City Government
From the viewpoint of national history, the presence of the King's Council in the
North confers a peculiar lustre upon Tudor York. (fn. 65) At no time was York more truly the
capital of northern England; seldom did a government at York so effectively prosecute
royal administration, or guide northern society so surely into the paths of law and order.
Inaugurated by Richard III, maintained somewhat tentatively by Henry VII and
Wolsey, this northern council achieved full stature after the collapse of the Pilgrimage of
Grace. In the Tudor period it found three remarkable leaders: Archbishop Holgate
(Lord President 1538-50), (fn. 66) Sir Thomas Gargrave (Vice-President 1555-79), and the
Earl of Huntingdon (Lord President 1572-95).
Initially at least, a conflict of jurisdiction was bound to develop. Since 1502 the city
had maintained a by-law that a freeman might not sue another in the king's courts, or
those of any other lord, until the case had first been reported to the mayor. (fn. 67) Nevertheless the compromising role of the city in the Pilgrimage of Grace (fn. 68) left it with little
power to resist the strengthened Council. In May 1541 the mayor himself meekly
waited upon the Lord President to answer a bill of complaint exhibited against him by
the parishioners of Holy Trinity, Goodramgate. (fn. 69) Two years later the mayor sent the
Lord President the names of men brought before the Exchequer for erecting fish-garths,
although by statute and commission the municipal courts had cognizance of this
offence. (fn. 70) Under the less-feared régime of Protector Somerset the city plucked up
courage to attack the President's authority, and a military order of November 1548
afforded a loophole. Holgate had commanded 50 York recruits to report to Newcastle
to train with the arquebus, but he had directed his order, not exclusively to the mayor and
sheriffs, but to a committee of which the mayor was merely a member. The corporation
then irately ordered its M.P.s to use their endeavours to secure that the king's commission should always be directed to the mayor as had been the custom. (fn. 71) Shortly afterwards
the mayor asked Sir Michael Stanhope to act as an intermediary with Holgate for better
treatment of the city. The President, so the citizens urged, was impoverishing them by
his demands for light horsemen, by conscripting workmen far above the numbers demanded in more prosperous times, and by demanding a maintenance payment of 20s.
per man. Moreover, the President had backed his own servants in disputes with the city
so as to infringe its ancient rights. (fn. 72) In January 1549 the M.P.s were again instructed to
press these points, (fn. 73) but on 1 February the Protector sternly charged the city authorities
with negligence and peremptorily ordered them to obey the Lord President. (fn. 74) Biding
their time, they renewed the struggle in 1557, when they denied the President's right to
require them to call and certify the musters, claiming that by charter they need only
obey the royal command under the great or privy seal. (fn. 75) Some months later the Council
in the North demanded light horsemen: the city obeyed only when the President, the
Earl of Shrewsbury, repeated the command in his capacity as lieutenant general, the
recorder then advising the mayor that he had no choice but to obey. (fn. 76) Subsequently
Shrewsbury and his successors made their military demands as lords lieutenant. (fn. 77)
Meanwhile the conflict of jurisdictions had developed on other fronts. In May 1550
the city disfranchised a citizen who refused to abandon a suit against a fellow citizen
before the Council in the North. (fn. 78) Cases affecting the municipal interests must nevertheless have been taken frequently before that court, since in 1568 and 1571 the mayor
and aldermen appointed retaining fees for counsel charged to maintain their rights in
it. (fn. 79) In 1581 they decided that if a citizen who was a proctor or attorney of the Council
in the North should be elected alderman, he should not be permitted to exercise his
former office, and should be fined either for attempting to do so or for refusing the
aldermanship. (fn. 80) The following year a draper, William Allen, sued a joiner before the
Council in the North. Asked by the mayor whether he would submit to his judgement
upon this offence, Allen 'utterly and disobediently refused so to do; saying further that
Mr. Dean and the Church of York would bear him forth therein, if it cost one hundred
pounds'. (fn. 81) Of a different order was the scandal of January 1580, when the Vice-President, Lord Evers, committed the mayor, Robert Cripling, to the castle. Here was the
rare case of a gross misfit in the mayoralty. Cripling received no support whatever
from his brethren, who in the subsequent March agreed not only to deprive him of his
aldermanship but also to disfranchise him. He had repeatedly failed to punish popish
recusants and to fulfil his promise to reside within the city; and he had shamed his
dignity by walking in the principal street in his coat without a gown and without attendance. He had been convicted by the Lord President and Council for slandering the
chancellor of the minster after a sermon. By the advice of the Council in the North, a
certain Scot, John Harper, had been disfranchised for seditious speeches, but the mayor
had restored him to his freedom without the assent of the Council. Cripling's own intemperate speech had occasioned a campaign of libel in the city against the clergy and
the Queen herself: the corporation was deeply disturbed lest Her Majesty and the Privy
Council might think the city undutiful for having chosen 'so rash and heady a man'. (fn. 82)
The authority of the Council in the North began to decline amid the factions which
surrounded it after Huntingdon's death. York had not abandoned its jealousies and was
destined to take its full share in the multilateral attacks made upon the Council during
the subsequent reign. (fn. 83) Nevertheless, York men proved not unmindful of the prestige
and the more tangible advantages brought to their city by the presence of this institution. The successive presidents and their ladies were received with lavish gifts and
hospitality on their arrival. (fn. 84) More important, solid co-operation in local problems was
often achieved, as already exemplified in such matters as plague precautions and water
supply. And, from the viewpoint of local trade, the great household at the King's
Manor and the far greater multitude of councillors, servants, suitors, lawyers, and wit
nesses brought a large volume of business to the city as a whole. According to its adversary Coke, the Council in the North might have had before it in one session 450 suits,
as opposed to 72 in Chancery. (fn. 85) A total of over 2,000 suits annually—or for that matter
many fewer—must have attracted many thousands of visitors to York, visitors whom the
city encouraged by controlling the prices of lodgings and victuals. (fn. 86) During the decade
1509-18 only six York freemen were enrolled as innkeepers, but in the decade 1594-1603
no fewer than 30 appear. (fn. 87) Some of them died rich. (fn. 88) This change cannot be purely
fortuitous, nor can it be unconnected with the work of the Council in the North and the
development of York as a northern capital. Small wonder that the precipitate destruction of the Council caused concern in York, and that after 1660 the citizens were still
entertaining second thoughts and petitioning in vain for its restoration. (fn. 89)
Though almost all the civic institutions of the Middle Ages continued to function in
Tudor York, the constitutional history of the city did not entirely lack innovation and
response to social change. The so-called democratization of the mayoral elections by
Edward IV led to some riotous scenes in the subsequent reign, especially in 1504, when
the king intervened to punish the ringleaders of the popular party. (fn. 90) The election of
aldermen gave rise to the next storm. It originated in September 1516 from Thomas
Drawswerd's claim as mayor to two votes, when he was ranged with four aldermen
against six. After 'divers great riots and affrays' had occurred, Drawswerd agreed with
the leader of the opposition, William Neleson, to submit the choice of a new alderman
to Cardinal Wolsey. (fn. 91) By the next January the deaths of two more aldermen engendered
further violent disputes. Certain aldermen and citizens found themselves in the Court
of Chancery, while William Neleson, sent for by the king, was committed to the Fleet.
He was still there when on 23 February the king recorded these facts in a letter upbraiding the city and reminding it of still further offences. When the king had quashed
the two recent appointments and commissioned the Abbot of St. Mary's, Lord Latimer,
and others to supervise elections, the city had defiantly chosen the same two men, and,
adding insult to injury, had elected the prisoner, William Neleson, as its mayor. The
king now proceeded to nullify all these elections and ordain John Dogeson mayor. (fn. 92) A
subsequent letter from Wolsey exhorted the corporation to instant obedience (fn. 93) which,
with Dogeson now installed as mayor, the city hastened to show. (fn. 94) In August Neleson,
who had been released on recognizances, formally surrendered any claim to an aldermanship and promised to assume no office without royal licence. (fn. 95)
The problem of orderly representation for the commons was answered by the letters
patent of 18 July 1517, which set up a common council to share in elections and to
assent to by-laws. (fn. 96) This was not a democratic body. Thirteen specified major crafts
each presented 4 members from whom the upper house chose 2, and 15 minor crafts
each presented 2, one of whom was chosen. For elections, these 41 members were joined
by the 28 senior searchers of the crafts. So reinforced the common council met when
summoned by the mayor and aldermen, but it was obliged to meet every 21 September
to choose four of the most able and discreet persons, such as had not been sheriffs, from
whom the aldermen and sheriffs chose two to serve as sheriffs for the year beginning on
Michaelmas Day. Likewise the common council stood bound to meet every 15 January
to nominate three aldermen, who had not been twice mayor already, and had not held
the mayoralty during the last six years. Of these three, one must subsequently be chosen
mayor by the aldermen and sheriffs and assume office on 3 February. (fn. 97) When a new
alderman was to be elected, the common council had to choose three of the most grave,
discreet, and able citizens, one of whom should subsequently be picked by the mayor
and aldermen. From all these elections the rest of the commons were henceforth excluded. During the subsequent years the common council, though not very frequently
summoned for deliberative purposes by the city council, proved itself able to draw up
clear programmes, to safeguard popular interests, and to press many of its suggestions
upon the oligarchy. When in 1533 it intervened to check luxurious official entertaining,
it roundly blamed the mayor and aldermen for taking little notice of its former advice
and so letting the city slip into decay and debt. (fn. 98) In 1547 it demanded the restoration of
common rights to certain closes, which it had previously allowed to be kept in severalty. (fn. 99)
In 1549 it put forward a constructive series of articles to combat many grievances, particularly the shortage of wood, the hoarding of corn, the insanitary pigs, and the threat
of inclosure in the common lands. (fn. 1) This last matter formed the most permanent feature
of its policy and again found expression in February 1561, when the common council
petitioned that the Tang Hall lands should not be leased but left as common pasture for
the freemen; a compromise offered by the mayor was rejected. (fn. 2) Early in 1564 it campaigned energetically to reduce the tolls imposed upon 'foreign' victuallers bringing
their wares to the free markets of York, since these tolls increased food prices. The
mayor, intent upon the city finances, undertook to 'travail and practise with the most
discreet of the said commoners' to make them modify their demands. (fn. 3)
The dependence of the common council upon the crafts entailed fresh problems when
a craft mentioned in the charter declined in importance and more flourishing but unprivileged crafts aspired to occupy its place. (fn. 4) The common council complained of this
in 1563, and, when the mayor tried to temporize, Miles Cook, their leader, refused to
proceed to a mayoral election unless this and other complaints were remedied. (fn. 5) When
the common council agreed to sue in more respectful manner, the mayor and aldermen
duly assented. (fn. 6) Nevertheless, the remodelling of the charter was still being debated with
the common council in 1572 and 1573. The mayor and aldermen closed the matter by
asking the common council who should bear the cost of renewing the charter and both
sides agreed neither to charge it on the chamber nor to levy a tax. (fn. 7)
The exclusion of the mass of the commons from elections did not necessarily mean
that the city council could never meet a larger body than the common council. A discussion in April 1565 on the problems surrounding the repair of Ouse Bridge was
attended by the chamberlains, common councilmen and other commoners, (fn. 8) while 'a
great number of the common council and commons' met the city council on 27 June
1572 to discuss the charter of elections. (fn. 9)
Though it might on occasion be utilized by the majority of the city council to coerce
recalcitrant aldermen, (fn. 10) the common council cannot have been easy to manage. When
in 1564 Archbishop Young requested a lease, the common councillors 'so differently
answered, the part crying "all, all", and the others holding their peace that it was not
well known whether the more part assented thereto or disclaimeth'. The mayor and his
brethren finally caused them to 'sit orderly or stand in the said common hall', while the
recorder and four or five aldermen went around the assembly taking their votes individually. This done, it appeared that there were 33 assenters and 22 refusers. (fn. 11) In
general, there can be no doubt that the introduction of the common council proved a
development of major significance in the history of York. It accomplished no instant
transformation: we shall, for example, observe that the Pilgrimage of Grace found the
commons still in a restive condition. Again, at the swearing-in of the mayor in February
1555, Thomas Bowes, a miller, and other ringleaders attempted to rouse the commons
and to prevent the swearing until the new mayor had granted certain requests. (fn. 12) But
for the common council, such unofficial leadership might indeed have occasioned far
uglier scenes. The new body played its part in procuring stabler relationships and its
ultimate success was to be warmly attested by Drake. (fn. 13)
The effective day-to-day administration nevertheless remained securely in the hands
of the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, and the 'twenty-four'. The attendance of the 'twentyfour' fluctuated greatly, (fn. 14) but it was unusual for more than half to come, and, over long
periods, a quarter or less normally attended. At most actual meetings the sheriffs and
aldermen outnumbered members of the 'twenty-four'; their preponderance was especially marked in the earlier half of the 16th century and the reign of Mary. An alderman
slack in his attendances might in fact find himself threatened with a heavy fine. (fn. 15)
Between 1520 and 1530 meetings unattended by a single one of the 'twenty-four'
amounted to nearly a quarter of the total; in the Elizabethan period the preponderance
of aldermen attending became less marked, and in the years 1576-8 the 'twenty-four'
actually showed a slight majority of attendances over those of the aldermen.
That privilege and responsibility should lie with an oligarchy of rich merchants and
tradesmen proved an inevitable fact of urban life. Exacting, expensive, and unpaid
public office could not be borne by small tradesmen and artisans; it was regarded as an
unenviable burden even by many substantial men, who avoided it by paying heavy
fines (fn. 16) and even by suffering disfranchisement or imprisonment. (fn. 17) Under Henry VIII
a certain John Smith was elected sheriff in five consecutive years, but refused to stand
and withdrew to Skipton (W.R.). At his death Smith's executors nevertheless became
liable to account to the king for the fee farm from the time of his first election, and they
paid it accordingly. (fn. 18) The salaried officials stood in a different position. The recorder
was usually a lawyer of eminence sprung from a county family and chosen from among
the city's feed counsel. He was appointed for life with an annual salary of 20 marks. (fn. 19)
The common clerk played an important and versatile part in civic administration,
assisted the recorder with legal business, and paid frequent official visits to London. (fn. 20)
For its M.P.s, York did not turn to the ambitious gentry, then becoming increasingly
conscious of the value of borough seats. (fn. 21) Of the 28 M.P.s in the period 1509-1603, no
fewer than 24 served the city also as both aldermen and mayors: a fact that testifies
eloquently to the extreme importance attached by the city to parliamentary activities.
Of the remaining four, Sir Thomas Gargrave was Vice-President and John Bennet,
LL.D., a member of the Council in the North, while Sir William Hilliard served also
as recorder. (fn. 22) Instructions to the M.P.s are exceptionally complete and voluminous
throughout the Tudor records, (fn. 23) which afford material for a whole treatise on the functions of burgesses. The irksome position of York members during a parliamentary
session is epitomized in a letter written by them in December 1584. 'But for our proceedings we have not done much to write unto you, for the time faileth so forth [is so
short], that those we have to do with all is of the Parliament house, and the days so very
short and so many bills put to committees that little is yet done. . . . We have put a bill
in to the Parliament for bringing in of fish and herrings, but it is committed and we
doubt it will hardly pass. Also we have drawn a charter by learned counsel, but yet it is
not finished; and for Mr. Morley, he is of the Parliament house and my Lord Treasurer
is sick and keepeth his chamber; so that we can make no end with them.' (fn. 24) So difficult
it must have been to convince those at home that parliament was not uniquely concerned
with York problems. And the corporation could prove extremely touchy over punctilios:
in 1563 it fined the M.P.s £5 apiece for failing to report to the mayor immediately on
their return, 'according to civility and ancient custom'. (fn. 25)
In York as elsewhere, city politics both inside and outside the council chamber were
frequently attended by altercation and insult. It was formally minuted in 1544 that 'none
of the said persons nor their successors at any time hereafter shall call any of his brethren, aldermen, sheriffs or any of the ["twenty-four"] knave or false knave nor none other
opprobrious or slanderous name'. (fn. 26) On the other hand, constant effort was forthcoming
to maintain the forbearances of civilized life and the outward dignity appropriate to
civic affairs. The office of lord mayor continued one of great authority and influence; its
holder moved about the city, even upon his daily concerns, with considerable pomp and
retinue. (fn. 27) Aldermen were forbidden to step outside their parishes without attendants
to wait upon them or without their tippets; whenever the mayor commanded, aldermen
and councillors had also to wear their scarlet and crimson gowns. (fn. 28) Historians would be
guilty of over-concentration upon abnormalities were they to depict the internal history
of Tudor York as a succession of chronic tensions, virulent quarrels, and public distrust. The evidence points rather toward a co-operative community which brought
forth many public-spirited men, retained the affection of its absent natives, (fn. 29) adapted
itself to some at least of the contemporary changes, and achieved an increasing degree of
internal harmony.