PREFACE
The various documents contained in this volume, with the exception of those included in the Appendices, have been transcribed from the originals in the possession of the Corporation of Dover. They cover the period embraced between the years 1227 and 1569. The large majority of them, as is natural, are of purely local interest, but there are some which will be found to possess historical importance, especially with reference to the Cinque Ports. The document numbered XXVI. is, so far as I know, the earliest record of the ancient Court of Shepway, and affords full information as to its constitution, jurisdiction, and methods of procedure. The manuscript consists of a double folio, and is evidently the remains of the original duaternus kept by the Clerk of the Court. It unfortunately throws no light upon the vexed question as to the locality in which the Court was held. The oath of allegiance to Henry VIII. contained in XCIX. is published in full, I believe, for the first time. The various deeds have been printed in chronological order, but have been arranged under suitable headings in the Contents columns ; and, for the convenience of those who may at any time wish to consult the originals, the reference to the Corporation Archives is in every case given in square brackets at the end of each document. One Charter of the reign of Edward IV. has been omitted ; it is a copy of that King's original Charter to the Cinque Ports. As these documents have been fully dealt with in Jeakes Charters, I did not consider it necessary to print it here, although it was transcribed and translated with the others.
In Appendices A and B will be found a full reference to the various Charters preserved in the British Museum and Principal Record Office which possess any local interest. With the exception of A /., which must be dated 1203-1204, they have not been given in extenso. I have transcribed this at length, because it is the earliest of its kind yet discovered so far as Dover is concerned. For other reasons, how- ever, it is worthy of insertion in its entirety, for not only does it give a particularly long list of witnesses, but it also throws an interesting light on the method of administering justice in Dover in the early years of the reign of King John. The Charter itself appears to me to be the outcome of a placitum convencionis frcwte, for it differs from an ordinary grant in this important respect that the 'Testes include the chief officials of the castle and of the town. There are a good many similar aocuments in the following pages, but numbers XLVII,, LV. and CXXV. make it clear that the finalis concordia ill the Court was followed by a Carta Confirmacionis. I take it, therefore, that those Charters witnessed by the Mayor, Bailiff, and four, or more. Jurats, are Carte Confirmacionis, resulting from a suit heard in the local court. It is to be noted also that the grantors received y\sh. for the confirmation of their Charter in the Hundred Court of Dover. Looking at the witnesses from this point of view, we find the Constable, the Seneschal, and the Clerk of the Constable (George, carte hujus scrip tor)^ representing the Castle ; and the Prepositus and Clerk of Dover representing the Town. In addition to these there are twenty-seven other names, which are those of important townsmen and Castle officials. It will at once be seen that there is a striking omission, no Mayor of Dover appears among the witnesses, and what, to me, is more remarkable, a " Simon the Dean " signs before the Constable. The question naturally arises, Was there a Mayor of Dover at this period ^ I here made considerable research to settle this point, but have merely obtained some negative results. There is no record of the town having been let to the Burgesses at fee ferm, and there is no reference to Dover in this connection in Maddox's Firma Burgi or the History of the Exchequer. The Pipe Rolls show a return for the ferm of Dover, but the ferm was paid from the issues of the passage and not by the freemen. In the reign of Henry III. this ferm disappears altogether, being, as I imagine, assigned to the Constable in part payment of his salary (f/l Rot. Claus.^ R. Ser.^ 13 Ed. I., fol. 322, 324). In the absence of any positive informa tion of a later date, we are driven back to the Domesday Book, which clearly proves that in the days of the Confessor the Burgesses of Dover possessed certain privileges which they held by a service of ships, and that, moreover, they had a Gilhalla. It would be an outrage to common sense to imagine that the Burgesses had no presiding officer, they must have chosen some one, and he must also have been known by some title, and my surmise is that he was called the " Dean." My study of the early documents connected with Dover have led me to accept without hesitation Mr Horace J. Round's theory that the municipal customs of Dover have a foreign origin, and I am equally able to believe that the chief civic officer was a Doyen "elected by the inhabitants of the Vill, or by the more worthy of them, to whom belonged the right of making ad- jornamenta and taking bail." This view would account for the teste of Simon the Dean in the Charter in question, but having submitted it to some whose verdict would probably be regarded as final, and having been told that it is "fanciful" and "untenable," I can do no more than record it as my humble contribution to the solution of a difficult question. Two facts are patent - in the days of the Conqueror Dover burgesses possessed certain privileges ; when, some two hundred years later, its history begins to rise from obscurity, we find it with a well-established system of self-government. The Mayor and Jurats exercise full legal and civic authority over the freemen, the king's officer, first a Prepositus, and then a Bailiff, over the "foreigner," or "alien" resident in the Vill. To what date are we to assign the origin of this form of government .'' Was it a development since the Conquest, or was it the survival of a set of customs anterior to the death of Harold '^ The probabilities, in my opinion, are that the latter is the true version. I have before stated that it is not impossible that the ship service dates back to Alfred {History of Dover, 36), but, be that as it may, it is certain that the freemen of Dover exercised some form of municipal government before the Conquest, and formed their custumal more from their neighbours across the Channel than from inland sources. It must always be remembered in dealing with the early history of Dover, and of the other Cinque Ports, that the end of the Angevin dynasty roughly ni:uks the peritxl at which their importance and utility to the State began to decay, and that when we speak of Dover in the days of King John, we are dealing with a town that had played an important part in the nation's affairs for a considerable period. It was no new burgh with its customs to be formed, but an ancient Vill with its history behind it. The important aid rendered to William I. by the vessels of the south-eastern ports is a proof of their power and vitality even in those early days, and it would be an anachronism to imagine that in 1203 they were just formulating some system of local government. I'hey were far more likely engaged in defending their ancient liberties from change and encroachment. All this leads me to think that the absence of the name of some chief civic official in this Charter is highly remarkable, especially as in all sub sequent Court documents the Mayor and Bailiff" are invariably found as witnesses.
The first time the title of Mayor occurs in The Dover Charters is in 1257 (page 9), and the first writ addressed to the " Mayors and Bailiffs of the Cinque Ports" is dated August 30, 1256 {Rot. Pat., 40 Henry III.). We may therefore assume with some confidence that the title was not used until about this period. About the same date the Prepositus disappears and the King's representative is known as the BailiflF. The Index gives a list of a large number of these civic officers, but iDy no means exhausts the information obtainable on this point. I have been able to compile from various sources a roll of the Mayors of Dover from the year 1363, which, with the exception of six years only, is complete to the present day. There are also some twenty years accounted for between 1257 and 1363, and although there is but small hope of adding many other names to the list, it is doubtful whether any other town in England can produce a fuller authentic record.
There are three words which occur in different documents which seem to require some explanation — Skomerfare on page 87 ; Lovecopfry on page 179 ; and Uiviethis on page 264. Skomerfare occurs in Gower's Confessio Amantis, and in Halliwell's Dictionary is de scribed as meaning piracy. The derivation is given as from escumerie, which certainly means piracy. This explanation is not altogether satisfactory, for Skomerfare is evidently a compound word, and cannot be derived from escumerie alone. In the Dover Chamberlains' Accounts the tolls levied on various imports are invariable called ''fare," ^.^., "Hokfare," " Herringfare," " Sprot fare," etc., and Skomerfare must accordingly be a toll levied on " Skomer." The word occurs occasionally in the accounts, and it will not be out of place to quote one or two instances of its use.
Et solut Johanni Hamon pro Sqymfare — (Add. MSS., B.M., 29615, fol. 55).
Et in litteris deferendis pro hominibus de Mergate . . . qtierendis pro voiagium de Skomerfare ad diversas vices — iiis. iid. (ib.fol. 22b).
If we derive the word from escumerie it would mean either the toll levied on all booty captured and landed out of pirate vessels, or, what is more probable, the proportion of profit which each mariner obtained as his share of the plunder. I am inclined to think the latter is the right local interpretation of the word, for the Warden, as the Admiral of the Cinque Ports, always claimed at least a share in the goods of pirates. The patent of Henry Brook, Eighth Lord Cobham, as Warden of the Ports, dated September 30, 1597, mentions amongst his " benefits and royalties," " All benefits of the goods of pirates and rovers^ In all probability the word had a double meaning — first the expedition fitted out for the destruc tion of troublesome piratical vessels, and then the share of booty captured during the voiagiiim.
Lovecopfry is described in Jeake's Charters as a word connected with mercantile pursuits, but I cannot find any authority for such an interpretation. It appears to be a term peculiar to the Cinque Ports, and may possibly mean free from toll on sale or purchase of commodities.
In a manuscript note on the margin of the copy of Jeake's work, now in the Bodleian Library, it is suggested that it means the right of having brothels in a town without the royal or episcopal licence,
Utviethis, from utviethum probably as a nominative, I have not discovered in any book of reference, and have therefore been compelled to give a translation of my own. I have sought to connect it with vieo, to bind with twigs, and have interpreted it as weir-baskets.
The Latin of some of the later documents is very corrupt, and in many cases I have noted impossible constructions with an asterisk.
It will not escape attention that there are practically no explanatory notes in this volume. This is not owing to a lack of information but to a deliberate design. It is my sincere hope that the Corporation of Dover will continue the work now begun, and publish successive volumes of their records until they possess a complete Series. It is hardly too much to say that a descriptive note could have been appended to nearly every name mentioned in the text, but to have done so would clearly have been a waste of space if the sources from which the information was derived are to be published in full. When it is understood that a rate of a very small fraction of a penny will enable this to be done, I am more than hopeful that the Corporation will be induced to carry out this meritorious work. I have thought it desirable to include in this book a complete list of the different records belonging to the town which still exist. It will be found on the next page.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Rev. T. Shipdem Frampton and Dr Sebastian Evans for their most valuable assistance in preparing this work, and to Mr Jeakes, of the Manuscript Department of the British Museum, for the unselfish labour he bestowed in reading the proof sheets. I am also much indebted to Mr H. Gibson for the excellent photograph from which the frontispiece was made.
Dover, August 15, 1902.