The story of Coventry

by Mary Dormer Harris

There are doubts whether William Bristowe, of Whitley, came of gentle blood, though he spoke of his manor in those parts, and wrote himself "gentilman" with the best. His father, John Bristowe, had gained his livelihood in the city as a draper, and growing in wealth and influence, became mayor in 1428,[368] and later justice of the peace and master of the Trinity guild. But he left an ill name behind him, and his acts of encroachment were fruitful of many troubles both to him and his descendants.

Thinking maybe to improve his position and step into the ranks of the country gentry, John purchased an estate at Whitley, a mile or two south of the city gates. Then began those enclosures of the common pastures which were hereafter to be remembered against him. Forty years later the tale of his doings were related by the oldest of his fellow-townsmen.[369] After "the said John Bristowe had boron office within the cite of Couentre, thynkyng that the common people of the seid cite neither durst nor wolde contrarie his doyng ... [he] let sowe with corne dyuers landes and buttes lying in the seid comyn grounde of Couentre fastby Whitley Crosse." But the encroachment did not go unnoticed, nor was the transgressor allowed to have his will. Whereupon, the aged citizens continued glad to remember the stalwart resistance made by a bygone generation, ... "the seid people of Couentre put the hierdlym[370] of bestes of Couentre into the saide corne and eton hit up as corne sowen on their owen common grounde." Nevertheless John did not amend his ways, being assured his good friends, the mayor and corporation, would wink at his misdeeds. But "inordynatly be the fauor of dyuers then officers of the cite of Couentre, dyuers tymes, [he] let inclose parte of the forseid common grounde be diuers parcels, with hegges and dykes, and then aftur dyuers tymes let heire[371] and sowe dyuers of the same closes be hym so wrongfully inclosed, entendyng euer azeyns all good consiens for his singler avayle[372] to approwe hym[373] of parte of the seid common grounde, so that be suche coutynuance hit myght be called his owne lande, wher in trouthe he had neuer right, title, nor other possession therin."

But this was not the least of John Bristowe's encroachments. He laid claim to share with the freemen of Coventry the rights of pasture on the side of Whitley brook nearest to the city, a claim no lord of Whitley had heretofore advanced. But he met with a second check. "Whiche wrong, when the people of Couentre understode hit, they pynned[374] the bestes of the seid John Bristowe at Couentre. Wheruppon the same John made amendes for the seid wrong, and never aftur wolde suffer his cattel occupying at Whitley to passe ouer the seid broke toward Couentre be his will." But after his death, when his son William entered into the inheritance, either the relaxation of the citizens' vigilance or the warm friendliness of men in high places enabled the new lord of Whitley to drive his tenants' cattle across the brook, the natural boundary between the pasturage of the folk of the hamlet of Whitley and the city of Coventry. Moreover the meadows between Baron's Field and Whitley brook were kept several. The citizens did not, however, forget these encroachments, though, for many years, custom sanctioned the double wrong.

The fruit of these evil dealings was seen in the year 1469; a troubled one for Coventry. The mayor, William Saunders, a dyer, one of a craft which had often been, and was again often to be, at variance with the corporation, seems to have had leanings towards the popular side. Wars and rumours of wars brought some distress upon the city, and the mayor gave £5 "in relesynge of pore men that shuld have bor her part" towards defraying the cost "for fifty men to go to York to the king against Robin of Redesdale," for Warwick's party were rising in rebellion, and the soldiers, weary of war, demanded the unheard of sum of 10d. a day as payment. Financial difficulties also beset the corporation. The ferm, as we have seen, had in the previous year fallen greatly into arrears; but the trouble concerning the Lammas lands was to dwarf by comparison all the rest.

It was at this time that William Bristowe by his own deed brought down upon himself the anger of the corporation. From a house in the West Orchard he built a wall, which was found to encroach "by a foot or more" upon the common river; wherefore "it was taken up again." Indignant at this usage, Bristowe brought an action for trespass in the county court against the mayor and community. This was an unwise step on his part, for the corporation at once "remembered," the Leet Book[375] says with unconscious irony, "that he was suffered to overlay the common betwixt Whitley and Coventry, and had no common there." In other words, Bristowe had continued to tread in his father's footsteps. They resolved forthwith that this should not be suffered to continue. On the eve of S. Andrew, before Sir John Nedam, knight and justice, they demanded what evidence Bristowe could put forth in support of his claim; and heard the testimony of "agyt" men concerning the impounding of his father's cattle in former days when they had been found in the Coventry pastures. While matters were in debate the other encroachment of this family was brought forward. Men told one another how John Bristowe had, by "dyking and hedging," enclosed "divers parcels" of the common pasture by the water at Whitley, and how the father and son had kept these meadows several ever since.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, SHOWING PANELLING

For once corporation and "commonalty" were of one mind as regards the question of the Lammas lands. It was resolved that John Bristowe's work should be undone. So on the Monday after S. Andrew's day the mayor and divers citizens—such is the account of the affair Bristowe gave in his petition to Edward IV. in the following year[376]—"stered, provokyd and comaundyd mony and dyuers rotys personys ... to the number of vc (500) personys and mooe ... [who] in manere of warre arrayed, that is for to say [with] byllys, launcegayes, jakkys, salettys, bowes, arrowes, and with mottokys and spadeys, sholles and axes," with evil intent came to Bristowe's fields. Here they went to work, and "caste down his gatys and his dyches, cutte down his hegeys and his trees ... and mony grete okeys beyng growyng in the hegeys and dycheys of the age of c years and more," carrying away wood, clay and gravel, and "riotously" destroying two "swaneys ereyrs" (nests). The trespassers would even have pulled down the petitioner's mills had not one of his servants induced them to desist by meeting them with a certain money "by way of a fine." And afterwards, Bristowe continued, with a touch of bitterness at this last indignity, "William Pere, oon of the aldermen of the same cite, by the commaundment of the seid late mayre and Richard Braytoft, browght with hym the wayteys of the same cite to the seid riotours in reresyng[377] of their seid rioteys, and like as the[y] hade doon a grete conquest or victori, ... made theym pype and synge before the said riotours all the weye ... to the seid cite, which ys by space of a myle largele or more." And that day, the petition goes on yet more bitterly, "these men were in the tavern setting, avauntyng and reresyng of their gret riotes, saying that if your seid besecher[378] sueyd any persone ... for that cause by the course of your laweys, that they wold slee[379] hym." In this manner, with tossing of tankards and playing of pipes, the meadows and arable lands at Whitley were thrown open to the community at S. Andrew's tide in the year of grace 1469.

William Saunders, the mayor, found the commonalty apt pupils in learning to resent old encroachments; but the pupils soon grew too strong for the master's hand. A fresh trouble arose after Bristowe's claims had been disposed of. The Prior's Waste was held by the convent, but the community was possessed of a somewhat doubtful title to the pasturage of the same. On S. Nicholas' day the people broke out into open riot, threw down hedges round about the Waste and those of other gardens belonging to the convent. The prior professed to be "greatly aggrieved," and proposed to "trouble" the city no doubt with a lawsuit.[380] But the mayor, perceiving perhaps that the matter was one of great difficulty, entreated him to come to terms, and finally granted him as compensation the Waste and a piece of land without the New Gate "to be kept several for evermore," These enclosures were the beginning of troubles. A body of 216 men had approved of this measure, but they were, very likely, selected with a special view to obtaining this approval, as the names of sixty-five of them can be identified with those of past or future municipal officers. At least the common people did not approve of the step. They refused to relinquish their ancient rights over the Prior's Waste and the close by the New Gate, though the leet forbade them to break open the meadows reserved for the prior's use.[381]