200
LIBER BURGUS
to a borough was used by him to grant to his burgesses all
the liberties, etc., which it was in his power to give, “ like the
free burgesses of any neighbouring borough,” 1 and a similar
grant by Henry III to a later abbot for a borough at Abbots
Bromley (1222) was his authority for his gift of the liberties
of Lichfield to that borough.2 Abbot William, in his charter
to the men of Burton, did not, like the bishop of Norwich at
Lynn, begin with the liber burgus clause, but with one assuring
free tenure to those who took up burgages and to their heirs.
As we descend in the scale of boroughs, the primary feature
of free tenure naturally receives greater emphasis.
John’s charter, or rather writ, to those who were willing
to take up burgages at Liverpool, granting them the liberties
and free customs of any free borough by the sea 3 is likewise
without the liber burgus formula. Liverpool’s second charter
(1229) containing that formula with specified privileges has
been hitherto regarded as raising the status of the borough,
but a town which was given the liberties of the most highly
privileged maritime borough (for such was the effect of the
grant of 1207) was already a free borough. It would seem
therefore that Henry Ill’s grant was merely one of those con-
firmations by regrant which were common in the years which
followed the close of his minority.
The appearance of the free borough clause in charters
granted to existing boroughs, some of which are registered
as such in Domesday Book, whether mesne or royal, presents
a difficulty on any interpretation of the formula, but it is
perhaps less serious if we adopt Gross’s view than if the
meaning of the term is definitely restricted to the fundamental
requisites of a borough. One may suspect some connexion
with the contemporary refusal of the royal courts to admit
the claim of burgesses to the “ liberty ” of having all
cases, other than pleas of the Crown, arising in the borough,
tried in their own court, unless a charter was produced.4
None of the royal boroughs which got the clause had any earlier
charter, so far as is known. A formal recognition of their
position as royal free boroughs of the highly privileged type
was, in their case therefore, essential.
Objection may be taken to Gross’s view of the compre-
hensive implications of “ free borough ” on the ground that
the Wells and Bridgewater charters agree in granting the
ɪ B.B.C. i. 21 (cf. p. 42). 2 Ibid. ii. 18, 45.
3 Ibid. i. 32. 4 Curia Regis Rolls, iii. 153, 252 ; v. 28, 327.
CHARTERS OF HENRY III AND EDWARD I 20x
liberties pertaining to market and fairs separately from those
of a free borough. It will be best to deal with this difficulty
in the next section, when the evidence becomes fuller.
2
Under Henry III and Edward I grants of liber burgus
status became much more common. They were made to
twenty-four royal boroughs and to a slightly larger number
of mesne boroughs.1 Most of these were new foundations,
Edward Γs new boroughs in Wales and elsewhere figuring
largely in the list. The old boroughs which received the grant
were Liverpool (1229), Bridport (1253), Berwick (1302),
possibly Windsor (1277j, and in Ireland the two Droghedas,
the only instances of the use of the liber burgus clause at all
in that country. The “ free burgess ” clause was now much
more frequently associated with that of “ free borough.” 2
Grants by mesne lords sometimes refer to a royal or other
licence, as at Abbots Bromley (1222), Stockport, c. 1260 (earl
of Chester), Ormskirk (1286), and Kirkham (1296), but more
usually there is no record of licence or early confirmation.
In the case of Abbots Bromley the licence was for a borough
simply, but as the abbot was able to bestow upon it the liberties,
etc., of Lichfield, we have here clear evidence, if that were
still needed, that the epithet was descriptive, not restrictive.
The charter of Weymouth (1252) affords corroboration by
referring in the common tallage clause to the king’s free
boroughs where the adjective is rare in this context.3
In the case of three new boroughs, Lydham and Clifton
(1270), and Skynburgh (1301), we have only the royal charter
to the lord granting free borough, etc., and no evidence that
the latter issued one of his own. In the Agardsley (New-
borough) charter (1263) there is no express grant of free
borough, but the new foundation is incidentally so described
in the first clause of its charter.4 The experimental character
of the formulae used in John’s reign for the conveyance of
1 B.B.C. ii. 2-7. Altrincham has been accidentally omitted.
2 Ibid. p. 132.
3 Ibid. p. 117. The adjective doesnot appear to be used in any but
municipal documents.
1 Ibid. p. 47. This long extinct borough was of a very simple type.
Its humble privileges were recited in full and confirmed “ with all liberties
and free commons and easements pertaining to the aforesaid burgages ”
(E.H.R. χvi, 334). The only reference to other boroughs was a grant of
all " assizes ” which the burgesses of Stafford had.