THE RIOTS OF
ELIZABETHAN OXFORD
David B. Mock
Tallahassee Communality College
The legacy of the St. Scholastica's Day Riots of 1355 had a profound influence on the on-going relations between the town of Oxford and Oxford University. Emotions ran high--even 200 years after the 1355 riots, little of the animosity had abated.
The mutual hatred between town and university is understandable. By the late 1500s, the university had acquired a number of new rights and economic privileges, which were increasingly resented by the townspeople, who felt they were unduly taxed at the expense of the university. Sixteenth-century Oxford was relatively small and poor. Its ninety acres was divided into four wards and nine parishes. The town's population was under six thousand. There are numerous reports of the impoverished nature of the town's citizens.(1) The hostility of the townspeople angered the masters and students, who believed that their special rights and privileges were justified because of their unique position in society and because the 1355 settlement had resolved the town-gown relationship for all time.
Because of the pervasiveness of this animosity, town-gown quarrels were frequent and bitter in the Elizabethan period. Resolving these disputes was often the responsibility of the Privy Council, which was the principal administrative organ of the queen. Aware of the queen's sympathy for the universities, the Council consistently favored the university over the town. The university also benefited from having a better legal position. As recently as 1528, King Henry VIII had granted the university an extensive charter which had regularized its economic privileges, increased its income, and expanded its authority over the town's guilds. In 1571, Parliament incorporated the universities and confirmed their privileges and franchises. Despite the clear legal position of the universities, the mayor and aldermen were unwilling to cooperate and recognize the special nature and privileged status of those working for and matriculating at the university.(2)
University privileges were extensive. It had custody over the assizes of bread, ale, and wine in the area surrounding the university. It regulated merchants and other townspeople through its licensing of alehouses and its regulating of baking and brewing activities. It controlled the quality and stamping of bread and set the market prices of foodstuffs for five miles around the university. It was responsible for supervising the various proclamations and regulations concerning the consumption of meat during Lent. Moreover, university officials were charged with regulating the moral climate of the town and thus could close plays and prohibit bear-baitings and other immoral activities. In addition to its responsibilities, the university had numerous privileges including exemption from impressment, military levies, and subsidies, and from delivering horses to the post. Additionally, scholars were subject neither to prosecution in common law courts, imprisonment for debt, nor for breaking the peace. This meant that, for all practical purposes, scholars could not be sued, arrested, or even harassed by local justices of the peace. Any disciplinary matters were the responsibility of the vice chancellor and the heads of the various colleges.(3)
The university's economic privileges placed it in direct conflict with the rights of those town residents who also enjoyed special privileges. The special status of the university particularly rankled the middling and lower classes who were burdened by taxes and levies. The privileged status of the university proved to be a source of almost constant friction, particularly because the growth of guilds and the special rights of guild members placed them in direct opposition to the traditional claims of the university. The university, for its part, disliked the seemingly endless attacks on its privileges.(4)
The Elizabethan Privy Council first became concerned about the issue of university privileges when it tried to resolve the town-gown conflict on a permanent basis in 1562. In July of that year, a justice of the peace arrested an Oxford student. When the mayor refused to release the student or surrender him to the vice chancellor, other students tried to free their classmate, and, when unsuccessful, they rioted. On this occasion, the Council supported the university and reminded the mayor of his annual oath not to provoke the students by arrogant words or illegal actions such as those he had recently undertaken. The Councilors additionally warned him not to infringe further upon the university's charter. But the Council also dispatched John Doyleye and Richard Fenges to investigate the riot and to bring the student ringleaders to London for interrogation. Subsequently the Councilors sent six students to Fleet Prison. Later in 1562 and again in 1564 before their internment in Fleet and Marshalsea, other rebellious students appeared before the Star Chamber, the Council sitting as a court of law.'
The town-gown controversy again erupted in the 1570s. In 1573, one William Noble complained to the Privy Council about riots and other illegal activities of students. Arguments in 1575 centered on the possession of land belonging to Magdalen College and the libel and defamation of character of one Adam Squier. In an unrelated case, representatives from the town and the university appeared before the Council in May 1575. Both sides produced charters and other evidence of their privileges, which the queen's attorney and solicitor general closely examined. In a point-by-point analysis, the Privy Councilors gave unqualified support to the university. They expressed their disapproval of the "great disquietnes" of the town and tried to resolve all of the disputed points in one judgment. The Council confirmed the exemptions of scholars' horses and those of their servants from service as post horses, required town officials to continue swearing their annual oath to support the university's charter and privileges, permitted the unlicensed sale of cotton and linen to scholars, allowed scholars to buy and sell openly without licenses, protected the legal status of students by declaring illegal all indictments and similar violations of the charter, and recognized the university's privilege with respect to its control over the assizes of ale, bread, and wine. The only apparent gain by the town was a one-time grant of £200 as restitution for damages caused by rioting students.(6)
The Council also reexamined the issue of the town's reimbursing the university 1,500 marks for a memorial for the students slain in 1355. The town successfully explained that, in lieu of paying the fine, it had received permission to hold an annual memorial mass for the souls of those killed in 1355. But, because Protestantism forbade the holding of a Catholic mass, the town had neither paid the fine nor held a mass for fifteen years. The Council decided that to fulfill its obligation the town needed only to support an annual sermon or communion service commemorating the slaughter and to have town officials pay "a penny a pece" to the university for a memorial, a practice that continued until 1825. The Council ordered copies of the resolutions posted prominently around the town and university within fourteen days. Councilors hoped that this detailed decision would end the quarrel. Such an expectation proved premature, however. Conflicts continued as town officials again challenged university privileges.(7)
The next year, in fact, the mayor wanted the university to contribute to a subsidy. But, when he appeared before the Privy Council and saw Henry VIII's charter, which had exempted the university from subsidies, the mayor acknowledged his effort and promised not to offend again. Yet the townspeople remained obstinate and non-juring. In May 1577, the Council ordered town officials to obey its orders and swear oaths to uphold the university charter. Otherwise they were to appear before the Council and justify their disobedience. In response, town authorities explained their reluctance to comply. For their part university officials remained unyielding and threatened to excommunicate the non-juring, Lord Burghley received a letter in 1581 from the university asking him to require the sheriff to force town fathers to take the mandatory oath. Apparently the letter had little effect, because three years later the Council again learned of further occasions when justices of the peace had been persecuting students. On this occasion, town officials reported that the Oxford students, masters, and even the vice chancellor were daily breaking town laws. The Council promptly investigated the allegations and confirmed the town's claims of improper behavior by the scholars. Nevertheless, the Council still defended the privileges and immunities of the university. And, the town was no more willing to take the oath than before. In fact, in 1585 the Oxford mayor disenfranchised town dignitaries who swore to uphold the university charter. This action may have involved the university's refusal to pay purveyance, a form of indirect taxation, which permitted representatives of the crown to purchase foodstuffs at below market price. Regardless of its cause, university officials again asked Burghley for assistance in protecting the university from this expense.(8)
More than money was involved in the town-gown squabbles. A particularly interesting legal case concerned one John Waight, who enrolled in Oxford when a legal action appeared to be going against him. He apparently hoped that his enrollment would stay the anticipated judgment. When the Privy Councilors learned of the circumstances in the case, they expressed their belief that the chancellor and masters should "have better regard to the maintenance of their privileges" lest they lose them. The Council also asked the chancellor to investigate the circumstances surrounding the case and ordered all parties to appear before the justice of assize. Yet, when the plaintiff tried to serve Waight with writs of execution, the Council prohibited the chief justice from interfering with Waight until the justices had first rendered a verdict.(9)
The Council again protected Oxford University from a legal suit in 1587. On this occasion an Oxford scholar, one Thomas Hore, allegedly libeled Thomas Wriglesworth (or Wricklesworth). The plaintiff brought suit for £100,000 against Hore and the university. The university believed, however, that Wriglesworth's suit was primarily intended to attack the privileges guaranteed the university by its charter. Informed of the opinion of university officials, the Council asked Sir Walter Mildmay, a master of the rolls and Devonshire justice of the peace, to investigate the case. Mildmay confirmed the university's allegations, finding that Wriglesworth had brought suit "onelie of purpose to impeaehe and shake the ancyent Chartres of the Unyversytie." With Mildmay's report in hand, the Council ordered Wriglesworth to stop all legal actions against Hore. It also directed the chief justice, who was hearing the case, to stop all legal proceedings so that the "said schollers, to the dyscontinewaunce of their studyes and expences, might not be derived from the Unyversitie to followe such frivolous actions commenced upon such small grouwnde and to so evill an ende."(10)
Two years later the Council again defended the Oxford charter. Sir Francis Knollys, lord lieutenant for Oxfordshire, asked the Council about his jurisdiction over scholars who resisted his authority and rioted, when he attempted to punish them for illegal hunting. Knollys believed that he had the prerogative to suppress the riots, but the Councilors disagreed. They again supported the university, deciding that the lord lieutenant had the right to stop disorders that threatened the state, but not minor ones such as those due to illegal hunting. The Council decided that if there were unlawful activities, they should be referred to the Chancellor common or the Star Chamber. In each of these instances where there was a conflict, the Privy Council consistently supported the rights of the university.(11)
Purveyance was again an issue in 1590. Despite the university's exemption from purveyance, the queen's purveyors assessed St. John's College in late 1589. An important question arising from this dispute concerned the area to be exempted from the assessment. According to its charter, an area of five miles around the university was exempt unless the monarch came within seven miles of the town. College officials were uncertain, however, whether the distance was measured from the college or the town gates. Further complicating the situation were the claims of college tenants who believed that they too should be exempt. The Council decided ultimately in July 1590 that the five miles were to be measured per certam lineam in circuita from the town gates. Sir Henry Umpton was to mark the boundaries with stakes and inform constables and other officials not to levy purveyance on anyone living within that radius.(12)
Throughout the Elizabethan period the Council's principal concerns with respect to the various town-gown controversies were, first, the maintenance of public order; and second, the protection of university rights and privileges. The Council preferred the position of the universities because they had a better legal case. Throughout the Elizabethan period the Council frequently expressed concern that university privileges be respected. One clear example of this concern came in 1585 when the Council ordered food sent to the starving poor of Oxford. Appended to its order was a statement that this action was not intended to infringe upon the privileges of the nearby university to set food prices. In addition, town officials were often called to London to explain their reluctance to acknowledge ancient university rights. Likewise, the Council chastised university officials on occasion, when they appeared to disregard the defense of their legal position and lose the privileges of their institution.(13)
The Council's major concern in the town-gown controversy was, however, the maintenance of public order. When necessary, it acted quickly to punish rioters and end disputes. The Council frequently expressed displeasure about the continual bickering between town and university officials whose actions provided poor examples to the common people. It restricted the activities of town and university officials in most instances to appearances between the Council and the courts while extracting promises to uphold earlier concessions. Despite the Councillors' repeated interventions, they were not successful in ending the quarrels on a permanent basis. Apparently it would take more than a reiteration of ancient agreements to bring peace to such a lengthy and bitter feud.
***
Dr. David B. Mock received his PhD in British history from Florida State University in 1983. He has taught history at Edison Community College in Ft. Myers, and in 1990 he joined the history faculty at Tallahassee Community College. He has edited History and Public Policy (1991), co-edited A Dictionary of Obituaries of Modern British Radicals (1989), and co-authored Educating Hand and Mind: A History of Vocational Education in Florida (1986). Currently, he is working on a transcription and critical edition of A Deutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Weomen and an edition of Legacy of the West: Readings in the History of Western Civilization (under contract with HarperCollins). Dr. Mock served as president of the Florida College Teachers of History in 1988 through 1989 and currently is the permanent secretary of the Florida Conference of Historians
ENDNOTES
1. British Library, Lansdowne Manuscript, 11: 73; 45: 55, 64; 49: 56; 51: 53; 54: 3, 5-7, 9, 10; 84: 86-91, 96; 86: 32; Public Record Office State Papers Domestic 12/91, 186. Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University at the Clarendon Press, 1936), 3: 89-106.
2. Simion S. Laurie, The Rise and Early Constitution of Universities (New York: D. Appleton, 1901), 124-3 1; Charles E. Mallet, A History of the University of Oxford, 2 vols. (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924), 1: 34, 162-67; 2: 104-09.
3. Mark H. Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, 1552-1642 (Oxford: Oxford University at the Clarendon Press, 1959), 18-25; Rashdall, Universities, 3: 81; Mallet, History, 2: 108-9.
4. BL Lansdowne MS 45: 64; Acts of the Privy Council, 19: 175, 318-20; 22: 181, 187.
5. Acts of the Privy Council, 7: 114, 118; 20: 63-65, 85-86.
6. 6. Ibid., 8: 304-05, 334; cf. 8: 339-40, 376-86; Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge, 25-26; Robert O. Berndahl, British Universities and the State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959), 15.
7. BL Lansdowne MS 33: 45; PRO SP 12/170; Acts of the Privy Council, 8: 376-86; 9: 338, 350, 352-53, 354-55; Mallet, History, 2: 109.
8. Acts of the Privy Council, 10: 259-60, 290-91.
9. Ibid., 10: 264-65.
10. PRO SP 12/184; Acts of the Privy Council, 15: 285-85; 18: 174-75.
11. Acts of the Privy Council, l9: 174-75.
12. Parliament granted the universities exemption from purveyance by 2 & 3 Philip and Mary c. 1 (1555), Statutes of the Realm, 4 (1): 289-90; BL Lansdowne MS 45: 64; Acts of the Privy Council, 19: 175, 318-20; 22: 181, 187.
13. Acts of the Privy Council, 13: 86-87.