No people who had to depend on commerce for their existence, could have been more unfortunately situated than were the burgesses of Newcastle in medieval days. The rapid Tyne rolled by their quay as it were in mockery, they had no property in its navigable course. The right of the bishop of Durham to the water south of the mid-stream was recognised, and the limit of his franchise northwards marked by a stone tower which divided Tyne bridge in the centre, the cost of maintaining the southern half of which was defrayed by the episcopal exchequer. On the other hand the abbat of St. Alban's claimed under the foundation charter of Robert de Mowbray all the liberties and customs in the river Tyne which that nobleman had possessed, and confidently maintained that at the date of his grant the river was divided "between the said earl and the bishop of Durham." This was under any circumstances a doubtful title, particularly as Mowbray's grant had disappeared at a very early period, for as the abbat piously observed in the suit temp. Edward the First, "where that charter is, God knoweth." However, under this insufficient title the monks of Tynemouth challenged a right to the water of the river north of the midstream. Although their claim to levy tolls on shipping is not expressly noticed in any of the documents cited by Mr. Gibson, there is no doubt that, at various periods, they endeavoured to assert such a privilege; and, what was even of more consequence to the burgesses, the prior of Tynemouth, with his brother of Durham, had endeavoured to forestal the trade of Newcastle by enlarging the little villages called the "Sheles," at the mouth of the river, which were originally, as the name implies, clusters of wooden huts, or "logges," inhabited by fishermen; he built large fishing smacks for trading purposes, thereby indirectly defrauding the borough of its prisage, and moreover he baked "other people's bread" in his ovens, whereby the burgesses lost their furnage[1] dues.
Thus placed between two fires, it is not surprising that the townspeople should have appealed to the crown in self-defence; and it cannot be said, as Mr. Gibson appears to think, that, because they claimed legal protection against acts and pretensions which vitally affected their prosperity, they were either "jealous" or "encroaching" neighbours of the monks. The result of proceedings in parliament, on this subject, under Edward the First, was a judgment in favour of the burgesses; the question had been already raised though not decided in the reign of Henry the Third; and it was only finally adjusted by the Dissolution. However, time has justified the fore- sight of the monks in attempting to create a town at the mouth of this
- ↑ Mr. Gibson has mistaken the signification of this word. It meant the profit arising from baking the bread of the burgesses and of the dwellers within the banlieu or franchise of the town, who were all obliged to resort to the municipal ovens; and thus arose an important item in the corporation revenue. In the same way lords of sokes situated within boroughs or cities had their seignorial ovens. The rue Four-Saint-Honoré in Paris preserves to this day the memory o{ the four-bannale of the ancient bishops of that city.
