No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
It is expected of orators in Newark-on-Trent that they should refer to the town as “the loyal and ancient borough”. Historians may accept the description as accurate, for when Domesday Book was compiled there were burgesses in Newark, and its loyalty to the crown is a part of the story of its municipal development in the vigorous phase which opened in 1549 with the grant of a royal charter of incorporation. This paper is concerned with that phase, but since the mayor and aldermen were later declared the inheritors of privileges enjoyed before the town's incorporation, it may be helpful first to outline briefly its earlier organisation.
page 171 note 1 This summary of the earlier history of the town is based upon two works by Cornelius Brown, The Annals of Newark-on-Trent, 1879, and A History of Newark-on-Trent, 2 vols., Newark, 1904–7.
page 172 note 1 21st Rep. of Charity Commission, Parl. Papers 1829, H.C. viii, p. 326.
page 172 note 2 P.R.O., Patent Roll, 3 Ed. VI, Pt. xi, m. 25 (C. 66/825).
page 173 note 1 This book, the property of the present corporation, to whose courtesy I am indebted for permission to examine it, is usually referred to as a minute book by Cornelius Brown and other local writers, but is described indifferently as the coucher or the great register within its own pages. It is in two volumes, of which the first contains on 329 folios records of the Trinity Guild from 1539 to 1546, and of the corporation from 20 September 1550 to 27 April 1674; the second (on folios 3 to 264) those of the corporation from Michaelmas 1675 to 5 November 1835. Both volumes consist of the records of elections to the aldermanship (after 1626 the mayoralty) and other civic offices, and of ordinances adopted by the corporation, with occasional memoranda of matters relating to the town, copies of wills of benefactors, subsidy rolls and so forth. The earlier volume also contains the accounts of the Chamberlains from 1553 to 1592.
page 175 note 1 21st Rep. Charity Comm., Parl. Papers, 1829 H.C. viii, p. 340.
page 175 note 2 Ibid, p. 329.
page 176 note 1 Idem.
page 176 note 2 21st Rep. Charity Comm., pp. 348–51.
page 176 note 3 P.R.O., Pat. Roll, 1 Eliz., pt. vii, mm. 8–10 (C. 66/944).
page 180 note 1 Municipal Corpns. Comm. Rep., Parl. Papers 1835, H.C. xxv, p. 1936.
page 183 note 1 P.R.O., Patent Roll, 21 Eliz., pt. vi, mm. 8–11 (C. 66/1180).
page 184 note 1 “the Ladye Issabell”, whose marriage to Roger earl of Rutland took place according to G.E.C. just before 5 March 1599. The date of this entry is 11 January 1599.
page 186 note 1 P.R.O., Pat. Roll, 2 Jas. I, pt. ix, mm. 14–17 (C. 66/1639).
page 186 note 2 P.R.O., Pat. Roll, 2 Chas. I, pt. xv, mm. 1–9 (C. 66/2387).
page 187 note 1 Though the alderman only became a mayor in 1626, the latter term is henceforth used for the chief officer, to avoid confusion with the aldermen, previously assistants.
page 189 note 1 Coucher, i, fos. 201b–202a; Brown, Hist., i, 52–3.
page 192 note 1 See “The Commonwealth Charters” by B. L. K. Henderson: R. Hist. S. Trans., 3rd Ser., vi, 129–62.
page 194 note 1 C. Brown, Hist., ii, 142–3.
page 195 note 1 P.R.O., Pat. Roll, 25 Chas. II, pt. xi, no. 2; 29 Chas. II, pt. ii no. 10 (C. 66/3153,3190).
page 195 note 2 See S. and B. Webb, Eng. Local Govt., Manor and Borough, p. 374, and Municipal Corpns. Comm. Rep., Parl. Papers 1835, H.C. xxvi, p. 2886.
page 195 note 3 C. Brown, Hist., ii, 142.
page 195 note 4 Sir T. Wilson to the earl of Rutland, 17 June 1579: Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th Rep., App. iv, p. 117.
page 196 note 1 A. Gray, Debates, iv, 297–304; Commons' Journals, ix, 4036; Cal. S.P. Dom., 1677–78, pp. 41–3.
page 196 note 2 Though one may doubt whether the restriction of the franchise was one of the “errors” necessitating the resignation of the charter of 1673, there is evidence of carelessness in its enrolment. Thus the date of the second fair is given as “die lune Evangeliste”, an entry which only becomes intelligible when compared with the petition of 1661, where the date mentioned is the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist. The fairs granted in the charter of 1677 were for dates different from those named in the petition.
page 196 note 3 See Municipal Corpns. Comm. Rep., Parl. Papers 1835, H.C. xxv, p. 1948.
page 196 note 4 “The Restoration Government and Municipal Corporations”, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlv, 232–59.
page 197 note 1 C. Brown, Hist., ii, 148.
page 197 note 2 Apparently not enrolled. The original is among the archives of the corporation of Newark-on-Trent. Cf. C. Brown, Annals, pp. 196–7, and Cal. S.P. Dom., 1684–5, p. 268.
page 197 note 3 Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, ed. R. Steele, i, 470: nos. 3881–3885. See also S. and B. Webb, Eng. Local Govt., Manor and Borough, p. 269, n. 2.
page 197 note 4 Loc. cit., p. 1936.