ROLL A 28
Mainprises of the time of Nicholas Exton, mayor
Membr. 1
15 July 1387
Giles Combmaker was mainprised by John Ridale and
John Marchal, tailors, Ralph Clopham, weaver, and Henry
Charles to keep the peace with John Combere, who was likewise mainprised by Simon Gardiner, John Hayne, John
Kempe and Laurence Folk.
31 July 1387
Brother Thomas Peverell of the order of the Carmelites
was mainprised by James Bilyngford and John Baldok,
upholder, for his appearance before the Mayor and Aldermen
on reasonable summons, under penalty of £100.
11 Sept. 1388
Richard Burnham, rector of the church of Holy Trinity
the Less, was mainprised by Roger Wilford and Roger Torgold
to keep the peace with Robert Lyndeseye, draper, who was
likewise mainprised by William Ketill, spurrier, and William
Shelbourne, haberdasher.
Membr. 1 b
5 Nov. 1386
John Keteryng, apprentice of Richard Virly, was committed to prison for non-payment of 8 marks, which he was
fined for divers trespasses against his master, as appears by
the bill and inquisition thereon, and also on account of
fornication in his master's house (fn. 1) , wherein judgment is still
to be given.
6 Nov. 1386
John Bradeley, leatherseller, was committed to prison for
20 marks, due on a bond to John Wells, in which he was
condemned. He was released on Good Friday (fn. 2) 1387 by
consent of the creditor.
Membr. 2
7 Nov. 1386
Bond of Henry Yevele (fn. 3) , mason and citizen of London, to
Maud Holbech and Stephen Speleman in 20 marks, that
neither he nor his brother, Richard Foun, would cause her
or her heirs or executors or the feoffees of her lands and tenements in the parishes of St Aldburgh in Bisshopesgatestrete,
St Martin Pomeres in Ismongerlane and St Peter in Bradstrete, any loss by suing on a recognisance which had been
made in Chancery to them by Henry atte Mersshe, former
tenant of the above-named properties.
14 Nov. 1386
Reciprocal quitclaims between Robert de Draycote, prior
of the hospital of St Mary within Cripplegate, and the convent
of the same on the one part, and John Cyfrewast, knight, and
Katerine his wife, formerly wife of the late Adam Stable,
mercer, on the other.
Membr. 2 b
25 Nov. 1386
Richard Haydok, John Andrew, Richard Pattesle, Thomas
Jevek, John Lucas, William Wittenhale, vintners of the west
(of Walbrook), and Thomas Hayward, Thomas Neel, John
Wakelee, Richard Cokham, Thomas Bette and John Wilyngham, vintners of the east, were sworn to make scrutiny of
wines and to pour out all such as they found corrupt and
unhealthy.
27 Jan. 1387
Acquittance from William Rasyn and Isabella Norable, his
wife (fn. 4) , daughter of Richard de Chaddeslee, to Richard Horn,
clerk, and Robert West, executors of Richard de Chaddeslee,
for the handing over of 100 marks, a small mazer with a
covercle of mazer, bound with silvergilt, four plain pieces
of silver of one set with a covercle to the same (fn. 5) and one second
best bed, which goods the said Richard left to Isabella
Norable for her marriage. Dated 22 Dec. 1386.
Membr. 3
21 Feb. 1387
Bond, reciting that Stephen Sewale, grocer, had been
merchant, factor and attorney of Geoffrey Crymelford,
grocer, during the time that he was the latter's apprentice,
and had entered into bonds on behalf of his master and himself at home and abroad, whereof he had rendered account
before Richard Hatfeld, Thomas Otteley, Richard Toky and
William Waddesworth, arbitrators appointed by the mayor,
when it was found that Geoffrey Crymelford had already
paid all that Stephen Sewale could claim against him. In
order that the master might have security against any further
claims arising from the apprentice's trading on his behalf,
the said Stephen, together with Sewale Hoddesdon and Robert
Sewale, fishmongers, and John Killom bind themselves in
£100 that Stephen will acquit his late master of all such
claims and will bring letters under the authentic seals of
Bruges and Middelburgh, witnessing by proclamation at
Middelburgh that he had given satisfaction to all those to
whom his master had been indebted by reason of his business
dealings, which could be verified by the law merchant,
during the time of the war between England and Flanders
and for the year ensuing, and further that he would indemnify
his master against any loss in the meantime. Dated 12 Feb.
1387.
Memorandum that Bernard Blessyng, merchant of Bohemia, had in the house of Walter Pouke the following goods:
600 white plates (albas platas) (fn. 6) , 50 long plates, 33 plates for
the breast, 4 barrels of wine called "galantwyn
(fn. 7) ," 5 barrels
of beer, one basenet
(fn. 8) , one long table with a pair of threelegged stools (cum part tripedum), one stool, one corndish,
one axe and a pewter pot, and that on 16 March he proved
these goods to be his own by (oath of) John Huwet and John
Mundam (fn. 9) , and that no one had any part therein to the value
of 4d, according to the custom of the city of London. And
accordingly the goods were delivered to him.
2 March 1387
Francis Vyncheguerre, merchant of Lucca, by John Hende,
his attorney, obtained judgment against Bartholomew de
Bosano, merchant of Lucca, for £47, arrears of £70 due on a
bond of 17 July 1374 and payable at Michaelmas the same
year, together with 13s 4d damages. The defendant was committed to prison. Afterwards on the same day John Hende
granted that he should have a day of payment and be delivered
from prison. Thereupon the said Bartholomew, together with
Richard Forster, entered into a recognisance for payment of
£27 13s 4d at Easter and £20 at Midsummer.
4 March 1387
Salomon Salomon, mercer, acknowledged receipt of a bale
of mercery, value £40, from John Chircheman and John Organ,
collectors of the king's custom of 12d the £ of merchandise
in the port of London, and undertook to save them harmless
for the space of a year against all claims concerning the
same.
Membr. 3 b
27 March 1387
Stephen Aphowell of Kaermerdyn (fn. 10) with other good men
of the same town came here and claimed to be quit of paying
custom in London. The payment of 2d the fardel (fn. 11) of cloth
as custom was put in suspense until Easter, in order that
the court might be advised in the meantime as to whether,
according to the charters of the king produced by them in
court, they were subject to the payment of such custom or
not.
Membr. 4
21 Jan. 1387
Robert Draycote, prior of the hospital of the Blessed Mary
of Elsyngspitel within Crepulgate, brought a bill of complaint
that he had let a tenement with sollars and other appurtenances
in the parish of our Lady atte Bowe for a year from Christmas
to Christmas to John Bradlee and Janyn his servant, and
that on Wednesday before Michaelmas they had cut down
and carried away, by force and arms, i.e. with axes, a counter
in a shop for drapery (fn. 12) , value 13s 4d; a pavement of Flaundrestill
(fn. 13) in a large chamber, 50s; a parclos
(fn. 14) of Estrichbord
(fn. 15) 13 feet
long in another chamber, 40s; 3 locks and 4 iron bolts,
3s 4d; another parclos in an entrance (en un huys) 24 feet
long standing in the said great chamber, 40s; a cuppebord
of Estrichbord for the parlour, 40d; a creste
(fn. 16) of Estrichbord
over the speer
(fn. 17) in the same parlour, 8d; and a rierdos
(fn. 18) of
Estrichbord 18 feet long, 13s 4d; all being fixtures (fn. 19) of the free
tenement of the said prior; and also a great quantity of
Maydeston stone to the value of 40s, which trespass they
continued until last Christmas, against the peace and the
ordinance made thereon, and to the damage of the prior £100.
[French]
The Mayor and Aldermen visited the tenement on 20
March and in the presence of the prior and the said Janyn,
who made no defence, found the bill to be true. It was
considered that the prior recover against the said Janyn the
sum of 10 marks. The same day, out of reverence for the
Mayor and Aldermen, the prior granted that if Janyn would
replace the Flemish tiles and clear away all the stinking dung,
rubbish and filth out of the tenement before Whitsuntide,
he would condone the 10 marks. For greater security John
Selton, tailor, and William Coventre, pinner, undertook to
perform these conditions if the said Janyn failed to do so.
Memorandum that judgment was not given against John
Bradlee, who did not appear, because he was in prison.
1 May 1387
Recognisance by Thomas Girdeler, citizen of London, to
pay John Hauley of Dartmouth, master of the "Seynt
Marie" of Dartmouth, for the freight of 86 tuns of red
Bordeaux wine at the rate of 27s a tun, the last payment to
be made before Michaelmas. [French]
22 Oct. John Hauley acknowledged satisfaction and the
recognisance was cancelled.
Membr. 4 b
24 April 1387
Memorandum that whereas Francis Wincheguerre of
Lucca bought from Lord de Neville certain tallies, with
which tallies he bought wool at Hull, and whereas Lord de
Neville suggested that this wool belonged to Matthew
Cheynyn of Florence, the Mayor and Aldermen, on the
petition of the said Matthew, summoned Bernard Antonii of
Florence, broker, to the Guildhall and asked him to tell all
he knew about the buying of the wool. The broker answered
on oath as follows: Lord de Neville sold these tallies of the
king; amounting to more than £400, to Francis Wincheguerre,
who asked the witness to take them to Hull and buy wool
with them to that value or beyond. Matthew Cheynyn,
hearing that he was going to Hull, also asked him to take a
king's tally of £100 and buy wool for him. When he arrived
in Hull, the king's customs-officer showed him some wool,
but would not strike a bargain because he was himself coming
to London in a fortnight and wanted to talk with the principals
about the bargain, so that the witness had his journey for
nothing. However, when the customs-officer came to London,
Francis Wincheguerre, by the witness' agency, bought from
him 30 sarplers of wool, 20 of one sort and 10 of another;
which amounted to far more than the value of the tallies,
whereupon he paid him the balance and everything was
settled. It was not true that the petitioner, Matthew
Cheynyn, had any part or share in this purchase of wool
from Walter Frost.
10 Dec. 1386
In an action for debt of £80 due on a bond of Robert de
Caunbrugge and William Palmere, executors of Henry Bever,
late rector of St Peter of Bradstret, against John Leveryngton,
in which the defendant made four defaults, his tenement in
the parish of St Stephen Colmanstret was delivered to the
plaintiffs as a foreign attachment to hold till the debt was
satisfied. A jury of twelve good men of the venue said that
the tenement was a brewhouse with three shops annexed of
a net annual value of £5 6s 8d, but that the premises were
ruinous and that the repairs would cost the first year's annual
value. The court allowed the first year's rent for repairs.
Membr. 5
9 May 1387
William Grevell of Campeden paid into court the sum of
20 marks which he owed to William Vale, fishmonger, for
two lasts
(fn. 20) of herrings.
14 Dec. 1387
Writ demanding the tenor of the will (fn. 21) of John Byker, late
artilleryman in the Tower, as enrolled in the Husting on
19 July 1361.
Membr. 5 b
9 July 1387
Memorandum that Richard Hatfeld, pepperer, demanded
against John Slegh, the king's butler (fn. 22) , the sum of 17 marks
for two tuns of wine, bought by the latter's servant Richard
Wellesbourne on 9 Feb. 1385. After four defaults the defendant sent the money on 9 July 1386 and asked that it
might be reserved in court till he could appear. Nevertheless
on 10 July it was delivered by order of the mayor and William
Cheyne, recorder, to the plaintiff, under mainprise of Geoffrey
Adam and John Clopton, pepperer, to answer therefor etc.
10 July 1387
Memorandum that Andrew Michel, Lombard, in the ninth
year of the present reign contributed £8 to a loan of £4000
to the king, which £8 William Grevel of Caumpeden arrested
in the hands of Richard Odyham, the chamberlain, in part payment of a larger sum owed to him by the said Andrew. The
money was delivered to William Grevel, in virtue of this arrest,
and the chamberlain went quit as regards the said Andrew.
27 Sept. 1387
Letter of attorney from John Proude, master and governor
of the ship "Katerine" of Dartmouth, to Thomas Girdeler
of London to receive from Ramon Monedeys, burgess of
Bordeaux, certain sums for freightage, which he had recovered
by proceedings in the Sheriffs' Court.
Cedula
The Common Council by wards in the time of Nicholas
Exton, mayor, in the tenth year of King Richard II.
[As in the preceding year, see p. 122, with the following
changes.]
Broad Street: John Clenaunt appears as "Clenhond."
Tower: John Norwych, woolman, vice Sprot.
Bridge: William Radewell, fishmonger, Richard Spenser,
tailor, and John Millyng, fishmonger, vice Burwell, Mokkyng
and Sandhurst.
Cordwainer Street: Fulk Horewod, grocer, William Culham,
grocer, and Thomas Hayward, vintner, vice Hoo, Hatfeld
and Dane.
Candlewick Street: John Walcote, draper, John Olneye,
woolman, and John Brownesbury, butcher, vice Spaldyng,
Horston and Gilet.
Langbourn: Thomas Noket, draper, vice Studele.
Bread Street: William Prest, mercer, and William Stapulte
vice Shiryngham and Scorfeyn.
Queenhithe: Thomas Frankeleyn vice Baret.
Farringdon: John Hille, mercer, John Cantoys, Thomas
Davy, goldsmith, John Walworth, vintner, and William
Savage, hostiller (excused), vice Louthe, Sechford, Thorp,
Pershore and atte Nax.
Aldersgate: Thomas Dancastre vice Twyford.
Cripplegate: John Forster, goldsmith, and William Larke,
painter, vice Loveye and Prince.
Bassishaw: Richard Burton vice Morys.
Membr. 6
7 Oct. 1387
Acquittance from Thomas Noket, citizen of London, John
Reche and Richard Palmer of Langedon to Aubrey de Veer,
knight, and William Tasburgh, chaplain, for the receipt of
£100 in part payment of a debt of 800 marks.
23 Oct. 1387
Quitclaim from Thomas Bonde, vicar of South Mymmes (fn. 23)
co. Middlesex, to John Symond, chandler, and Alice his wife,
widow of Robert Rotheley, chandler.
Membr. 6 b–7
13 Dec. 1387
This day William Prophet, mariner, of Westlenne, plaintiff,
offered himself against William Jay of Swynesheved (fn. 24) , merchant, who had this day by foreign attachment, according
to the custom of the city, in a plea of debt on demand of
£7 12s 6d. By his bill of complaint, the plaintiff alleged that
on 8 Oct. last at Wasshecrosse near Fossedyke (fn. 25) the defendant
freighted his ship " Seintemariebote" with 30 weys of salt
to be carried to London at 5s the wey, which salt the plaintiff
carried to London, where the defendant unloaded the greater
part of it without paying the plaintiff anything for the freight.
Accordingly he prayed that £7 12s 6d arising from the sale
of the salt might be arrested as a foreign attachment and
delivered to him according to the custom of the city, and he
produced the covenant between them dated 8 Oct.
The defendant having made four defaults, the plaintiff
prayed that John Wykes, the serjeant of the Chamber, who
had made and received the aforesaid sum out of the sale
of part of the salt, should pay it to him. Thereupon, according
to the custom, the plaintiff was put on oath as to how much
was really owed to him. He said the amount was as abovesaid,
but he had borrowed 40s from the defendant. Accordingly
it was considered that this sum should be deducted and that
the plaintiff receive £5 12s 6d. But as it was clear from the
indenture that the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff
for his freightage within seven days after he had tied up
in London, and if he failed to do so or to land the salt he
should after the seven days pay the plaintiff 3s 4d a day for
his expenses, and since the plaintiff had tarried with his ship
for ten further days, with his freight unpaid and with the
salt still not discharged, owing to the defendant's default, as
was testified by many witnesses, it was considered that he
receive 33s 4d more. The serjeant of the Chamber then paid
him the two amounts and he was mainprised by Edmund Bys
and Nicholas Brandon to restore it, if the defendant within
a year and a day submitted to justice and was able to prove
reasonably that he was not liable for the debt and damages.
Nicholas Brembre, knight, came before the mayor and
recorder and acknowledged the following writing to be his
deed: Grant from Nicholas Brembre to William Venour,
Henry Vanner, Edmund Halsted, Thomas Broun and John
Soles, citizens and merchants of London, of all his goods and
chattels, live and dead, of whatsoever kind and wherever
they might be, as well within the city as elsewhere this side
of or beyond the seas, to have and to hold to them, to do
and dispose thereof as their own goods without any reclamation or condition whatsoever. Sealed with the donor's seal
and given in London on 15 Oct. 1387 (fn. 26) .
30 July 1386
Adam Fraunceys, knight, appeared before the Mayor and
Aldermen on 30th July 1386 and prayed that it might be
recorded that on 17 June, at Barton-on-Humber co. Yorks,
thieves broke into his room in John Davy's inn and stole two
coffers belonging to him, in which were his seal, bearing his
arms and the words "sigillum Ade Fraunceys," divers sums of
money in gold and silver and certain jewels, and that he
repudiated all bonds and other documents which might be
sealed with his seal after that date.
Membr. 7 b
29 Jan. 1388
William, son of John Algate of St Albans, who had been
apprenticed on 24 June 1380 for ten years to Roger Streyt,
ironmonger, complained by bill that his master in Dec. 1386
went to Middelburgh in Zeeland and immediately afterwards
his goods in England were arrested and sold for the benefit
of his creditors, so that the complainant received no instruction, food or clothing and had become a vagabond, contrary
to the good customs of the city, wherefore he prayed to be
released from his apprenticeship.
The Mayor and Aldermen sent for Robert Parys and Robert
Havelok, masters of the mistery of Ironmongers, who said
on oath that the master had no shop in London after Dec.
1386 and did not provide for his apprentice. Afterwards the
Mayor and Aldermen, hearing that John Grove, armourer,
was attorney of the said master in England, sent for him in
order to have fuller information. He admitted the truth of
the complaint but opposed the exoneration on the ground
that the apprentice had not rendered account. To this the
apprentice replied that he had given security by a bond in £600
from himself, John Marchal and John Algate to render account,
which bond John Grove had accepted. Evidence was given that
he had gone to his master in Middelburgh to make the account,
but his master refused to receive it. On the above facts, it was
considered by the court that the complainant be exonerated
from his apprenticeship and be allowed to serve whom he would.
14 Feb. 1388
Adam de St Ives reported to the mayor and recorder that
he had put a seal engraved with his arms in a room of his
house near the Stokkes (fn. 27) and about a fortnight before Christmas, when he went to get it, he found that it had been
removed and he could not find it. He prayed that the matter
be recorded so that he should not be responsible for any
deeds sealed with the seal after that date.
Whereas a bill was brought before the Mayor and Aldermen
by John Burwell, claiming from Nicholas Horne 86 tuns and
one pipe of Rochelle wine, the mayor appointed Thomas
Gurdeler, Thomas Newton, John Vatote and Richard Toky
as arbitrators. They awarded that as regards 78 tuns of the
wine, which Nicholas Home had sold at Middelburgh, he
ought to pay John Burwell the sum of £42 12s 6d gros, which
amounted in sterling, counting the noble at 7s 10d gros, to
£36 5s 2d (fn. 28) . As regards the remaining 8 tuns and one pipe,
which were then in Middelburgh in the custody of John
Laward and Thomas Dove, they ought to be sold and the
proceeds divided, John Burwell receiving five-eighths and
Nicholas Horne three-eighths. But as regards a further
amount of £17 18s ¾d, which John Burwell claimed from
Nicholas Horne as his contribution towards the expenses of
takelyng, victuals and wages of the masters and mariners
of a ship called "la Cristofre" of London, in which they were
partners, the arbitrators would not make any award without
the aid of merchants cognisant of the facts. [French]
Membr. 8
31 Jan. 1388
Precept was issued to William Venour and Hugh Fastolf,
sheriffs, to bring before the Mayor and Aldermen at the
Guildhall on 31 Jan. 1388 the bodies of Roger Wygemor,
John Donyngton, draper, Robert Lyndeseye, tailor, and
William Sheryngham to answer concerning divers evildoings
and misprisions whereof they were indicted, and also twelve
good and lawful men of their bailiwick, not of the affinity
of the said Roger etc., to make delivery of the same and
further to fulfil those things which should be required of
them by the court according to the law and custom of the
city. On which day the said Roger came by William Sheryngham his attorney and the said John, Robert and William in
their proper persons. And the said indictment was seen by
the court, whereof the tenor follows in these words: Inquest
taken at Guildhall on Monday (16 Sept. 1387) (fn. 29) after the feast
of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Ao ii Ric. II before
Nicholas Exton, mayor, William More and William Standon,
sheriffs, and William Cheyne, recorder, to inquire who were
maintainers, advisers or in any way guilty of the evil misprisions lately committed against the king and the condition
and governance of the city by John Northampton, John More,
Richard Norbury and William Essex and also to inquire concerning the goods and chattels of the same John, John,
Richard and William and of Peter Mildenhale, which jurors
said upon their oath that Roger Wygemor, John Maudeleyne,
Robert Riseby, John Donyngton, draper, William Norton,
Robert Lyndeseye, tailor, John Chedder, mercer, William
Sheryngham and John Vyne, mercer, were maintainers,
advisers and helpers, for the more part, in all the evils and
misprisions done against Nicholas Brembre, knight, late
mayor of London, the sheriffs, aldermen and governance of
the city, and as regards any goods and chattels of John
Norhampton etc. they say they know nothing thereof, nor
do they make any presentment. In witness whereof the jurors
to this inquest have set their seals.
And because the said indictment made no mention of a
certain time or place and thus was of no force at law, the said
John Donyngton etc. were told by the court that they were
not bound to answer the indictment, and if it were of any
force, they could exonerate themselves by the king's letters
patent whereby he pardoned to his liege men of London and
each of them and the whole commonalty of London—except
those who were adjudged to be convicted of the discord and
dissension in the city, and others who had withdrawn themselves outside the city for the said causes and hitherto had not
returned to their obedience and to surrender to the peace,
whose names were exhibited in the king's chancery to be
entered of record—the suit of his peace which pertains to
him for all treasons, felonies, insurrections, trespasses, conspiracies, confederacies, leagues and all other misprisions
against his royal majesty within the city before the date of
his letters patent, whereof any, being indicted or accused,
had not been convicted or might in future be indicted or
accused, and granted his sure peace to them in the premises,
which letters patent were dated 22 June Ao 9 (1385).
The said John Donyngton etc. said they did not wish to
seek any benefit from the above letters and craved leave to
answer the indictment, whereupon they were severally charged
and pleaded not guilty and put themselves for good or ill
upon the country. A jury of John Colshull and his fellows,
being sworn and charged, found them not guilty. Accordingly
it was considered that they go quit thereof; and because it
seemed to the court that the indictment was of no force nor
was anyone bound to answer to it by law, it was considered
that no process be made on it against John Maudeleyne,
Robert Riseby, William Norton, John Chedder, mercer, and
John Vyne, mercer, who were likewise named in it. And it
was agreed that the indictment be so endorsed.
Membr. 8 b
2 May 1388
Quitclaim from Peter Porter, goldsmith, of Malyns (fn. 30) in
Brabant, to Sir John de Sproxston, parson of the church of
Groundesburgh (fn. 31) co. Suffolk, of all actions, real and personal,
suits, plaints and demands from the beginning of the world
to the present day.
Membr. 9
22 Jan. 1388
Alice, widow of John Coterell and executrix of his will,
was summoned, on a bill of John Body and Joan his wife,
to bring into court the sum of £100 and the third part of the
residue of the goods of the said John Coterell. In the bill
the plaintiffs alleged that the said John by his will of 23 July
1349 left £40 to his son Thomas, £20 to his son John and
£40 to his daughter Joan, now plaintiff, with a proviso that
if any died under age their share was to be divided among the
others, and that he also left a third part of the residue of his
goods to the said children and the wardship of the children
to their stepmother Alice, the defendant. Afterwards Thomas
died aged two years and John aged three years, and accordingly
their shares fell in to Joan.
The defendant pleaded that Geoffrey Colewelle and others
were also appointed executors, that the goods came into the
hands of the said Geoffrey, and that she herself neither
received nor administered them.
The plaintiffs answered that Geoffrey was the testator's
apprentice and continued as Alice's apprentice for seven years
and that together they administered the goods in the parish
of St Pancras.
On this issue a jury of the venue, which was summoned
for 2 May 1388, brought in a verdict that the defendant, as
executrix, administered the goods. Therefore it was considered that she be committed to prison because she had not
the money at hand to pay, there to remain until she brought
in the sum of £100 and found security to answer for the
third part of the residue. No damages were given as the
plaintiffs demanded none in their bill.
Membr. 9 b
2 June 1388
Protection and safe conduct for a year under letters patent,
dated at Westminster 2 June 1388 and addressed to all and
singular admirals, captains, castellans and their lieutenants,
wardens of the ports and other maritime places, sheriffs,
mayors, constables, bailiffs, ministers and all other faithful
lieges and subjects constituted as well by land as by sea, in
favour of Matthew Cenyng (fn. 32) of Florence, merchant, giving
him permission to enter, travel in and leave the country,
together with his merchandise, and exempting him from all
prosecutions for any past offences.
20 June 1388
Acquittance from Guydo de Bryene to Bartholomew de
Bosano for the receipt of £2000 sterling due on a statute
merchant.
Membr. 10
28 Jan. 1387
Thomas Haukere, ironmonger, brought a bill of complaint
before the Mayor and Aldermen against Edmund Olyver,
stockfishmonger, reciting that John Northampton, son of
John Northampton of Lincoln, became his apprentice for a
term of 12 years at midsummer 1382, and that the said
Edmund as surety undertook to make good any damage done
by him, and that on 20 Oct. 1386 he sent the apprentice to
Middelburgh in Zeeland to receive from Thomas atte Hoke,
the plaintiff's attorney, the sum of £90 and to bring the
money or its value in merchandise to London by a ship
sailing from the town of Ver, called Caunfer (fn. 33) , but the
apprentice, having received the money on 9 Dec. 1386, left
his service the next day and departed to some place unknown,
though he might have had passage in many ships sailing from
Caunfer to London; and accordingly the plaintiff claimed
damages of £200 from the said Edmund in accordance with
the law merchant. [French]
The defendant appeared on 13 Feb. and a day was given
him on 30 July, that he might in the meantime make inquiries
among merchants trading at Middelburgh. On that day the
parties chose arbitrators, John Walcote and Richard Wyllesdon, on behalf of the plaintiff, and Thomas Girdlere and
Richard Toky, on behalf of the defendant, to give an award
on 19 Dec.
Before that date, however, a certain William Brampton
came into court with a bill, in which he stated that he had
been chosen umpire, because the arbitrators could not agree,
and that he had come into the Chamber of the Guildhall on
17 Dec. to give an award as regards one part of the dispute,
his award being that a certain letter under the great seal
of the Staple of Middelburgh, which had been delivered to
Thomas Hoke, the plaintiff's attorney, by William Brampton,
governor of the Staple, should be annulled and cancelled,
because it had been issued only to establish a right over the
apprentice and not to prejudice any proceedings in England,
and thereupon the letter had been handed over to Henry
Perot, clerk of the Guildhall (fn. 34) , to be destroyed, and that
further he had adjudged that no plea should be begun till
Easter, the matter remaining in his hands meanwhile, since
he intended either to appear personally then or to send a
final award under his seal. [French]
Membr. 10 b
As the said William Brampton did not send his award at
Easter, the plaintiff craved leave to proceed to a plea. But
the court, wishing to know whether he had made a definite
award or not, and considering that a letter from Middelburgh
might easily have been delayed by contrary winds or other
causes, wrote to him a letter under the mayoralty seal [French]
on 11 April 1388, urging him to send the award. To this he
replied by a letter dated at Middelburgh on 20 May, excusing
himself for not attending in London, because he was unable
to come, and stating that the apprentice, John Northampton,
had arrived in Middelburgh without any merchandise, gold
or silver, except his bare expenses, and while there he had
neither bought nor sold anything nor made any exchanges,
as was clear from the evidence of merchants and from a
search which he had made in the books where such exchanges
were registered, but that all such exchanges had been made
by the plaintiff's attorney, Thomas Hoke—the days, months,
years and terms of payment all being duly entered in the
registers. Accordingly he found the boy not guilty of what
was surmised against him by his master, namely, that he had
received so great a sum of money, for it was well known that
Thpmas Haukere had no merchandise on that voyage to
Middelburgh except a fardel of cloth which was not worth
£20, and Thomas Hoke told the writer that he could not
sell it for any sum of money so large as was alleged. Further,
as to whether the boy made his journey by command of his
master or of the attorney, or whether he was dead or alive
or what had become of him, the writer could not gain any
certainty or information from the inquiries he had made,
but he knew that many English merchants, whom God
assoil, had within the last two years been drowned and had
lost their lives on the journey between England and Zeeland
and in the straits of Holland. Accordingly, taking all these
matters into consideration, he gave as his final award that
the defendant, Edmund Olyver, be quit of all claims from
the plaintiff, saving to the latter the right of proceeding against
the boy, if, which God grant, he were still alive. The writer
begged the Mayor and Aldermen not to be displeased by his
delay in answering, which had been caused by a long wait
at Orewell on his passage out and much business on his
arrival at Middelburgh. [French]
On receipt of this letter, the Mayor and Aldermen ordered
the parties to be summoned for 2 July, on which day the
plaintiff did not come and the defendant prayed that the
award be enrolled.
Membr. 11
12 June 1388
Simon Broun, son of the late Robert Broun of London,
was attached to answer John Bishop, mercer, and Katerine
his wife, in a plea of contempt and trespass, in that he took
service with the said Katerine, when she was sole, on 29 Dec.
1374 for seven years, receiving food and clothing as his wages,
and left on 18 April 1375 without permission or reasonable
cause, contrary to the ordinance (fn. 35) of the king and his council
that any servant so leaving his service before the end of the
contract should incur the penalty of imprisonment, whereby
the plaintiff had damage £10.
The defendant pleaded that long before 29 Dec. 1374 he
became apprentice of a certain John Aunger, bottlemaker,
for eight years, and that on that date his master sold the unexpired portion of his apprenticeship to the said Katerine
without his consent (fn. 36) and gave her the counterpart of his
indentures, which was against the custom of the city, since
the plaintiff was not a freewoman either then or at any time
during his apprenticeship and had no trade in the city,
whereby he might be made a freeman, and the plaintiff, thus
being seised of him as an apprentice by colour of the said
sale, set him to minding horses outside the liberty of the city
and gave him no instruction in his trade; and it was for this
reason that he left her service, as he was entitled to do, for
at no time did he make any covenant to serve her. He
offered to verify his pleading and demanded judgment.
The plaintiffs answered that the defendant of his own free
will agreed to serve the said Katerine, which the defendant
again denied, whereupon both parties put themselves on the
country. On 26 June a jury of the venue of the parish of
St Bride said on oath that the defendant made no agreement
with the plaintiff Katerine and entered her service in no
other way than by colour of the sale of the apprenticeship.
Therefore it was considered that the plaintiffs take nothing
by their bill, but be in mercy and that the defendant go quit
thereof.
Membr. 11 b
18 July 1388
Writ, dated at Westminster 14 July 1388. Whereas the
merchants of the cities of London and Norwich and the
boroughs of Lenne, Great Yernemuth, St Botolph (fn. 37) and
Kyngeston-on-Hull had complained that the men of Lubik,
Rustok, Wissemere, Sounde (fn. 38) and Hamburgh in Almaine had
arrested their servants and goods in the town of La Sounde,
threatening to keep them in prison and their goods under
arrest until they received redress for certain alleged wrongs
done to them on the sea and elsewhere by Englishmen,
whereof the said merchants were innocent, the king commands the mayor and sheriffs of London to arrest all the
men, goods and merchandise of the towns of Lubik, Rustok,
Wissemere, Sounde and Hamburgh and other parts of
Almaine, being in the port of London or elsewhere within
their bailiwick or district, and to detain them until they find
sufficient security not to depart from the country without
leave and to answer such charges as may be made against them
on behalf of the king or the said merchants.
By virtue of this writ the following merchants of Almaine (fn. 39) ,
Hermann Vynthorp, Frawyn Stupyn, Conerad de Ulpey,
Bernard van Lune, Henry Smytman, Andrew Kilmere,
Broun Dycof, William van Borne, Herri Meyresbek, John
Knyghtkyn, Hilbrond Isplyngrote, Nicholas Lure, Frawyn
Balke, Albert Clippyng, John Wystrete, John Espenkethe,
Bernard Mekelynghous and Nicholas Paternostermaker,
appeared in Guildhall and were mainprised by John Shadeworth and other citizens to appear before the chancellor on
his next arrival in London or before others of the king's
council, and further to save the mayor and sheriffs harmless
by reason of their delivery.
Afterwards came a writ exonerating the merchants and
their sureties, which was enrolled in the roll of Nicholas
Twyford's mayoralty.
20 Sept. 1388
Writ, dated at Cantebrigg (fn. 40) 20 Sept. 1388. Whereas it had
been granted by the king's predecessors to the merchants
of the Hanse of Almaine that they should not be arrested
for debts in which they were not sureties or principals or for
trespasses committed by others, and recently the king had
ordered that the merchants and goods of Lubik etc. in London
should be arrested, nevertheless the king, in consideration
of the above liberties and because Hermann Vynthorpe, John
Pape, William de Borne, Hermann Husman and Mathias
Walkemole had entered into a pledge before the king and his
council that English merchants at Lubik, Rustok, Wissemere
and Hamburgh should come and go freely without molestation, commands that the Hanse merchants be allowed to go
at large with their goods. By the council.
And because this writ did not seem sufficient to the Mayor
and Aldermen, the merchants were told to obtain another
writ. Afterwards in the mayoralty of Nicholas Twyford,
knight, they brought another writ (fn. 41) , and they and their mainpernors were then exonerated.
Membr. 12,13 and cedula
A list of 490 aldermen and citizens under their respective
wards, and 93 rectors, vicars and curates, who took the oath
before Nicholas Exton, mayor, and the sheriffs, according
to a writ and cedula entered in Letter Book H, fo. 228. A note
that the names of lay citizens followed one after another,
with no mention of their wards, in the return which accompanied the writ and cedula to Chancery.
[The oath, given in Letter Book H, had been taken by
those attending parliament on 3 June 1388 and pledged them
not to suffer the acts recently passed to be repealed. The writ
requiring the aldermen and chief men of the city to take the
oath was issued next day, 4 June.]
Membr. 14
1 July 1388
Henry Derby, ironmonger, was summoned to answer
William Avenell, son of Giles Avenell of London, in a plea
of covenant, wherein the latter complained that he became
apprentice in Feb. 1382 to the defendant, who turned him
away last Christmas, saying he wanted no more of his service,
and this was without reasonable cause and not owing to any
demerit of the plaintiff, in consequence of which he received
no food, clothing or teaching and had heavy charges in
keeping himself, since he could not take service with any one
else, wherefore he prayed to be exonerated from his apprenticeship and to be reimbursed for his expenses, according to
the custom of the city.
On the master's denying these allegations, a jury of the
parish of St Botolph by Billingsgate found for the plaintiff
and assessed damages at 6s 8d. Therefore it was considered
that the said William be exonerated from his apprenticeship
and recover the damages taxed by the jury.
6 July 1388
Letters patent of Sir Guy de Bryene, knight, testifying
that; whereas a certain John Grede sued a writ of scire facias
against him returnable on the octave of St John the Baptist
concerning his manor of Haselbere (fn. 42) co. Dorset, in order to
defend his estate he had searched in his treasury in his
manor of Rammesham (fn. 43) and in several other places for the
muniments relating to the said manor and could not find
them, and that, having a great suspicion that they had been
taken away in a box by his son William to his (Guy's) house
in London, he had, on his coming to London, of his own
accord and without any suggestion from others, broken into
the box on 30 June 1388 and there found fines, charters and
other documents relating to the manor aforesaid and several
others of his manors, which muniments he took away with
him, leaving in the box such muniments as concerned his
son's own lands and tenements. He issues these letters patent
to explain his action, for which no one was responsible but
himself. Sealed with his seal on 6 July 1388. [French]
Membr. 14 b
18 Sept. 1388
Bargain, and sale by Roger Brymmor, grocer, to John
Weneton, fishmonger, and William Romesseie, tailor, of three
quarters of a craier called "le Andrew" of Dertemouth with
the proportion of rigging belonging thereto. Dated at London
23 June 1388. [French]
5 Sept. 1388
Letter of attorney from John Cook, chaplain, to Richard
Odyham, chamberlain of the Guildhall, and Sir John Leicestre,
chaplain, to demand moneys due on letters of exchange from
Angel Cristopher and Peter Mark and their partners, Lombards.
2 Oct. 1388
In a dispute between Ralph Node, spurrier, and his late
apprentice, Simon Hobbe, who complained that his master
had not instructed him sufficiently in his trade, the arbitrators,
Simon Winter, goldsmith, Simon Abraham, girdler, John
Stafford, pinner, and Edward Law, junior, glover, awarded
that the apprentice remain with his master for a further
period and receive pay at the rate of 60s the year and his
food and drink, and that the master make him free of the
city as soon as he had learnt his trade and had paid 20s.
[French]
Membr. 15
6 May 1387
Memorandum that on 6 May 1387 John Banham, late
apprentice and servant of Thomas Austyn, mercer, came
before the Mayor and Aldermen and complained that his
master had sued him in the Sheriffs' Court for £500, and
though he did not owe that sum he agreed to judgment on
the promise of his master that all previous accounts between
them should be satisfactorily settled, but when he was committed to prison for the debt his master allowed him to
remain there, wherefore he prayed that the Mayor and
Aldermen would appoint auditors and permit him to render
account.
The Mayor and Aldermen, wishing to do justice between
the parties, summoned the master before them. He said that
he had made no such promise, but for his good name he would
agree to the appointment of certain mercers as auditors to
hear an account out of court, so long as the sheriffs' judgment
was allowed to stand, and he promised to recover from the
complainant only what the auditors should award. Afterwards by consent of the parties William Sheryngham, John
Loveye, John Ottele and Robert Guphay, mercers, were
elected and having heard the complainant's account produced
their award in court on 8 Oct. 1387 as follows:
The said Thomas Austyn having discharged John Banham
of rendering account for the period between Christmas 1382
and Christmas 1384 and having agreed to accept the oath
and hand of John Hore, another of his servants, for the
ensuing year, and the latter having given evidence, the
auditors awarded that John Banham be quit for all receipts
from his master during these three years, but that he ought
to remain liable for any debts arising out of loans made by
him. [French]
The parties again appeared on 29 Nov. 1387, Thomas
Austyn, who had been committed to prison on divers accusations of the complainant and John Hore, having been liberated
and being now on mainprise. All papers and memoranda were
read relating to the three years for which the account had
been taken and for the half year during which the complainant
had served Thomas Austyn in his shop. It was found that
£110 was owed to the latter by divers persons for goods sold
to them by John Banham. Thereupon Thomas Austyn said
he would give the said John a sufficient warrant to recover
these debts, but he would not himself assume any responsibility. If, however, any acquittances were given or moneys
received by him or his agents, he would make allowance for
them. He was also willing, if the said John would find
security for paying the sum of £110 by instalments, that the
sheriffs should discharge him from prison, and he would
give him an acquittance for all debts except the sum of £110.
Afterwards, when the said Thomas himself was delivered
from prison, he received from the chamberlain the sum of
£6 6s 8d which John Cartere of St Albans had paid.