VII.
THE SIX BRIDGES.
IN the autumn of the year 1392, William Mercer and William Spencer, we are told by Thompson in his History of Leicester (page 137), gave to the Mayor and community of Leicester divers houses, lands and tenements situate in Leicester, Whetstone and Great Glen, for the repair of the Six Bridges within the town of Leicester, and for other purposes. This statement need not, however, be taken too literally. It is possible, of course, that Messrs. Mercer and Spencer were public-spirited townsmen who wished to do well to their town, and to mend its bridges; but it seems far more probable that they were in reality more like what lawyers call sometimes, in their picturesque phraseology, "conduit-pipes." The transaction may be explained, perhaps, in the following way.
In the year preceding this grant, the Mortmain Acts had been extended for the first time to Boroughs, so that the community of Leicester were now prevented from holding any real estate, except by Ucense. To obtain a license was a rather complicated and costly business. It would have been impossible, on that account, for the governing body of the town to buy small lots of property, and take separate conveyances of each. And so they seem to have deputed two of their members to buy up several lots of property on their behalf, and to take conveyances and assignments of each lot separately into their own names, as private persons, to whom the Mortmain Acts did not apply. For this purpose the town required the services of two men of good repute and proved honesty, and Mercer and Spencer, who were selected, no doubt answered to that description. Mercer had taken his father's seat in the Guild Merchant in 1365, and Spencer entered the Guild in 1368. They were thus men of some experience in municipal affairs, and that Spencer, at any rate, was a man of good standing is shown by his being elected Mayor of the town in the year 1399.
These two men acquired, during the summer of 1392, a considerable amount of land, houses, rents and reversions. Two of the conveyances to them still extant are dated in the August of that year. The community then took steps to obtain a license that all this property might be assigned to themselves by one conveyance, as a grant from the persons then legally entitled.
In the first instance it was necessary for an Inquest to be held. When this was done, the Jury found that no loss would ensue from the proposed gift, but they pointed out that some of the Leicester property was held of the Duke of Lancaster, and the Whetstone land of Sir John de Beaumont, both tenants of the King. This inquisition is printed by Nichols, and an English translation will be found in Thompson's History of Leicester. Thereupon the King granted his license. A portion of this document is printed by Nichols, and an English abstract of the whole is given in the Borough Records. Richard II, "by special favour, and for £20 paid to him by the Mayor and Community of the town of Leicester," granted leave to William Mercer and William Spencer to give 8 messuages 15 cottages 2 shops 1 toft 6 virgates and 9 acres of arable land 6 acres and 1 rood of meadow and 25s. 912d, yearly of rent and the rent of 1 cock and 2 hens, with their appurtenances, in Leicester, Whetstone and Great Glen, to be held by them and their successors "for the repair and bettering of the Six Bridges within the town of Leicester and for other burdens arising within the said town according to the ordinance of the grantors." They also had leave to grant the reversions of some other property situate in Leicester. The License is dated September 14th, 1392, and within three weeks from that date licenses were also obtained from the mesne lords mentioned by the Jury, "Prince John, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster," and "the reverend lord, the lord John of Beaumont," and a formal assignment of the property to the Mayor and Community of Leicester was duly executed.
The "repair and bettering of the Six Bridges" was put forward intentionally, as one of the good and charitable uses for which the property was acquired, but the Bridges had really little or nothing to do with the matter. None of the acquired property was actually set aside for any such specific purpose, and the conveyance caused no alteration to be made in the community's way of financing these outlays, which, as we shall see, was largely effected by voluntary subscriptions. That the repair of bridges was used as a consideration to support the conveyance shows only the great importance which was ascribed to this municipal duty. To look after all the approaches to the Town Gates was an old and solemn obligation of the governing burgesses, and there was a special sanctity attached to the maintenance of bridges.
"The Six Bridges within the Town of Leicester" is a phrase which does not seem to occur elsewhere. It refers, one may suppose, to the same six bridges as those which are marked upon a certain plan of the Leicester Mills and Bridges, drawn about the year 1600, which is preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and which is reproduced in the third volume of the Borough Records.
According to this plan, the names of the Six Bridges are: (1) St. Sunday's Bridge, (2) Frogmire Bridge, (3) West Bridge, (4) Bow Bridge, (5) Braunston Bridge, and (6) an anonymous "Bridge."
(1) ST. SUNDAY'S BRIDGE.
This bridge crossed the main stream of the river Soar, north of Leicester, opposite to the ancient church of St. Leonard, and the bifurcation of the high road. It is described in a conveyance of the year 1493 as "The Great Bridge," and it was sometimes so called in later centuries, but in the Borough Records it is usually named the North Bridge from the 13th century until the 16th. The monks would seem to have given to it the name of St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order of Preaching Friars, who was canonized in 1234. This name passed into familiar speech as "St. Sunday Bridge," or "St. Sunday's Bridge," Sunday being the English equivalent of "Dominicus." It is so called in 1550, "Sent Sonday brygg," in Queen Elizabeth's Charter of 1589, and later. Throsby calls it "Sunday Bridge, formerly Sanvis Bridge"; and Nichols says that, in his time, it was commonly called "St. Sunday's Bridge." In modern days it has reverted to its old designation of "North Bridge."
The old North Bridge is mentioned in extant deeds of the 13th century, and occurs in the Mayor's account for 1307-8, when one of the arches was mended. It was paved with stone in 1319, and again in 1365. Leland described it as comprising "7 or 8 arches of stone"; but in later years, at any rate, there were ten. It was repaired from time to time, and stood for several centuries. Throsby, writing in 1791, said that the bridge was then "patched with repairs at various periods; the fence walls thereon are low and dangerous." The Rev. William Bickerstaffe, who died in 1789, left the following description of it. "The North Bridge, now commonly St. Sunday's Bridge, has eight wet arches, the midmost high and wide; two more on the town side, small and useless, obstructed on both sides by dyers' buildings, and made-ground. It is 98 yards one foot long, five yards two feet wide; parapet walls about a yard high, their thickness one foot two inches. One of its arches, the nearest the town, is pointed; the other nine are round. From the top of the parapet to the water is four yards three quarters; the common depth of the water 1 yard 8 inches, near the middle of the bridge, by the middle of the arch." In February, 1795, a great flood almost entirely demolished it; and, in the following year, a new stone bridge, of three arches, was erected in its place. A good illustration of this beautiful structure was given by Nichols at the beginning of the 19th century. Its life was but short, for it was pulled down and rebuilt in the years 1867 and 1868.
(2) FROGMIRE BRIDGE.
This bridge, by which the high road to the north crossed a small arm of the river, a little south of the North Bridge, was known from the 14th century as "The Little North Bridge," or "The Little Bridge."
It is called Little Bridge in 1592; but in the Corporation Records for 1611, it is named "Frogmire Bridge," and the island between the two bridges is still known as Frog Island. It seems to have been once a wooden bridge; at any rate, timber is the only material that is mentioned in the early repairing accounts. In 1541 a post and rail were provided.
(3) THE WEST BRIDGE.
This bridge, which spanned the Soar just beyond the West Gate, has always been so named. It may have been built, as Mr. Kelly conjectured, by Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester. At any rate the Eastern arch of the bridge, or its foundations appear to have been undoubtedly of Norman architecture. It was reconstructed in 1325, of stone and timber, at a cost of more than £28; and again, in 1365, it was thoroughly overhauled, and, either then or shortly before that time, a little chapel was built over its Eastern arch. The old bridge was taken down in April, 1841. Both Throsby and Nichols say that it had four arches, but in Lee's beautiful drawing, which was made just before its destruction, there are only three. The bridge was replaced in the following year by a wider one costing over £4,000. This, in its turn, has been superseded, in recent years, by an elaborate structure of iron, erected about 1890, at a similar expense.
(4) THE BOW BRIDGE.
This bridge crossed the arm of the river known as the Old Soar, past the West Bridge, and beyond the Priory of the Austin Friars. It may have taken its name from a foot-bridge, which stood a few yards to the North-west, also known as Bow Bridge, "because it consisted of one large arch like a bow." This foot-bridge belonged to the monastery of the Austin Friars, and was used by the monks when they went to and from St. Austin's Well. It was swept away by a high flood in 1791.
Bow Bridge was repaired in 1666 at a cost of £15 12s. 0d. The restored structure comprised five semi-circular arches, and it was, in Throsby's opinion, "the most uniform bridge at Leicester." It was built of stone, like the other large bridges, but in his day they were all, with the exception of Bow Bridge, patched with brick. This bridge was about 23 yards long and 6 feet wide, with niches at intervals on both sides, in which foot-passengers could stand when carriages were passing; and there were piers, with cut-waters, beneath the niches. Tradition has recorded that, when the monastery of the Grey Friars was dissolved, the remains of Richard the Third were taken from his tomb, and thrown over the Bow Bridge into the river Soar. He was said to have marched to Bosworth's fatal field across the same bridge, where an old woman, sitting by the way, foretold his doom. From these traditions connected with it, it gained the name of King Richard's Bridge, and was so called by Throsby, who gave a good illustration of it, but the best drawing of the bridge is one made by Dr. Lee, and published in Kelly's "Royal Progresses." About the year 1784, after a carriage crossing it had been all but swept away by the flooded stream, it was widened with brick-work. In 1863 it was rebuilt, and again widened, at a cost of £932. A tablet was then placed above the bridge bearing this legend: "Near this spot lie the remains of Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets."
(5) BRAUNSTON BRIDGE.
This bridge, which crossed the old Soar, south of Bow Bridge, is mentioned in 1317, when "Thomas the Chapman was killed by several men while crossing the bridge to his house in Brunkynesthorp," Brunkynesthorp, or Bromkinsthorpe, was the old name of Braunstone Gate.
The old stone bridge of four high-pointed arches, was 51 yards in length, and from 3 yards 28 inches to 534 yards wide. The parapet walls were a yard high. It was widened with brick in 1792, and a new bridge of iron, costing about £4,000, was erected about 1884.
(6) COW BRIDGE.
This bridge, which crossed the New Cut, south of the Newarke and north of St. Mary's Mill, is anonymous in the plan referred to. It may be the same as a bridge, mended by the Mayor's orders in 1338-9, which he described as "the bridge towards the church of St. Sepulchre." It is mentioned in 1360 as "the bridge towards Aylestone which is called Coubrigg." Two hundred years later it is called "Cowpasture Bridge," and "Cowhey Bridge." It led to the ancient common pasture, known as Cowhey, so frequently mentioned in the history of the town, part of which is now the Freemen's Meadow.
There were some other small bridges that were occasionally repaired by the Corporation. Among these may be mentioned St. Anthony's Bridge, in Senvey Gate, and the little bridge outside the East Gate, both crossing the Town Ditch; and the Spital-house Bridge or "Lady Bridge," in Belgrave Gate, repaired in 1569 and 1600; which seems to be the bridge described by Leland as "a meane stone bridge," and "a little beyond it," he says, "is another stone bridge, through the which passit a litle land broke, cumming from villages not far of, and so rennith into Bishop's water." This little streamlet is now known as Willow Brook. There were also apparently two bridges in Humberstone Gate, one of which was known as the Antelope Bridge; and there was a "bridge at the Clay Pit."
The Leicester Bridges emerge into the light of history in the middle of the 13th century, when the independent burgesses of the town, resenting certain taxes, known as "Bridge-silver," and "Gavel-pence," took steps to obtain their remission. In the first place, an Inquest was held, purporting to enquire into the origin of these taxes. The Leicester Jurats told two stories, one relating to gavel-pence, the other to bridge-silver. Both are interesting, and, as they are intimately connected, it may be well to give both.
The gavel-pence story runs thus: "In the time of Robert of Meulan, then Earl of Leicester, it happened that two kinsmen, to wit Nicholas Hakon's son and Geoffrey Nicholas' son, of Leicester, waged a trial by battle for a certain land, about which a plea had arisen between them, and they fought from the hour of Prime to the hour of Noon, and longer, and so fighting with each other, one of them drove the other as far as a certain little ditch, and as the other stood over the little ditch and was about to fall into it, his kinsman said to him, 'Mind you don't fall into the ditch behind you,' and immediately there arose such a clamour and such a tumult among the spectators standing and sitting round, that the lord Earl heard their noise even in the Castle, and then asked some people what the noise was, and he was told that two kinsmen were fighting about a piece of land and one of them drove the other as far as a certain little ditch, and as he stood over the ditch and was about to fall into it, the other warned him. The burgesses then, moti pietate, agreed with the lord Earl that they would give him 3d. a year from each house which had a gable looking on to the High Street, on condition that he would grant that all pleas touching them should henceforth be treated and determined by 24 jurats who were appointed in Leicester of old time; and this was granted to them by the Lord Earl and thus first were raised the pence that are called gavel-pence (govelpeniis). After the death of this Earl Robert, Robert, his son and heir, succeeded, who for the health of his father's soul entirely remitted the aforesaid pence which are called Gavelpence, and by his charter gave a quit-claim for ever. The aforesaid charter, with many other writings and charters, was put in the keeping of a certain burgess and clerk who was called Lambert, against whom evil-doers arose in the night, because he was thought to be rich, and they burned his houses and even the feet of the man himself, (etiam pedes ipsius), together with the aforesaid charter and many other writings. Some time after, there was a certain clerk in this town of Leicester, by name Simon Maudit, who, for some time after the death of the aforesaid Robert, Earl of Leicester, who made the charter of quitclaim, had the reeveship of Leicester in farm, and collected and exacted the said pence called gavelpence by force and at his own will, distraining all who refused to pay, bidding them show him a warranty of quitclaim, for he knew very well that the quitclaim was burnt, so they are paid to this very day."
With regard to bridge-silver, the Jurats reported as follows: "In the time of the same Earl Robert, the forest of Leicester was so great, thick and full, that it was scarcely possible to go by the paths of that forest, on account of the quantity of dead wood and of boughs blown down by the wind, and then by the will and consent of the Lord Earl and of his Council, it was allowed to those who wished to look for dead wood, to have six cartloads for 1d. and a horse-load a week for 1d., and a man's load a week for 14d., and these moneys were collected first at the exit of the wood, afterwards outside the town of Leicester nearer to the wood, and then these moneys were collected at the bridges of the town of Leicester, where at first there was a certain keeper called Penkrich, to whom the Lord Earl at his request afterwards granted a certain space near the bridge on which to build, that there he might collect the custom more conveniently. And this Penkrich for some time after collected the said moneys both for green wood and felled wood which used to be paid for dead wood only, and so afterwards it passed into a custom. And that the truth of this inquest may appear the more clearly and be the more obvious, it can well be perceived by the fact that strangers from whatever part they may have come, carrying wood or timber, whether it be from the forest of Arden or from Cannock Chase or from Needwood forest, or whoever they might be, pay no pontage, nor ever used to pay it, those only excepted who came from Leicester forest."
Now these inquiries were not instituted, as Mr. J. H. Round has already pointed out, in order to ascertain the historical truth about these matters. They were really pieces of special pleading, which aimed at obtaining a remission of these two taxes on the best terms possible. The burgesses tried to show (1) that the taxes had been granted or imposed in comparatively recent times by, and on, the predecessors of the respective parties concerned, in circumstances which pleaded in favour of their remission, and (2) that they had already been actually revoked or, at least, that their collection was attended with injustice and fraud. The findings of the Jury cannot therefore be accepted at their face value. The tale of the two kinsmen's battle sounds like a genuine tradition, which had been in the mouths of Leicester people for many a year; but the application of it made by the Jurats is another matter. As soon as we come to the romantic story of the burglary and the lost charter, we feel the ground slipping under us. With regard to gavel-pence, or govel-pence, Mr. Round has pointed out that this tax was a Saxon service of immemorial antiquity, the "customary tribute" due from the tenant to the lord, commuted into a money payment. He gives several instances from Oxford, Winchester, Chester and elsewhere. The Anglo-Saxon word gafol, meaning a gift (German, gaben.) was joined to the word penniis, or pence, when the service became a tribute in money. The Latin equivalent is gablum. But gablum, Mr. Round thinks, may have suggested to the enquiring Jurats themselves, or to a former generation of guessers, the gable of a house, and hence came the story, familiar in all our histories of Leicester, about the tax of three pennies paid for every gabled house standing in the High Street. He concludes that the tax did not originate in a bargain about the Portmanmote, as the burgesses of the 13th century tried to make out, nor was it remitted by a charter that had been destroyed, nor was it afterwards illegally enforced by Simon Maudit.
Whatever we may think of Mr. Round's ingenious etymological theory, we cannot doubt that the Jurats knew quite well, and correctly stated, who paid the tax about which they were enquiring. It seems clear that at the time of the Inquest the Earl was levying an imposition called govelpence upon the dwellers in the High Street, but this tax, however it may have become so incident, was in fact pre-Norman both in name and origin, and consequently it cannot have been imposed by Earl Robert in the circumstances related by the Jury. The gable of a house in mediaeval Latin is sometimes "gabulla," but in the language of the Inquest it is "gablus." Mr. Round points out that the Jurats maintain the English name of the payment, "govelpence," which is fatal to the pretended "gable" derivation, "for," he says, "though govel is an easy corruption from gafol or gavel, it cannot be a corruption from gable." On the other hand, their use of the form "govelpeniis" would seem to tell against the suggestion that the form gablum, and its supposed derivation from gablus, was in their minds.
Mr. Round seems to imply that Simon Maudit (whom he misnames "Hugh") was an "unscrupulous bailiff" invented by the Jurats, "on whom they bestow the appropriate name of Hugh the Accursed (Hugo Maudit)." But Simon Maudit was a real person: a son of his entered the Guild Merchant in 1209. The toll-collector was only too genuine: the Jurats' point was that his actions were wrong.
All this has nothing to do directly with bridges, but the same Jurats were also enquiring at the same time into the origin of bridge-silver. If suspicion rests upon one of their findings, its shadow is thrown over the other. Our doubts are again raised when we find that, in the case of bridge-silver, the Leicester burgesses tried to make out a plea exactly similar to that which they presented with regard to gavel-pence. They would have it that the impost was an exaction created by a Norman Earl, and that there had been grave irregularities in its collection. But their story cannot be accepted. The "pontagium," as its name denotes, was a toll paid for the making and upkeep of bridges, as at Nottingham and elsewhere, and had nothing to do with the wood collected in Leicester Forest.
The burgesses secured from Simon de Montfort a charter abolishing both pontage and gavelpence; but, in spite of their eloquent pleading, they were compelled to pay rather heavily for it. Besides having to make a certain annual payment, which appears in the charter of redemption, they were also obliged to buy up, and hand over to the Earl, some rents that cost a considerable sum. They gave, for instance, 33 marks (£22), for a rent that had been paid to Simon de Salcey. A loan was raised among themselves to enable the town to make these payments.
It is not clear that the proceeds of bridge-silver were made use of by the Earl in providing the cost of building and repairing bridges, though Kelly thought that Earl Robert de Beaumont imposed the tax in order to cover the cost of building the West Bridge. The community had certainly taken a large share in this work long before Simon de Montfort's charter. In the earliest rolls of the Guild Merchant that have come down to us, dated from the end of the 12th century, we read of money being contributed "ad opus pontis," or "ad pontes emendandos." The North Bridge and the Little Bridge were constantly under repair, as no doubt they had the hardest use. In one year the Mayor, Henry de Rodington, advanced more than £2 to mend the Leicester bridges, and the amount was afterwards repaid to him by the Guild. The money was raised in various ways; usually out of a tallage made for general purposes, but sometimes from a tallage specially assessed, as in 1302. But a good deal was raised from voluntary contributions.
In early days, when bridges were rare, and warmed a spark of gratitude in the traveller's heart, they used to be regarded with some feeling of piety, and the old religious associations of the bridge lingered in mediæval custom. The making and repairing of bridges was one of the seven works of Corporal Mercy, and Religious Guilds would subscribe freely to this object. Thus, in 1525-6, the Guild of Corpus Christi at Leicester gave 10s. 7d, "for reparations done at St. Sunday's Bridge." In fact, there are, underlying the common beliefs and practices concerning bridges and bridge-sacrifice, primitive religious traditions of immemorial antiquity. In mediæval times, when these old superstitions had been incorporated in the Christian faith, many persons built bridges for the salvation of their souls , and it was not unusual to dedicate a bridge to some saint, or to erect a chapel upon it, as at Nottingham and Northampton and Leicester. Private citizens would remember the bridges in their wills. Thomas de Beeby, for instance, a Leicester burgess who died about 1383, left a legacy of forty shillings to each of the North and West Bridges. And, nearly two centuries later, Thomas Davenport, who was chosen Mayor of Leicester in 1553, by his will gave £5 for amending the bridges and highways about Leicester, "the which is to be done at the sight of mine executors." These ancient sentiments could be appealed to when bridges wanted mending. Thus, in 1325, when John Brid built the West Bridge, he received the greater part of the money required from voluntary offerings; "£15 11s. 1012d. received of Ralph Gerin from oblations at the Cross, with the sale of wax at the feast of Holy Cross, as appears by an indenture, and 8s. 4d. for wax sold to William the Palmer, to William of Stapleford and others, and £1 13s. 0d. received of Ralph Gerin from his collection, and £2 9s. 1712d. received from the collection in the town." The rest of the money required to make up the total cost of £22 17s. 10d., viz., £3 10s. 0d., he received "of John Alsy, Mayor, by tally." We also hear of money being collected for this purpose in the Parish Churches of the town, and generally of "gifts and perquisites to the bridges of Leicester." Sometimes the fines inflicted by the Guild Merchant were ear-marked for this pious use, as when John Joy, in 1357, was condemned to pay 6s. 8d., "in aid of the bridges of the town"; and when it was ordained that for every beast found trespassing in the crofts within the town of Leicester, 4d. for every head, and 1d. for every foot, should be paid "for mending of the bridges, ways, gates and other necessaries for the common utility of the town."
In 1574 it was agreed that the Mayor and common burgesses should give 2s. apiece, and the Fortyeight 1s. apiece, towards (inter alia) "the repairing of the bridges." Surveyors of bridges refusing to serve were to forfeit 10s., "which shall go to the use of the said bridges."
In 1365 the North Bridge and the West Bridge were repaired. The former cost £4 8s. 0d., and the latter £4 8s. 7d. The expense of these repairs was borne by the common fund, with the assistance of (1) a special toll of the North Quarter, (2) collections made in the churches of St. Martin, St. Nicholas, and St. Peter, and (3) private donations. The total cost of the two bridges being £8 16s. 7d., £3 4s. 8d. was provided by voluntary contributions, and the remainder from the general fund (tallage and guild entries), and a special toll.
As a result, probably, of the disturbances related by Henry of Knighton, which occurred in the neighbourhood of Leicester Abbey in 1329, a grant of pontage for three years for the repair of the bridge at Leicester was obtained by the Earl in the following year. This tax was collected by one Geoffrey Ridel, who complained in 1332 before the Guild Merchant that he had been threatened and disturbed in his office as toil-collector. The exaction was felt to be as vexatious as it had been in the previous century.
Before the end of the 14th century the repairs of bridges, as well as of all other town property, were placed in the hands of the two Chamberlains of the Borough.[1]
- ↑ Thompson's omission of the word "bridges," when he enumerated the duties of the Chamberlains, both in his History of Leicester, and also in his Municipal History, is a pure inadvertence.