FAIRS, PAST AND PRESENT.

FAIRS,
PAST AND PRESENT:

A
CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF
COMMERCE.

BY
CORNELIUS WALFORD, F.I.A., F.S.S.,
Barrister-at-Law, and Vice-President of Royal Historical Society.

LONDON: ELLIOT STOCK,
62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1883.

PREFACE.

It seems a little remarkable that an institution at once so popular and so universal as fairs should not heretofore have found an historian. The fact may perhaps be accounted for in the circumstance that fairs, as now regarded, are associated with notions of frivolity. Many of the circumstances connected with their origin are certainly not generally known. They were the product of a blending of Religion with Commerce, suited to the genius of former ages, but finding little sympathy now. They have been associated with the development of commerce in the nations of Europe—perhaps in the nations of the world.

The materials for such a history are reasonably abundant upon diligent search. They do not lie upon the surface. Prolonged investigation revealed so much, that for the purpose of this work some selection became necessary. I had to consider whether it would be more instructive to present the incomplete outline of a number of fairs ranging throughout the world, or to select some of the principal ones at home and abroad, past and present, and trace minutely their origin, their development, and their decadence. I determined upon the latter course; and this, too, notwithstanding that Mr. Henry Morley had already traced in much detail one of the great fairs whose records it would become necessary for me to traverse.

I was chiefly led to the decision stated from the fact that the greatest fair ever held in this country, and held for many centuries—that of Sturbridge, by Cambridge—had hitherto found no historian; yet many of its annals are on record in a form of undoubted authenticity. It seemed to me that it would be more instructive to follow such a history through its successive phases than to present a series of minor sketches, however varied the details should be. I trust it may be felt that I have selected the right course. The other materials brought together are not lost; they are only held over, and will receive the benefit of some additions and corrections. They can be had when called for, and they will reveal much that is new, even after this work shall have been read.

The greatest fair in England was that of Sturbridge; the greatest fair in London that of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield. Their histories are here given. They have some points of resemblance; but on the whole they represent two really distinct pictures of old English manners.

The fairs of Continental Europe required some elucidation. I have given therefore an outline of several of the more notable fairs of France, including those most famous gatherings of the middle ages at Champagne and Brie. Concerning these latter I have been able to present some original documents, forming part of the records of the City of London, and now for the first time printed. Many of these fairs are things of the past. I have added an outline of the fairs of Russia, including the great fair of Nijni-Novgorod, because these are institutions of the present. I think the history of this last-named fair has not previously been written in such detail.

I trust that the work will be found reasonably free alike from author’s and from printer’s errors.

C. W.

Belsize Park Gardens,
London, February, 1883.

ERRATA.

Page [17], first line, read dieta for dicta.

Pages [20], [21], [22], for Magna Carter read Magna Charta.

Page [21 (note)], sixth line, after “Saxon” read Tholl, Low Latin.

Page [245], nine lines from bottom, for “A.D. 427,” read in the fifth century.

Transcriber’s Note: These errata have been corrected, along with a few other small printing errors.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
ORIGIN OF FAIRS.

The origin of Fairs, like that of many other ancient institutions, is involved in much obscurity. The almost universal belief is that they were associated with religious observances; or, as Mr. Morley poetically puts it: “the first fairs were formed by the gathering of worshippers and pilgrims about sacred places, and especially within or about the walls of abbeys and cathedrals, on the Feast days of the Saints enshrined therein.” The sacred building and its surroundings being too small to provide accommodation, tents were pitched; and as the resources of the district would no more suffice to victual than to lodge its throngs of visitors, stalls were set up by provision dealers; and later these were turned to more general purposes of trade. This incidental origin seems, in some cases, hardly sufficient to account for the results which followed; but then it has ever been the genius of commerce to follow close upon the wants of the people.

The establishment of fairs as a source of revenue to religious houses was probably a later development. The Church has always been keenly alive to its temporal interests. And while it was one of its principal functions to administer hospitality to the needy and decrepit, there was justice in drawing contributions from those who too soon might have to rely upon its bounty. Certain it is that nearly all the early charters which I shall have to notice in the progress of this work were shaped in view of granting tolls and revenue to the purposes of religion and charity.

The signification of the word Fair (French foire) is in the Latin forum a market-place, or feriæ holidays. But the German designation Messen seems still more significant, as being a word employed to denote the most solemn part of the Church service—the mass (Latin missa). The association of ideas here implied strengthens with every step of investigation. In the time of Constantine the Great (fourth century of Christian era) Jews, Gentiles, and Christians assembled in great numbers to perform their several rites about a tree reputed to be the oak mambre under which Abraham received the angels. At the same place, adds Zosimus, there came together many traders, both for sale and purchase of their wares. St. Basil, towards the close of the sixth century, complained (De Ascetisis) that his own Church was profaned by the public fairs held at the martyr’s shrines. While Michaud (“History of Crusades,” i., II) records that under the Fatimite Caliphs, in the eleventh century, a fair was held on Mount Calvary on the 15th September every year, in which were exchanged the productions of Europe for those of the East. Gibbon implies an earlier date, in stating that it was promoted by the frequent pilgrimages between the seventh and the eleventh centuries. This Fair was of special importance in the commerce of the Italians with the East. Vide Cunningham’s “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” 1882, p. 120, n.

These notes are but preliminary and introductory: the inquiry has now to take a wider range.

Greece.—The association of commerce with religious observances seems indeed not to have originated in or with the Christian Church. It is supposed for instance that at the celebrated Greek games, such as those at Olympia, &c., trade was no entirely subordinate object; and this idea gains confirmation from various passages in the ancient classic authors. Cicero expressly states that even so early as the age of Pythagoras, a great number of people attended the religious games for the special purpose of trading. At Delphi, Nemæa, Delos, or the Isthmus of Corinth, a fair was held almost every year. The Amphyctionic fairs were held twice a year. In the time of Chrysostom, these fairs were infamously distinguished for a traffic in slaves, destined for public incontinence.[1] The Amphyctionic spring fair was held at Delphi, and the autumn fair at Thermopylæ: in fact at the same times that the deputies from the States of Greece formed the Amphyctionic Council—another proof that wherever large assemblies of people took place in Greece, for religious or political purposes, advantage was taken to carry on traffic. At the fairs of Thermopylæ medicinal herbs and roots, especially hellebore, were sold in large quantities.

It may be taken for granted that one principal reason why the religious games or the political assemblies of the States were fixed upon to hold the fairs was that during these, all hostilities were suspended: and every person might go with his merchandise in safety to them, even through an enemy’s country. The priests, so far from regarding these fairs as a profanation of the religious ceremonies, encouraged them; and the priests of Jupiter, in particular, advanced large sums on interest to such merchants as had good credit, but had not sufficient money with them, vide Stevenson’s “Historical Sketch of the Progress of Discovery, Navigation and Commerce,” vol. 18 of Kerr’s “Travels,” 1824.

Early Eastern Nations.—By reference to “The Books of the Prophets,” we are enabled to realize the importance of the fairs in the ancient commerce of the great city of Tyre (probably B.C. 597-74) “the crowning city whose merchants were princes, whose traffickers the honourable of the earth” (Isaiah xxiii. 8). Thus in Ezekiel xxvii.:—

“12. Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin and lead, they traded in thy fairs....

“14. They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules....

“16. Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple and broidered work, and fine linen and coral and agate....

“19. Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market....

“22. The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold....

“27. Thy riches, and thy fairs, thy merchandise, thy mariners shall fall into the midst of the seas in the day of thy ruin.”

The merchant traders mentioned here claim ancestry from families mentioned Genesis x. 3-7. The expression “they occupied” may be rendered “they inhabited.” In the same chapter, in alternate verses, there are many references to markets.

Rome.—It is asserted by learned writers (Fosbroke and others) that fairs, as such, took their origin in ancient Rome. Romulus, Servius, Tullius, and the Republic, at its commencement, are severally said to have instituted fairs, in order that the country people might come in every ninth day (nundinæ) to hear the laws proclaimed, or the decrees of the people delivered.[2] Other public business was transacted thereat. Booths, tents, and wooden stands for shows were always usual in such places. The fairs were frequently held in the public streets; and one of the most constant objects of sale or barter was that of indulgences! Dogs, and especially greyhounds, were sold at these Roman fairs. It is further said that the fairs were appointed to be held on Saints’ days in order that trade might attract those whom religion could not influence. The monasteries sold goods, probably such as their inmates and surrounding dependents could manufacture.

Courts for the purposes of adjudicating upon questions of dispute arising out of the dealings at the fairs were held alike in Greece and Rome; these being similar to the Piepowder Courts of the middle ages, and most likely their precursors. In time of war, fairs were guarded by soldiers, attempts at plunder being frequent. Bells were provided in fairs for the purpose of giving speedy alarm.

It has been generally admitted that the Romans introduced the practice of holding fairs into the north of Europe. I think I shall make it abundantly clear that they introduced them into England.

Italy.—It is towards the close of the fifth century of the Christian era that we first find any authentic account of fairs specially designed as marts for commerce. Like many other incidents associated with the history of commerce, the first traces are found in Italy. The Western Roman Empire had become extinguished; but Italy had fallen into good hands. Theodoric the Chief or King of the Ostro-Goths had done much to revive its agriculture, and something for its commerce. Foreign merchants began to visit it again; and about A.D. 493 several fairs were appointed for the purpose of exchanging its redundant produce with the merchandise of other countries. Many rich Jew traders settled in Rome; and by means of these fairs a wide interchange of commodities was effected.

Germany.—We next turn to Germany. We know that the Emperor Charles the Great (Charlemagne) towards the close of the eighth century paid great attention to the commerce of western Europe—a fact indeed which seems difficult to be reconciled with the circumstance that he allowed the priests to make a canon declaring all interest for the use of money to be sinful! It may be that he yielded this point in the hope that commercial dealings would soon explode the fallacy. He recognized in fairs a means of exchange of commodities well suited to the times. The great fairs of his period were those of Aquisgranum (Aix la Chapelle) and of Troyes. These were frequented during his reign by traders from most parts of Europe. The weight used at the latter fair for dealings in coin—then often accepted by weight only on account of its battered condition—became adopted as the weight for bullion in all parts of Europe—the pound troy.

Flanders.—Our attention is next directed here. The woollen manufactures commenced probably in the latter half of the tenth century (960). At first the sales were mostly to the French, whose thrifty habits enabled them to purchase fine woollen cloths for wear. On account of the scarcity of coin the trade was mostly carried on by barter, to facilitate which Baldwin, Earl of Flanders—who seems to have exceeded most of the sovereigns of that period in desiring the real interest of himself and his subjects—set up weekly markets, and established regular fairs at Bruges, Courtray, Torhout and Mont-Casel, at all which he exempted the goods sold or exchanged from paying any duties on being brought in or carried out. The new trade was thus greatly extended, and it continued to flourish for several centuries—largely due to its being widely known through the fairs of Europe.

France.—Much of the European commerce of the middle ages was transacted at the celebrated fairs of Champagne and Brie. There the merchants of Italy, Spain and France congregated. From far distant climes the Genoese transported thither bales of goods; and busy traders came to meet in open market the infant efforts of Belgian manufacturers from Yprès, Douai, and Bruges. Burgundy sent cloth, Catalonia leather, and the Genoese and Florentines brought silks; while at all the seaports along their coasts vast cargoes were unshipped and placed on the backs of mules to wend their way to the place appointed for the fair.

These fairs would begin with the sale of cloth, perhaps for seventeen days; the cloth merchants would settle their accounts prior to the silk merchants entering upon their bargains. In the middle of it all the great cry “Ara” was raised, as a signal for the money-changers to take their seats, and for four weeks they sat for the benefit of the various nationalities who wished to realize their gains in their native coin.

After the conclusion of the fair a busy time of fifteen days was set apart for those who had not yet settled their accounts, and to rectify disputes; which time was extended in favour of the representatives of more distant people who wished to go home and return before finally completing their books. The Genoese bursar at these fairs had always a month allowed him before settling his accounts.

Bent (in his “Genoa: how the Republic Rose and Fell,” 1881) from whom we have drawn some of the preceding details says (p. 106) these fairs in southern France were not without their political significance. Besides bringing hither their merchandise, the Italian traders imported into these towns their spirit of independence and their love of republicanism. It was from the south of France that the seeds of liberty, equality, and fraternity spread northwards. No greater stronghold of the rights of the third estate existed than at Marseilles. To this day the influence of this fact is strong on the politics of France. And the principles inculcated by the independent traders of Italy took deep root here under the eyes of despotism, and found a truly favourable soil in which to develop. The French revolution, and the state of France as it is to-day, may owe their first source to these very times when a Genoese merchant would repair to these fairs, proud and boastful of his own freedom, of his vote in the General Council, and of a government which owned no royal master; and all this could be said with a sneer at the people over whom the banner of the lilies held despotic sway.

North of Europe.—Towards the close of the tenth century periodical public markets or fairs were established in the northern portions of Europe, and were used for a purpose altogether new in these higher latitudes, but arising out of the rapine and hostilities peculiar to the period. In several of the North German towns the merchandise brought to them consisted of slaves taken in the wars—many of which were believed to have been fermented for the simple purpose of carrying off captives. Helmold relates that he saw 7,000 Danish slaves at one time exposed for sale in the market at Mecklenberg. The common price of ordinary slaves of either sex was about a mark (or 8 oz.) of silver; but some female slaves for their beauty or qualifications were rated as high as three marks. (Vide Thorkelin’s “Essay on the Slave Trade,” pp. 4-9.)

We arrive at the close of the sixteenth century. The city of Antwerp had at this period arrived very nearly at the summit of its wealth and glory, which Anderson (“Hist. of Commerce,” ii., p. 25) considers it had acquired by two principal means:—

I. By the grants of free fairs for commerce, made formerly by the sovereigns of the Netherlands—two of which fairs lasted each time six weeks—whither merchants resorted from all parts of Christendom with their merchandise, custom free. At these fairs vast concerns were managed, not only in merchandise, but in bills of exchange with all parts of Europe.

II. It had become the entrepot of the commerce between the southern and northern ports of Europe, and especially of the Portuguese merchants. This drew the German and other merchants to settle there; and the merchants of Bruges largely removed thither after the Archduke Maximilian had (about 1499) reduced their city. The fairs were aided by, and themselves aided, this development.

ENGLAND

CHAPTER II.
ORIGIN AND LAWS—ENGLAND.

In the preceding survey I have intentionally omitted any mention of England. Historians of the ordinary type have thought it beneath their dignity to refer to anything so common-place as fairs. The real mainsprings of our commerce seem in fact very generally to have escaped them. The greatest commercial nation of the world has found no historian willing to record the true causes of its greatness. The intrigues of sovereigns, the machinations of ecclesiastics; the trickeries of statesmen and diplomatists, have alone commanded their attention and absorbed their limited energies. The Statute-book, the one great storehouse of our national history, has escaped their observation. I propose to devote a special chapter to the origin and development of fairs in England.

It has been claimed that the Anglo-Saxons founded alike fairs and markets in England. To Alfred the Great the honour is usually assigned. I have no doubt whatever that the Romans first introduced the practice of holding markets and fairs in England. I find very distinct traces of fairs of Roman origin at Helston (Cornwall), at Barnwell (by Cambridge), at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and at several places along the line of the Roman wall in Northumberland. But assuming that the institutions of the country were largely recast during the Anglo-Saxon period, we may take note of the supposed re-institution of markets and fairs in the ninth century. The tithings held their sittings in their tithing or free-borough once a week, and many people coming thither to have their matters adjudicated upon, brought also their garden produce, corn, beasts, and id genus omne, for sale: because there they could meet one another, and buy and sell as their needs required, hence the commencement of a market weekly. From the Courts just mentioned there lay an appeal, if either plaintiff or defendant were not satisfied, to a County Court, held about Easter and Michaelmas, and over these a bishop and ealderman presided. To this superior Court also came numbers who, at the various intermediate Court-leets were not satisfied. And as large numbers came together, a greater and better opportunity was afforded for selling their wares and goods, corn, beasts, stuffs, linens. “In this we can trace the origin of fairs, which were generally held twice a year, on or about the times mentioned.” This is the dictum of Mr. G. Lambert, F.S.A., in a paper read before the London and Middlesex Archæological Society in 1880, the substance of which is published in the “Antiquary,” ii., pp. 102-3. The fairs here are seen to be purely secular institutions.

It was by the Normans that the fairs of England were moulded into the shape with which we are most familiar. The Norman kings placed themselves largely under the influence of the Papal throne; and it was to the Church, or in the interest of the Church, that nearly all fairs were granted after the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century. It was under John, early in the thirteenth century, that the power of the Church became most pronounced in England, and it is during this reign that most of the existing charters of fairs date.

Trying to harmonize these somewhat conflicting views, it may be supposed that some of our fairs at least were established during the Roman occupation. These were probably largely added to during the Anglo-Saxon period. The Normans admittedly encouraged fairs in the interest of the Church. The fairs of the first and second category were mostly fairs established by prescription, the latter were chiefly established by charter. But in the course of centuries the identity of origin becomes lost. Shepheard, in his “Corporations, Fraternities, and Guilds” (published 1659), says: “It is very usual in these Charters to confirm the old markets and fairs, and to grant new markets and Fairs. Or to change the dayes of the old markets or Fairs. And to grant to the Corporation the Py-powder Court and Incidents and profits of the Fair.” (P. 69.)

I am disposed to believe that many of the early fairs associated with religious observances and ceremonies, were in their inception fairs of prescription only: that is to say, fairs which took their origin in passing events, without any special authority, and that upon later occasions charters were obtained. Bailey says that in ancient times amongst Christians, upon any extraordinary solemnity, particularly the anniversary dedication of a church, tradesmen used to bring and sell their wares even in the churchyards, especially upon the festival of the dedication; as at Westminster, on St. Peter’s Day; at London, on St. Bartholomew’s; at Durham, on St. Cuthbert’s Day, &c.; but riots and disturbances often happening, by reason of the numbers assembled together, privileges were by royal charter granted, for various causes, to particular places, towns, and places of strength, where magistrates presided, to keep the people in order. (“Pop. Antiq.,” Brand.)

Blackstone says:—Fairs and markets, with the tolls belonging to them, can only be set up by virtue of the royal grant, or by long and immemorial usage and prescription, which presupposes such a grant. The limitation of these public resorts to such time and such place as may be most convenient for the neighbourhood forms a part of economics, or domestic polity, which, considering the kingdom as a large family, and the sovereign as the master of it, he clearly has a right to dispose and order as he pleases.

Again, a man may have a right to hold a fair or market, or to keep a boat for the ferrying of passengers; and this either by royal grant or by prescription, from which a royal grant may be presumed to have been at some time conferred. But (unless under an Act of Parliament) no other title than these will suffice; for no fair, market, or ferry can be lawfully set up without license from the Crown. On the other hand, a man may, under such titles, lawfully claim to be lord of a fair or market, though he be not the owner of the soil on which it is held.

The right to take toll is usually (though not necessarily) a part of the privilege; and the tolls of a fair or market are due either in respect of goods sold there (that is, from the seller, not the buyer), or for stallage or pickage, or the like, in respect of stalls or polls fixed in the soil.

I have seen it stated that before the granting of a fair it was customary to issue a writ of ad quod damnum, to inquire whether the grant would be prejudicial to any; but I doubt if the practice was at all general.

If I am entitled to hold a fair or market, and another person sets up a fair or market so near mine that he does me a prejudice, it is a nuisance to the freehold which I have in my market or fair. But in order to make this out to be a nuisance it is necessary (1) That my market or fair be the elder, otherwise the nuisance lies at my own door. (2) That the market be erected within the third part of twenty miles from mine. Sir M. Hale construes the dieta or reasonable day’s journey mentioned by Bracton, to be twenty miles; as, indeed, it is usually understood, not only in our own law, but also in the civil law, from which we probably borrowed it. So that if the new fair or market be not within seven miles of the old one, it is no nuisance; for it is held reasonable that every man should have a market within one-third of a day’s journey from his own home; that the day being divided into three parts, he may spend one part in going, another in returning, and the third in transacting his necessary business there. If such market or fair be on the same day with mine, it is primâ facie a nuisance to mine, and there needs no proof of it, but the law will intend it to be so; but if any other day it may be a nuisance; but of this there must be proof.

The statute of Gloucester (1278) conferred the right of inquiring into the title of all who claimed rights usually exercised by the Crown. Where such rights were questioned, the judicial process of quo warranto was set in motion. One of the principal matters about which inquisition was frequently made under this statute was the right of holding markets and fairs. This right could (as we have seen) only be conferred by royal grant, where prescription could not be pleaded. In many cases it had been assumed by those who had bought land on which fairs had usually been held, and who were then taking tolls from merchants which should in justice have gone to the King. Much curious information was obtained by means of the inquisitions conducted under this Act. This was originally recorded in the Hundred Rolls, and it is made free use of in this work.

It has been asserted that it is not in the King’s power to resume a franchise that has been once granted: so that a fair once authorized by royal grant, is, by the common law of England, good against the King. I have found no case wherein this principle is declared; but there is an instance which points in a contrary direction: for in 1446-7 (25 Hen. VI.) it was enacted “that all grants of franchises, markets, fairs, and other liberties to buy or to sell within the towns of North Wales made to any Welshman before this time, shall be void and of no effect.” Here it was parliament, not the King, revoking the grants. For further legislation regarding Welsh Fairs, see Chapter V., anno 1534.

Brady (in his famous work on “Boroughs”) seemed to be of opinion that every free borough had the privilege of a market and fair, with free right to come and go thereto and therefrom, as of course (p. 33, ed. 1777). But I discover no such inherent right, and where this privilege is sustained it has usually been included in one of its early charters. Certainly the converse is not the case: that is to say, it was in no way customary that fairs should be limited to boroughs free or otherwise. Many were, indeed, granted to small towns, frequently to lords of manors, and commonly to religious houses; and in various cases to individuals.

In the next chapter I shall examine more in detail the regulations upon our statute rolls regarding fairs.

CHAPTER III.
EARLY REGULATIONS AFFECTING FAIRS—ENGLAND.

It has been attributed to Alfred the Great that amongst the many wise and beneficial measures he took for the advancement of this kingdom, was the establishment of fairs and markets. I have already shown that this is not quite so; but certain it is that the first general measures for the regulation of commerce in England, are dated back to his reign. Hence it was then provided that alien merchants should come only to the “four fairs,” and should not remain in England more than forty days. This was in the latter half of the ninth century. But I have already shown that fairs were held in other parts of Europe, and in Asia, centuries earlier than this date. The point of importance in the regulation of Alfred is that foreign merchants were permitted by royal authority to attend these English fairs.

King Ethelred II. (end of tenth and commencement of eleventh centuries) proclaimed that the ships of merchants, or of enemies from the high seas, coming with goods into any port should be at peace. The principle here enunciated, of commerce being deemed an act of peace, is believed to be of high antiquity in Great Britain; but whether it originated here is by no means clear, nor is it material to determine. At later periods the practice has not been continuously upheld.

Henry I. granted to the citizens of London (inter alia) that they should be free throughout England and the sea ports from toll, passage through towns, ports, gates, and bridges; and lestage, or a toll paid for freedom to sell at Fairs.

Magna Charta (1215).—The demand of the Barons presented to King John embodied the following: “That merchants shall have safety to go and come, buy and sell, without any evil tolls, but by antient and honest customs.” In the completed Charter the actual grant took the following shape:

All merchants shall have safety and security in coming into England and going out of England, and in staying and in travelling through England, as well by land as by water, to buy and sell without any unjust exactions, according to ancient and right customs, excepting in time of war, and if they be of a country at war against us: and if such are found in our land at the beginning of a war, they shall be apprehended without injury of their bodies and goods until it be known to us, or to our Chief Justiciary, how the merchants of our country are treated who are found in the country at war against us; if ours be in safety there, the others shall be in safety in our land.

The doctrine of international reciprocity is here very clearly stated.

Macpherson (“Annals of Commerce”) is of opinion, after an examination of the trading of the chief commercial ports of Great Britain, that by the middle of the twelfth century (A.D. 1156) “the foreign trade was almost entirely conducted by foreign merchants;” indeed he declared it to be “evidently” so. I expect to be able to show that the great centres of trade at this period were the fairs held in various parts of the kingdom. The case of Sturbridge Fair (Cambridge) is a remarkable instance.

1216.—The first Great Charter of Henry III. confirmed the provisions of Magna Charta as to merchants, except in the case of those who had been before publicly prohibited. The privileges thus accorded to foreign merchants were seven. (1) To come into England (2) To depart thereout (3) To remain (4) To travel by land or water (5) To buy and sell (6) To be free of evil tolls[3] (7) To enjoy the ancient customs. This last was of material consequence, and implied privileges not common to ordinary persons. The promise of freedom from “evil tolls” hardly less so, as will hereafter appear.

These early privileges accorded to foreign merchants who visited our shores seem so natural to us, in these free-trade times, that we have a difficulty in realizing at the first glance the full measure of their significance. It may aid us in doing so if I review the general regulations regarding foreigners which prevailed (reciprocally) in most of the countries of Europe prior to this period (thirteenth century) and in many cases long thereafter. Every foreigner was answerable to the debts, and even crimes of all other foreigners of his own nationality[4]—and the question of nationality was very freely interpreted in some such cases. And in the case of the death of a foreign merchant his property in possession was either forfeited to the King or fell a prey to the rapacity of the lord of the soil in whose territory the death occurred.[5] Further, by an early custom of London, merchants giving reference for strangers, who purchased goods on the credit of such references, were held liable to pay for the goods so obtained. Thus under the custom of merchants, two persons of the same nationality being found in arrear, the whole debt might be charged to one of them—as the creditor might select!

These restrictions removed, or greatly modified, it is no wonder that fairs greatly increased in numbers and importance.

1235. This same monarch Henry III. gave special permission to the merchants of Cologne to attend fairs in all parts of England. This was probably in consequence of some claim from the branch of the Hanseatic League established in London, to trade in its corporate capacity exclusively for the cities which belonged to the confederacy. There was another association of German merchants settled in London at this date.

1275. The First statute of Westminster (c. 23) was intended to remedy the state of primitive justice already spoken of, and which to a large degree arose out of local jurisdictions. Under it no foreign person—that is to say, one who was not free of the town he visited—which is of this realm (i.e. of England) was to be distrained for any debts but his own in any city, burgh, town, market or fair.

1283. The statute de Mercatoribus (11 Edw. I.) was intended to assist merchants in the recovery of their debts, and thus to encourage them to trade in England. When they supplied goods and the debt was acknowledged before royal officers in specified towns, they could be empowered under the King’s seal to distrain for debt in default of payment. At Acton Burnel this new scheme was determined on, for trial in London, York, and Bristol; and after two years it was decreed (Statutum Mercatorum, 1285, 13 Edw. I.) that it should be brought into much more extensive operation by giving similar facilities in many other places, especially in fairs, and a much greater number of royal officers were empowered to act in the matter. These privileges were not limited to men from particular towns or countries: all foreign merchants could avail themselves thereof, except when this kingdom was at war with their native land. The clause relating to the “Seal of the Fair” was as follows:—

“And a Seal shall be provided that shall serve for Fairs, and the same shall be sent unto every Fair under the King’s Seal, by a Clerk sworn, or by the Keeper of the Fair, and the Seal shall be opened before them, and the one piece shall be delivered unto the aforesaid merchants, and the other shall remain with the Clerk; and before them, or one of the merchants, if both cannot attend, the Recognizances shall be taken as before is said.”

In the case of London two merchants of the Commonalty should be chosen that should swear compliance with this law.

And by a charter of the following year granted to foreign merchants then resident in England, it was ordained, “that one weight shall be kept in every fair and town; that the weigher shall show the buyer and seller that the beam and scales are fair, and that there shall be only one weight and measure in our dominions, and that they be stamped with our standard mark.” All students of history, know how well this ordinance has been observed!

By the Statute of Wynton [Winchester] attributed to the reign of Edw. I., but probably of earlier date it is enacted (c. 6) “And the King commandeth and forbiddeth that from henceforth neither Fairs nor markets be kept in the Church-yards for the Honour of the Church.”[6]

1321. About this date—reign of Edw. II.—there is supposed to have been enacted “Articles of the Office of Escheatry.” Amongst the duties of this officer of the crown, he was to hold inquest (inter alia) of markets, fairs, tolls, passage-monies, and customs, unjustly levied without license of the King; also where, when, and from what time, and how much they are worth by the year. Under the power so granted various inquisitions regarding fairs, and the tolls charged, and the privileges asserted, were conducted.

CHAPTER IV.
COURTS OF PIEPOWDER.

These have been already referred to, and will arise in various other parts of this work, as being closely associated with fairs.

These Courts, designated in the Latin tongue curia pedis pulverizati, in the Old French pied puldreaux, alike in each case, it is supposed, in reference to, or as typical of the dusty feet of the suitors. Some indeed say because “justice is there done as speedily as dust can fall from the feet.” But without reference to such fanciful derivations they may be spoken of as a rough-and-ready mode of administering justice at fairs, markets, &c. There is no record or ordinance by which any such Court was called into existence in this country. They came to us with fairs; they passed away with the decay of the commercial usages of fairs.

Those curious in matters of archæology may consult a paper hereon by Dr. Pettingall, which appears in “Archæologia,” i. pp. 190-203.

Barrington, in his “Observations on the Statutes,” observes that “In the Burrow Laws of Scotland, an alien merchant is called Piedpuldreaux, and likewise ane Farand-man, or a man who frequents fairs. The Court of Piepowder is, therefore, to determine disputes between those who resort to fairs and these kind of Pedlars who generally attend them. Pied puldreaux in Old French signifies a Pedlar, who gets his livelihood by vending his goods where he can, without any certain or fixed residence.”

In the “Regiam Majestatem,” 1609, there is the following: “Gif ane stranger merchand travelland throw the Realme, havand na land, nor residence, nor dwelling within the schirefdome, bot vaigand fra ane place to ane other, quha therefore is called Pied Puldreaux, or dustifute.”

Hence then the Court of Pie Powder signifies in simple language a Court of Pedlars.

Such Courts were held in the markets of the Romans, as they were in the markets of the Normans, and probably all through the old Roman Europe. But they had yet an earlier origin. Demosthenes makes it plain that all causes relating to the festival of Bacchus were heard on the spot. Fairs were associated with the Olympic games; and it seems clear descended from the festivities of the Greek Church.

The necessity in all fairs of a tribunal which could promptly deal with the differences arising amongst a fleeting population were the same, quite irrespective of where the fair might chance to be held. Again the merchants attending the principal fairs of different countries were in a large degree the same. They travelled from country to country. What they found beneficial in one part of the globe was equally so in another, and hence became adopted as of course. The tribunals of commerce which once existed in England, and which still exist in various parts of Continental Europe, are analagous to the Courts of Piepowder held at fairs.

In an account of a fair held in the northern region of Lapland as far back as two centuries ago (1681), a Court of Piepowder is recorded as one of its features.

The peculiar constitution of the Court has to be kept firmly in view. It had jurisdiction only in commercial questions. It tried them before a jury of traders formed on the spot. It could entertain a case of slander, if of merchandise or wares exhibited, but not of the merchant or trader who vended the same. It could sit only during fair time; could take cognizance only of things happening during fair time, and within the fair. It could try a thief who had committed robbery in the fair only when he had been captured within its bounds. It might hold pleas for amounts, in later times, above forty shillings; and its judgments could be deferred and enforced at the next fair. So firmly indeed had custom defined the powers of these Courts, that it has been well said, even the King himself if he were sitting as judge in such a Court, could not extend them.

Specific Legislation.—1478. There having been many abuses committed in the Courts Piepowder held at the fairs in England, chiefly by the avarice and injustice of their stewards, bailiffs, and others, whose province it was to hold the courts and administer impartial justice in all cases arising during the continuance, and within the jurisdiction, of the fairs: but who took cognizance of contracts and trespasses unconnected with the fairs, and frequently having no foundation in truth. These abuses began to have the effect of preventing merchants from attending the fairs: whereby the people of the country were deprived of the convenience of purchasing goods; and the lords of the fairs lost their customary profits. The entire subject came before parliament, and a measure intended for relief resulted, which I shall now review in detail:

17 Edw. IV. c. 2.—Item, Whereas divers Fairs be holden & kept in this Realm, some by Prescription allowed before Justices in Eyre, & some by grant of our Lord the King that now is, & some by the grant of his noble Progenitors & Predecessors, & to every of the same Fairs is of right pertaining a Court of Pypowders, to minister in the same due Justice in this behalf; in wʰ Court it hath been all times accustomed, that every person coming to the sᵈ Fairs shᵈ have lawful remedy of all manner of Contracts, Trespasses, Covenants, Debts, & other Deeds under or done within any of the same Fairs, during the time of the same Fairs, & within the jurisdiction of the same, & to be tried by merchants being of the same Fair; wʰ Courts at this day be misused by Stewards....

And sometimes, by the device of evil disposed people several suits be feigned to trouble them to whom they bear evil will, to the intent that they for Lucre may have favorable Inquests of those that come to the sᵈ Fairs, where they take their actions ... whereby the Lords of the same Fairs do lose great profit by the not coming of divers merchants to the fairs ... & also the Commons be unserved of such stuff & merchandise as wᵈ otherwise come to the said Fairs.

For remedy whereof it was Ordained & Established that from the first day of May then next ensuing no Steward, Under-steward, Bailiff, Commissary, nor other minister of any such Courts of Pypowders should hold plea upon any action at the Suit of any person or persons, unless the Plaintiff or plaintiffs, or his or their attorney, in the presence of the defendant or defendants do swear upon the holy Evangelists, upon the Declaration, that the Contract or other Deed contained in the sᵈ Declaration was made or committed within the Fair & within the Time of the sᵈ Fair where he taketh his action, & within the bounds & jurisdiction of the same Fair. The Defendant might plead that the cause did not arise out of the Fair. If the plaintiff refused to swear the defendant shᵈ be quit. The penalty on a Steward for holding a Court contrary to this act 100½ shillings. This act to be Proclaimed, & was to continue until the first day of the next Parliament “Provided always, That this act nor anything comprised in the same act be hurtful & prejudicial to William now Bishop of Durham, nor to his successors within the Liberty & Franchise of the Bishoprick of Durham.” This act was amended in slight details by 1 Rich. III. c. 6 (1483). See Chap. V.

Appeal.—1779. By the 19 George III. c. 70 right of appeal was given against the judgments of any of the inferior courts—and hence against those of the Courts of Piepowder—by means of a writ of error to the superior courts at Westminster; and such courts were to have the right of issuing writs of execution in aid of their processes after judgment not appealed against. This largely extended the efficacy of this particular court, as goods of the defendant—not in the fair, and therefore beyond the ancient jurisdiction of this court—could now be levied upon.

CHAPTER V.
LEGISLATION FOR FAIRS IN ENGLAND.

Duration of Fairs.

1328.

There was enacted 2 Edwᵈ. III. c. 15. “No person shall keep a Fair longer than he ought to do,” which was as follows:

Item, it is established That it shall be commanded to all the sheriffs of England & elsewhere, where need shall require to cry and publish within Liberties & without, that all the Lords [of the soil] wʰ have Fairs, be it for yielding certain Ferm [Rent?] for the same to the King or otherwise, shall hold the same for the time that they ought to hold it, & no longer; that is to say, (1) such as have them by the King’s Charter granted them, for the time limited by the sᵈ Charters (2) and also they that have them without Charter, for the time that they ought to hold them of Right. (3) And that every Lord at the beginning of his Fair shall there do cry & publish how long the fair shall endure, to the intent that merchants shall not be at the same Fairs over the time so published, upon pain to be greviously punished towards the King (4) Nor the sᵈ Lords shall not hold them over the due Time upon pain to seize the Fairs into the King’s hands, there to remain till they have made a fine to the King for the offence, after it be duly found, that the Lords held the same Fairs longer than they ought, or that the merchants have sitten above the time so cried & published. See 1331.

1331. The 5 Edw. III. c. 5—“The Penalty if any do sell Ware at a Fair after it is ended” was as follows:

Item, Where it is contained in the statute made at Northampton [1328] ... that the Lords wʰ have Fairs by Charters or otherwise, shall hold them during the Time that they ought to do, & no longer upon Pain to seize such Fairs into the King’s hands (2) & that every Lord at the Beginning of his Fair shall proclaim how long the fair shall endure; (3) and in the same Statute is no certain punishment ordained against the merchants if they sell after the time, (4) it is accorded, That the sᵈ merchants after the sᵈ time shall close their Booths & Stalls without putting any manner of Ware or Merchandise to sell there. (5) And if it be found, that any merchant from henceforth sell any Ware or merchandise at the sᵈ Fairs after the sᵈ Time, such Merchant shall forfeit to me Lord the King the double value of that wʰ is sold (6) and every Man that will sue for our Lord the King, shall be received, & shall have the fourth part of that wʰ shall be lost at his suit.

Macpherson [“Hist. of Commerce”] commenting upon this act says Fairs were “the seats of most of the inland trade of the kingdom.”

1448. The 27 Henry VI. c. 5 was directed against “the scandal of holding Fairs & markets on Sundays & upon High Feast Days.” This practice had in earlier times been very general.

Attempted Limitation of the Commerce of Fairs.—1487. The Common Council of London, in order to oblige the people to resort to the City for their purchases, had made an ordinance that no citizen should carry goods for sale to any fair or market out of the city. The assortment of goods in London (says Macpherson) appears to have been so commanding that those interested in fairs of Salisbury, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Ely, Coventry, and other places, and also the people of the country in general, were alarmed, and represented to Parliament the destruction of the fairs, and the great hardship of being obliged to travel to London to procure chalices, books, vestments, and other church ornaments, and also victuals for the time of Lent, linen cloth, woollen cloth, brass, pewter, bedding, osmond, iron, flax, wax, and other necessaries. The London ordinance was thereupon annulled by Parliament; and the citizens were permitted to go with their goods to the fairs and markets in every part of England. (“Hist. of Com.” i. p. 708.)

The act by which this was effected is 3 Hen. VII. c. 9—Freemen of London may carry their wares to any Fairs or Markets—which recites as follows:

“Humbly showen and prayen unto your Highness, your true & faithful Commons of this your Realm of England, That where the Citizens & Freemen of the City of London have used out of time & mind to go, carry & lede their merchandise & ware unto all Fairs & markets at their Liberty of the sᵈ City; now of late time the Mayor, Aldermen, & Citizens of the City of London have made & enacted an Ordinance within the same City, upon a great Pain, that no man that is a freeman or a Citizen of the sᵈ City shall go or come to any Fair or Market out of the same City of London, with any manner of ware or merchandise to sell or to barter, to this Intent, that all Buyers & merchants should resort to the sᵈ City to buy their ware & merchandises of the sᵈ Citizens & Freemen of London aforesaid, because of their singular Lucre & Avail; wʰ Ordinance, if it should hold as is before expressed, shall be to the utter destruction of all other Fairs & markets within this your Realm, wʰ God defend: for there be many fairs for the common weal of your said liege People, as at Salisbury, Bristol, Oxenforth, Cambrigge, Netyngham, Ely, Coventre, & at many other places where Lords Spiritual, & Temporal, Abbots, Priors, Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen, & your said Commons of Every Country hath their common resort, to buy & purvey many things that be good & profitable, as Ornaments of Holy Church, Chalice, Books, Vestments, & other ornaments of Holy Church aforesᵈ, & also for Household, as victual for the time of Lent, & other stuff, as Linnen Cloth, Woollen Cloth, Brass, Pewter, Bedding, Osmonde, Iron, Flax, & Wax, & many other necessary Things, the wʰ might not be forborn amongst your said liege People; but, by the sᵈ Ordinance every man willing to buy any of the premisses, shall be courted to come to the sᵈ City of London, to their importable Costs & Charges, wʰ if the sᵈ act should endure, shall grow great hurt & prejudice to the common weal of this your Realm, & shall cause many pernicious strifes & debates between your said liege people, & the said Mayor, Aldermen & Citizens in time to come, by the making the sᵈ Ordinance, the wʰ is thought may not continue & stand with good charity, the premisses considered, wherefore it may please your said Highness most noble & abundant Grace, in consideration of the Hurt likely to grow of & by the premises, that it may be enacted:

The King Lords and Commons therefore enacted that every freeman and citizen of London then or thereafter, might go with his victual ware or merchandise, at his or their liberty to any fair or market that should please him within the realm of England, any act, statute or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding. Any disregard of the statute to incur a penalty of £10 to the king.

1496. The Company of Merchant-Adventurers of England which was said to have been in existence for nearly two centuries—although not actually chartered until 1505—took steps about this period calculated to interfere with the freedom of British merchants to attend fairs and marts in foreign countries.

The merchants who traded on their own individual account residing in various parts of England and of the City of London, sent up a petition to the House of Commons, (as against the claims of the said Company of Merchant-Adventurers) wherein it was set forth that they traded beyond the sea with their goods and merchandise, as well into Spain, Portugal, Bretagne, Ireland, Normandy, France, Seville, Venice, Dantzic, Eastland, Friseland and many other parts—the geography is often a little hazy in these early documents—there to buy and sell and make their exchanges, according to the laws and customs of those parts: every one trading as seemed most to his advantage, without sanction, fine, imposition or contribution, to be had or taken of them, or any of them, to for, or by, any English person or persons. And in like sort they, before this time had used, and of right ought to have and use the like commerce into the coasts of Flanders, Zealand, Holland, Brabant, and other adjacent parts, under the obedience of the Archduke of Burgundy; in which places are usually kept the universal marts or fairs, four times in the year; to which marts all Englishmen, and divers other nations in times past, have used to resort, there to sell their own commodities, and freely to buy such merchandise as they had occasion for: till now of late, the Fellowship of Mercers, and other merchants and adventurers, dwelling and being free within the City of London by confederacy amongst themselves, for their own singular profit, contrary to every Englishman’s liberty, to the liberty of the said mart there, and contrary to all law, reason, charity, right and conscience have made an ordinance among themselves to the prejudice of all other Englishmen, that no Englishman resorting to the said mart, shall either buy or sell any merchandise there, unless he shall first have compounded and made fine with the said Fellowship of Merchants of London, at their pleasure; upon pain of forfeiture to the said Fellowship of such their said merchandise. Which fine, imposition, and exaction, at the beginning, when first taken, was demanded by colour of the Fraternity of St. Thomas Becket; at which time it was only an old noble sterling. And so by colour of such feigned holiness, it hath been suffered to be taken of a few years past: it was afterwards increased to 100 shillings, Flemish; but now the said Fellowship of London take of every Englishman or young merchant, being there, at his first coming £40 sterling for a fine, to suffer him to buy, and sell his own goods. By reason whereof, all merchants not of the said Fellowship, do withdraw themselves from the said marts: whereby the woollen cloth of this realm, which is one of the greatest commodities of the same, as well as sundry other English commodities of the same, as well as sundry other English commodities, are not sold and got off as in times past, but are for want of sale thereof, in divers parts, where such clothes are made, conveyed to London, and there sold at an undervalued price, even below what they cost the makers. Moreover the merchandise of those foreign parts, imported by the said Fellowship, is sold to your complainants and other subjects at so high a price that the buyers cannot live thereupon; by reason whereof all the cities and towns of the realm are falling into great poverty, ruin and decay: and the King’s customs and subsidies, and the navy of the land greatly decreased.

It was therefore enacted (12 Hen. VII. c. 6) that all Englishmen from henceforth should and might freely resort to the Coasts of Flanders, Holland, Zealand, Brabant, and other parts adjoining, under the obedience of the Archduke; and at their marts or fairs there, sell their merchandise freely, without exaction, fine, imposition, or contribution taken or received of any of them by the said Fraternity or Fellowship, excepting only the sum of ten marks [£6 13s. 4d.] sterling, on pain of forfeiting £20 for every time they take more; and shall also forfeit to the person so imposed on ten times so much as contrary to this act was taken of him. See 1554.

Welsh Fairs.—1534. There was enacted 26 Hen. VIII. c. 6—The Bill concerning Councils in Wales—which recited: “Forasmuch as the people of Wales, & the marches of the same, not dreading the good & wholesome Laws & Statutes of this Realm, have of long time continued & persevered in Perpetration & Commission of divers & manifold Thefts, Murthers, Rebellions, wilful Burning of Houses & other scelerous Deeds & abominable malefacts, to the high displeasure of God, Inquietation of the Kings well-disposed subjects, & Disturbance of the Public Weal, wʰ malefacts & scelerous Deeds be so rooted & fixed in the same People, that they be not like to cease unless some sharp correction & Punishment for Redress & Amputation of the Premises be provided, according to the Demerits of the offenders.” Whereupon it was enacted (inter alia):

That no person or persons dwelling or resident within Wales or the Lordships marches of the same, of what Estate, Degree, or Condition soever he or they be of, coming, resorting, or repairing unto any Sessions or Court to be holden within Wales or any Lordships, marches, of the same shall bring or bear, or cause to be brought or born to the same Sessions or Court or to any place within the distance of two miles from the same Sessions or Court, nor to any Town, Church, Fair, Market or other congregation, except it be upon a Hute or Outcry made of any Felony or Robbery done or perpetrated, nor in the Highways in affray of the King’s Peace, or the Kings liege People, any Bill, Long-bow, Cross-bow, Hand-gun, Sword, Staff, Dagger, Halbert, More-spike, Spear, or any other manner of weapon, Proof-coat or Armour defensive, upon pain of forfeiture of the same and of imprisonment and fine, except permission by given by the proper authorities authorised thereto.

Robberies in Fairs.—1552. The 5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 9—An Act for the taking away of the Benefit of Clergy for certain offenders recites: (3) “And where also it hath been in question & doubted, that if such Robberies & Felonies happen to be committed & done in any Booth or Booths, Tent or Tents in any Fair or market, the Owner of the same, his wife, Children or Servants happening to be within the same at the time of the committing of such Felonies, & put in fear & dread, the offenders therein being found guilty after the Laws of this Realm, should not lose the Benefit of Clergy.”

Whereupon it was enacted that persons so offending should not be entitled to benefit of Clergy, but should suffer death in such manner and form as was mentioned in the act 23 Hen. VIII. c. 1, for Robberies and Felonies committed and done in Dwelling houses and Dwelling places, the Owner and Dweller in the same, his wife children or servants being within the same, and put in fear and dread, without having any respect or consideration whether the owner or dweller in such booths and tents his wife, children or servants being in the same Booths or Tents at the time of such Robberies and Felonies committed, shall be sleeping or waking.

Restricting the dealing in Fairs.—1554. By the 1st and 2nd Philip and Mary, c. 7—An Act for that Persons dwelling in the Country shall not sell divers Wares in Cities or Towns Corporate by retail—it is recited: Where before this time the ancient Cities, Boroughs, Towns Corporate and market Towns (within this Realm of England) have been very populous, and chiefly inhabited with merchants, Artificers, and Handicraftsmen, during which time the Children in those Cities were civilly brought up and instructed, and also the said cities &c. kept in good order and obesience, and the inhabiters of the same well set on work and kept from idleness. (2) By reason whereof, the said Cities &c. did then prosper in riches and great wealth, and were as then not only able to serve and furnish the King and Queens majesties, and their noble progenitors, Kings of this Realm, as well with great numbers of good able persons and well furnished, meet for the wars, as also then charged, and yet chargeable with great fee-farms, Quindismes, Taxes, and divers other payments to the King and Queen’s Majesties, which at this present they be not able to pay and bear, but to their utter Undoing, being few in number to pay and bear the same; but also the same Cities &c. are likely to come very shortly to utter destruction, ruin and decay; (3) by reason whereof the occupiers, Linendrapers, woollen-drapers, Haberdashers and Grocers dwelling in the Counties out of the said Cities &c. do not only occupy the art and mystery of the said Sciences in the places where they dwell and inhabit, but also come into the said Cities &c. and there sell their wares, and take away the Relief of the inhabitants of the said Cities &c. to the great decay and utter undoing of the inhabitants of the same, if speedy reformation therein be not had in time convenient. (4) For remedy whereof and for the better amendment of the said Cities &c. to the end that the same Cities &c. may be better able to pay the said Fee-farms, and also to bear the other ordinary charges within the same Cities &c. and to furnish the King and Queen’s majesties with numbers of able persons, like as they have heretofore done in times past, in times of War.

It was enacted, That any person or persons which do now inhabit and dwell, or hereafter shall inhabit and dwell in the Country anywhere, or County within this Realm of England, out of any of the said Cities, Boroughs, Towns Corporate or Market Towns, from and after the Feast of St. Michael the archangel next coming, shall not sell or cause to be sold by retail, any woollen cloth, Linen Cloth, Haberdashery wares, Grocery wares, Mercery wares, at or within any of the said Cities &c., or within the Suburbs or Liberties of the said Cities, &c., within the said Realm of England (except it be in open Fairs) upon pain of forfeiting 6s. 8d. and the whole Wares so sold, proffered and offered to be sold contrary to the form and intent of this act as above is said. But all such persons might sell their products wholesale; and persons dwelling in the Country, but afterwards becoming free of any City &c. would be thus placed outside the operation of this act. And persons might sell by retail all manner of Cloth, Linen or Woollen of our making anywhere notwithstanding this act. “Provided alway that this act or anything therein contained shall not be prejudicial or hurtful to the Liberties and Privileges of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, or either of them.”

Horse Fairs.—1555. The 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 7 related to the facilities for dealing in stolen horses, which it was attempted to check by having duly appointed fairs for such dealings. This Act gave rise to the holding of “Horse Fairs” separately from other fairs. The Act 31 of Elizabeth c. 12 (1589) required a record to be kept of all horses sold at fairs.

Plague.—1625. The importance rightly attached from a sanitary point of view to the gathering of large multitudes together at fairs is manifested in a very ample degree in a Royal Proclamation issued by Charles I. from his Palace at Woodstock on the 4th August:

The Kings most excellent majesty, out of his Princely and Christian care of his loving subjects, that no good means of Providence may be neglected to stay the further spreading of the great infection of the Plague, doth find it necessary to prevent all occasions of public concourse of his people for the present, till it shall please Almighty God of His goodness, to cease the violence of the Contagion which is very dispersed into many parts of the Kingdom already; And therefore remembering that there are at hand two Fairs of special note and unto which there is usually extraordinary resort out of all parts of the Kingdom, the one kept in Smithfield, near the City of London, called Bartholomew Fair, and the other near Cambridge called Stourbridge Fair, the holding whereof at the usual times would in all likelihood be the occasion of further danger and infection in other parts of the land, which yet in Gods mercy stand clear and free, hath, with the advice of his Majesty’s Privy Council, thought good, by this open declaration of his pleasure and necessary commandment, not only to admonish and require all his loving subjects to forbear to resort for this time to either of the said two fairs, or to any other fairs within 50 miles of the said City of London, but also to enjoin the Lords of the said Fairs, and others interested in them, or any of them, that they all forbear to hold the said Fairs, or anything appertaining so them, at all times accustomed or at any time, till by God’s goodness and mercy the infection of the Plague shall cease, or be so much diminished, that his majesty shall give order for holding them; upon pain of such punishment as, for a contempt so much concerning the universal safety of his people, they shall be adjudged to deserve, which they must expect to be inflicted with all severity: His Majesty desire being so intentive for preventing the general Infection threatened, as he is resolved to spare no man that shall be the cause of dispersing the same. And to that purpose doth hereby further charge and enjoin, under like penalty, all citizens and inhabitants of the said City of London, that none of them shall repair to any fair held within any part of his kingdom, until it shall please God to cease the infection now reigning amongst them: His Majesty’s intention being, and so hereby declaring himself, that no Lord of any Fairs, or others interested in the profits thereof, shall by this necessary and temporary restraint, receive any prejudice in the right of his or their Fairs, or liberties thereunto belonging, anything before mentioned notwithstanding.

Earlier proclamations and orders had prevented the holding or had curtailed the period of St. Bartholomew fairs on several occasions viz. 1348, 1593, and 1603; and other fairs had likewise been stayed or postponed. These will be noticed in dealing with such fairs specifically.

1630. The Plague was prevailing in Cambridge, and a Royal Proclamation was issued, dated Aug. 1, prohibiting the holding of the “three great Fairs of special note, unto which there is an extraordinary resort from all parts of the Kingdom” viz. those of Bartholomew, Sturbridge, and Southwark.

Coinage.—1662. The preceding year was that of the Restoration, and it was by Proclamation ordered that the coinage of the Commonwealth should be no longer current than the last day of November. The “Kingdom’s Intelligencer” for Aug. 22-25 this year contained the following: “Whitehall Aug. 23. There hath been a discovery of divers persons who have coined both gold and silver, and of other persons who have vended the same in great quantities &c. intending to utter the same to Clothiers and at Fairs; which is published to an end that honest persons may not be deceived by receiving such monies.”

Sale of Printed Matter, &c.—1698. In the 9 and 10 William III. c. 27—An Act for Licensing Hawkers and Pedlars &c. section 9 is as follows: Provided always.... That this Act or anything contained shall not Extend to Prohibit any persons from selling of any Acts of Parliament, Forms of Prayer, Proclamations, Gazettes, licensed Almanacks or other Printed Papers, licensed by authority, or any Fish, Fruits or Victuals; nor to hinder any person or persons, who are the real workers or makers of any Goods or Wares within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or his her or their Children, Apprentices, Agents or Servants, to such real Workers and makers of such Goods or Wares only, from carrying abroad, exposing to Sale, or selling any of the said Goods and Wares of his, her, or their, own making in any Public Mart, Fairs, Markets, or Elsewhere; nor any Tinkers, Coopers, Glaziers, Plummers, Harness-menders, or other persons actually trading in mending kettles, Tubs, Household Goods or Harness whatsoever, from going about and carrying with them proper materials for mending the same.

And by Section 12 it is further enacted: That nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to hinder any person or persons from Selling or exposing to sale any sorts of Goods or Merchandises, in any public mart, Market, or Fair within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, but that such person or persons may do therein as they lawfully might have done before the making of this act; anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

Altering the Calendar.—1751. Under 24 Geo. II. c. 23—An Act for Regulating the Commencement of the Year; and for correcting the Calendar now in use, it was provided Section 4 (inter alia) that the terms for holding and keeping of all markets, fairs and marts, “whether for the sale of Goods or Cattle, or for the hiring of Servants, or for any other purpose, wʰ are either fixed to certain nominal days of the month, or depending upon the beginning, or any certain day of any month, & all Courts incident & belonging to, or usually holden or kept with any such Fairs or Marts, should be holden & kept upon or according to the same natural days upon or according to wʰ the same shᵈ have been so kept or holden in case this act had not been made.”

This act was amended by 25 Geo. II. c. 30, which enacted that all such events as before enumerated were to take place “according to the new Calendar.”

CHAPTER VI.
MODERN LEGISLATION.

1839-1874.

In the 2nd and 3rd Vict. c. 47—An Act for the Further Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis—it is provided that Inquiries may be made regarding Fairs within the Metropolitan Police District, alike as to the authority to hold such Fair, and also as to the time during which it may be holden. If the authority for holding the Fair be doubtful the owner or occupier of the ground may be summoned to show his right and title to hold such Fair: and if the Fair be declared unlawful, then Booths &c. may be removed. But the owner or occupier by entering into recognizances, may reserve the question of the right or title to hold such Fair, to be tried in the Court of Queen’s Bench—see 1868.

1843. The 6 and 7 Vict. c. 68—An Act for Regulating Theatres—recites “Whereas it is expedient that the Laws now in force for regulating Theatres and Theatrical Performances be repealed, and other Provisions be enacted in their stead.” And section 23 is as follows: And be it enacted that in this act the word “Stage-play” shall be taken to include every Tragedy, Comedy, Farce, Opera, Burletta, Interlude, Melodrama, Pantomime, or other entertainment of the stage, or any part thereof: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any Theatrical Representation in any Booth or Show which by the Justices of the Peace, or other Persons having authority in that behalf, shall be allowed in any lawful Fair, Feast, or customary meeting of the like kind. This act was only to extend to Great Britain.

1844. The 7 and 8 Vict. c. 24—An Act for Abolishing the Offences of Forestalling, Regrating, and Engrossing, and for repealing certain statutes passed in Restraint of Trade—enacts (section 4) “That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to the offence of knowingly and fraudulently spreading or conspiring to spread any false rumour, with intent to enhance or decry the Price of any goods or merchandise, or to the offence of preventing or endeavouring to prevent by Force or threats any goods, wares, or merchandise being brought to any Fair or Market, but that every such offence shall be inquired of, tried, and punished as if this act had not been made.”

1847. There was enacted 10 and 11 Vict. c. 14—An Act for consolidating in One Act certain Provisions usually contained in Acts for Constructing or Regulating Markets and Fairs—which however was only to extend to such markets or fairs as should be authorised by any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed, which should declare this Act to be incorporated therewith; and then all clauses of this Act, except so far as they might be varied or excepted from such Act were to apply. The details of this measure will fall to be reviewed more in detail under Markets.

1868. There was enacted 31 and 32 Vict. c. 51—An Act to amend the Laws relating to Fairs in England and Wales—under which “in case it should appear to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, upon representation duly made to him by the magistrates of any Petty Sessional District, within which any Fair is held, or by the owner of any Fair in England and Wales, that it would be for the convenience and advantage of the Public that any such Fair shall be held in each year on some day or days other than those on which such Fair is used to be held, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order that such Fair shall be held on such other day or days as he shall think fit.” Provided notice of such representation be duly advertised, and also notice of order as therein provided. (See 1873.)

An act of the same session (c. 12) gave powers to facilitate the alteration of days upon which and of places at which fairs might be held in Ireland. It was upon the same lines as the preceding.

Another measure of the same session (c. 106)—An Act for the Prevention of the holding of unlawful Fairs within the Limits of the Metropolitan Police District—provides that where any Fair is holden or notice given of any Fair proposed to be holden on any ground within the Metropolitan Police District, other than that on which a Fair has been holden during each of the seven years immediately preceding, it should be competent for the Commissioner of Police to cause inquiry to be made as to right and title to hold such Fair, after the manner provided by the act of 1839. This is designated “The Metropolitan Fairs Act 1868.”

1871. There was enacted 34 Vict. c. 12—An Act to further Amend the Law relating to Fairs in England and Wales—which recites: “Whereas certain of the Fairs held in England & Wales are unnecessary, are the cause of grievous immorality, and are very injurious to the inhabitants of the Towns in which such Fairs are held, and it is therefore expedient to make provision to facilitate the abolition of such Fairs.” It is then provided that the Secretary of State may on representation of magistrates with consent of owner, order fairs to be abolished. The machinery being the same as under the Act of 1839 applying to the Metropolitan Police District. This Act is known as “The Fairs Act, 1871.”

1872. The Local Government Board (Ireland) Act 1872 gave (35 and 36 Vict. c. 69, section 10) powers to the governing body of any town, being the owners of any fair held therein (under the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1871) with the consent of two thirds of the members of such governing body, and with the consent of the Local Government Board—and of any person being the owner of any fair, with the consent of the last named body—to alter and fix the days for holding fairs. Notices being given as therein prescribed.

1873. The Act of 1868 was repealed, but almost precisely similar provisions were re-enacted by 36 and 37 Vict. c. 37. The term “owner” (used as in the previous act and in this) was defined to mean any person or persons, or body of companies, or body corporate, entitled to hold any fair, whether in respect of the ownership of any lands or tenements, or under any charter, letters patent, or otherwise howsoever.

This measure was not to apply to Scotland or Ireland.

1874. There are a great number of acts relating to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors at Fairs and Races. The latest 37 and 38 Vict. c. 49 (1874) by section 18, enacts that “occasional Licences” are required in all such cases, except where the ordinary licensed premises fall within the boundaries of such fair or race ground.

STURBRIDGE FAIR.

CHAPTER VII.
ORIGIN.

The origin of this Fair—like that of most of the great fairs of the world—is involved in obscurity. The first trace of it is found in a charter granted about 1211 by King John to the Lepers of the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen at Sturbridge, by Cambridge—a fair to be held in the Close of the Hospital on the Vigil and Feast of the Holy Cross.

The Commissioners appointed by Edward I. to make inquiry into the rights and revenue of the Crown, visited Cambridge; and concerning its several markets and fairs reported (inter alia) the existence of this fair to which fact I shall make further reference, under date 1278.

Whatever its origin, it became in a comparatively short time after the period of which I am now speaking the most important fair held in Great Britain, and some writers have declared—without much apparent information to guide them—in the world. The incidents in its history are so remarkable, and throw so much light upon the customs of our forefathers, that I propose to give them in considerable detail. They have been brought together from various sources—the chief being Cooper’s “Annals of Cambridge,” compiled by Charles Henry Cooper, F.S.A., who held the office of Town Clerk, and who consequently had unrestricted access to the records. The “History and Antiquities of Barnwell Abbey,” 1786, has been largely consulted. While the ample notes appended to the “Life of Ambrose Bonwicke,” as edited by Prof. John E. B. Mayor, M.A., 1870, have been made available. I have followed as best suited to the circumstances, a strictly chronological arrangement.

As questions continually arise in the progress of our record regarding the rights of the town of Cambridge over the fair, it will be well here briefly to indicate how these may have arisen. In the inquisition of the Commissioners already referred to, it is recorded that “the keepers of this Hospital hold twenty four acres and a half of land in Cambridge field, for the support of the Lepers therein dwelling according to ancient right and custom.” From other sources it appears that the Hospital was at the disposal of the burgesses of Cambridge previous to 1245; but that about this time Hugh de Northwold, the then Bishop of Ely “unjustly got the patronage of it.” The burgesses still claimed that the advowson of the Hospital “belonged by right to them.” The fact probably being that the hospital was established by the town, before it was converted into a religious foundation; that upon such conversion the Church claimed sole jurisdiction; but as the original grant of land was not relinquished the townsmen still asserted their interest; and it will be seen, in the end—and after centuries of conflict—obtained it. See 1544.

There is a further element of conflict, of a far more pertinacious character than the preceding, running almost entirely through our six centuries of record—and this is with the University, as distinguished from the Town, of Cambridge. It was the custom to grant to University towns very large powers regarding the food supplies, i.e. the control of the markets; as also, and necessarily, the control of the morals, and therefore the amusements, of the scholars. Such a fair as that of Sturbridge affected alike the food supplies, and the moral discipline of the students; and hence the whole machinery of the University was put in force to secure and maintain control. It is in this view that many of the details of the University Proclamation of the Fair (see 1548) can alone be explained. On the other hand the Town authorities always had in view their rights over the Lepers Hospital; and hence their reversion in the tolls of the fair. Other points will make themselves apparent; but these are the broad views from which many of the following incidents have to be regarded.

Name of the Fair.—The first point of interest is the name of the Fair. It is occasionally spelled in such a manner as to be entirely misleading as to its locality; and hence many have come to regard it as being in the western, instead of the eastern part of the kingdom. The spelling indeed has varied much at different periods. The original designation was Steresbrigg, so called from the little river of Stere, or Sture flowing into the Cam, near Cambridge. There have been several fanciful origins assigned by those who were too indolent to investigate proper sources: such as (by Bloomfield) that it was derived from the toll paid for all young cattle, or steers passing over the bridge! I have throughout this record followed the spelling of the authorities under quotation.

CHAPTER VIII.
CHRONOLOGY, THIRTEENTH TO FIFTEENTH CENTURIES—STURBRIDGE.

1278.

The Commissioners of Edward I. (already referred to) returned upon inquest that King John had granted this Fair for the benefit of the Hospital for Lepers which stood there. “To the said Hospital belongs a certain Fair, held at the Feast of the raising and exaltation of the Cross, which continues to this eve of Holy Cross, within the meadow belonging to the said Hospital, which Fair our sovereign Lord King John, the predecessor of our present Lord the King, granted to the said Hospital, for the use and subsistence of the Lepers dwelling therein.”

1351. A writ was on 3rd Oct. directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire requiring him to convey to the Keeper of the King’s Wardrobe in the Tower of London, thirty-seven strait cloths, and one cloth of colour, lately seized in the Fair of Steresbrigge to the King’s use, by his deputy Alnager, as not being of the assize and which were then in the custody of the Mayor of Cambridge.

1376. This year the Corporation of Cambridge made an Ordinance, prohibiting any burgess to take Sturbridge Chapel to farm, except to the use of the mayor and bailiffs, or to keep market there, under the penalty of 10 marks, or to make any booth there, or let any place for the building of a booth, under the penalty of 10s.; and any burgesses convicted of a breach of this Ordinance before the twenty-four [members of the Common Council] was to be deprived of his freedom at their discretion.

1382. The King being informed that many false weights and measures had been theretofore used in Steresbrigge Fair, to the deception of his subjects resorting thereto, issued a Writ on 3rd Sept. requiring the Chancellor of the University to be vigilant in exercising in that fair the powers conferred on him by the late Charter [1381] respecting weights and measures.

Two years later a dispute arose between the Corporation and the University regarding the exercise of this right. The King confirmed the privilege of the University.

1395. Richard II. made order that the sheriff was to apprehend all persons who broke the peace in Bernwell Fair, whether scholars or townsmen.

1397. On Hoch Tuesday the commonalty of Cambridge made Ordinances to the following effect: ...

ii. That all burgesses having any booths at the Fair of Sterebrigge, and who should let them to farm to any outcomers or foreigners for certain sum agreed upon between them, should pay to the mayor and bailiffs the third part of the sum for which the same should be so let.

iii. That no freeman should occupy two booths of one art.

1403. The Corporate Ordinances made by Cambridge this year contain (inter alia) the following:

Item ... Every man burgess of the town of Cambridge, may freely have one booth in the fair of Stirbridge, without rendering any thing therefore to the mayor and bailiffs for the time being, whether he occupy it or let it to farm. And that no burgess have in the fair aforesaid more than one booth, unless he render therefore to the mayor and bailiffs for the time being, toll and custom as others do who are not burgesses.

Item. It is ordained on the same day, that if any bailiff or other burgess of the town aforesaid, in future, lease or lend to any Citizens of London, the place for the booth called the Tolbooth, in the fair aforesaid, that the bailiffs pay to the commonalty of the Town of Cambridge £10, and the burgesses 100s. for every default, namely tociens quociens, to lose their freedom.

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:

Be it enacted that all works and stuff with gold and silver broidery of Cyprus or Gold of Luke, or with laton of Spain, and sold to the deceit of the subjects of the King, be forfeited to the King, or to the Lords and to others having franchises of such forfeitures, in which franchise such works be found. And that this enactment endure only until the next parliament.

The valuable commodities sold at this fair are here in part indicated.

Same year the commonalty of Cambridge, on the Thursday after the Nativity of the Virgin made an Ordinance to this effect:

That the bailiff of the Bridge should not take toll for carriage, nor stall-pence nor custom, from the bridge, nor elsewhere (except in the fair) for merchandise coming to the fair of Sterbrigg, from the vigil of the nativity of the blessed Mary until the fair was ended.

1425. The accounts of Richard Parentyn prior of Burchester, in Oxfordshire, and Richard Albon canon and bursar of that house, for the year ending Michaelmas, contain several items which shew the varied and extensive trade of Sturbridge fair about this time: For the expense of Albon in going to and from Sterisbrugge fair for five days with three horses to buy victuals &c. 12s. 6d. is charged. The following articles are also stated to have been purchased here: “Three collars, one basse s 10½d;” “a bolt [long narrow piece] of red say [silk] for making a cope 4s 8d”; “Six estregbords [Eastern boards] viz Waynscots 2s 3d”; “100 halfwax-fyche [dried fish?] 21s.;” “324 lbs of Spanish iron, with the portage of the same 18s 5d”.

1459. Richard Andrewe, alias Spycer, burgess of Cambridge by his will dated 30 Aug. bequeathed to the mayor and bailiffs of that town 80 marks to be kept in a chest there provided, and portions thereof lent on loans from time to time in sums not exceeding 26s. 8d. To the keepers of this Chest he gave, three booths and certain booth-ground in Sturbridge Fair, and a house in St. Andrew’s parish abutting on Preachers’ lane, the profits to be applied to the celebration of his anniversary in Great St. Mary’s Church, to be distributed in various small charities there specified. See Cooper’s “Annals,” i., p. 210.

1464. By 4th Edward IV. c. 8 power is given to the Wardens of the Company of Horners to search for defective wares in London and twenty-four miles round, also in the fairs of Sturbridge and Ely, and to seize defective manufactures and bring the same before the Mayor of London or the Mayors or Bailiffs of the aforesaid fairs, for the time being. In 1609 this act was revived by 7 James I. c. 14, sec. 2. The act was repealed in 1856.

1487. The Corporation of London made an Ordinance prohibiting the freemen of that City to go to any fair out of the City with any manner of merchandise to sell or barter. This Ordinance was repealed by act of parliament in the preamble of which it is recited that there “be many fairs for the common Weal of your said liege people, as at Salisbury, Bristol, Oxenford, Cambridge &c.” If this order of enumeration had any reference to the relative importance of the fairs (which I suspect it had not) it puts this fair only fourth. This act has already been set out in detail in Chapter V.

This year Sir Wm. Littlebury alias Horn, citizen and salter, and also Lord Mayor of London, gave 500 marks towards repairing the highways between London and Cambridge. This was probably in view of benefiting those attending the fairs.

1496. On 20th July Katherine Cooke widow of John Cooke some time mayor, granted to the mayor, bailiffs, treasurers, and burgesses and their successors, to the use of the Treasury of the Town of Cambridge, three booths situate in the Soper’s lane, the Chepe, and the Petimercerye, in Sterbrigge fair. To the intent that the Treasurers should perpetually uphold yearly on the 25 Feby., a special dirge and mass in the parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin next the market for the souls of John Cooke and William Colles, and Katherine, Joan, and Lucy their wives, and pay to the bell-man for going about the town for the said souls 3d; with other small bequests to the poor &c. Cooper’s “Annals,” i., p. 246.

CHAPTER IX.
FIRST HALF OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY—STURBRIDGE.

1501.

The accounts of the Treasurers of Cambridge for this year contained the following item:

Paid John Fynne, Clerk to make up the farm of the land called the Chapel ground lying in Sturbridge Fair leasted to the Mayor, bailiffs and burgesses, beyond the money received for the farm of the same this year, because a great part of the same was not levied this year, by reason that the merchants of London withdrew themselves from the Fair, 100s.

This lease had been taken on 7th Aug. 1497 for a term of 99 years at a rent of £12, and five tapers of wax for the chapel of equal weight, and weighing in the whole 3 lbs.

1503. William Kentte the younger, Clerk, by his will devised two booths in Sturbridge fair, and the reversion of a tenement called the Crown in the parish of St. Andrew in Cambridge, the mayor and burgesses entered into covenants with his executors to observe and keep a yearly dirge in the Church of St. Benedict, on the first Wednesday of the kalends of May, and other specified observances of a religious character.

1510. There was a suit between Kings Lynn and Cambridge regarding Toll at this fair. How the matter was then disposed of does not appear. See 1541.

1517. Misunderstandings having arisen between the Town of Cambridge and the Prior and Convent of Barnwell the matter was referred to arbitration, and the Award determined that the town for evermore should have hold and enjoy, keep and maintain the fair as well within the said town of Barnwell &c., as in all other lands and fields of the said prior and convent, lying on the east between the said monastery and town of Barnwell, and a bridge called Sturbridge, from the feast of St. Bartholomew unto the feast of St. Michael in Sept., and that they and their farmers might, without let or molestation of the said prior and convent, build stalls, shops, &c., the mayor &c. throwing down all banks, chimneys, &c. within four days after Michaelmas, and provided that all such farmers of any house or shop letten by the Prior and Convent should pay but one shilling by the year to the mayor &c. for his and their house and shop. “Hist. and Antiq. of Sturbridge Fair,” p. 77.

1519. A dispute which had arisen between the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of Cambridge and the mayor, burgesses, and comburgesses of Northampton, as to the claim of the freemen of the latter town to exemption from toll in Sturbridge Fair, was referred to the arbitrament of Sir Richard Elliot, and Sir Lewis Pollard, Justices of the Common Pleas, who on the 4th June awarded that the Corporation of Northampton should pay 10s. yearly to the Corporation of Cambridge in full satisfaction of all toll and custom due from the freemen of Northampton, for all manner of stuff, barrelled ware, and other merchandise, brought by them to Sturbridge fair, and all other passages and carriages through and by the town of Cambridge, at all times of the year, or and besides twopence for every cart laden with their stuff going out of the fair. A deed of Covenant founded on this award was entered into by the two Corporations on the 10th of July. “Corp. Cross. Book.”

1521. About this time there were proceedings in the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster by the tenants of Hertford, against Richard Clark mayor of Cambridge, who was complained against for seizing for toll in this fair.

A little later there was a like suit pending between the tenants of the Duchy in Walden, and the bailiffs of Cambridge. A decree in favour of the Exemption was made in Easter term 1524.

1533-4. The Heads of the University claimed the following rights in the Fair:

1. The Proctor’s Commissary and other officers of the university keep a court in the fair, because it is within the suburbs of Cambridge, and the university are clerks of the market, and have the oversight and correction of weights and measures, and victuals in the fair.

2. They hold plea in the said court of contracts and trespasses made within the said fair as without, which was one of the things agreed upon in a composition with the town, viz. that the university should have the like privileges there as the mayor.

3. They hear and determine pleas personall as well between scholars, servants, as all foreigners and others of the kings subjects, if a scholar or scholars servant be one party by the commissary in the fair court by the order of the civil law by witness or otherwise, excepting in causes relating to victuals, wherein they determine according to the common or statute law.

4. They make proclamation in the said fair before the proclamation of the mayor of Cambridge, by virtue of the King’s letter patent as conservators of the peace, and as having the overseer of victuals which is the first thing sold in the fair.

5. The Proctors search all manner of fish as well salt-fish as other, pewter, brass, &c., haires, girth-webb, silks, furs, beds, and all upholstery wares, spices and grocery, rape-seed, mustard-seed, fustians, worsteds, sago, honey, soap, oil, tallow, wax &c. brought to be sold in the said fair, and take the forfeitures of the same when faulty &c. This they do by virtue of royal charters.

6. The Proctors by virtue of the King’s writt directed to the university, and as clerks of the market are the proper gaugers in the fair to gauge all manner of barrelled wares brought to be sold, and take the usual fees allowed by the law for the same, as also for weighing, viz. of every one that bringeth salmon or any thing of like nature to be sold, 12d. for every last gauging. For every last of oil gauged 12d. Item, for every last of soap weighing and gauging 12d. For every last of honey weighing and gauging 4s. &c. and the fines and forfeitures for want of weight and measure.

7. The Taxers take of all victuallers in the fair a greater or lesser sum according as they can agree for breach of the assize of bread and beer which they sell in the fair. N.B. This taken in lieu of heavier penalties which the offending victualler incurrs, and the taxers may lawfully inflict, for such offence.

8. For every cart load of oats to be sold in the fair they take 4d. &c.

This declaration of rights and privileges was in reply to charges made by the town against the University—twenty-three in all, amongst which was (15) of that of holding within the town a Civil Court weekly whereat they held plea of all manner of contracts and actions personal, as well between foreigners as burgesses, and hold proceedings in the Civil law in derogation of the King’s Crown. All this the University replied they did by the King’s Charter. That (16) they had excommunicated two of the mayors of the town. To which answer was, they did this for perjury! They had punished a forestaller of honey from Banbury. They had punished a burgess for selling tallow to a merchant at Lynn (20). Admitted—“There was muche talow conveyed owte of Cambridge so as the Kyngs people myght have no candle sufficient.” The answers to the charges had been given verbally in St. Mary’s Church, and record taken. There was much commotion on the occasion, but afterwards “all dranke together at the Pompe Taverne, and the Unyversyte payd for all.” See 1534.

Same year, 7th Sept. Princess Elizabeth (afterwards the famous Queen) was born at Greenwich. Intelligence was brought to the mayor by the Queen’s minstrels, during the time of the fair, and was there celebrated by bonfires and rejoicings. In the accounts of the treasurer of the borough for that year are these items:

Item, payed to the Qwenys mynstrells that brought letters to Mr. Mayer of the birthe of the Pryncesse vs.

Item, paid for ij loads woode for gaudes at the bone fyer in Stirrebygge fayer made in certain places within the said fayer iijs xd.

Item, for iiij galonns wyne spent at the said Gaudes ijs viijd.

1534. There was enacted the 25 Henry VIII. c. 4—An Acte agaynst Forstlyng and regraytyng of Fysshe—which recited previous acts against forstalling victuals and other merchandise in the markets and fairs of the kingdom, “which former Statutes not only for lake of due exeucion of the same but also for lake of condigne punysshement in the seid Statutes conteyned be lytill feared or regarded; for dyverse and many of the Kinges subjectes contrary to the meanyng of the said Estatutes nothing regardyng the displeasure of Allmyghty God and of the Kynges Highnes, ne yet the love and charitie that they ought to have to theire neyghbours and commen welthe of this Realme, for theire pryvate lucre and singuler avayle commenly in every markett and fayre within this Realme doo forstall and regrate all maner of victuall as corne wynes fysshe and fleshe, and especially in Sturbruge fayre, Seynte Ives faire, and Elye fayre, being the most notable faires within this Realme for provysions of fysshe, and moost to the releff of the Kynges subjectes yf such forstallyng and regratyng myght be sett on syde,” &c. &c.

After ten years experience of its mischievous tendency this act was repealed (1544).

The disputes between the University and the town still continuing, a grace was this year passed empowering such parties as were therein named to answer determine and conclude all such controversies as should be propounded by the mayor and burgesses before the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Norfolk; and by another Grace, proctors were appointed on the part of the University to answer in all causes before the King’s Council. On the 24th July the parties on both sides met at Lambeth Palace, “where it was decreed by the said Lordes that Styrbridge Faire was in the Subarbes of Cambridge, and that the Vice-chancellor or his commysary might kepe courte cyvyll ther for plees wheare a scolar was the one party. Item, that in the same faire the university lead the oversight, correction and punyshemente of all weightes and mesures, of all maner of victayll, of all Regreators and Forestallers. Item, It was determyned that spyces be vytaill.” The expences of the University this year for journies to London &c., in consequence of the disputes with the townsmen amounted to nearly £80.

There was still some further controversy on the point, in which Thomas Crumwell, secretary of State, took part. See Cooper’s “Annals of Cambridge,” i. 373.

1639. In Hilary term John Baker the King’s Attorney General filed an information in the Court of King’s Bench against the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, charging that they for four years, and more then last past, had used to have a mart or fair at Barnwell and Sturbridge, on the morrow of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and continuing from that time till the fourteenth day after the exaltation of the Holy Cross, with all liberties and free customs to the said mart or fair belonging and appertaining; also to have and hold by their steward and other ministers a Court of Piepowder, and by colour of the same to attach disquiet and aggrieve the subjects of the King resorting to the said fair, as well by their bodies as by their goods and chattels, and take from the King’s subjects divers fines and amerciaments, and to apply the same to their own use; and also to have all forfeitures and royalties whatsoever within the precincts of the said mart or fair during its continuance; all which liberties and franchises they usurped upon the King and his prerogative royal, to his great prejudice and damage and in contempt of his crown. Process was thereupon awarded, requiring the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses to answer this information, and to show by what warrant they claimed these liberties and franchises. They suffered judgment against them by default, and the liberties and franchises in the information specified, were seized into the King’s hands.

This proceeding was consequent upon the dissolution of monasteries ordered in the preceding year—the original grant of the fair having been made as we have seen to a religious house. The Corporation prayed for a new charter, and agreed to pay 1,000 marks for the same. The Charter was granted, but the money, on the authority of Cooper (“Annals,” i., 393), was not paid for many years afterwards. The fair however was regularly held. The Charter is a very lengthy document; and as the grant was confirmed half a century later by the charter of Elizabeth (1589), which I shall have occasion to notice in some details for reasons then appearing, I shall not dwell upon the present one.

1541. By 33 Henry VIII. c. 39—The Bill for Town of Lynne towching the revoking of two Fairs—it is recited For so much that as well the burgesses and inhabitants of the said borough of King’s Lynn, as many and divers other persons dwelling near the said borough have made regrated and gotten into their hands and possession great numbers of salt fish as ling, lob, salt salmon, shellfish and herring, “to the gret hindraunce and loss of many of the King’s subjects that yerely have repayred and com to Styrbige fair Ely faire, & other Fayres & marketts in the Countie of Cambryge & Huntyngton and other shyres for the provysion of salt fyshe, & Heryng for theire householdes, & for the provision of dyverse other shires within this Realme of Englande, whiche regratyng is contrary to a comen welth and to dyverse statutes in that case providede, and contrari to the good entente and meanyng of the graunt of the said Fayres and marte” It is enacted that the grant of the said Fairs to King’s Lynn be and was thereby repealed.

1542. Leland in his famous “Itinerary” at this date records: “The brothers of Sturbridge possess an antient house in that part where is the Fair for the sale of woollens, commonly called the Duddery.”

1544. On 27 Sept. Thomas Bishop of Ely, the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Ely, and Christopher Fulneby, incumbent of the Free Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene called Styrrebrige in the County of Cambridge, demised to the mayor, bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty of the town of Cambridge, the aforesaid free Chapel, with all glebe lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, booths, and booth grounds, standings, liberty of building booths, rents, hereditaments, oblations, commodities and profits (except the advowson, patronage, and donation of the said free chapel) for 60 years at the rent of £9 per annum.

By means of this the entire temporal control of the fair merged into the Corporation of Cambridge.

1546. There appears to have been some suit pending at this time regarding the Fair, for at a meeting of the Corporation of Cambridge Robert Chapman and seven others were appointed to commune and determine what they thought best to be done for Sturbridge Fair, and how the charges of the suit therof should be borne, and all other things concerning the same. Vide “Corporation Common Day Book.”

1547. At the Common Day held on Friday after the Assumption it was ordered that the Bailiffs should enter their wards at this Fair on the 6th Sept. yearly, at 5 o’clock in the morning, and should pay as follows: for the Bridge ward £18, for the Market ward £12, and for the High ward £13.

The proctors of the University upon fresh complaints made going their rounds one night “had taken certain evil persons in houses of sin,” and had brought them to the Tollboth, in order to commit them there. But having sent to the mayor for the keys, he absolutely refused to part with them. So they were fain to carry their prisoners to the castle, where they left them in custody. But the mayor’s son, after an hour or two let them all out, “to return if they pleased to their former lewdness; to the breach of the law; and the affront of the magistrate.” This led to further disagreements.

By an Order of the Privy Council dated 3rd Oct. this year the mayor and undersheriff of the County were required not only to acknowledge before the Vice-chancellor, heads of colleges and proctors, that they had interfered with the privileges of the University in this fair, but also “that the mayor in common hall shall openly, among his bretheren, acknowledge his wilfull proceeding.” The breach consisted of John Fletcher, the mayor, having refused to receive into the tolbooth [prison] certain persons of “naughty and corrupt behaviour,” who were prisoners taken by the proctors of the University, in the last Sturbridge Fair; wherefore he was called before the Lords and others of the Council, and his fault therein “so plainly and justly opened” that he could not deny it, but did “sincerly and willingly confess the said fault.” Dyer’s “Privileges of Cambridge,” i. p. 111.

About this time Nicholas Elton, burgess of Cambridge by his will devised a booth in Sturbridge fair to the mayor, bailiffs and burgesses, after the death of his wife—It is supposed for charitable purposes.

There had been some suggestion that the University should sell their privileges in the Fair to the Corporation—see 1858.

1548. The following is the Proclamation used by the University of Cambridge about this date in “Crying the Fair”:

The Crye in Sturbridge Fayer.

Wee charge & straightlie comaund in yᵉ name of yᵉ Kinge of England oʳ soveraigne Lord, and in yᵉ name of my Lord Chauncellʳ of yᵉ Universitie of Cambridge, yᵗ all manner of schollers, Schollers Servants, and all other persons in this Fayer, and the precinct of yᵉ same, keepe the Kings peace, & make no fraye, cry, owtasse, [“out alas!”, old exclamation(?)] shrekinge, or any other noyse, by yᵉ which Insurations, Conventicles, or gatheringe of people may be made in this Fayer, to yᵉ trouble vexinge and disquietinge of yᵉ Kings leage people or lettinge of the officers of yᵉ University to exercise there offices, under the payne of Imprisonment & further punishment as the offence shall require.

Also wee charge & comaund, that all manner of Schollers, and Schollers servants weare no weapon, to make any fraye upon any of yᵉ Kings people, neither in cominge nor in goinge from this Fayer, under yᵉ payne of banishment.

Also wee charge & comaund, yᵗ all manner of straungers, that come to this Fayer, that they leave theire weapons at theire Innes, that yᵉ Kings peace may be the better kept and for yᵉ occasion ensueinge of the same, under the payne of forfettinge of their weapons, and further punishment, as the offence shall require.

Also wee charge & comaund, in yᵉ Kings name of England, & in yᵉ name of my Lord Chauncellor of yᵉ University, shall all manner of Bakers, yᵗ bake to sell, that they make 2 loofes for a penny, and 4 for another, good past, good bowltell, & lawfull syse, after as grayne goethe in yᵉ markett, & every baker yᵗ baketh to sell, have a marke upon his bread, whereby it may be knowne who did bake it, under yᵉ payne of forfeiture of his bread.

Also wee charge & comaund, that all common women, and misbehavinge people, avoyde and withdrawe themselves owte of this fayer, and precincts of yᵉ same, ymediatelie after this crye yᵗ yᵉ Kings subjects may be the more quiet, and good rule may be the better mayntayned, under yᵉ payn of imprisonment.

Also that all Bakers shall observe and keepe suche Syzes of bread as shall be given them by the officers of yᵉ University, under yᵉ payne of forfeiture of theire bread, if it happen any Baker to be founde fawtie in any article apperteyninge to unlawfull bread accordinge to yᵉ Kings lawes, that then such bakers, after 3 monitions, shall be imprisoned & punished on yᵉ pillory, accordinge to yᵉ lawes of oʳ Sovereigne Lord yᵉ Kinge.

Also that no Brewer sell into the Fayer nowe here within yᵉ precinct of yᵉ Universitie, a Barrell of good Ale above 2s.; And a Barrell of Hostell Ale above xij d.; no longe Ale, no red Ale, no ropye Ale, but good and holsome for mans body, under yᵉ payne of forfeyture. And yᵗ every Brewer have a mark upon his Barrell, whereby it may be known who owneth it, under yᵉ payne of imprisonment and fyne at yᵉ discretion of yᵉ officers of yᵉ Universitie.

Also yᵗ every Barrell of good Ale hold and conteyne xiiij gallons, xiij gallons of cleere Ale, and one gallon for the rest: and the Hoggett vij gallons, that is to say, sixe gallons, and one pottel of cleare Ale, and the residew of rest, under the payn of forfeit, and further punishment after the discretion of the officers of the Universitie.

Also wee comaund that yᵉ bearebrewer shall sell a kylderkyn of double beare in this fayer for ij s. and a kylderkyn of single beare for xij d.

Also yᵗ no Tipler no gauger sell in the sayd fayre nor within the precincts of the Universitie, A gallon of good Ale above iiij d: nor a gallon of the Hostill ale above ij d. and the beare brewers a gallon of double beare above iiij d. and a gallon of single beare above ij d, under the payn of xij d. for every tyme.

Also that no Tipler or gauger sell by other measure than by gallon, pottle, quart, pint, and halfe pint, under the payne of xij d. for every tyme.