Item. The same day it is ordained that no burgess of the town aforesaid prosecute against any one by writ or plaint, before the Chancellor nor elsewhere, for any contract which can be determined before the mayor and bailiffs [in the Piepowder Court?] nor summon a defendant to the Chancellor, &c., under the pain of every one &c. 40s. to be paid to the commonalty of the town aforesaid, and the loss of his freedom (see 1427-8).
Item. The same day it is ordained, that no serjeant of the town aforesaid for the future shall be attorney or of counsel, with any foreigner, against any burgess of the same town, in the Court of the Town aforesaid, under the pain of 40d., to be paid to the commonalty of the town aforesaid, tociens quociens. See 1575.
1405. The Corporation of Cambridge enacted the following Ordinances:
Be it remembered, that on the day of election of mayor and bailiffs for the town of Cambridge in the 6th year of the reign of Henry IV., it is ordained that every burgess within the town aforesaid having a booth or booths in the fair of Sterbrige, may well and lawfully give, sell and surrender the said booth to the use of any other burgess of the same town, before the Mayor and one of the Aldermen of the same town, in the Court there holden on every Tuesday in the year, and on every Monday in the Court of the Liberty: Provided always that the said booth or booths be surrendered freely, quietly and wholly, without condition, annexed or expressed, for him and his, according to the custom of the borough. And this under the pain or forfeiture of the same booths to the burgesses of the town aforesaid.
1411. On 15 Nov. John Arondell, custos of the free chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, otherwise called Sturbridge chapel near Barnwell, exhibited his bill in the Exchequer against John Essex, sadler, John Warwyk, skinner, John Chaucer and William Bush, late bailiffs, then present in Court on their account. In this bill plaintiff averred that he and his predecessors, had immemorially had stallage of all persons merchandising upon the Chapel-yard, parcel of his chapel, where part of the fair of Sturbridge was accustomed to be held, and where merchants were accustomed to erect their shops during the fair-time. That one Thomas Spryggy merchant and Clothier, and other merchants to the number of 20, would have made their shops there at the fair holden at Sturbridge on Monday the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross then preceding, and would have paid the stallage 6s. 8d. each but that the late bailiffs unjustly and by colour of their office would not permit the merchants to build their shops in the Chapel-yard by which he lost his stallage amounting to 10 marks, to the disherison of the chapel, and to his damage of £10. The defendants by their plea, after protesting that the chapel was founded within the time of memory and that the bailiffs of Cambridge were seized of stallage of merchandize brought to the fair, denied that the custos or his predecessors were seized of such stallage. On this plea issue was joined, and a verdict returned in favor of the custos whose damages were assessed at 5 marks with £10 costs. The proceedings in this cause were exemplified by letters under the Exchequer seal, tested by John Cokayn Chief Baron, on the 4th March 1412-13.
1419. At this time there was a suit pending before the King’s Council between the Chancellor and Scholars of the University, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, each of whom claimed the Custody of Assize and assay of Bread, wine and beer, and the supervision of the measures and weights of the citizens of London coming to Sturbridge fair. On the 14th July the King (Henry V.) directed letters patent to sir Wm. Asenhull, knt. sheriff of the County, commanding him to exercise the beforementioned custody and supervision over the citizens of London in the fair of Sturbridge, till the matter was decided, and requiring the litigating parties to assist the Sheriff.
From the accounts of the Priories of Maxtoke (Warwickshire) and of Bicester (Oxon) during the reign of Henry VI. it is seen that the monks laid in yearly stores of various common necessaries, at this fair—distant at least one hundred miles from either monastery. Wharton (“Hist. of English Poetry”) commenting on this fact says: “It may seem surprising that their own neighbourhood, including the Cities of Oxford and Coventry could not supply them with commodities neither rare nor costly, which they thus fetched at a considerable expense of carriage.” But he remembers that it was a rubric in some of the monastic rules De Euntibus ad Nundinas.
1423. In the parliament of Henry VI., this year, the following petition was presented:
Prien the wise and worthi Communes, that for as muchell as in the Citee of London, and in the Suburbes ther of, diverses persones occupying the craft of Brauderie, maken divers werkes of Brauderie of unsuffisaunt stuff, and unduely wrought, as well upon Velowet, and Cloth of Gold, as upon all other Clothes of Silk wrought with Gold or Silver of Cipre, and Gold of Luk, or Spaynyssh laton togedre, and swich warkes, so untrewely made by swiche persones aforesaid, dredyng the serche of the wardens of Brauderie in the said Citee of London, kepen and senden unto the fayres of Steresbrugg, Ely, Oxenford and Salesbury, and ther thei outre hem, to greet deseit of our soverain Lord the Kyng, and al his peple. That it like oure soverain Lord the Kyng, wyth his Lordes spirituell and Temporell, in this present Parlement, to ordeyne by statute, that all the werk of Brauderie so undwely made as above is declared, be forfait to oure soverain Lord the Kyng. And that the Wardeins of Brauderes of the said Citee of London, for that tyme beyng may, by auctorite of this present parlement, have warant by patent to make serche of all werk of Braderie put to selle at the said faires of Steresbrugg, Ely, Oxenford and Salesbury, and thoo werkes of Brouderie there founden unsuffisant, to forfaite and arreste to the use of our soverain Lord the Kyng, as ofte tymes as such werk be founde.
To which answer was made: