Borough
The medieval borough of Stratford
belonged, with the manor, to the Bishops
of Worcester. In 1196 Bishop John de
Coutances obtained from Richard I the grant of a
weekly market here and, according to Dugdale, he
thereupon granted to the burgesses the inheritance of their
burgages at a quit rent of 12d.
together with an allotment to each
burgage of land measuring 12 by
3½ perches, and freedom from toll,
according to the customs of Bristol (fn. 1) (or, as seems more probable,
of Breteuil). (fn. 2) In 1252 there were
about 240 burgage tenements in
the borough, mostly held at the
rent of 12d. (fn. 3) In 1331 Robert
de Stratford, then rector of Stratford, obtained for the bailiffs and
good men a grant of pavage for
four years, (fn. 4) and this was renewed in 1334. (fn. 5)
Borough of Strat-ford-on-Avon. Or a cheveron azure between three leopards' heads gules.
The borough officials in the 15th century were the
bailiff, the two sub-bailiffs, or catchpolls, the two constables, and the two ale-tasters, all of whom were
annually elected in the Bishop's Court. The earliest
reference to the bailiff of Stratford occurs in 1232,
when he was ordered to assist the king's purveyors. (fn. 6)
The office of sub-bailiff was in existence by 1295, (fn. 7)
but no record of the constables or ale-tasters has
survived earlier than 1452. (fn. 8) The only evidence of the
working of this system is provided by a Star Chamber
case which arose out of a riot at the bailiff's election
in 1504. (fn. 9) The three ringleaders were accused of
breaking into the court house, refusing to accept the
choice of a bailiff made by the leet jury, and detaining
the court by threat of force until 10 o'clock at night.
They replied that whereas the jury which elected the
officers had been wont to consist of twelve of the most
substantial inhabitants, John Elys, the bishop's deputy
steward, had caused it to be made up of inferior persons,
some of them even servants; and that when even this
packed jury had failed to agree on the choice of one of
the bailiffs, he had upon his own authority proclaimed
the new officers as if they had been regularly and
unanimously elected.
The Gild or Fraternity of the Holy Cross was
already in existence in 1269 when Bishop Giffard
granted a licence to the brethren to build a chapel and
to found a hospital, which he committed to the protection of his bailiffs of Stratford. (fn. 10) The gild, which
was refounded in 1403, became of great importance
and in the 15th century probably included all the more
important townsmen. At the Michaelmas leet of
1452, (fn. 11) for example, all the jurors and all the officers
elected were members of the gild and all of them
except the two ale-tasters served at some time as
masters, proctors, or aldermen. From this time, with
increasing frequency, an alderman of the gild was
elected bailiff, and in several years the sub-bailiffs also
served as proctors. (fn. 12) In early Tudor times the bridge
wardens, whose relation to the gild has already been
discussed, constituted yet a third authority within the
borough.
The college was dissolved in 1539 and the gild in
1547, and about February 1553 the inhabitants of
Stratford petitioned the Crown to be allowed to
purchase their confiscated property. (fn. 13) The result of
this petition was the first charter of incorporation,
granted a few months later.
The purpose of the charter of 28 June 1553 (fn. 14) was
to ensure the continuance both of the privileges which
the inhabitants had enjoyed in virtue of grants made
to the gild and of the functions—the payment of the
vicar and schoolmaster and the maintenance of the
almshouses—which the gild had hitherto discharged.
The inhabitants were therefore incorporated under the
name of the Bailiff and Burgesses of Stratford-uponAvon with perpetual succession, power to make by-laws,
and a common seal. The Common Council was to
consist of 28 members—14 Aldermen and 14 Capital
Burgesses—one of whom was to be annually elected
as Bailiff. The aldermen, and one of their number as
the first bailiff, were named in the charter and they
were to choose the second company from among the
'better and more discreet' inhabitants. There was no
property qualification, nor any minimum length of
residence. Aldermanic vacancies were to be filled up
by the aldermen from among the capital burgesses, but
the elections of future capital burgesses and of the
bailiff and other officers were to be made by the whole
chamber. Aldermen and capital burgesses were equally
eligible to serve as bailiff, though an alderman was invariably chosen. (fn. 15) The consent of the Duke of
Northumberland and of 'his Heirs and Assigns, lords of
the Borough' was, however, necessary before the bailiff
could be sworn into office.
The bailiff was to be king's escheator, coroner,
almoner, and clerk of the market, and, together with one
of the aldermen who was to be chosen annually, acted
as justice of the peace within the borough. The
corporation was also granted return of all writs issued
by the sheriff of the county; a court of record to be
held fortnightly before the bailiff with jurisdiction in
personal actions up to £30; a weekly market and two
fairs with courts of piepowder and stallage, piccage and
all other profits thereto appertaining; and the right to
elect two serjeants-at-mace and such constables and
other inferior officers as had hitherto been chosen by
the court leet.
The property granted to the corporation consisted
of portions of the former estates of the gild and the
college. The first, of the annual value of £46 3s. 2½d.,
comprised all the property of the gild in Stratford,
Wilmcote, Shottery, Bridgetown, Dodwell and Drayton, the Gild Chapel, and the great and small tithes of
Wilmcote. The college estate, worth £34 annually,
consisted of the great tithes of Old Stratford, Welcombe,
and Bishopton, and the lesser tithes of the whole parish
of Stratford. In addition, the bailiff and burgesses
received licence in mortmain to the yearly value of
200 marks. These annual revenues of some £80 were
chargeable with recurring payments amounting to
about £67 a year: £20 each as stipends to the vicar and
schoolmaster, £2 for the tenths of the vicarage, £10 to
an assistant minister, and 4d. a week to each of the 24
almspeople. The corporation was also to provide
houses for the vicar and the schoolmaster and to
maintain the almshouses and the grammar school in
repair. The nomination of the vicar and the schoolmaster was reserved to the Duke of Northumberland.
The charter of 1553, which remained the governing
charter until 1610, marks rather a transitional stage,
for Elizabethan Stratford retained many of the features
of a manorial borough. The most obvious is the veto
reserved to the lord of the manor on the nomination of
the bailiff. After 1554, when the manor and borough
escheated to the Crown on Northumberland's attainder,
the legality of this veto was open to question, for it was
doubtful whether it passed to subsequent grantees
without a special clause in their patents. (fn. 16) In practice
it was a mere formality. On the first Wednesday in
September the corporation nominated three persons,
from whom one was elected bailiff by a majority vote;
and then submitted the three names to the lord of the
manor before swearing day. (fn. 17) Sir Edward Greville
in 1592 and again in 1601 threatened to withhold his
consent, (fn. 18) but did not proceed with his claim. In 1601
Coke as Attorney-general gave his opinion in favour
of the corporation, (fn. 19) who thereupon allowed the
custom to lapse entirely. (fn. 20)
The grant of corporate privileges left unimpaired
the existing manorial system of government. After
1553 there were two authorities in the borough, the
new common council and the court leet. The first book
of orders of the corporation, made in 1557, (fn. 21) provides
that the common council shall meet monthly and that
there shall be two great Leets or Law Days, on the
Wednesday after Michaelmas and the Wednesday after
Low Sunday. (fn. 22) The leet during the first few years
was responsible for the general administration, the
common council, perhaps, concerning itself rather with
the management of the corporate property. It was in
the leet also that the bailiff and other officers were
elected and sworn. The close connexion between the
two is shown in the form of the records: the court rolls
of the leet are generally headed 'Visus franci plegii
cum curia et sessione Pacis', (fn. 23) an indication that the
bailiff and chief aldermen were present as justices of
the peace. The leet records continue down to 1560.
The next roll of 'The Court ther holden' on 4 May
1561 (fn. 24) includes no names of jurors, but the proceedings
are much the same. The court roll form is also retained
for the meeting on 6 October 1563, (fn. 25) which is the first
to be described as a 'Hall', and to be entered in the
Council Book. From 1564 (fn. 26) onwards the proceedings
of the chamber are always recorded in the form of
minutes.
This disappearance of the leet early in Elizabeth's
reign is probably connected with the grant of the
manor about that time to the Earl of Warwick. The
charter makes no mention of the right to hold a leet,
so that the leet as constituted by the order of 1557 was
presumably held by the sufferance of the Crown, in
whose hands the manor then was. The earl would
naturally resume his right (fn. 27) and the Lord's Leet no
doubt continued to be held, as it was certainly being
held in the 17th century. (fn. 28) As a result of the change,
the functions of the corporation were inevitably
extended; and matters such as the assize of bread and
the admission of strangers into the town are henceforth
regulated by orders in the council books. But with all
this administrative growth, the judicial powers of the
corporation remained confused and anomalous. Hence,
at the end of the 16th century there arose a new demand
for a borough court leet. (fn. 29)
The only criminal jurisdiction conferred by the
charter was that of the bailiff and chief alderman as
Justices of the Peace. Their powers, however, were
open to question. The charter made no mention of the
right to hold Quarter Sessions, though the corporation
obtained counsel's opinion in their favour on this point (fn. 30)
and, at least from 1602 onwards, a court described as
Quarter Sessions was being held before the bailiff and
chief alderman with a jury of presentment partly composed of members of the common council. (fn. 31) Coke
nevertheless gave it as his opinion in 1601 that the
borough justices might 'only deale wth matters wch
tend to the breach of the peace'. (fn. 32)
For the corporation, the most troublesome effect of
these anomalies was to deprive them of any clear right
to collect fines and enforce their orders by imprisonment.
Their power to make by-laws was defined in the
charter in general terms;—for the government of the
common council, the preservation of the revenues, and
other matters touching the affairs of the borough,
though they defended their exercise of it on the ground
of their having inherited the customary powers of the
court leet. (fn. 33) In the execution of such by-laws they
were impeded not only by the doubtful status of their
justices in Quarter Sessions, but also by the fact that
the jurisdiction of their court of record was limited to
personal actions only. Especially inconvenient was the
lack of any effective means of punishing members of the
corporation themselves for wilful obstruction or refusal
of office—offences more serious in the 16th century
than in later and more settled times.
In many other ways, direct or indirect, the charter
of 1553 limited the power of the corporation; the
boundaries of the borough were still so restricted as to
exclude even the parish church; the profits of the
escheatorship and other offices with which the bailiff
was invested remained with the Crown, and he was
obliged to certify them to the Assizes; the profits of
markets and fairs, which the corporation were entitled
to receive, did not, without special words, include the
right of taking toll; nor was there any grant of pontage,
though the charter implied liability for the repair of the
bridge.
In October 1590 (fn. 34) the corporation petitioned the
Lord Treasurer for the nomination of the vicar and
schoolmaster and an additional fair, and offered, for
these and other franchises, a fee-farm rent of £5 a year. (fn. 35)
The petition speaks of the town as 'now fallen much
into decay for want of such trade as heretofore they had
by clothinge and makeinge of yarn', and according to a
petition of 1601 there were in the borough no less than
700 poor. (fn. 36) The last years of Elizabeth were marked
by general depression, which was accentuated in Stratford by the two disastrous fires of 1594 and 1595.
In 1597 therefore the corporation petitioned again for
a renewal of their charter and, in particular, for a
remission of subsidies. Richard Quyney, one of the
aldermen and a friend of Shakespeare's, went to London
to plead their case. His sojourns in London, from
October 1597 to February 1598 and again from
October 1598 to February 1599, were the occasion of
the well-known correspondence with his brother-in-law
Abraham Sturley in Stratford, which gives a valuable
picture of the life of the borough in Shakespeare's
time. (fn. 37) The parliamentary grant of 10ths and 15ths
in 1597 was made subject to a remission of £3,600 to
decayed and impoverished towns; (fn. 38) Stratford claimed
a share of this benefit, (fn. 39) and the town was discharged
of all subsidies and taxes in January 1599. (fn. 40) In 1601
Sir Edward Greville inclosed the Town Commons
and revived his claim to control the election of the
bailiff, (fn. 41) and the corporation once more petitioned for
a renewal of their charter. Finally in April 1610 two
of the aldermen, Daniel Baker and Abraham Sturley,
were sent to London (fn. 42) and concluded the matter
successfully. The new charter is dated 3 July following.
It seems that a still more liberal charter came near
to being issued before the end of Elizabeth's reign.
About 1598 Sir Julius Caesar, then a master in chancery,
asked for a certificate from the county justices to the
effect that a confirmation of the charter with an
additional fair and a fee-farm of the tithes would conduce to the better government of the borough and the
relief of their poor without being hurtful to any
neighbouring town. (fn. 43) There is also extant a rough
draft in Latin, of about the same date, of a charter
granting more extensive privileges than were ever in
fact secured: the extension of the borough boundaries,
the nomination of the vicar and schoolmaster, and the
right of parliamentary representation. The origin of
this document is not known, nor why, if in any way
official, it was not proceeded with. (fn. 44)
The charter of 1610 was essentially a confirmation.
It grants few new privileges, but in clarifying the grant
of 1553 and confirming also the powers which since
that time the corporation had claimed to exercise by
customary right, it marks the achievement of fully
corporate status. The preamble emphasizes as the
main object of the grant the keeping of the peace;
' . . . and that the aforesaid Borough . . . shall be and
remain a peaceable and quiet borough . . . and that our
peace and other acts of justice may be the better kept
and preserved'. A Recorder was therefore granted, to
hold office at the pleasure of the corporation and to be
a justice of peace together with the bailiff and chief
alderman. The borough justices were formally
empowered to hold Quarter Sessions and their jurisdiction was extended over the township of Old Stratford, including the church and churchyard. The right
of the corporation to make by-laws in writing and
enforce them by fine or imprisonment, to have a jail; (fn. 45)
to impose fines for refusal of office; to appoint and
remove constables and other inferior officers, was also
explicitly stated. The number of aldermen was
reduced to thirteen, including the bailiff. (fn. 46) Besides the
recorder the corporation might appoint and swear a
High Steward, a Common Clerk who was to be skilled
in the laws, and two of their number as Chamberlains.
The grant of property in the charter of 1553 was
recited in full, with the addition of the College tithe
barn. (fn. 47) The bailiff, aldermen and chief burgesses,
while in office, were exempt from jury service outside
the borough, and the exclusion of the sheriff and his
officers was emphasized. The charter also granted
three additional fairs, together with the long-disputed
right of taking toll, and the profits arising from the
offices of king's escheator, coroner, and clerk of the
market, within the borough. The Court of Record was
to be held weekly before the bailiff, chief alderman,
and common clerk or his deputy, or any two of them,
and its jurisdiction was extended to mixed as well as personal actions, though the limit of £30 was still retained.
The extent to which this charter simply regularized
existing practice appears in the fact that three of the
four new offices which it created—those of Recorder,
Common Clerk, and Chamberlain—were already in
existence. The chamberlains had been elected and
sworn since 1554 and practically continued the
functions of the proctors of the gild. The early history
of the offices of town clerk and steward is obscure.
They were at first held separately, though their
respective functions are not always easy to distinguish.
Richard Symons, one of the original chief burgesses,
appears as town clerk 1554–68 and receives a fee of
10s. a year. (fn. 48) He keeps the records and draws up the
chamberlain's accounts (fn. 49) and is also employed on legal
business. The steward, who first appears in 1556,
seems generally to have been of rather higher social
status, not necessarily a resident and probably a lawyer.
His fee, which at first varies between £3 6s. 8d. and
£7 10s. has by 1568 become fixed at £5 a year to
which in 1596 are added the fees of the Court of
Record. (fn. 50) While mainly concerned with legal business,
he also sometimes keeps the minutes. (fn. 51) From 1570 to
1586 the two offices were apparently combined in
the person of Henry Rogers of Sherborne, who was
also steward to Sir Thomas Lucy. He is generally
referred to as the steward, (fn. 52) as are his successors, John
Jeffereys of Walton (1586–1603), who became a
member of the corporation, and Shakespeare's cousin,
Thomas Greene, of the Middle Temple (1603–17).
By the end of the 16th century the numerous suits in
which the corporation were involved necessitated the
frequent absence of their steward in London. The
original division of duties therefore becomes once more
evident, the minutes of the chamber being frequently
kept by one of the aldermen or burgesses. The charter
of 1610 allowed the common clerk, as he is there called,
to execute his office either in person or by a deputy to
be nominated by the corporation. The first recorder
of Stratford was Edward Aglionby who is so described
in 1586, (fn. 53) though he had been receiving an annual fee
of £2 for ten years previously. From that time the
office remained in continuous existence until officially
established by the charter of 1610, its holders being
John Dyer of Grove Park (1587–90), Sir Fulke
Greville of Beauchamps Court (1591–1606), and his
son Sir Fulke Greville, afterwards 1st Lord Brooke,
who was recorder 1606–28. Neither the recorder nor
the town clerk was ever sworn in to office before 1610.
These early recorders were probably appointed as unofficial legal advisers of the corporation, and the office
assumes a more aristocratic character from the time
that the burgesses begin to be in special need of a
powerful patron. The use of a title quite unwarranted
by the original charter may be ascribed to the indulgence
of the Earl of Warwick and Sir Edward Greville as
lords of the manor: both Aglionby and Dyer were also
recorders of Warwick and the Grevilles of Beauchamps
Court were kinsmen of the Grevilles of Milcote.
The greater security which the charter conferred is
reflected in the third book of orders, issued in 1612. (fn. 54)
Here for the first time many matters relating to the
government of the town, such as the licensing of
victuallers and common brewers and the keeping of
the streets, (fn. 55) which had once been the concern of the
court leet, are dealt with in by-laws of the corporation.
In 1634 it was resolved to seek a further renewal of the
charter; (fn. 56) in 1638 counsel was retained 'in the State
of Or Charter and especiallye about the Right of
p'sentacon to whom yt belongethe'; (fn. 57) and in January
1640 Richard Tyler and William Greene, aldermen,
were sent to London 'if yt may be to buye the Inheritance of the p'sentacon of the Vicar and Scholemr
or the p'sent p'sentacon of bothe or eyther'. (fn. 58) This had
been one of the principal objects of the corporation
for forty years past. It acquired a new urgency in the
1630's owing to the prolonged quarrels between them
and their vicar, Thomas Wilson, on whose death in
1638 the living was vacant for nearly two years while
the right of presentation was in dispute. (fn. 59) Nothing
further is heard of the petition for a new charter, which
no doubt had to be abandoned in the political troubles
that followed soon afterwards.
The grant of the third charter, in 1664, was the
result of the policy of the Crown towards borough
corporations in general. The first reference to the
Restoration in the Stratford Council Books is the order
for altering the bailiff's mace on 15 June 1660. (fn. 60) The
county commissioners appointed under the Corporation
Act visited the town in August or early September
1662, when three aldermen and three chief burgesses
were removed from the corporation. (fn. 61) On 10 April
1663, information having been received of the Privy
Council's order to the Attorney-General to prosecute
Quo Warrantos against all towns which had not
renewed their charters since 1660, the bailiff was
empowered to consult with others of the company and
with Sir John Clopton 'of fitt proposalls for alteracons
& addic[i]ons to a new charter'. (fn. 62) On 8 May John
Wolmer, junior, and Francis Oldfield, aldermen, were
appointed to go to London for the purpose, (fn. 63) and in
the following October they again went to London. (fn. 64)
The new charter bears date 31 August 1664. The
expense of obtaining it left the corporation considerably
in debt and obliged them to discontinue the customary
salaries paid to the mayor and the town clerk. (fn. 65) Wolmer
and Oldfield, who had borne the expenses, were
obliged to wait for eighteen months or two years before
being fully repaid. (fn. 66) Such liabilities of office, rather
than political reasons, may account for the numerous
refusals to serve which occur during the next few
years.
The most significant provision of the charter of
1664 is the veto reserved to the Crown on the nomination of the high steward, recorder, and town clerk.
A new addition to the clause authorizing fines for
refusal of office—'and if he . . . shall refuse to take such
oaths as shall be lawfully imposed upon him'—refers
to the requirements of the Act of 1661: and again, in
another clause, all members and officers of the corporation are expressly required to take the Oaths of Allegiance
and Supremacy. This close political control was compensated by the grant of certain new privileges. The
old title of bailiff was henceforth to be exchanged for
the more dignified one of mayor. The number of
justices was increased to five: the mayor, the ex-mayor,
the two senior aldermen, who came to be known as the
Standing Justices, and the recorder. For the holding
of sessions the town clerk or his deputy was to be joined
with them, the mayor and town clerk or deputy to be
of the quorum. The limit of the jurisdiction of the
Court of Record was raised to £40 and exemption from
service on foreign juries was extended to all the
inhabitants.
The new charter was followed, as before, by a new
Book of Orders of the corporation, issued in 1665.
While in the main similar to the book of 1612, it
included a right of appeal against the amount of any
of the fines to the corporation. The intention of this
clause was probably to discriminate between obstinate
dissenters and those who declined office for purely
personal reasons. The large number of aldermen and
chief burgesses who were fined and distrained upon
for breaches of orders during the next few years suggests
that the town was in a disturbed state. The Act of
1661, however, does not seem to have been used at
Stratford to the same extent as at Warwick (fn. 67) as an
instrument of religious or political persecution. Dissenters were less numerous here (fn. 68) and political feeling
was in any case less liable to be excited in a nonparliamentary borough. There are two clear instances—Richard Smart, junior, in 1665 and William Hunt,
draper, in 1670—of the election of burgesses who
refused the oaths and declarations required by law. (fn. 69)
A probable third case is that of Richard Hunt, who had
been removed by the commissioners in 1662 and was
re-elected in 1669. He refused to serve, after long
consideration, but he does not appear to have been
fined. (fn. 70)
The circumstances in which this charter was surrendered and a new one granted ten years later are not
altogether clear, but the issues seem to have been local
rather than political. In December 1669 about twenty
of the poorer inhabitants of Stratford assembled together and lopped and carried off timber from some
hundred trees in the waste which the lord of the manor
claimed as his own. The mayor and justices were
accused of instigating the riot and neglecting to punish
the offenders (fn. 71) and were summoned to London to
answer these charges in Hilary Term 1671; (fn. 72) and just
a year later the Attorney-General's Information was
exhibited. (fn. 73) The majority of its thirty-one articles
were easily answerable by reference to former grants,
but there was still sufficient evidence of the corporation's
having exceeded their powers for the 1664 charter to
be held at least technically forfeit. They had, for
example, issued token coinage; (fn. 74) their Court of Record
had exercised jurisdiction beyond the borough limits, (fn. 75)
and their town clerk had entered upon his office before
the royal approval had been obtained. (fn. 76) On 2 March,
however, the Attorney-General assured the corporation
that the charter 'is not surrendered nor intended so to
bee. But the King is pleased to com[m]and that a confirmation be prepared . . . with a further Grant of some
New priviledges so that their former Priviledge of being
Exempted from serving in Juryes at the Assizes in
Warwicksh. remains in the same force it was'. (fn. 77) The
draft of a new charter had already been referred to him
on 22 February, (fn. 78) though it did not pass the Great Seal
until 20 August 1674 and then only with significant
alterations. The dubious legal position of the corporation in the interim is shown in the repeated orders
indemnifying the mayor for holding courts and granting
writs of capias. (fn. 79)
This long delay of over two years resulted from the
numerous objections lodged against the first draft.
Both the Earl of Middlesex (fn. 80) and William Combe (fn. 81)
entered caveats against it and there was a controversy
with Lord Brooke over the extent of his powers as
high steward. He claimed, under the charter of 1610,
to appoint a deputy steward, a clerk of the peace, and
the attorneys of the Court of Record. (fn. 82) The status and
dignity of the town clerk or steward had for some time
been rising; he generally belonged to a local landed
family or to one of the Inns of Court and, after 1617,
was never a member of the corporation. His salary
was raised from £1 to £7 in 1625 (fn. 83) and to £10 a year
in 1627. (fn. 84) His tenure of office was sometimes made
conditional on residence in the town. (fn. 85) His sole
functions by 1660 seem to have been those of legal
agent to the corporation and steward of that court
which the high steward would claim, from the nature
of his office, to be under his jurisdiction; and Lord
Brooke was the more anxious to establish his control
because as Recorder of Warwick he enjoyed the clear
right of nominating his deputy, who was also town
clerk. (fn. 86)
The changing character of the town clerkship and
the growth of corporation business gave rise in the 17th
century to a confusing variety of minor offices. The
deputy town clerk was appointed under the charter of
1610. He was 'nominated and approved' by the
corporation, but it remained customary to obtain the
town clerk's approval, (fn. 87) and neglect to do so was one
of the charges against the corporation in the Quo
Warranto of 1672. (fn. 88) By the middle of the century the
deputy is coming to be known, at least unofficially, as
the town clerk, (fn. 89) and to hold also the separate office of
clerk of the peace. The latter was clerk to the borough
justices and in 1672 the corporation claimed to appoint
him, on the ground that the mayor was custos rotulorum. (fn. 90)
At the beginning of the 17th century there seem to
have been three attorneys of the Court of Record. (fn. 91)
But as only four appointments were made by the
corporation down to 1674, all of them between 1599
and 1617, (fn. 92) the right of nomination may have been
conceded in practice to the high steward.
By the charter of 1674 the office of steward of the
court of the borough was created in place of that of
town clerk and there were also to be a clerk of the peace,
learned in the law, and four attorneys of the Court of
Record. The nomination to all these offices was
granted to Lord Brooke while he continued High
Steward (fn. 93) and was thereafter to revert to the corporation (fn. 94) —as it did on Lord Brooke's death two years
later. The issue was solely one of principle and Lord
Brooke, protesting that he had 'noe designes to serve
but those of your Corporation', offered to make the
appointments only from year to year so that anyone
displeasing to the corporation might be removed. (fn. 95)
Thereafter the stewardship gradually became an office
merely of dignity, the more so as before the end of the
18th century the Court of Record had ceased to function;
and the clerk of the peace became also town clerk. (fn. 96)
His salary of 10s. was raised to £10 in 1779, (fn. 97) and for
more than 130 years, 1762–1894, the town clerkship
was held by successive generations of the family of Hunt,
solicitors in the town. (fn. 98) Towards the end of the 18th
century the original functions of the clerk of the peace
were delegated to a clerk to the mayor and justices, at
a salary of 5 guineas, who first appears in 1788. (fn. 99)
For the rest, the corporation managed in 1674 to
retain their existing privileges. By one clause of the
charter the serjeants were expressly allowed to carry
before the mayor two maces bearing the royal arms or
the arms of the borough, the use of such insignia having
been challenged in the Quo Warranto. (fn. 100) More
important, the authority of the borough justices in Old
Stratford, which had been one of the principal objects
of attack, was confirmed, though with the proviso
that it should not extend to the making of church and
poor rates; a restriction to be explained by the controversy during the past 25 years over the liability of
the Earl of Middlesex's tenants at Milcote to contribute
to the relief of the borough poor. (fn. 101) The powers of the
chamberlains were more fully defined: they were
authorized to levy fines by distress and to execute
warrants and were required to give security on assuming
office. (fn. 102) Certain alterations were made in the dates of
the five fairs and the grant of the profits of fairs and
markets specifically included the toll of corn. Finally,
the royal veto on the nomination of the high steward,
steward, and recorder, which had been omitted from
the first draft, was restored; and, as Stratford received
no subsequent charter, it remained in force until
1835. (fn. 103)
In the last years of Charles II, when the boroughs
became the centres of political conflict, the corporation
of Stratford signalized its loyalty by a series of addresses
to the Crown. One such address was presented in July
1683, congratulating the king on the failure of the Rye
House Plot and offering to surrender the charter without a Quo Warranto. (fn. 104) The charter was in fact
surrendered in October 1683, (fn. 105) but by the influence of
the recorder, Thomas Lucy, it was returned without
alteration. (fn. 106) Another loyal address was promptly
presented on the accession of James II. (fn. 107) Meanwhile
the political excitement of the time is again reflected in
the records of elections to the corporation and there is
some evidence that controversy was now more bitter
than in the days of the Clarendon Code. In 1678–9
the corporation involved themselves in some trouble
through their over-hasty zeal in imposing for refusal
of the Oaths and Declaration the fine of 20 marks
instead of the customary £5 prescribed in the orders
and they were eventually obliged to retract. (fn. 108) In
September 1685 William Hunt, draper, who had been
fined 15 years earlier for refusing the Declaration
against the Covenant, was once more elected a chief
burgess and subjected to a further fine on his refusal.
Even after the Revolution similar intolerance was
shown towards William Hunt, junior, 1689–90, who
absolutely refused either to serve or to pay, (fn. 109) and in the
re-election in 1695 of Joseph Smith, ironmonger, (fn. 110)
who had already been victimized in 1682.
In 1699, encouraged perhaps by the Tory majority
at the elections of the previous year, the corporation
resolved to petition for a new charter granting the right
to send burgesses to Parliament, (fn. 111) but nothing further
is heard of this project. In politics throughout the 18th
century the corporation of Stratford shared the consistent Toryism of the county as a whole; both their
recorder, Sir William Keyte (1709–41), (fn. 112) and their
steward, Sir Hugh Clopton (1699–1746), (fn. 113) were
strong Tories, and the former a Jacobite. In 1733 the
corporation requested the county members to vote
against Walpole's Excise Scheme, (fn. 114) and in the following
year, on the occasion of the marriage of the Princess
Royal with the Prince of Orange, which was very
unpopular with the Opposition, they decided not to
present an address. (fn. 115) In 1792 an address of thanks was
presented for Pitt's Proclamation against Seditious
Writings, (fn. 116) and in 1796 the corporation voted an
annual subscription of £100 towards the prosecution
of the war with France and resolved that all public
feasts should be abolished in the meantime. (fn. 117)
The structure of municipal government which the
charters established remained in being until 1835 and
functioned effectively down to about the middle of the
18th century. Until 1843 the corporation continued
to meet in the Gild Hall. Members were summoned
by the tolling of the chapel bell a quarter of an hour
beforehand (fn. 118) and were expected to attend, the aldermen in their purple gowns, the chief burgesses in gowns
or cloaks. (fn. 119) In the hall the two companies sat separately,
the burgesses occupying a side table, (fn. 120) and votes were
taken, according to an order of 1761, beginning with
the junior burgess present. (fn. 121) On public occasions, at
church and at the proclaiming of the fairs, the whole
corporation appeared in their robes, attended by the
two serjeants-at-mace—generally distinguished as the
bailiff's or the mayor's serjeant and the alderman's
serjeant—and the constables. A further touch of
ceremony was added by an order of 1732 requiring
that the mayor when he appeared in public should
always carry a white wand. (fn. 122) Emphasis on the position
and dignity of the chief magistrate is one of the outward
signs of the growth of corporate status. (fn. 123) But the office
was burdensome as well as honourable and involved
expenses which the various minor perquisites attached
to it were rarely sufficient to meet. From 1625 onwards, therefore, the bailiff or mayor received a regular
annual allowance. This was originally fixed at £10 (fn. 124)
and was increased between 1639 and 1643. (fn. 125) It was
again raised to £20 in 1733, (fn. 126) to £30 in 1804, (fn. 127) to
£50 in 1820, (fn. 128) and finally to £80 in 1824. (fn. 129) The
office was usually served by one of the junior aldermen
and from the end of the 17th century it became common
for an aldermanic vacancy to be filled shortly before
election day so that the person chosen might be elected
mayor for the following year. There is only one
instance in the history of the old corporation of a bailiff
or mayor being continued in office for a second year. (fn. 130)
From 1557 onwards, refusal to serve entailed a fine
of £10.
The present Corporation insignia includes 3 silvergilt maces, of which one probably dates from the charter
of 1553, another was given by John Sadler in 1632,
and the third by John Ludford, Steward of the Court
of Record in 1757. The Sadler mace was remodelled
in 1653 and again at the Restoration, but is still surmounted by the Commonwealth crown. There are
also the Mayor's Staff or Sword-stick, which c. 1820
superseded the Wand referred to above, and two relics
of the medieval Gild; an iron mace silver-gilt and a
large two-handed sword which was probably a property in the pageant of St. George and the Dragon.
The beadle's staff probably dates from the reign of
George I. The original Seal of the Corporation, which
was used until c. 1656, is now in the New Place
Museum, and the Mayor's Privy Seal, presented by
Richard Quiney in 1592, is at the Birthplace. (fn. 131)
The office of Chief Alderman is distinctive of the
old Stratford corporation throughout its history, though
it is specifically mentioned only in the charter of 1610,
the first charter having simply provided that one of the
aldermen besides the bailiff should be annually chosen
as a justice of peace. From 1563 until 1586 the chief
alderman is always the bailiff of three years previously.
The interval is reduced to two years from 1588 to
1641, when it was resolved that in future the bailiff
should always become chief alderman for the year following his term of office; (fn. 132) and this arrangement continued without alteration. Beyond acting as a justice
of the peace for his year the chief alderman seems to
have had no other distinctive functions.
The two chamberlains, according to the charter of
1610, were to be chosen from among the chief burgesses, though it had hitherto been not uncommon for
one of them to be an alderman. (fn. 133) They normally held
office for two years, so that each of them was responsible
for presenting one annual account, for which he
received a gratuity of 20s. The beginning of the
financial year was at Michaelmas until 1585, when it
was changed to January. (fn. 134) Account day was always in
January and was fixed by the 1610 and subsequent
charters on the Friday after Epiphany. Responsibility
for the revenues included other duties, such as the
repair of the corporate property, (fn. 135) the prosecution of
tenants in arrears, the lopping of trees and the sale of
timber. By the Orders of 1665 they were entrusted with
the general supervision of the almshouses in addition
to paying the inmates their weekly allowance. In early
Stuart times the chamberlains were responsible for
replenishing the town stock of arms and gunpowder. (fn. 136)
They also had the management of the corporation
feasts. (fn. 137) The fine for refusal to serve as chamberlain,
first imposed in Orders of 1612, was £6 13s. 4d. The
chamberlains' accounts were jealously scrutinized and
their power to incur expenditure on their own initiative
was from time to time restricted by orders of the
corporation. (fn. 138) A deficiency in the accounts in 1633 led
to the temporary creation of the office of treasurer, with
the object of controlling the chamberlain by dividing
his duties. (fn. 139)
Vacancies among the aldermen were filled up from
the second company, generally, but by no means
always, according to seniority. In the 16th and 17th
centuries small fines for admission were payable both
by aldermen and chief burgesses, (fn. 140) but these had
lapsed by 1833. (fn. 141) In 1603 the fine for refusal of either
office was fixed at £5.
Of the minor officers of the corporation, only the
serjeants-at-mace were appointed by charter. The
constables, ale-tasters, and leather sealers were survivals
of the court leet. They were annually elected and
sworn, usually in the council chamber, but sometimes
at the borough Quarter Sessions. In place of the two
constables and two sub-bailiffs of the medieval borough,
four constables were chosen after 1553. The number
was increased to six in 1610, to correspond no doubt
with the number of wards, (fn. 142) and to seven in 1824.
The constables normally held office for two years and
the fine for refusal to serve was fixed in 1557 at £5. (fn. 143)
The constables performed both police and administrative functions. They made presentments at the
leet or at sessions for breaches of the peace, absence
from church, and other matters, and were especially
concerned with measures for the prevention of fire and
with the privy watch. The watch was established in
1557, when the constables were ordered to call together
'Certen of the Councill & Sum other honest men' once
a month for the purpose. (fn. 144) By 1665 the obligation to
watch had become general on all the inhabitants, and
members of the corporation were exempted from it. (fn. 145)
From 11.0 at night until 4.0 in the morning during the
winter months the streets were also patrolled by a
bellman who received his wages from the constables. (fn. 146)
In the troubled winter of 1678, when a Popish rising
was at any time expected, the corporation ordered
'that all persons shall watch in their own persons and
that their bee appoynted 16 persons every night to
watch tell they see cause to the contrary'. (fn. 147) That this
system was not very effective is suggested by the
constables' presentment in January 1647: 'for wach &
ward the times have bin troublesome & we cannot tell
what hath bin dun in it'. (fn. 148) But there is little evidence
of any other provision for the policing of the town at
night until the appointment of a superintendent of the
watch and three watchmen under the Act of 1830. (fn. 149)
The constables were also responsible for the collection
and payment of the various rates due to the county
and were required to make presentments at the county
sessions, in spite of an attempt by the corporation in
1679 to claim exemption from such liability under the
charters. (fn. 150) They kept their own accounts, which were
passed by the chamber, (fn. 151) and were authorized from
time to time to levy rates either to meet some particular
expenditure or to recoup themselves for charges already
incurred.
The number of ale-tasters and bread-weighers was
originally two; three were chosen in 1588 and 1589, (fn. 152)
and this number became permanent in 1612, to correspond with the increase in the number of constables.
The fine for refusal of this office was fixed in 1557 at
£2. (fn. 153) The two leather sealers seem always to have been
chosen from persons engaged in one of the leather
trades. By the beginning of the 19th century the
functions of the leather sealers must long have become
purely formal. The continuous series of appointments
ends in 1807. Thereafter a single leather sealer is intermittently chosen and the office seems to have lapsed
altogether after 1823. The fine for refusal was fixed
in 1612 at £1.
In spite of the grant of Quarter Sessions by the
charter of 1610, the court of the lord of the manor still
exercised throughout the greater part of the 17th
century a largely concurrent jurisdiction. (fn. 154) It appears
from the rolls of the 'Great Leet' for 1626 that the
regulation of alehouses was the only matter which was
recognized as the exclusive province of the sessions.
The borough constables had to make presentments in
both courts, and it often happened that a person was
presented at the sessions and at the leet on successive
days for the same offence. But as the century advanced,
much of the business with which the court leet more
especially concerned itself, such as the supervision of the
butts and the enforcement of the Oaths of Supremacy
and Allegiance, was becoming obsolete, while the
regulation of the Bancroft, though outside the province
of the sessions, was also the subject of frequent orders
of the corporation. The large number of essoins at the
leet—as many as 82 in 1670—seems also to indicate its
declining importance. The last recorded session of the
leet was in 1685.
In Stratford, as elsewhere, the development of
municipal government at the end of the 16th century
is closely connected with the problem of the poor; and
in particular with the problem of controlling the
migration into the town of strangers who might become
a burden on the rates. The punishment of receivers of
inmates and of the conversion of barns and stables into
dwelling houses without licence are among the purposes
for which the charter of 1610 specially authorizes the
making of by-laws. In earlier times these matters had
been regularly dealt with by the court leet. (fn. 155) In 1577
the task of ejecting inmates was being performed by
the serjeants. (fn. 156) The increasing urgency of the problem
led to the first appointment of head boroughs in 1592. (fn. 157)
They were appointed at irregular intervals, usually of
about two to four years, from 1592 until 1737, and
were nearly always members of the corporation. The
usual number is two for each ward, though there are
often three for Wood Street, (fn. 158) the largest ward, and
occasionally three for Chapel Street. Their only duties
were to make a periodic search of their wards, to present
the names of all inmates, and of those who harboured
them, at the Common Council or the Sessions (fn. 159) and to
warn the inmates to give security or leave the town
within a certain time. After 1700 the intervals between
the elections of headboroughs get noticeably longer, (fn. 160)
and from 1730 onwards only one for each ward is
chosen. The headboroughs were never sworn into
office, but by the orders of 1612 were liable to a fine
of £2 for refusal to serve.
In poor-law matters generally, the corporation
exercised, within the borough limits, all the functions
of a parish vestry. In 1584 we find them assessing a
poor-rate on the inhabitants. (fn. 161) Throughout the early
17th century coal-money was distributed by the
chamberlains, and in years of exceptional hardship,
corn was purchased to be sold to the poor at reasonable
prices. (fn. 162) A stock to set the poor on work was raised in
1613, (fn. 163) and in 1637 the corporation contracted with
one Humfrey Edkins to employ six or ten poor children
in weaving bone lace. (fn. 164) The first workhouse in the
borough was established by the corporation in 1725, (fn. 165)
and in 1737 a committee of trustees consisting of three
aldermen was appointed to assist the overseers in
regulating it. (fn. 166) The four overseers for the borough were
annually chosen at a council meeting about Easter
time. (fn. 167) One of them acted as paymaster, and the other
three as collectors, each of them being responsible for
two of the wards. (fn. 168) Their accounts were submitted to
the corporation. (fn. 169) By the middle of the 18th century
the corporation had assumed the nomination of the
surveyors of highways for the borough, (fn. 170) who had
hitherto been chosen at the Easter vestry. (fn. 171) There were
three surveyors and from about 1780 the same persons
were often continued for several years. (fn. 172)
The gradual decay of the old corporate bodies which
preceded the Act of 1835 begins in Stratford about the
middle of the 18th century, particularly in the financial
sphere. The chamberlains found it increasingly
difficult to complete their accounts by the day
appointed, mainly because of the difficulty of collecting
the rents. (fn. 173) By the last quarter of the century the
finances had become further disorganized by a mounting
burden of debt. As early as 1637 there was a debt of
£440, on which over £35 a year was being paid in
interest; (fn. 174) and it became permanent after 1775, when
the corporation were compelled to borrow £600 to
meet the expenses of the Stratford inclosure. (fn. 175) The
Shottery inclosure of 1786 added at least another £200
to their liabilities, (fn. 176) which were further increased by
extensive repairs to property and prolonged litigation
over tithe. (fn. 177) By 1816 the corporation were considering
whether to obtain an Act of Parliament enabling them
to sell off portions of their estates for the discharge of
importunate creditors. (fn. 178) In 1833 the debt, though it
had been considerably reduced in the few years
previously, still stood at £5,447 10s. (fn. 179)
The deputy mayor, Thomas Sheldon, was appointed
as one of the chamberlains in 1780—the first time
since 1662 that an alderman had held the office.
During the next few years it became common to elect
only one chamberlain, and from 1782 to 1787 Sheldon
served at a salary of £10 a year. Such an arrangement
was of doubtful legality and was not repeated after
1789. Instead, a salaried acting chamberlain was reelected for as long as he would serve, with an assistant
chamberlain who held office only for a year. Jonathan
Izod, alderman, was acting chamberlain 1798–1810,
and James Saunders, the local antiquary, 1816–21.
The salary was increased to £30 in 1815 (fn. 180) and to £100
in 1824. (fn. 181) For the next ten years, 1824–34, the
acting chamberlain was a man of exceptional financial
ability, John Gill, wine merchant, of Bridge Street.
In 1826 Gill established a sinking fund for paying off
the debt, (fn. 182) which enabled him in 1830 to reduce the
interest from 5 to 4½ per cent. (fn. 183) At the same time the
management of the corporate property was reformed:
instead of the ancient practice of granting leases on fines,
premises, as the leases fell in, were let by auction and
£1,200 was spent in buying up the interests of existing
lessees. As a result of this policy the annual income of
the estate was increased from £1,500 to £1,872
between 1827 and 1833. (fn. 184) Gill's work received the
enthusiastic recognition not only of the corporation (fn. 185)
but of the Municipal Commissioners.
The break-up of the old system during the 18th
century is nowhere more obvious than in the great
reduction in the numbers of the corporation and the
increasing difficulty of filling up vacancies and even
of securing a quorum at council meetings. The full
complement of twelve in each company was never
attained after 1731. By 1789 the number of chief
burgesses had sunk to two and for considerable periods
there were less than six. In 1753 the fines for refusal
to serve as alderman or chief burgess were increased
from £5 to £30 and £20 respectively (fn. 186) and the fine for
refusing the office of mayor was raised from £10 to £50
in 1768: (fn. 187) in spite of which, on an average, one person
in every four elected to the corporation during the last
sixty years of its life still declined. Members who had
left the town refused either to attend or to resign, (fn. 188)
and townsmen who wished to resign were not permitted
to do so for fear of still further depleting the numbers. There is an indication that in 1803 only six of the
aldermen were living in Stratford. (fn. 189) Joseph Walker,
who served as mayor 1806–7, was actually living at
Worcester, and business had to be arranged to suit his
convenience. (fn. 190) In these circumstances it was often
very difficult to secure the attendance of the twelve
members necessary to constitute a Hall, and between
1784 and 1823, the period approximately of the nadir
of municipal government in Stratford, nearly a third
of the council meetings summoned were adjourned
and 'No Business was done for want of the attendance
of a proper number of members'. (fn. 191) In practice the
difficulty of making the corporation function efficiently
was to some extent met by the delegation of powers and
the growth of a committee system. Thus the supervision of the Poor Laws seems increasingly to have
passed from the corporation as a whole to the justices. (fn. 192)
In 1780 a committee including the mayor, chief alderman, and chamberlains was set up to settle the accounts
and recover arrears of rents. (fn. 193) From 1809 onwards the
chamberlains' accounts, instead of being examined by
the whole corporation, were submitted to three auditors,
annually elected from among them. (fn. 194) The management
of the property was also increasingly delegated to
committees. (fn. 195)
The 18th century saw also the decline or the disappearance of the borough courts. The extant archives
of the Court of Record continue until 1724, but the
commissioners in 1833 reported that it had not been
held within the memory of any of the officers then
present. (fn. 196) The Quarter Sessions, even in the later 17th
century, had rarely been held four times a year. (fn. 197)
There had indeed been frequent complaints of the
mayor's neglect to keep regular sessions and in 1680
he was fined £5 for not doing so. (fn. 198) But the concurrent
jurisdiction of the county sessions, definitely established
in 1680, (fn. 199) deprived the borough court of much of its
usefulness. The last continuous period during which
the sessions functioned regularly was 1726–35. The
records after 1745 frequently note the adjournment of
the court for want of business, and though the practice
of holding four sessions a year was revived from 1789
to 1803 it was by then rare for any business to be done. (fn. 200)
From 1817 onwards only the Michaelmas Sessions was
kept.
Lastly, the course of disintegration can be traced in
the changing character of the minor offices and of their
relation to the corporate body itself. In the first few
years after the charter of 1553 the constables had
generally been chosen from among the chief burgesses; (fn. 201)
and until well into the 18th century the offices of aletaster and constable were stepping-stones to membership of the corporation. The ale-tasters, who held office
for a year, were often appointed constables the year
following; and vacancies among the chief burgesses
were frequently filled from among the constables of the
previous year. The last election of a chief burgess as
constable took place in 1699, (fn. 202) but it remained the
custom for another half-century to serve one or both
of the minor offices before being elected to the corporation. The chief exceptions during this early period
were lawyers and professional men or, occasionally,
the sons or relatives of influential aldermen. The
connexion begins to be broken in the last years of
George II and after 1775 it almost completely disappears. Only five of the fifty-three persons elected to
the corporation in the last sixty years of its life had ever
served either as ale-taster or constable. (fn. 203) At the same
time the minor offices themselves were tending to
become more or less permanent. For constables to be
re-elected at intervals for further periods of service had
never been uncommon; the first case of a long period
of continuous service occurs 1762–9 and this practice
becomes increasingly frequent. Thus. Robert Ashfield
was constable 1794–1819 and was followed by his son
John who held the office down to 1835. (fn. 204) The same
tendency is noticeable among the ale-tasters, though
their duties were purely formal. (fn. 205) Thus many of the
ties which had bound the Elizabethan structure of
municipal government into a living organism were
dissolved by 1800.
These changes are of more than constitutional significance. The decline of the corporation in the Georgian
era is in part a reflection of the economic decline of the
town, which appears also in the number of 18th-century
aldermen and burgesses who had to resign owing to
bankruptcy. Fundamentally it is the outcome of complex social changes which affect the whole character
of municipal government. In Elizabethan and early
Stuart times membership of the corporation involved
liabilities, sometimes even amounting to personal
danger, no less than dignity and honour. If the chief
burgesses themselves often serve as constables it is
because their status and authority are necessary to
preserve the peace; and it is noteworthy that such
elections are most common in times of military preparation or political disturbance. (fn. 206) The same principle of
direct responsibility appears in the earlier records in a
variety of other ways. The corporation maintained a
stock of weapons, powder, and shot in the 'Armeshouse'
at the Gild Hall, (fn. 207) which was replenished in times of
trouble: 'muskettes for ye Bayliffe & Burgesses' were
ordered to be bought in 1627; (fn. 208) in June 1640 every
alderman and burgess was required to provide himself
with 2 lb. of gunpowder and 2 lb. of drop-shot from the
armoury (fn. 209) and the purchase in January 1642 of an
additional hundredweight of powder foreshadowed the
approach of the Civil War. (fn. 210) Before the Restoration
the duty of forming the watch devolved mainly, if not
entirely, on the aldermen and burgesses; whereas in
the orders of 1665 members of the corporation alone
are exempt from the duties of the watch, which they
alone had originally been required to perform.
The changing character and functions of the corporation over a period of 300 years are naturally reflected
in the types of men who served on it. Stratford was
neither an assize town nor a parliamentary borough,
and in one respect therefore the social structure of the
corporation, unlike that of Warwick, (fn. 211) changed very
little. From the charter of Edward VI to the Act of
1835, 359 persons served on the corporate body; and
no more than two of them—John Lane, (fn. 212) 1600–4, and
Edmund Rawlins, (fn. 213) 1642–3— can be classed as county
gentlemen. The younger sons of substantial yeomen
families, such as the Badgers of Bidford Grange, (fn. 214) the
Rutters of Upper Quinton, (fn. 215) the Burmans of Shottery, (fn. 216)
or the Huckells (fn. 217) and the Walfords (fn. 218) of Binton, did
occasionally set up in trade in the town and rise to high
municipal office. But of the members who can be
identified, the majority down to 1800 are tradesmen
and innholders. Before 1660 there is also a minority
of lawyers, most of them connected with the business
either of the corporation or of neighbouring landed
families. In Shakespeare's time the composition of the
chamber reflects the general life and activity of the
town and reveals a considerable level both of prosperity
and culture. (fn. 219) A few of its members, like Adrian
Quyney or the poet's own father, or his son-in-law,
Dr. John Hall, obtained grants of arms; many of them
held land outside the town, such as Robert Perrot,
brewer, who died seised of the 'Manor' of Luscombe
in Snitterfield: (fn. 220) in a number of cases their sons entered
the universities and the church or became citizens and
liverymen of London. (fn. 221) They were also closely interrelated. A table of the Quyney family and their connexions includes no less than 27 of the 132 members
who served between 1553 and 1625; Abraham Sturley
and his relatives by marriage account for another 7;
and a third group of 11 during the same period includes
William Smith, haberdasher, of Henley Street, Shakespeare's presumed godfather, and his executor, Julyne
Shaw. The close hereditary connexion of certain
families with the corporation survives well into the
18th century. The most notable instance is that of the
Wolmers, ironmongers, haberdashers, and salters, who
lived in the 'Tudor House' at the corner of High
Street and Ely Street, and who were represented without a break from 1607 to 1747. The family, which
produced five bailiffs or mayors, came to an end with
Joseph Wolmer, who died in 1747 aged 89, leaving
legacies totalling more than £2,700 besides considerable
property. (fn. 222) His elder brother Thomas (1656–1732)
served for 55 years as town clerk and purchased the
lower farm at Ingon. (fn. 223) A family only less prominent
were the Hiccoxes, mercers and grocers, who were
represented on the corporation in 90 out of 136 years,
1637–1772. (fn. 224) The list also includes three generations
of the Tylers, who served 1564–1649 with a break of
only one year; (fn. 225) of the Ainges, with a break of seven
years, 1590–1662; and of the Rogerses of Harvard
House, relatives and neighbours of the Wolmers,
whose period of service extends from 1585 to 1653;
and there are many other such examples of continuity.
This family system seems to reach its climax in the
1650's, when nearly half the burgesses elected are the
sons of past or present members. (fn. 226) The political upheaval of the next generation brought into prominence
a number of new families, the majority of whom had
recently settled in the town. (fn. 227) But very few of these
established any hereditary connexion with the corporation, (fn. 228) and the great majority of persons elected after
1770 come from families with no record of previous
service. (fn. 229) There are also some significant changes in
the occupations of members. While mercers, drapers,
and grocers form, as always, the largest single class, the
appearance of a banker, a wharfinger, and several
builders reflects the influence of the Industrial Revolution. But an increasing proportion—more than a third
of those elected after 1800— are professional men,
physicians, surgeons, and schoolmasters, or persons of
means described simply as 'gentlemen'. Thus by the
early 19th century the corporation had become less
close, but also somewhat less representative of the
town than it had been in Shakespeare's time.
By the Act of 1835 the corporation consisted of
4 aldermen, including the mayor, and 12 elected
councillors. Five of the original councillors and all the
aldermen had served on the old corporation. The
Stratford-upon-Avon Borough Act of 1879, which
transferred to the corporation the powers of the local
Board of Health, increased the numbers to 7 aldermen
and 18 councillors. (fn. 230) Under the Ministry of Health
Order of 1924 by which Alveston was included within
the borough, the corporate body now consists of a
mayor, 8 aldermen, and 21 councillors. (fn. 231)