wards. In addition, two aletasters and four
pinders are mentioned in 1541. The castle court also
appointed four constables, one each for the suburbs
of Smith Street, Bridge End, Saltisford, and West
Street. Each of those suburbs, as well as Myton, also
had two tithingmen, and Coten End had one. In
1424 there had been an additional tithingman for
Coten End and also one for Woodcote, (fn. 31) but there
was no longer one for Woodloes as, it was said, there
had been earlier. The tithingmen in 1424 also served
as aletasters, officers who are not mentioned in the
suburbs in the early 16th century though they must
have existed, to judge from the numerous presentments of faulty brewers and tipplers.
Though doubtless the greater part of the town and
its suburbs lay within the jurisdiction of the earls'
courts, there were nevertheless some significant
ecclesiastical franchises. The men of the Templars,
within and without the town, had made a payment
to the Exchequer in 1196, (fn. 32) and in 1256-7, when
payments were made for amercements by the keeper
of the king's markets, separate sums were handed
over for the men of St. Sepulchre's, the men of St.
Mary's, the men of the Templars, and the men of
the hospitals in Warwick. (fn. 33) In 1279 all of these
houses had the assize of bread and ale among their
tenants, (fn. 34) and they held their own courts.
A glimpse of the courts of St. Sepulchre's Priory
is afforded in 1499-1500. It then held separate courts
for Warwick within the walls and for the suburbs,
the latter also having authority over the priory's
tenants in Warwickshire. (fn. 35) They were held, apparently only once in the year, before a steward, and
the priory had a single officer described as tithingman and taster of bread and ale for the town within
the walls. In the suburbs there were four similar
officers, for Mill Street, Cross Street, Coten End,
and Queenwell Street. The court was a view of
frankpledge with 'small court', and most of its
business concerned offences against the assize. In
1534-5 and 1547 there were no profits from the
courts. (fn. 36)
St. Mary's College held a view of frankpledge
with 'small court' once or twice a year in the early
16th century. (fn. 37) Suit was owed by St. Mary's tenants
in the county as well as in Warwick itself. A bailiff
was responsible for Smith Street and Church Street,
but a tithingman answered for each of Longbridge,
Coten End, St. Nicholas's Street, and West Street.
Among a great variety of offences presented were
some against the assize of bread and ale, and the
court was frequently concerned with the fields and
commons in the suburbs. In 1493-4 the profits of
two courts - one held on Hockday and one at
Michaelmas - were £5 11s. 11d. (fn. 38) In 1547 the two
courts produced profits of 14s. 10d. (fn. 39)
Little is known of the Templars' courts, but in the
early 14th century, after the order's suppression,
views of frankpledge were held after Easter and
around Michaelmas. (fn. 40) The profits were valued at
only £1. (fn. 41) A court was held at Warwick in 1367 for
the town and six other Warwickshire properties of
the Hospitallers; there were several offences against
the assize. (fn. 42) Unspecified profits from the court were
included in a valuation of the estate made in 1540,
after the Dissolution. (fn. 43) Nothing is known of the
origins of other courts, though the right of St.
Michael's to hold one is said to have been granted
by Margery, sister of Thomas, Earl of Warwick
(d. 1242). (fn. 44)
Although the townspeople were responsible to
various courts and lordships, they undoubtedly had
a common interest in the fortunes of the town,
especially with regard to trade. The government of
Warwick remained firmly in the hands of the earls,
but in the late 12th and increasingly in the 13th
centuries there are indications of the growth of
corporate feelings and of some independence of
action by the burgesses. Thus in 1170-1 Warwick
paid £3 6s. 8d. to the sheriff for concealing a plea, (fn. 45)
and in 1202 £2 13s. 4d. for the right to sell dyed
cloths as had been done in Henry II's reign. (fn. 46) And
in 1221, before the justices at Coventry, 'the men of
the town' of Warwick paid £2 so that they might not
be involved in trouble. (fn. 47) It has been suggested (fn. 48) that
two forged charters, ostensibly of the 12th century,
may also indicate a growing corporate spirit. They
purport to be grants by the earls of the office of
master cook at the castle, together with certain land
and rights; they give the grantees the right to hold
courts for their men and to take tolls for goods which
those tenants bought and sold in the borough. Both
charters contain clauses drawn in a form typical of
the 13th century, and it may be that a descendant of
the grantees found his rights challenged by the
burgesses and forged the charters to support his
claims. (fn. 49)
In the 13th century the suburbs were coming to
be regarded as an integral part of the town. In 1221,
in a case of mort d'ancestor, a defendant successfully
pleaded that Warwick was a free borough and had
'such liberty that no such assize lies within the
enclosure of the town'. (fn. 50) The suburbs were nevertheless considered liable to share the burdens of the
burgesses. The latter in 1256 upheld a claim that the
suburbs should help to pay a fine incurred for a
trespass; the sheriff was ordered to distrain all those
tenants in the suburbs - both within and without
the liberty of the town - who traded in the borough
to contribute to the amercement. (fn. 51) Such community
of interest was shared, it seems, by people living
within the various franchises. In 1256-7, following
amercement by the keeper of the king's markets, the
men of the Earl of Warwick paid £2 and those of the
several religious franchises £1 each. (fn. 52) The share of
the suburbs in the privileges as well as the burdens
of the town is shown in 1261 when the earl granted
a fair to the burgesses: strangers were required to
pay stallage but 'all within the town and outside the
borough who belong to the town' were exempted. (fn. 53)
Soon after this, in 1273, a royal writ was directed
to the mayor of Warwick, (fn. 54) and in 1279 the 'mayor'
was Thomas Payn. (fn. 55) The existence of such an
official would seem to imply a greater development
of corporate government than is known to have been
the case. The only other references to the mayor,
however, are in writs for the payment of the expenses
of the town's members of Parliament. These were
in 1300 (fn. 56) and 1361, (fn. 57) and perhaps more frequently, (fn. 58)
directed to the mayor and bailiffs; on other occasions
they were directed to the bailiffs alone. (fn. 59) It may be
that the use of common form in the direction of
writs explains these inconsistencies, and that in the
late 13th century the term 'mayor' was loosely
applied to the senior bailiff of the town.
At about the same time there are indications of the
emergence of a group of influential burgesses who
shared some of the bailiffs' responsibilities. The
earl's grant of a fair to the burgesses in 1261, for
example, laid down that order was to be enforced
there by view of the bailiff and twelve good and
lawful burgesses. (fn. 60) And in 1315 (during the earl's
minority) a grant of pavage was made to the bailiffs
and good men. (fn. 61) One further example of common
action by the inhabitants comes from this century:
in 1346 'the men of Warwick' paid £10 for the
expenses of three armed men required by the king. (fn. 62)
Warwick is first known to have returned members
to Parliament in 1275, and it probably did so again
in 1295; it was certainly represented at each of
Edward I's Parliaments from 1298 onwards, (fn. 63) and
thenceforth it regularly returned two members. (fn. 64) It
is difficult to say how many of the 13th- and 14thcentury members were actually Warwick men.
Philip de Warwick (1301) and Nicholas Avery de
Warwick (1305, 1307) presumably were, and others
can be traced as Warwick taxpayers: Thomas de
Henley (1332, 1334, 1335-6), Roger le Mercer
(1338), and William Thurkyl (1344), for example,
all paid tax in 1327 and 1332. (fn. 65) In the late 14th
century several of the brethren of the Guild of the
Holy Trinity and St. Mary served as M.P.s. It is
similarly hard to establish the occupations of the
early members, but there are traces of the activities
of William Thurkyl (1344) as a wool merchant (fn. 66) and
of John Brown (1397, 1403) as a cloth seller. (fn. 67)
Although individual members were frequently
returned to more than one Parliament, few sat as
frequently as John Sotemay (1325, 1326, 1327, 1328,
1330, 1337, and 1338).
In the 15th century many members were not
Warwick men; though several were from the county,
others came from much further afield. Among those
who did sit for their own town were two Roger
Wottons, probably father and son (1410, 1411, 1413,
1414 - twice, 1419, 1422, 1425, 1442, ?1445-6,
1447, 1449, 1449-50, 1459); the younger was
coroner of Warwick in 1456. Of the outsiders,
Edmund Bowden (1472-5) was a London goldsmith,
and five were lawyers - John Butler of Solihull
(1491-2), Edward Durant of Bredon Cross (1467-8),
John Brown of Baddesley Clinton (probably 1460-1),
Richard Hotoft of Leicestershire (1453-4, 1455-6),
and Thomas Portalyn of Isleworth (Mdx.) (1455-6).
Another lawyer, whose place of origin is unknown,
was Thomas Rastell (1472-5). Five members are
known to have been royal servants: Brown, George
Ashby (1459), Thomas Colt of Roydon (Essex)
(1453-4), John Glover (1449), and Degory Heynes
of Coventry (1478). Ashby, a 'poetical writer', also
became the earl's steward at Warwick in 1446;
others who served the earls of Warwick were
Bowden and Portalyn, and Nicholas Rody (1413,
1414, 1419, 1421 - twice, 1422, 1423, 1425, and
1437) was the earl's steward and executor and
feoffee to Richard Beauchamp. (fn. 68) Heynes was
appointed bailiff by the Crown in 1478.
The election of members of Parliament took place
in the county court held at Warwick on the occasion
of the election of the knights of the shire. A number
of burgesses - in 1467 there were twelve -
attended to make formal election of their own representatives. (fn. 69) It is not known who the electing
burgesses were; neither is it certain how the
members' expenses were paid. Writs for these
payments were presumably received by the bailiffs
but no such payments appear in their accounts.
The recognition of a body of 'good men', the use,
if only briefly, of the term 'mayor', and the election
of members of Parliament by a small group of
burgesses all point to the rise of an oligarchy of
townsmen who, while subject to the ultimate control
of the earls' courts, were assuming some responsibility for the well-being of the town. In the late 14th
century there is for the first time an indication of the
identity of these leading burgesses. In 1374 and 1377
the same group of five men obtained grants of
pontage for the repair of the 'great bridge' over the
Avon, and in 1380 a third grant was made to four of
those men, together with a new fifth. (fn. 70) Five of the
six had by 1380 represented Warwick in Parliament.
On each occasion the group was headed by William
Hobkyns.
Five of those same men were among the thirteen
(it may be significant that there were one and twelve
others) (fn. 71) who three years later were licensed to found
a guild in honour of the Holy Trinity and St. Mary
in St. Mary's Church. (fn. 72) Among them were nine
past and future members of Parliament for Warwick,
and again they were headed by William Hobkyns.
The earl and his brother had sought the licence on
their behalf and it cost the new master and brethren
£26 13s. 4d. The guild was empowered to acquire
property to the value of £20 a year in order to
support three chaplains in the church, but it seems
most likely that the founders had wider purposes in
mind; it was perhaps in recognition of this that the
licence was granted on condition that the guild
should make no ordinances to the prejudice of the
Church or the Crown.
In the same year, 1383, a second guild was
founded by three men of whom nothing else is
known; it was to consist of themselves and the
burgesses of Warwick and was in honour of St.
George the Martyr. The licence cost them £53 6s.
8d.; it authorised property worth £10 a year to be
acquired to support two chaplains in St. James's
Chapel, and it empowered the earl to grant the
advowson of the chapel to the guild. (fn. 73) It seems
likely that this was the less important of the two
guilds, and between 1392 (fn. 74) and 1415 (fn. 75) they were amalgamated as the Guild of Holy Trinity and St. George,
often known simply as the Guild of Warwick.
It may well be that the Guild of the Holy Trinity
and St. Mary was from the first intended to take
responsibility for the maintenance of the bridge,
which some of its founder-members had already
assumed. Certainly when the Guild of Warwick was
surveyed prior to its dissolution part of its income
was being used for the upkeep of the bridge and of
the highways 'thereabout'. (fn. 76) The position of the
guild in town affairs is reflected in the pre-eminence
accorded to the master in 15th-century deeds, where
his name precedes those of the bailiffs in witness
lists. (fn. 77) The guild ended its life with a rare flourish
which is further evidence of its interest in the affairs
of the town. In 1545 it sold part of its property and
used the money to promote the establishment of St.
Mary's on a new footing, closely associated with the
new grammar school, and later gave money and its
hall to the newly incorporated burgesses, presumably
its own members in another guise. (fn. 78) With the charter
of 1545 and, more especially, that of 1554 Warwick
took its first decisive steps towards corporate selfgovernment.