CITY GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 1350-1550
The decay of the guild merchant
By the mid 14th century the roles of the main civic
officers had been largely defined. The dominance of the
mayor, already well established, was enhanced by the
grant of the escheatorship in 1354, and by his increasing control over market offences, presented at inquests
held in the courts over which he presided. (fn. 10) The
activities of the sheriffs, by then elected annually,
were gradually restricted to the collection of local
dues, policing, and the administration of summary
justice for minor offences. (fn. 11) The principal institutions
remained those of a century before, the portmote and
the unitary guild merchant. There was as yet no trace
of a body of aldermen and common councilmen,
although by 1356 the city authorities (called the
mayor and commonalty) collectively owned property
in Bridge Street near the Cross. (fn. 12)
Although in 1358, in accordance with the charter of
1300, the county sheriff confirmed at the Pentice that
Chester was a 'free city', (fn. 13) definition of the citizens'
liberties continued to trouble relations with the palatinate, especially during the 1350s, (fn. 14) and was never
fully resolved in Chester's favour. Throughout the later
14th and the 15th century the county court heard cases
of theft and assault committed within Chester's liberties, usually it seems because the offenders or their
victims were of relatively high status. (fn. 15) Occasionally,
too, city officers were brought before the shire court for
offences committed within the liberties, including
illegal trading and extortion, and when there were
serious disturbances in the city. (fn. 16)
The palatine administration apparently had difficulty in dealing with such matters, especially over its
handling in 1349-50 of the murder of the mayor,
Bartholomew of Northenden. The culprits were never
fully brought to justice: pardons were issued in the
early 1350s and 1360 to two of them, and others seem
to have gone to Gascony with the Black Prince. (fn. 17)
Chester, indeed, was apparently notorious for its lawbreakers: in 1354 the prince asserted that there were
more evil-doers within the city than in the entire shire
outside it, and there were further complaints in 1357. (fn. 18)
One source of strife lay in the gradual disintegration
of the unitary guild merchant. Signs of conflict were
apparent by 1351, when the Black Prince responded to
claims by the citizens that 'substantial men of the
commonalty' were combining related crafts such as
tailoring and drapery, or shoemaking and tanning. (fn. 19) In
1361 the city's tanners paid the Black Prince to
establish a monopoly in the production of leather, but
despite attempts to prevent the shoemakers from
encroaching on their craft, by 1370 the ruling had
been reversed. (fn. 1) Evidently such disputes could no longer
be regulated within the unitary guild, and several
occupational groupings were near to constituting
themselves into separate corporations. Relations
within and between the crafts could still affect the
general peace, as in the great affray which took place
in front of St. Peter's church in 1399, when a group of
master craftsmen involved in clothmaking attacked
their own journeymen. Such tensions perhaps diminished as the craft guilds consolidated their position in
the early 15th century. (fn. 2)
The emergence of the assembly
The gradual dissolution of the earlier medieval framework of government was accompanied by the emergence of new civic structures, a process which seems to
have crystallized in the 1390s, when the city was the
object of Richard II's especial favour. Of the new
institutions, the most significant was the aldermanate
or Twenty-Four, in place by the early 1390s. (fn. 3) Its early
members, who despite their precise collective designation varied in number from 26 to over 30, (fn. 4) were mostly
former mayors and sheriffs and were associated with
the current office-holders in making ordinances for
the city; they met with the mayor to deliberate on the
common good, and accompanied him on civic
business, duties enforceable by fines exacted by the
sheriffs. (fn. 5)
By the 1390s Chester had also acquired a treasurer to
account for the city rents (fn. 6) and a 'common clerk of the
city', evidently the successor of the custodian of the seal
of Statute Merchant, charged with legal business and
soon known as the clerk to the Pentice. (fn. 7) Except for the
clerk, civic officers were evidently elected, although the
nature of the franchise is not clear. (fn. 8) By the 1390s, then,
the city had a nascent corporation; indeed, in 1391 its
governing body expressly referred to itself in such
terms when it sought to lease the Dee Mills from the
Crown. (fn. 9)
The period also saw the creation of the Mayor's
Book, containing a mixture of administrative and
judicial business. (fn. 10) In 1407 the earliest surviving
orders attributed to the Assembly were recorded,
prohibiting the use of royal writs to the prejudice of
the city courts. (fn. 11) Other early orders, not so attributed
and issued from the 1390s, inter alia regulated the
duties of freemen and the trading activities of the city's
butchers, fishmongers, bakers, brewers, and cooks,
prohibited the throwing of rubbish into the streets,
and set a fine for bringing a cart with iron-bound
wheels across the renovated bridge. (fn. 12)
By the 1430s accounts were presented to the Assembly annually by two treasurers. (fn. 13) The corporation then
owned shops throughout the city, including seven
beneath the Pentice and others at the Cross, in Ironmongers' Row, next to the Eastgate, and in Watergate
Street. It also owned property in Commonhall and
Cow Lanes, by the quarry outside the Northgate, near
Capelgate and the mills, and in the Crofts. By 1442 the
rents amounted to over £12 a year. Other more
variable sources of income derived from fees payable
for entry into the freedom and for writs of error, (fn. 14) and
from local customs collected by the sheriffs on merchandise entering and leaving the city. (fn. 15) By 1440 the
civic officials also included two murengers, responsible
for maintaining the defences and using income derived
from customs levied at the gates and other duties. (fn. 16)
The emergent corporation was closely connected
with the old guild merchant, admissions to which
were recorded from the 1390s in the Mayor's Book
and equated with the freedom of the city. (fn. 17) Obtainable
by inheritance or payment of a large entry fine, and
perhaps dependent upon a residential qualification, the
freedom brought with it the duty to contribute to the
city's administrative burdens and expenses. (fn. 18) It probably also helped to secure membership of the guild of
St. Anne, revived in 1393 as a chantry foundation for
the civic élite. (fn. 19)
Beneath the Assembly, a further tier of administration developed from the ancient serjeanties. Granted
before the charter of 1300, those offices were essentially
benefices held of the earl and sat uncomfortably with
newer civic institutions, which derived their authority
from the citizens themselves. (fn. 20) Gradually they lost their
early policing functions, although the administrative
subdivisions of the city remained based on the four
principal gates and streets. By the late 14th century, a
group of 16 leading property holders or 'custumaries'
(custumarii) supervised policing activities within those
subdivisions, including guarding condemned felons
and keeping the Christmas watch; other duties were
performed by bailiffs, answerable to the sheriffs, whose
main responsibility was the collection of sums of
money, known as estreats (extracta), four times a
year. The nature of the estreats is not clear but the
sums involved were quite large, ranging from c. £3 to
over £16 for a single street in a single term. (fn. 1)
The civic éllite
Throughout the later 14th and earlier 15th century the
main civic offices were dominated by a relatively small
group of families, mostly merchants, such as the
Blunds, Bellyetters, Hopes, Hattons, Ewloes, and Whitmores. Mayors generally held office repeatedly. John
Blund, for example, was mayor for eight terms in the
1350s and John Armourer for seven between 1385 and
1395. (fn. 2) Such men were often rich: Armourer, for
instance, left 60 pounds of silver in 1396 to establish
a chantry in Holy Trinity church, (fn. 3) and John Ewloe
(mayor 1405-10, d. 1418) owned property in Bridge
Street, Watergate Street, Cuppin Lane, and Cow Lane,
land in the fields of Handbridge and Claverton, and
fishing stalls in the Dee, as well as extensive holdings in
right of his first wife in and near the city. (fn. 4) A similar
linkage of city tenements and local rural manors is
evident in the estate of John Whitmore (mayor 1412-
15), who at his death in 1438 held 15 messuages, 15
gardens, and an undercroft in Chester together with
considerable property in the environs, including the
manor of Thurstaston, and land and fisheries in Caldy
and Guilden Sutton. (fn. 5)
Such men played a dominant role in city life, not
always on the side of law and order. John Walsh,
member of a mayoral family if not himself mayor,
and in the early 1390s farmer of the Dee Mills, was in
1393 indicted for a killing and briefly imprisoned. (fn. 6)
John Armourer was a leading figure in the dispute with
Richard II's courtiers in 1394. (fn. 7) Though they were not
in office at the time, both John Ewloe and John
Whitmore were involved in disorder in 1416, while
the then mayor William Hawarden was actually imprisoned. (fn. 8)
A notable element within the city élite was a powerful group of Welsh descent. Their presence caused
especial difficulty during Owain Glyn Dwr's revolt in
the early 15th century, when under pressure from
Prince Henry and the palatine administration, the
city promulgated harsh decrees against Welsh residents
and visitors. (fn. 9) Such tensions culminated in 1408 in a
serious dispute between the civic authorities, then led
by the Welshman John Ewloe, and William Venables,
constable of the castle. Venables and over fifty members of his retinue were bound to keep peace with the
mayor and sheriffs, and in 1409 both Venables and
Ewloe were suspended from office. To replace the
mayor, the Crown appointed Sir William Brereton,
sheriff of Cheshire, as 'keeper and governor' of the city,
and his deputy presided over the portmote and crownmote until Ewloe was re-elected later in 1409. The case
provoked such discord within the city that the following election, in 1410, was disrupted by the armed
intervention of Robert Chamberlain, a former sheriff
and apparently a member of Venables's affinity. He was
evidently unsuccessful, since the new mayor, Roger
Potter, was one of the leading litigants against the
former constable. In 1411 a 'day of reconciliation'
(dies amoris) was celebrated between Venables and
the leading townsmen, and in 1412, under the terms
awarded by the arbitrators, Venables and his affinity
agreed to pay reparations to various citizens. (fn. 10) Nevertheless, the city apparently remained riven by feud. A
further attempt at armed interference in the elections
of 1412 caused the Crown to commission the current
mayor and other nominees to choose the next mayor, (fn. 11)
while in 1416 Ewloe, his son Edmund, and their Welsh
retainers attacked another citizen in Eastgate Street.
Shortly afterwards Edmund and his fellow Welshmen
broke into the house of John Hope, lately sheriff and
soon to be mayor. (fn. 12) Further disturbances in the same
year included an attack on two citizens with the
connivance of the mayor, William Hawarden, who
was briefly imprisoned in Chester castle but after the
lapse of a year regained the mayoralty. (fn. 13) The fact that
other leading citizens, including William Venables and
two former mayors, were required to give guarantees to
keep the peace suggests considerable discord among
the civic élite at that time. (fn. 14)
City government, 1430-1506
From the 1430s the long mayoral tenures characteristic
of the 13th and 14th centuries ceased, and except for a
few two- or three-year terms in the 1440s, 1450s, and
1470s the office changed hands every year. (fn. 15) Although
the openings for a powerful individual to exercise a
prolonged ascendancy were thereby diminished, the
power of the mayor continued to increase. By the early
15th century he had control of the markets, dealing
with the more serious trading offences, suppressing
illegal markets, and issuing regulations relating to
prices, hours of sale, disposal of waste, and the killing
of beasts. (fn. 1) By the late 1440s although his court met less
often, its sessions lasted longer, and its competence had
been extended with the holding of indictments relating
to every type of offence. (fn. 2)
In 1450 it was alleged that the citizens had 'from
ancient time' assembled in the common hall to choose
the mayor, sheriffs, and other officials of the corporation, evidence that by then freemen were participating
in civic elections. (fn. 3) Shortly afterwards, a formal body of
common councilmen, the Forty-Eight, was added to
the Assembly. As with the aldermen, numbers fluctuated, on occasion rising to over sixty; in 1453 the
names were arranged by the four quarters of the city,
which perhaps played a part in the selection procedures. Two complete sections of the list each comprised 22 names, of which 10-12 were marked as
'sworn'. (fn. 4) The councilmen's duties are uncertain, but
as representatives of the citizens their main role was
probably, as later, to watch over civic finances; in the
1450s, for example, a committee of four aldermen and
eight councilmen audited the treasurers' accounts. (fn. 5)
The councilmen presumably also played a part in the
election of the city sheriff, who seems to have been
chosen by the Assembly as a whole. (fn. 6)
Almost certainly the emergence of the common
councilmen was linked with changes in the admission
to the freedom, from 1452 made in full portmote and
limited to resident citizens. (fn. 7) That restriction, evidently
an innovation, marked the emergence of a division
between the franchise and the guild merchant, which
thereafter seems to have been primarily concerned with
non-residents involved in the city's trade under the
supervision of officials known as leavelookers, apparently first recorded in 1454-5. By the 1470s the
leavelookers, already perhaps regarded as the leaders
of the common councilmen, were responsible for
receiving entry subscriptions from non-freemen and
for levying a modest tax on their merchandise to pay
for the entertainment of distinguished visitors to
Chester. By then, too, such foreign members of the
guild paid the local customs on goods entering and
leaving the city. (fn. 8) Henceforth, it seems, the crucial
qualification for participation in civic government
was the freedom, which was linked with membership
of an appropriate craft guild. (fn. 9)
By the later 15th century the city's government was
thus in the hands of an Assembly which comprised the
mayor and sheriffs, the aldermen or Twenty-Four, and
the councilmen or Forty-Eight. It was served by three
groups of annually elected officials: two treasurers,
chosen from the aldermen; two leavelookers, chosen
from the common councilmen; and two murengers,
also chosen from the councilmen but by the aldermen
alone. Former sheriffs automatically became aldermen. (fn. 10) Other salaried officials included the recorder,
swordbearer, and serjeants-at-mace who attended the
mayor and sheriffs. (fn. 11) Throughout the late 15th century
the Assembly's finances continued to depend upon
rents from its property, fairly stable at £12-£16 a
year, and more variable income from fees and tolls. (fn. 12)
It sufficed for the fixed annual expenditure on the
officers' fees, but exceptional costs, such as the rebuilding of the Pentice in the 1460s, had to be financed by a
special levy on the citizens. (fn. 13)
A further institution linked with the Assembly was
the fraternity of St. George, like that of St. Anne
primarily a religious guild, which was housed in St.
Peter's church, probably in the south aisle. First
mentioned in 1462, when it was governed by four
masters or wardens, (fn. 14) it received bequests from leading
mayoral and aldermanic families in the late 15th and
early 16th century and by then was so much part of
civic government that its stewards or seneschals were
listed in the Mayor's Books with the civic dignitaries. (fn. 15)
Somewhat less closely associated with the Assembly
were the craft guilds, which by 1450 numbered over
twenty. Governed by stewards and aldermen, they
derived their generally modest income from fees payable on admission and annually thereafter. (fn. 16) Although
they had considerable independence in the conduct of
their affairs, they were ultimately subordinate to the
Assembly, which settled disputes within the membership of a particular guild or between guilds, and on
occasion decided the level of entry fees; they played a
large part in civic life, most notably in the mystery
plays and in regulating economic activity, especially
through the definition of trading standards, the
purchase of raw materials, and the determination
of the terms of apprenticeship and journeymen's
employment. Nevertheless, there was not, as elsewhere,
a close linkage of guild and civic office, although
company stewards on occasion became constables or
common councilmen. (fn. 1)
The administrative subdivisions of the city remained
focused upon the four main streets, from the 1460s
together with occasional additional units based on
Foregate Street, Handbridge, and Upper Northgate
Street. By then, although they had ceased to be the
vehicle for the collection of estreats, they provided the
framework for imposing assessments and amercements
and accounting for civic property. (fn. 2) From c. 1450 they
were associated with constables, who could number as
many as five or even nine in a large division such as
Eastgate Street or Bridge Street. Like the common
councilmen, constables were often listed in the Mayor's
Book grouped by administrative division, with a note
about whether they had been sworn in. (fn. 3) Their main
duties appear to have been carrying out the Assembly's
orders. In 1487, for example, when the administrative
areas for which they were responsible were known as
wards, they were ordered to summon the city's brewers
to have their measures stamped. (fn. 4)
Power lay above all with the mayor and aldermen,
the latter generally former mayors and sheriffs holding
office for life. Such men continued to be drawn mainly
from the leading merchant families, often interrelated
and including mercers, drapers, goldsmiths, glovers,
ironmongers, and dyers. (fn. 5) Mayors might also include
members of the local gentry, such as the Masseys,
Savages, and Southworths. (fn. 6) Sheriffs were largely
drawn from the major civic families. (fn. 7) By the late
15th century, although they included junior members
of aldermanic families, the common councilmen were
more likely to be drawn from the city's prosperous
artisans. (fn. 8)
The charter of 1506
In 1506 the city was given county status and its
constitution was formalized by royal charter. (fn. 9) The
arrangements appear generally to have been those in
operation in the later 15th century, with a few minor
amendments. The number of aldermen was fixed at 24
but the councilmen were reduced to 40. The freemen
were deemed part of the corporation and given the
right to elect the aldermen and councilmen. The
charter also prescribed the procedures for electing the
principal civic officers: the mayor was to be chosen by
the aldermen and sheriffs from two aldermen named
by the freemen; one of the two sheriffs, the king's was
to be nominated by the aldermen, while the other, the
city's, was elected by the whole Assembly. In confirmation of his long-exercised responsibilities, the mayor
was made clerk of the market.
The charter also amended the structure of the city's
courts. While confirming that the portmote, Pentice,
and crownmote were to be held as formerly, it added
two others, the county court of the city and quarter
sessions. The county court of the city, a necessary
aspect of its new status, had very little business.
Quarter sessions, on the other hand, was responsible
for trying all misdemeanours and most felonies on the
city's behalf; in practice it took some business from the
portmote but most from the crownmote, for which
only the most serious felonies were reserved. Its justices
were the mayor, recorder, and former mayors, who
constituted the senior aldermen. (fn. 10)
Another administrative change probably introduced
in the early 16th century was a rearrangement of the
wards and their association with aldermen. Although
in 1507-8 the councilmen and constables continued to
appear in the civic record in unequal groups drawn
from the four main streets, by then the constables were
further subdivided according to the wards of named
aldermen, numbering nine altogether. (fn. 11) By the 1530s
there were 15 wards, to each of which was attached an
aldermen and one or two constables, and each
equipped with a pair of stocks. The 12 wards within
the walls were named after the eight intramural parish
churches, together with Eastgate, Northgate, Cornmarket (southern Northgate Street), and Beastmarket
(Lower Bridge Street) wards; the three outside were St.
Giles's and St. John's to the east and St. Thomas's to
the north. (fn. 12) Arrangements appear still to have been
relatively fluid. In 1538-9 twenty-three constables were
listed in ten groups, each a ward associated with an
alderman, while in 1548-9 the constables were
arranged by the four main streets. (fn. 13)
City and shire in the early 16th century
Although the terms of the charter were adhered to for
about a decade after 1506, thereafter its provision for
annual elections of aldermen and councilmen was
progressively undermined. In 1518 a bylaw provided
that aldermen who died during their term could be
replaced without election, and shortly afterwards it
became customary for the Assembly to make such
appointments for life. By 1533 the annual election of
councilmen had also been subverted, some even being
appointed purely on the nomination of the mayor.
Such infringements of the charter were further compounded from the 1520s by the emergence in the
Assembly of a group known as the sheriff-peers,
consisting of former sheriffs and holding office for life. (fn. 1)
The main civic offices were dominated by drapers,
merchants, and mercers, with terms served by a variety
of other craftsmen. (fn. 2) Whatever their occupational identity, many office-holders were engaged in Continental
trade, including in the period 1500-60 over half the
mayors and just under half the sheriffs. A wider range
of twenty or so occupations was represented among the
common councillors. (fn. 3) Repeated service as mayor was
quite common: 10 men served twice, 4 three times, and
Thomas Smith eight or nine times. (fn. 4) Such a limited
circulation of office does not suggest an oligarchy of
new men pushing hard for access to political power
commensurate with their wealth, but rather a group
with established associations linked to the county and
continually strengthening its connexions and drawing
in new blood by marriage and business contacts.
Civic office was held by members of established
county families such as the Alderseys, Balls, Davenports, Duttons, Smiths, and Staffordshire Sneyds. The
close weave of county and city relationships is illustrated by the Aldersey family, seated at Aldersey and
Spurstow in east Cheshire, which provided five officeholders. Men such as Ralph Aldersey, sheriff in 1541,
maintained contact with their gentry relatives, with
grandees such as William Brereton, and with leading
merchants from the city itself. (fn. 5) Similarly, Fulk Dutton
(d. 1558), a draper and three times mayor, had links
with such county families as the Leghs, Savages, and
Egertons, and with leading urban officials including the
recorders of Chester and Liverpool. (fn. 6)
County influence was especially visible in Chester
during the mayoralties of Sir Piers Dutton, elected
three times in succession from 1512; resentment in
some quarters is evident from the fact that on the third
occasion the election was declared unlawful and
Dutton was replaced as mayor. (fn. 7) Accusations of
county interference in civic elections also surfaced
under the reforming mayor Henry Gee. (fn. 8)
Other reasons for suspicion of the county emanated
from the civic courts. In 1506 Chester's independence
from the shire was reaffirmed when it was declared a
county of itself. Nevertheless, by then the city courts
had already been affected by the development of
business at the palatinate exchequer court, which
offered a pragmatic approach and balanced and workable solutions. Even in the late 15th century men
arrested by the city sheriffs for debt had successfully
appealed to the exchequer on the grounds that they
were avowry men under the special protection of the
palatinate. The sheriffs were summoned by writ to
appear in the exchequer to explain their actions, and
the justice and chamberlain eventually decreed that
they should desist from imprisoning privileged tenants
of the earl, conceding, however, the right to exact
reasonable fines if the avowry men in question had
merchandise or exercised a craft within the city. (fn. 9) The
growth of such jurisdiction during the early 16th
century, and the regular evocation of cases to the
exchequer by writs of certiorari, caused tension between
the city courts and those at the castle. (fn. 10) Although such
actions were often taken simply to ensure relatively
speedy and balanced results, they might also be used
more controversially, against the city's courts and
officials; there were cases, for example, in which the
city sheriffs were accused of wrongful imprisonment or
neglecting their duties towards the plaintiffs. (fn. 11) By 1540,
when the Assembly ruled that no suits could be taken
out of the city except by licence from the mayor, signs
of friction between the two jurisdictions were becoming evident. (fn. 12)
Henry gee and the reform of civic government (fn. 13)
By the 1530s the city was developing a strong sense of
its identity, fostered by emphasis upon its ceremonial
and by the first stirrings of an interest in and embellishment of a partly mythic civic past. (fn. 14) Such
developments were especially evident during the two
mayoralties of Henry Gee (1533-4, 1539-40). In his
first term Gee, who was determined to invest the city's
government with a proper sense of dignity and order,
began the Assembly Book, a record of the Assembly's
orders, the first entries of which included a list of
previous office-holders, a description of the city's
boundaries, and a list of local customs duties and
officials' fees. Especially concerned about the quality of
government, Gee sought to prevent mayoral nomination of aldermen, and decreed that henceforth all
elections to the Forty should be by the Assembly
meeting in the Pentice. (fn. 1) During his second mayoralty
he addressed another abuse, that of non-freemen
holding civic office, blaming favouritism on the part
of mayors, and the general decay of the body of
freemen. To prevent 'gentlemen's servants of the
county being preferred to the offices and rooms [of
the city]', it was agreed that only properly admitted
freemen were to hold office, and that the mayor and
sheriffs could remove anyone who was not so qualified,
or otherwise incompetent, and replace him on the
advice of the aldermen. (fn. 2)
Although there is no evidence that the city's finances
were particularly weak, Gee complained in 1539-40
about mayoral irresponsibility and ordered that the
whole council be consulted about expenditure, and
that only honest men be allowed in the city's exchequer
and then only when accompanied by a sheriff. Other
orders made during his second mayoralty included a
ban on the sale of common lands to protect the city's
rent income, and the regulation of the appointment of
the city recorder and lesser officials. (fn. 3)
Both puritan and reforming, Gee had a wide range of
concerns. He acted against unlawful gaming, drink,
and excessive celebrations on Christmas Day. He
introduced regulations concerning women's proper
dress and parties accompanying childbirth and churching. He proposed to list legitimate beggars by ward,
and required the able-bodied to present themselves for
work each day and all children aged six to attend
school. He even forbade women aged between 14 and
40 to serve ale, invoking the need to preserve the city's
good reputation in order to attract visitors. (fn. 4)
Although Gee's attempts to end the nomination of
councilmen by mayors met with little success, (fn. 5) periodic
efforts were made to maintain a high standard of civic
service for the common good. In 1549-50, for example, candidates for the shrievalty were required first
to have served as leavelookers, those evading office
were fined, and members of the common council were
required to wear their tippets. In 1554 the election of
new councillors was placed under the control of the
existing council as well as the mayor, and attempts
were made to ensure better attendance at the city
quarter sessions. The worship of the aldermen, in
their capacity as justices of the peace, was emphasized
by ordering them to wear their scarlet robes on eight
popular holy days. (fn. 6) Aldermen in particular had a
penchant for enhancing the aura of civic office, and
several left silver or gilt goblets or other treasures for
the use of the mayor, at home or in the Pentice. (fn. 7)
The cost of running the city government continued
to be met, in part, by rent from the corporate estate,
which from the 1530s had a book value of c. £25 and a
collected rent income of just under £20; as earlier, the
remainder of the city's income of c. £50 was derived
from tolls and fees. Expenditure hovered around £45 in
1547-8 and 1558-9, some £22 accounted for in
salaries. Civic officers and servants were also paid a
fixed percentage of local tolls and customs, and some,
such as the serjeants-at-mace and the yeoman of the
Pentice, received some victuals in addition to their
livery. The city accounts apparently maintained a
healthy surplus each year, but following complaints
that city money was spent unwisely, from 1540 expenditure had to be sanctioned by the whole council. (fn. 8)
Clearing ditches and watercourses, supplying water,
paving the main streets, and repairing the walls were
constant concerns of the Assembly. (fn. 9) Public works, both
inside and beyond the city walls, benefited from
charitable bequests. Prominent citizens left cash
towards the repair of the bridges at Bridge Trafford
and Tilston, the roads between Chester and Hawarden
(Flints.), the new quay in Wirral, and the lanes in the
city. (fn. 10) As part of its interest in maintaining law and
order, the Assembly ordered in 1503 that a curfew be
observed after eight o'clock, and that former mayors,
sheriffs, and innkeepers should hang a lighted lantern
outside their houses during winter months. (fn. 11) A similar
concern that the city should not become a haven for
felons led the mayor to act promptly to prevent
parliament from transferring the right of sanctuary to
Chester from Manchester in 1542. (fn. 12)