| (This
is a comprehensive document about Purveyancing and “Composition”
for only the Royal Household and not for the military or navy).
Pp3.
In the second half of the 16thC the traditional system of provisioning
the court was in danger of breaking down. On the one hand, there
was increasing popular dissatisfaction with the method of procuring
goods by purveyance; on the other, prices were rising and revenues
which had been considerred adequate to supply the court fell
far short of need. Instead of enterring upon a bold system of
reform which might have led to a radical change in fiscal policy.
He ( Burghley ) limited himself to the adoption of
the expedient of compoiunding for goods which formerly had been
taken by purveyance. The composition contacts which he proposed
stipulated that merchants and farmers who formerly had goods
taken from the by purveyance should henceforth sell to the court
a secified quantity of goods at fixed prices. Merchants and
farmers liked the new system because it afforded them protection
from the purveyors. Lord Burghley liked it because it insured
fixed costs during a period of inflation.
Pp4.
Purveyance, which was the traditional method of supplying the
court, was as outmoded as it was unpopular. It was based on
the right of the Crown to compel subjects to sell at a discount
( on market prices ). From time immemorial the monarch
had expected the people living near the palace to provide him
with food and drink. At first he probably received supplies
as gifts ( as was the case for those subjects on the routes
of “progresses” ) , but later made a token payment, not
more than a fraction of the market price. To procure goods he
sent out purveyors who behaved insolently and aroused hatred
and resentment amongst the people. Consequently throughout the
centuries the monarch has been forced periodically to consent
to statues regulating the conduct of purveyors. But the laws
were seldom enforced.
In
the middle of the 16thC purveyors were still regarded as a scourge,
and in Elizabeth 's reign parliament tried on more than one
occasion to place additional limitations upon them. From the
time of the first parliamentary outburst against purveyors in
1563 to the last in 1589 Lord Burghley made it clear that the
Queen would not consent to statute imposing futher restrictions
upon them…... Each restriction made supplying the court increasingly
difficult. They ( the ministers ) were too wise to
ignore popular complaint and offered a substitute measure, an
invitation to “compound” ( composition ). They promised
that puirveyors would be withdrawn from every county which signed
a composition order with the household.
The
chief advocate of the plan to bring the country under a system
of composition agreements was Lord Burghley. In adopting this
progam of reform he was not embarking upon a new and untried
experiment but was merely adjusting familiar proceedure to current
needs. During the rign of Edward I alien wine merchants had
compunde with the king in order to be exempt from purveyance.
Henry VIII compounded with Icelandic fishermen and both Edward
VI and Mary signed composition contracts with a few shires.
His merit lies not in evolving the plan, but in recognising
that it could be applied on a wider scale. Whenever there was
a crisis in the administration or finances of the household
and whenever there was a protest against purveyance in parliament
the government siezed the opportunity to press the progress
of compounding.
Pp5.
By 1580 Lord Burghley had brought at least 15 shires under the
new agreement ( for certain goods that those shires had
traditionally supplied to the Royal household ). The greatest
gains came after 1589 when there was a major parliamentary crisis
on purveyance. By 1597 practically every shire of the realm
and every group of merchants importing goods used by the Queen
had been compelled to sign composition agreements witht the
household.
Although
by the close of Elizabeth 's reign the major part of household
provisions had been contracted for under composition agreements,
it must not be assumed that the hated tribe of purveyors had
become extinct. The court still had a number in its employ to
buy those items for which no satisfactory compositions could
be made. Purveyors were retained to buy food for the Queen's
own table since farmers could not be expected to compound for
rare wildfowl and other delicacies. Purveyors were also employed
when the Queen set out on progress.
In
the case of compsition contracts the Justices of the Peace for
each county were expected to take full charge. When a couty
enterred into a composition the Justices had to buy the supplies,
send them up to court, and distribute the charges throughout
the community. These duties, along with the other responsibilities
of J.P.s required long hours of planning and hard work.
Pp8.
The Board of Greencloth
The
immediate control of the hoursehold offices was vested in a
group of officers known as the board of greencloth. The name..
.. is derived from the covering of the table where the transactions
were carried out. The members of the board were the three chief
offocers of the household known as the whitestaves, i.e. the
lord steward, the trasurer and the comptroller; and the minor
officers, the cofferer, the clerks of the greencloth, and the
clerks comptroller. The higher officers were usually so preoccupied
with matters of state that they devoted but small poart of their
time to the greencloth. The actual works was therefore done
by the humbler members who sat daily in the countinghouse.
The
authority of the board is described in the Liver Niger Domus
Regis Edwardi VI,
“At
the greencloth is always is always represented the king's power
touching matters of the household. This office beareth arms
… a field of green, a key, and a rod of silver saultre, signifying
that this office may close, open and punish other offices bearing
marks from hence”.
The
members of the greencloth directed the purchase of supplies.
They prepared weekly estimates of the amount of provisions needed
and sent our purveyors accordingly. They enjoyed jusrisdiction
over all servants in the household. Moreover their authority
extended beyond the limits of the household. They could negotiate
with representities of the counties and enter into contracts
for the supply of provisions. If difficulties arose over the
carrying out of the terms of these agreements, the board could
summon individuals to appear at the countinghouse and explain
why they obstructed the collection of supplies. At such times
the greencloth was referred to as the high prerogative court
(“the high court of Her Majesty's greencloth”, 1586).
The
lord steward
If
the lord steward chose to preside over the board of greencloth,
his power was practically absolute.
Henry,
Earl of Arundle 1558-1564
William,
Earl of Pembroke, 1567-1570
Edward,
Earl of Lincoln , 1581-1584
Robert,
Earl of Leicester , 1585-1588
Henry,
Earl of Derby , 1588-1593
Charles,
Earl of Nottingham , 1597-1615.
It
was only Robert, Earl of Leicester who took any day to day interest
in the working of the greencloth and his attention was redirected
by the Armada crisis. The responsibilities, that the lord steward
might have been expected to assume, fell upon William Cecil,
Lord Burghley.
The
treasurer of the household
The
treasurer of the household was always referred to as Mr. Treasurer
in contradistinction to the Lord Treasurer, the chief financial
officer of the realm. He was authorised to oversee all household
departments and reponsible that purveyances were truly purveyed.
Sir
Thomas Cheyne, 1558-1559
Sir
Edward Rodgers, 1559-1570
Sir
Francis Knollys, 1570-1596
Roger,
Lord North, 1596-1600?
Sir
William Knollys, 1602-1603?
The
comptroller of the household
Third
in authority in the royal household was the comptroller. In
the absence of the lord steward the treasurer and comptroller
were given joint command of the royal household. His task was
to check the accounts in the various household offices and to
inspect the goods that were purveyed.
Sir
Thomas Parry, 1558-1559
Sir
Edward Rogers, 1559-1567
Sir
James Crofts, 1570-1590
Vacant
Sir
William Knollys, 1596-1602
Sir
Edward Wooton, 1602-1603?
Sir
James Croft practised graft and placed his own interests above
the Queen. He was guilty of petty raids upon household stores,
negligent in the selection of minor servants, and the patron
of dishonest purveyors. He spent his time in intrigue and became
a pensioner of the King of Spain. In 1590 Croft died and thus
was saved the ignominy of a public investigation.
The
Coffererer, the Clerks of the greencloth and the clerks comptroller.
Subordinate
to the three chief officers of the household was a group of
career men who began service in humble positions in the houehold
offices and as a reward for years of painstaking labour achieved
promotion to the board of the greencloth.
Cofferer
(or cashier)
R
Warde and T Weldon, 1557-1558
T
Weldon, 1559-1567
R
Warde, 1567-1578
Anthony
Crane, 1578-1580
J.
Abingdon, 1580-1582
Gregory
Lovell, 1582-1597
Sir
Henry Cocke, 1597-1610.
This
was the highest post attainable by promotion. The incumbant
was a “great officer and key bearer” of the court. He had the
receiving and disbursing of all her Majesty's moneys for household
affairs. Unfortunately he was given “talley stocks” instead
of a cash grant from the exchequer. He took these to the designated
collectors of revenue and exchanged them for cash. Since the
process of converting the tallies into cash was slow he was
unable to give the purveyors with adequate funds.
Below
the Cofferer came two groups of clerks. The most important were
the clerks of the greencloth who were the bookeepers. They audited
the “parcels rules and brevements” of every office and prepared
the cofferer's accounts for the exchequer. The less important
group were the clerks comptroller. They moved about the household
checking the prices of meat, judging the quantities of supplies,
and authorising specific purchases.
The
administration of the household
In
1563 parliament voted that £40027 4s 2½d should
be allocated annually to the cofferer of the Queen's house.
Expenditure could not be kept within this limit and by 1573
had jumped to £49,000. Rules and regulation were continually
flouted.
Purveyance
in the early part of Elizabeth 's reign – how the system worked
beore it was supplanted by composition agreements.
Authority
to appoint purveyors was vested in the board of greencloth as
a whole, but from time to time certain members tried to assume
it for themselves and to use the priviledge to enhance their
own prestige. In Elizabeth 's day a struggle over patronage
was in progress between the treasurer and the cofferer and was
the cause of considerable ill feeling in the household….. Those
appointed would sell their places on to “thieves and spoilers”.
The
officers of the greencloth were primarily interested in choosing
the chief purveyors in each office and were content to leave
the choice of minor purveyors to others. Thus most chief purveyors
were allowed to name their own deputies and in some cases to
select all the underlings. In the case of the poultry, for example,
where a large number of commissions were needed to bring in
a single line of goods, the fine purveyor chose sixteen deputies
or chapmen and sixteen sub deputies. The practise of delegating
so much authority was not satisfactory since it resulted in
the employment of irresponsible men whose misdeeds caused much
popular complaint. “Quite a number of purveyors and deputies
do annoy her Majesty's subjects, those deputies being of very
base conduct and ability”.
Commission
for a purveyor
James
by the grace of God etc. To all and singular our justices
of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, headboroughs
and all other officers, ministers, subjects to whom these
presents shall come, greeting: We let you wit that we have
authorized and appointed and by these presents do give full
power and authority unto our well-beloved servant ………………….
yeoman purveyor within the office of ……………………………and to his
sufficient deputy, bearer hearof, in his name according to
our right and the laws and statutes of this realm in that
behalf made and provided to take up and provide for us and
in our name for the only provision of our household in all
places as well as within liberties as without, viz…………………….
for our reasonable prices and payments to be made in that
behalf according to our right and the said laws and statutes
in that behalf. And further we do give full power and authority
by these presents unto our said servants and his said deputy
, bearer hearof, to direct his precept to every high constable,
petty constable, or headborough of every particular town,
parish or hamlet, where he shall think it most convenient
to make provision as is aforesaid of any of the premises.
Wherefor we will and command you and every of you by these
presents to be aiding, helping and assisting to our said servant
amd his said deputy, bearer hearof, in the due execution of
this our commission, as you and every of you tender our pleasure
and will answer to the contrary at your utmost perils. In
witness thereof we have caused these our letters of commission
to be sealed with our great seal and to continue until the
end of six month next ensuing.
Witness
ourselves at Westminster .
Purveyor's
commissions were issued under the great seal; they were written
in English and were valid for only six months, after which
they had to be surrendered to the countinghouse. They designated
the counties in which they might be used and enumerated the
amounts and the kinds of supplies to be taken up. Attached
to them were blanks of parchments (one for each county mentioned)
on which the purveyors were obliged to enter exact details
about goods purchased and prices paid. When the purveyors
applied for new commissions the “blanks” on the cancelled
commissions were to be used in checking their records.
The
system for checking the records of the purveyors was never
put into practice. The clerks of the greencloth were notoriously
negligent. There is no evidence to indicate that they collected
the commissions when they expired or that they compared the
parchment “blanks” with the purveyors' receipts. For that
matter they probably did not keep a complete file of the names
of the purveyors. In 1598, however when reform was instituted
at the greencloth it was ruled that the cofferer should keep
a list of commissions and that at the end of every six months
he should arrange to have the purveyors' commissions delivered
to the greencloth with the “blanks”, “thereunto annexed ….
there to be safely kept”. If the cofferer and the clerks of
the greencloth actually mended there ways and began to keep
files all trace of their work has been disappeared.
The
clerks of the crown, moreover, were just as careless. In the
early part of the sixteenth century they enterred purveyors'
commissions on the dorse of the patent roles, but by the middle
of the century they had abandoned the practice. For a half
century they made no effort to keep records, and in spite
of the reforms instituted by the chancery in 1573, they still
neglected the purveyors' lists for another twenty years. In
1593 they were ordered to begin a series of index volumes
for the crown office and to set aside one section for purveyors'
commissions. Hence information on purveyors is in existance
for the last eight years of the reign, but unfortunately comparable
records are not available for earlier years when purveyors
has sole responsibility for provisioning the household.
In
spite of the negigence of the clerks of the crown and the
greencloth in keeping records it is possible to discover something
about the number of purveyors in Elizabeth 's time. Because
Lord Burghley followed details of household administration
closely, he filed among his papers reports on the number of
purveyors employed. In 1582 he noted that five had been added
in one year. In 1586 he recored that eighty-six commissions
had been divided among thirty-eight purveyors and their deputies.
By far the most interesting of the reports in his possession
is that reproduced below which enumerates the purveyos for
1589 and the thirty-three services to which they were assigned:
Service
|
No
of commissions |
No
of deputies |
Wheat
for the privy bakehouse |
2
|
2
|
Wheat
for the great bakehouse |
4
|
4
|
Beer
and ale |
6
|
6
|
Wine
|
2
|
2
|
Spicery
|
2
|
2
|
Lambs
|
4
|
4
|
Poultry
fine |
16
|
16
|
Poultry
for her Majesty's mouth |
4
|
4
|
Poultry
course |
4
|
4
|
Salt
butter |
2
|
2
|
Apples
|
3
|
3
|
Sauces
|
2
|
2
|
Serjeant
of acatry |
1
|
1
|
Beef
and mutton |
4
|
4
|
Veals
|
6
|
6
|
Seafish
|
6
|
6
|
Freshwater
fish |
3
|
3
|
Salt
store |
2
|
2
|
Stable
|
12
|
12
|
Brownbaker
|
1
|
1
|
The
race |
2
|
2
|
Carts
|
4
|
4
|
Long
carts in the services of buttery and spicery |
3
|
3
|
Milk
wife |
1
|
1
|
Carts
for the cellar |
1
|
1
|
Turner
|
1
|
1
|
Cups
|
1
|
1
|
Conies
|
3
|
3
|
Sackmaker
|
1
|
1
|
Baskets
|
1
|
1
|
Wax
|
4
|
4
|
Avenor
|
1
|
1
|
Rushes
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
56
purveyors |
|
|
111
deputies |
|
|
111
commissions |
|
|
The
year 1589 probably marks the point at which the greatest numbers
of purveyors were attached to the household. It is unlikley
that more that 111 commissions were issued at any time in
the reign. Certainly by 1595 the numbers had reduced by half
as the result of compounding with the counties.
FEES
ALLOWANCES AND OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME
Purveyors
were not paid an annual salary sufficient to mee their needs
but were expected to build up their income from several sources,
by far the most lucrative of which was the percentage they
charged upon every purchase. Traditional perquisites, fees,
and allowances were inadequate, but when added to the income
from percentages amounted to a living wage.
From
medieval times certain perquisites had been set aside for
the purveyor in each department
of the household. They were usually by-products, leftovers
or discarded equipment and, when wisely disposed of could
be converted into considerable revenue. By the sixteenth century
purveyors' perquisites had for the most part diminished
in quantity and value; but there were still a few which were
much prized, as, for example, the unserviceable casks in the
buttery which might be claimed by the yeoman purveyor of that
office.
Allowances
and fees to which the purveyor
was entitled varied according to rank. Like other household
servants purveyors were classified by grades, the lowest of
which was that of page. Page purveyors received an allowance
of only 4d per day and a fee of but 40s per year. Since, when
purveying, they usually carried a commision made out in the
name of a superior, they were probaly not entitled to any
part of the percentage on purchases.
The
groom purveyors, next in ascending order, were also expected
to serve in a subordinate capacity. Their allowance was larger
and their fee was four marks. Some of them, notably those
engaged in taking up carts and in purveying for buttery and
scullery, were given commissions of purveyance and probably
the percentage.
Next
in rank were the yeoman purveyors, who were the men of position.
As the chief purveyors in the important household offices,
they were given a fee of 100 s a year, generous allowances
for expenses, and valuable perquisites. Besides, since they
were the purveyors to whom most of the commissions were issued,
they probably collected the lion's share, if not all, of the
percentage allowed on each transaction.
Highest
in station among the purveyors were the serjeants, one of
whom was placed in each of the major offices of the household.
They were paid on a much higher scales than any of their subordinates
and were employed primarily to supervise the offices of the
household, not to purvey supplies. Since they were usually
to busy to go on purhasing expeditions, they seldom applied
for commissions of purveyance, and none of them, except the
Serjeant of the acatry, who bought the dried fish, spent much
time on purveying. In times of emergency, however, when the
queen undertook a long and difficlut progress or when counties
broke their composition contracts, the serjeants procured
commissions of purveyance and went out to bring in supplies.
What share they were able to collect on the profites of purchase
is not revealed.
The
most important source of income for a purveyor was the percentage,
or profit, which he was entitled to collect on each purchase
made for the household. No evidence is available to explain
how this sum was distrubuted amongt the groups of purveyors,
but it seem likely that it went to the purveyor in whose name
the commission was issued. He was allowed to keep the difference
between the prices he paid the country people and that allowed
him by the household. The calf-take, for example, was accoustomed
to buy fat calves for 6s apiece and to receive 8s for them
from the cofferer. Besides this profit of 2s on every calf,
the purveyor made 3s 6d on each stirk (a young bullock or
heifer usually one or two years old), 2s on each “pork” and
6d on every flitch of bacon. Purveyors of fine poultry enjoyed
the margin of profit shown below:
|
Paid
to purveyor |
Paid
to the country |
Fat
goose |
14d
|
10d
|
Green
goose |
8½d
|
8d
|
Good
capon |
20d
|
16d
|
Hen
|
9d
|
6d
|
Chickens
|
3d
|
2d
|
Pound
of butter |
3½d
|
3d
|
Rabbits
in summer |
3d
|
2d
|
Conies
in winter |
4d
|
3d
|
Purveyors
doubtless found other and less honourable ways of supplimenting
their earnings. Thise entitled to allowances for “spoil” and
carriage probably asked for the maximum sum whatever their
expenses had been.
Perquisites,
fees, allowances, percentages together with income
from petty graft made the post of purveyor a coveted one.
By one means or another, purveyors managed to earn a fairly
good living and those who were shrewd enough to keep extortion
within bounds spent long and remunerative years in the queen's
service. It would be a mistake to assume that purveyors became
men of great wealth like the clerks comptroller or the clerks
of the greencloth who amassed fortunes from contracts for
military supplies. In contrast purveyors were men of moderate
means and, though members of the rising business class of
London , were not great merchant princes. Many of them managed
to engage in private business at the same time as they were
in the queen's employ and to take advantage of their connections
with the court to promote their own affairs. Just as they
bequeathed their private businesses to their children, so
they regarded their right to hand down from father to son
the post of purveyor. The records disclose that families were
employed for generations in certain household departments.
THE
JOURNEY OF THE PURVEYORS TO GATHER SUPPLIES
Whena
purveyor set out from court he was obliged to carry with him
a commission of purveyance and a supply of ready money. The
commission specified specified the countiesd he might enter
and the kind and quantities of provisions he might purchase.
If he dealt in products which cost less than 40s per unit
of sale he needed ready money, since the law required payment
for all low-priced goods. Sometimes, however, he had trouble
in obtaining the necessary “prest” or ready money from the
cofferer and frequently he set out with only a fraction of
the money he should have had.
When
the purveyor reached a village where supplies were to be found
he summoned the local constables before him and gave them
a list of goods which he expected them to collect. He was
supposed to show his commission but he probably tried to avoid
doing so since it would reveal the prices paid in other communities.
Invariably, however, he gave the consables a precept of the
following type:
To
the baliff and constables of the hundred of Cranbourne {Wiltshire}:
These shall be to command and straightway to charge you in
the queen's Majesty's name by virtue of her Highness's commission
that you take up or cause to be taken up within your hundred
30 stirks and 20 hogs, all excuses laid apart, to be delivered
in Hyndon on Monday next the 9 th December at the sign of
the George; and herin fail it not as you and every of you
will answer unto the contrary at your uttermost peril.
RICHARD
BESTBYCHE
ROBERT
JOANES
This
Method of gathering supplies was objectionable on two counts:
first it placed too large a share of the burden upon the local
constables, and second because it gave the purveyor
the excuse to postpone payment. If the various items assembled
by the constables came to a sum over 40s, he pretended that
he was not obliged to pay cash, and many a poor man who had
been forced to part with his eggs for 6d per dozen or his
wheat for 6s 8d per quarter did not receive the payment in
cash to which he was entitled by statute.
There
were other ways in which the purveyor could execute his commission.
He was free to dispence with the services of the constables
and to search for goods by going directly to the estates of
rich men. When he came upon a well stocked farm he was apt
to take as much as he needed without troubling to go elsewhere.
Richard Hakuylt, cousin of the famous Richard Hakuylt, complained
that the purveyor took “up so many of some few that they,
deprived of their stirks [were] not able to buy to renew their
stalls the following year”.
There
was still another way for the purveyor to make purchases.
He could buy in local markets or upon highways from farmers
who were taking their goods to market. But there was a well
defined popular sentiment against both these practises. When
a farmer's goods were taken from his market stall no allowance
was made for the cost of bringing the goods to maket, so that
he was not only deprived of the small profit he had hoped
to make but also of the costs of transporting the goods. But
if he were unlucky enough be be stopped on the highway and
forced to sell his wares before they reached the market, he
was in an even worse position. With no constable at hand to
protect him his rights, he suffered the above mentioned losses
and in addition was in danger of being cheated as well. Purveyance
upon the highway was apparently a serious hardship in Elizabeth
's day and parliament tried to pass a law to prohibit it.
The
price the purveyor paid for the goods was usually determined
by negotiation with the owner. But a few purveyors, chiefly
those who bough lamb and course poultry, were not obliged
to bargain as Sir Francis Knollys explained.
“her
Majesty by her prerogative doth pay but 12 pence for a lamb
and but 2 pence for a hen and 3 halfpence for a pullet and
a penny for a chicken and a groat for a capon and likewise
a small price for geese, and everything according to the ancient
prices of court poultry set down by statute two hundred years
ago.”
Purveyors
of these supplies received commissions “at certain prices”
which enabled them to buy at prices “agreed upon time out
of mind”.
Purveyors
of all other product carried commissions “at prices uncertain”
and were expected to arrive at the price by bargaining with
the owner in the prescence of the constable. If no agreement
could be reached, four “indifferent persons” were selected,
two by the purveyor and two by the owner, to testify under
oath the price “as commonly runneth in the next market”. But
the amount agreed was not necessarily that ultimately paid.
The
board of greencloth had two ways of reducing appraised values.
In the first place it reserved the right to review all valuations
and to lower those whicj were too high. When, for example,
Richard Hakuylt's oxen had been rated by four men of the neighbourhood
at £7 10s apiece, the greencloth protested that the
sun was exorbitant and reminded the owner that, “time out
of mind all cattle provided and overprised [had been] reprised,
otherwise her Majesty would be a great loser. From such a
decision of the board there seems to have been no appeal.
In the second place, the board of greencloth managed to reduce
prices by subtracting poundage, which, as Sir Francis Knollys
explained, was customarily taken at one twelth of the sum
involved.
“And
her Majesty hath abated a penny of the shilling of all provisions
that are otherwise praised and taken by the purveyors”.
Even
if Richard Hakuylt's oxen had not been revalued, their owner
would have lost in poundage 12s 6d each ox, or a total of
£4 7s 6d on the seven which he was obliged to sell.
The right of the household to exact poundage was not generally
conceded and the complaint was frequently heard that “one
pence in every shilling is abated contrary to the law”. Moreover
there was dissatisfaction because poundage was not charged
at a uniform rate and because it was often deducted twice,
once at the time of appraisal and again when the goods reached
the court gate. Sometimes the exaction was at the rate of
one twelth and sometimes at one twentieth. The fullest statement
of grievance is that made by Sir Francis Bacon to James I
at the beginning of the seventeenth century:
”[The
purveyors] use a strange and most unjust exaction in causing
the subjects to pay poundage of their own debts, due from
your Majesty unto them so as a poor man when he hath had his
hay or his wood or his poultry, which perchance he was full
loath to part with and had for the provision of his family
and not to put to sale, taken from him and that not a just
price but under the value and cometh to receive his money,
he shall after the rate of 12d in the pound abated for poundage
of his due payment growing upon so hard condition”.
The
purveyor was not obliged to worry about the price the greencloth
would untimately pay. He had only to reach an agreement with
the seller and give a receipt suc as the following:
“
I, John Dudley, have provided of Richard Hakuylt, gentleman,
of the hundred of Wolfey 3 oxen at £6 13s 4d, so priced
by Robert Perke, Nicolas Parker, John Smith and John Parker.
March
1589 John Dudley”
Receipts
were supposed to be collected by the constable handed over
to the Justices of the Peace, and sent up to the greencloth,
where they could be checked against the purveyor's record.
Even
after he had given his receipts the purveyor had other matters
to attend to before he was free to depart. He had to write
out his own accounts and arrange terms of payment. The law
required him to enter upon the parchment “blanks” attached
to his commission a full record of his purchases and to submit
the statement to the chief constable, petty constable, or
headborough to be approved and signed. If the purveyor had
purchased goods less than 40s he was supposed to pay cash
in the prescence of the constable. If he had taken commodities
exceeding 40s in value he was alloed to give a “taille” or
tally which might oblige the unfortunate recipient to journey
three or four times to court before receiving cash payment.
But this problem did not concern the purveyor. He had discharged
his obligations and was free to proceed to another village,
or, if he had procured his quota of supplies, to return to
court.
On
the whole the queen and her councillors respected the rights
of justices of the peace to try purveyors at the quarter sessions.
Even Sir Francis Knollys, who would not have been above shielding
a favourite caught red-handed, protested that he had always
observed the custom of sending the purveyors back to the counties
to be tried.
“And
touching the purveyors which by your commissioners have been
found to have committed sundry abuses, if ever any purveyorhave
been complained upon which I have not sent into the county
to be tried for his life, then let me suffer blame thereof”.
But
it would be a mistake to suppose that the central government
renounced the right to follow the process of the trials in
the local courts or of interveining on behalf of servants
unjustly dealt with. On one occasion two purveyors, John Rowe
and one Norris were being tried in Northamptonshire, the returned
to the Privy Council ordered that they be sent up to court
for questioning. Subsequently, however Rowe and Norris were
returned at their own request to the county, to stand trial
according to the law. The story is told in the Acts of the
Privy Council.
“This
day John Rowe, having been bound in the county of Northampton
before Sir John Spencer, Sir Robert Lane and Sir John Farmer,
knights, to make his personal appearance this day before the
lords, did accordingly appear and desired the same to be recorded
and was commanded not to depart before further order should
be taken with him by their lordships. . . . The aforesaid
Rowe, and one Norris, his deputy, were bound in recognizance
of £200 the piece to appear personally before the justices
of the peace of the county of Northampton at the next sessions
to be held within that county to answer their doings there
and not to depart before further order should be taken with
them by the said justices”.
The
following day letters were sent to the three above named justices
of the peace.
“returning
unto them again the notes taken by them and sent hither touching
the disorders in the county of Northampton … because the said
Rowe and Norris desired to have their doings examined in the
county…. With whome they are willed to proceed according to
the laws and the qualities of their faults”.
The
justices of the peace were the only local officers before
whom a purveyor could be tried, but they shared with constables
the power to imprison an offender and to keep him in custody
until the next quarter sessions. The task of imprisoning guilty
purveyors usually fell to the constable since they were the
officers at hand when transactions for purveyance took place.
The
penalties that the local courts could impose upon guilty purveyors
ranged from imprisonment to hanging. It was a serious matter
for a purveyor to be imprisoned; for when news of his trouble
reached the greencloth he was likely to be dismissed from
his post. How often local courts sent purveyors to the gallows
will probably never be known since many of the quarter session
recoreds have been lost. Certainly in the early 90's some
purveyors were put to death. The “lords in commision for household
causes” reported:
“Some
purveyors received trial in those counties where the abuses
were committed and were executed; others were punished and
died in prison”.
A
case in which a local court pronounced a severe penalty against
the purveyor is told by Holinshead:
“Friday,
February 17, 1559. On of Master Hunning's servants (that was
one of the takers of fresh fish for the provision of the queen's
house) was set on the pillory in Cheapside in the fish market
over against the King's Head having a bawdricke of smelts
hanging about his neck with a paper on his forehead written,
“For having smelts at 12d the hundred, and selling them again
for 10d the quarter”.
He
stood likewise on the 18 th and 20 th day of the same month,
every one of those three days from nine of the clock until
twelve. The last day he should have had one of his ears slit,
if by great suit made to the council by the Lord Mayor of
London , he had not been pardoned and released out of prison”.
It
was the customry procedure for the government on the one hand
to turn the purveyor over to the local courts for trial, but
on the other to summon to court for punishment any of the
queen's subjects who obstructed purveyance. Anyone accused
by a purveyor of interfering with the collection of supplies
would receive a warrant from the knight marshal's man to appear
either before the greencloth or the council, depending on
the seriousness of the charge. Almost nothing was more dreaded
than such a summons since the defendant had no way of asking
his neighbours to testify in his behalf. In addition, he had
to pay the heavy fees charged by the marshal as well as the
cost of his own journey to court. In fact the power of the
purveyor to summon subjects to court beacme in practise a
hard form of oppression. As one complainant to Lord Burghley
put it:
“The
subject is often without just cause warned by precept to appear
before her Majesty's officers of the greencloth when in respect
that the charges in coming attending and returning and the
officers' fees are so great that they yield to an injury rather
than enter into the charge and trouble”.
So
serious did abuse become that in 1589 the commons tried to
pass a bill to prohibit the purveyor from issuing a summons
“until
two justices of the peace should certify ...... . of their
opinion touching the complaints of the purveyors”.
The
government defeated the bill because there were times when
the purveyor needed the right of summons. For example, in
March 1593 when Richard Owen, a purveyor, was going about
his business in lawful manner in Devon, the inhabitants rose
against him and siezed his provisons and could not be brought
round until the ringleader, John Treberie, was called up to
court. Again, when the purveyor of coals was defied by the
constable of Eastwrithe in Sussex he was unablke to buy provisons
for Nonsuch until a pursuivant arrived with authority to order
those causing the trouble to appear before the board of the
greencloth.
|