Durham may have been given a grant of murage dated 1315.
This was in the form of:-
Wording
----
69 (55). Pro hominibus communitatis episcopatus Dunolm'.
Ad peticionem eorundem nobis supplicancium ut consensum nostrum prebere velimus, quod episcopus Dunolm' concedat hominibus civitatis Dunolm' muragium de bonis venalibus ad civitatem predictam venientibus pro civtate predicta muro claudenda, pro salvacione bonorum episcopatus predicti, que temporibus retroactis per Scotos { }{ }{ } inimicos etc. \quamsepius/ combusta fuerunt et destructa pro defectu receptamenti in villa muro clausa,
Responsio.
This was originally written slightly above where it now is, then deleted.
responsum est per consilium: mandetur episcopo Dunolm' quod rex de assensu consilii sui concedit quod idem episcopus possit concedere muragium pro civitate Dunolm' claudenda, de rebus ad eandem civitatem venientibus per mercatores et ibidem venditis.
69 (55). On behalf of the men of the community of the diocese of Durham.
To their petition requesting that we might be pleased to give our consent that the bishop of Durham might grant to the men of the city of Durham murage from goods for sale coming to the aforesaid city, to enclose the aforesaid city with a wall, to preserve the goods of the aforesaid diocese, which have very often in the past been burnt and destroyed by the enemy Scots etc. for lack of safekeeping in a town enclosed by a wall,
Answer.
it is answered by the council: the bishop of Durham is to be instructed that the king, with the assent of his council, grants that the same bishop can grant murage to enclose the city of Durham, from goods brought to the same city by merchants and sold there.
----
Breye de muragio. Edwardus, Dei gratia, etc., venerabili, etc., episcopo Dunolmensi, salutem, etc. Monstraverunt nobis homines libertatis vestrae Dunolmensis. quod, cum ipsi per Scottorum, inimicorum et rebellium nostrorum depraedationes et incendia quamplurima in partibus illis perpetrantium, frequentes accessus, depressionem inaestimabilem passi fuerint, et eo ssaepius quod castra nulla, seu villae muro vallatae, in quibus, pro ipsis et bonis suis contra hujusmodi pericula salvandis, refugium seu receptamentum habere valeant in partibus illis sunt situata; per quod, nobis supplicarunt per petitionem suam coram nobis et concilio nostro exhibitam, ut vobis, super concessione muragii in civitate Dunolmo de rebus venalibus ad civitatem praedictam venientibus, per vos faicienda, regium assensum praebere velimus; nos igitur, petitioni praedicte favorabiliter annuentes, in hac parte, vobis innotescimus, quod muragium praedictum de nostro assensu concedere poteritis, si velitis. Teste meipso, apud Thundrele, xiijo. die Mail, anno regni nostri octavo.
Granted by Bishop.
Details of the petition which resulted in this grant can be seen
at this link.
Primary Sources
The primary source is lost or obscure.Strachey, J. (ed), 1763-83,
Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et Petitiones, et Placita in Parliamento Vol. 1 p. 302
view copyPhillips, S. (ed), 2005, 'Edward II: 1315 January, Text/Translation and appendix', in
The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England ed. C. Given-Wilson et al., item 69.
Internet version, accessed on 23/04/2009. (Scholarly Digital Editions, Leicester)
Hardy, T.D. (ed), 1874,
Registrum Palatinum dunelmense. The register of Richard de Kellawe, lord palatine and bishop of Durham, 1311-1316 Vol. 2 p. 1071
Secondary Sources
Turner, H.L., 1971, Town Defences in England and Wales (London) p. 102 (Ref-Rot. Parl. I, 302 see petition)
Comments
Murage was granted twice, in 1315 (Rot. Parl. I. 302) and in 1337 (CPR, 387) (Turner)
It is not known if the bishop actually granted the murage. The vice-regal status of the bishop must have been known to the townsmen and that he had the authority to grant murage but they have petitioned the king through parliament, suggesting some difficulty in their relationship with the bishop (although they may also have wished for their difficulties to be more widely known in the kingdom). This should be compared with the relationship between the town and bishop of Wells in the 1340s where the bishop actively blocked the towns ambitions for walls. However, at Durham the existing town walls were strengthened, about this time, and the military threat to the city was certainly
perceived as higher (and it had been attacked in 1312) so it would seem likely the bishop allowed murage to be taken and this petition is reasonably evidence of the date and form of (some) of the funding for this work.
DURHAM 4274 5420. Borough 1130 (BF, p. 106; BF, supplement, p. 62). Mint 1066-1154. Natural fortress on peninsula site overlooking river Wear. Traditionally, the site was settled c.995 by the community of St Cuthbert. It subsequently became one of the most important centres of pilgrimage in England. See of the bishopric was transferred from Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham (q.v.) to Durham in 990. The city was administrative centre of the largely autonomous region that the bps controlled and its principal market town. By 1200 there were four boroughs at Durham. The Bishops borough (also known as the borough of Durham), was held by the bp. The burgesses of the borough of Durham are first recorded in 1130; in c.1179, Bp Hugh du Puiset granted them the free customs of Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland (q.v.). The three other boroughs were first recorded in the twelfth century. Old Borough (also called Crossgate) was held by Durham priory. The borough of Elvet (or New Elvet) was developed by Bp Puisset but granted to the priory; the burgesses of the new borough of Elvethalge were granted a charter by Prior Bertram and the convent in 1188x1219. The fourth borough, that of St Giles, first recorded in c.1180, was originally held by the bp, who granted it to Kepier hospital. Whilst these boroughs were physically separate when established, they subsequently developed and merged together. Only the bps borough had a market; the other three were unusual boroughs, in that they did not have markets (M. Bonney,
Lordship and the Urban Community: Durham and its Overlords 1250-1540 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 9-10, 26-9, 41-9; R.H. Britnell, Boroughs, markets and trade in northern England, 1000-1216 in R.H. Britnell, R.H. Hatcher eds.,
Progress and Problems in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1996), p. 51; BF, pp. 106-7, supplement, p. 62). Market town c.1600 (Everitt, p. 468). Fair 1587, 20 Mar (Harrison, p. 393). (Letters, S., 2003,
Gazetter of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516 (Centre for Metropolitan History)
online copy)
Record created by Philip Davis. This record created 21/01/2009. Last updated on 05/01/2013. First published online 5/01/2013.