Democratic Derby
Around the year 1179, a man named Godfrey de Lucy, who served as a judge appointed by the king (and later became the Bishop of Winchester), embarked on a journey from Westminster in London. His mission was to preside over the King's Court, also known as the Assizes, scheduled to take place in Nottingham. This event was intended for the benefit of those with legal matters in both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, as these two counties shared a sheriff.
The people of Derby naturally believed that the Assizes should be convened within their town. Despite sending a gift to the king in support of their plea, the decision was made to hold the Assizes in Sawley, Derbyshire, a location that offered proximity and convenience for both counties.
(Sawley was previously known as Sallé.
Positioned between Sawley, Church Wilne, and Great Wilne, you'll find the junction of the River Derwent and the Trent. This geographical feature is what bestowed Sawley with its location. The All Saints Church in Sawley, constructed in the thirteenth century, showcases elements of Saxon and Norman architecture. It occupies an elevated spot near the river.)
All Saints’ Church, Sawley. The church dates from the 11th century but the existing structure is mainly thirteenth century and contains Saxon and Norman work.
It was a new thing and an idea of King Henry II, to send judges into the country. Earlier people had either to make the long journey to Westminster, too expensive for poor folk, or go to one of the local courts. Of the latter there were the manor courts, the hundred court, the shire court and the borough court. Some belonged to private persons and all could be oppressive. When Henry II sent Judge Godfrey regularly on circuit, he not only made justice easier, cheaper and better here, but he curbed the power of these local courts.
Before this time, an accused man had to prove his innocence by ways that seem most odd now. A man had to prove his innocence by going through an "ordeal." Trial by ordeal was an ancient judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by subjecting them to a painful, or at least an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience. An example is, a man had to walk barefoot over hot irons, being declared innocent if unscathed. Cruentation was considered a "judgement of God" (Latin: judicium Dei): a procedure based on the premise that God would help the innocent by performing a miracle on his behalf. The practice has much earlier roots, attested to as far back as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.
The Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu are two of the earliest known legal codes in human history, originating in ancient Mesopotamia.
Code of Hammurabi:
1. Time of Origin: The Code of Hammurabi dates back to around 1754 BC during the reign of King Hammurabi of Babylon, in what is now modern-day Iraq.
2. Characteristics: It is a well-preserved ancient code of law inscribed on a stele (a large stone pillar). The code consists of 282 laws that address various aspects of life, including commerce, property, marriage, and criminal justice. It is known for its "eye for an eye" principle, where punishments are often proportional to the crime committed.
3. Influence: The Code of Hammurabi is one of the earliest examples of codified laws and is seen as a significant historical and legal document. It influenced later legal codes, including some aspects of Roman law and the Mosaic Law in the Hebrew Bible.
Code of Ur-Nammu:
1. Time of Origin: The Code of Ur-Nammu predates the Code of Hammurabi and is estimated to have been created around 2100-2050 BC in the Sumerian city of Ur, which is in modern-day Iraq.
2. Characteristics: This code is one of the oldest known legal codes and consists of a prologue and several laws addressing a wide range of issues. It is notable for its focus on restitution and the idea of the king as the ultimate source of justice. Unlike the Code of Hammurabi, which was inscribed on a stele, the original Code of Ur-Nammu is known from fragmented clay tablets.
3. Influence: While not as well-known as the Code of Hammurabi, the Code of Ur-Nammu is significant as one of the earliest attempts to establish a system of written laws. It influenced later legal developments in Mesopotamia and served as a precursor to more elaborate legal codes.
Both of these ancient legal codes provide valuable insights into the legal systems and social structures of their respective times and are important historical documents for understanding the development of law and justice in early civilisations.
(Cruentation (Latin: "ius cruentationis" or "Ius feretri sine sandapilae") was one of the medieval methods of finding proof against a suspected murderer. The common belief was that the dead body of the victim would spontaneously bleed in the presence of the murderer.)
Cruentation appears in many texts relating to criminal procedure: the Malleus Maleficarum, or King James' Daemonologie.
Whatever one’s view of the volatile Henry, there is one achievement from his thirty-five-year reign that stands above all others: his reform of the English legal system, which laid the foundations of the English Common Law. When he came to the throne in 1154 at the age of just twenty-one, his realm was in deep disarray following civil war. He urgently needed to re-establish royal authority and impose order and set about doing so with his customary relentless drive. The judicial system was the subject of much of his attention and he was aided in this by the talented Thomas Becket, who was his chancellor at the time.
Pendant with an image of Thomas Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury
Becket, a second-generation immigrant from France, was born around 1120 in Cheapside, situated in the City of London. His parents, Gilbert and Matilda, had relocated from Normandy after the Norman Conquest. While his father had substantial connections as a merchant, the family didn't possess excessive wealth or influence. Becket's early education took place at Merton Priory, and following a few years of study in Paris, he secured employment through one of his father's acquaintances as a clerk for Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.
Becket was characterised by his contemporaries as intelligent, charismatic, and authoritative. In 1155, he experienced a significant breakthrough in his career. Acknowledging his capabilities, Theobald recommended to Henry II that Becket be appointed as Chancellor of England. Becket and the king swiftly developed a close friendship, engaging in activities like hunting, gaming, and embarking on travels across England together. Becket fully embraced the lifestyle of the royal court. Contemporary biographers describe him as enjoying substantial wealth, hosting extravagant gatherings, adorning his residences with exquisite furnishings, and undertaking numerous journeys to France on his personally owned ships.
When the position of Archbishop of Canterbury became vacant, Becket's name was proposed as a candidate. Given his lifestyle and reputation, he appeared as an unlikely choice, but the king had a different agenda. Henry was eager to appoint his close friend to the role, with the crucial condition that Becket would continue as Chancellor. With Becket holding both positions, Henry saw an opportunity to assert greater influence over both the Church and the state. On the 23rd of May, 1162, Becket was officially appointed as Archbishop and received consecration on the 3rd of June.
However, at some point later in that year, contrary to the king's wishes, Becket chose to step down from his role as Chancellor. This decision created a rift between him and the king, and this division would never be reconciled. Consequently, Becket's relationship with Henry began to deteriorate. A series of disputes arose concerning the division of authority between the Crown and the Church. By 1164, tensions had reached an all-time high. In October of that year, Becket was summoned to appear before the King's council and was instructed to forfeit all his personal assets. Refusing to accept the terms of his punishment and fearing further consequences from the king, Becket fled to France.
Becket spent a total of six years in exile in France. During this period, Henry exerted his authority within England. One of the most overt instances of defying his old friend's influence was Henry's decision to have his son, Henry the Young King, crowned in June 1170 by Becket's longstanding adversary, the Archbishop of York. In response to this affront, Becket lodged an appeal with the Pope. Under significant pressure, Henry eventually agreed to reopen negotiations. Following this, the Archbishop and the king engaged in a private conversation for the first time since 1164. During this discussion, Henry pledged to reinstate Becket's rights as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Becket was assured that it would be safe for him to return to England.
However, Becket's final action before departing from France was to take punitive measures against those involved in the unauthorised coronation. Prior to leaving for England, Becket issued three letters of excommunication, effectively expelling the Archbishop of York and two bishops from the Church. This act would have severe repercussions upon his return to England.
Becket made his return from exile on the 1st of December 1170. Contemporary accounts describe his journey back to the Cathedral as being met with cheering crowds and joyous monks. However, he increasingly encountered hostility from authorities who remained loyal to the king.
During this time, the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Salisbury, who were angered by their excommunication, journeyed to Henry's royal court in Normandy to convey Becket's actions to the king. Henry was incensed, and though it remains unclear whether he specifically ordered retaliation for Becket's actions, his furious outburst provoked four knights – Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville, and Richard le Bret – to travel to Canterbury with the intent of finding Becket. According to one of Becket's biographers, Henry expressed his sentiments with these words:
"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household, allowing their lord to be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!"
We are fortunate to possess five first hand accounts of Becket's assassination, all of which provide generally consistent details of the events that transpired. One particularly significant account was authored by Edward Grim, who was in such close proximity to Becket during the altercation that he sustained an injury from one of the knights' swords. According to Grim's narrative, when the four knights arrived at Canterbury Cathedral, Becket was located in the Archbishop's Palace. They endeavoured to apprehend him, but he vehemently resisted. The monks were able to convince Becket to seek sanctuary within the church. However, the knights pursued him relentlessly, storming into the Cathedral with drawn swords and causing distress among those present by shouting:
"Where is Thomas Becket, a traitor to the king and the kingdom?" Subsequently, the knights aggressively manhandled and forcibly dragged him, with the intent to either execute him outside the church or transport him in restraints.
As Grim recounts, Becket held tight onto one of the Cathedral's pillars to prevent them seizing him, and it was at this point that one of the knights raised his sword for the first time, bringing it down on Becket, slicing off the crown of his head. Two of the other knights then started to attack Becket and most of the monks fled. The third blow brought the Archbishop's life to an end. Gruesomely, by the end of the attack, Becket's crown had: "separated from the head so that the blood [turned] white from the brain, and the brain equally red from the blood."
The murderous knights were accompanied by a clerk, who, because of his involvement, became known as 'Mauclerk' or 'evil clerk'. Following the attack, this Mauclerk "put his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr, and, horrible to say, scattered the brains with the blood over the pavement. “Let us go, knights”, he called out to the others, “this fellow will not get up again."
Chaos ensued following the murder, and with none of those present knowing what to do next, the body remained where it had fallen for several hours. Some individuals dipped parts of their clothes in his spilled blood, or collected it in small vessels to take away in anticipation of Becket's future sanctity. After spending the night on the high altar of the Cathedral, he was buried by the monks the next day in the crypt. Reports immediately circulated of miraculous healings connected to Becket. Facing increasing pressure from the people of Canterbury, the monks opened the crypt of the Cathedral so pilgrims could visit his tomb. An extraordinary wave of miracles was recorded and, in recognition of this, Becket was made a saint (canonised) by the Pope on 21 February 1173. It was one of the fastest canonisations in history. Becket's reputation as a miracle-working saint spread quickly and people from all over Europe started to flock to Canterbury in the hope that they would be healed. As well as visiting the tomb, pilgrims could also purchase a mixture of his blood and water, called St Thomas' Water, which was bottled and sold by opportunistic monks in small lead vessels called ampulla. Henry II, in a public act of penance for his involvement in the murder, visited the tomb in 1174, granting royal approval to Becket's cult.
Becket's death and subsequent miracles transformed Canterbury Cathedral into one of the most important pilgrimage destinations in Europe. In 1220 his body was moved from the crypt to a glittering new shrine in a purpose-built chapel upstairs in the Cathedral. Geoffrey Chaucer famously captured something of the atmosphere of pilgrimage to this shrine in his Canterbury Tales. In death Becket remained a figure of opposition to unbridled power and became seen as the quintessential defender of the rights of the Church. To this end you can find images of his murder in churches across Latin Christendom, from Germany and Spain, to Italy and Norway. Becket was, and remains, a truly European saint. His relics at Canterbury were visited by people from across the continent until 1538, when Henry VIII would label him a traitor, order the destruction of his shrine and try to wipe him from history altogether. That, however, is a story for another time.
Becket Well, Derby, now lost
The structure with an octagonal roof (designated a listed building in the 1950s but demolished in the 1960s) appears to have been an addition from the 17th century. The original well seemed to consist of a rectangular, stone-lined reservoir, measuring 4 feet by 6 feet, covered by a rectangular stone structure measuring 16 feet by 12 feet. The eastern part of this structure, approximately 4 feet by 12 feet, served as an entry point to a square structure where the reservoir was located. The stonework of the rectangular structure was of ashlar masonry. Notably, the stones at the bottom of the reservoir were larger than those above, indicating the existence of at least two construction phases. The earliest masonry can be dated back to the 13th century.
The street's name, "Becket Well," which the well was named after, was first recorded in 1510 as "Begette Welle." It is important to note that this name is not derived from St. Thomas Beckett, as widely believed, but rather from the Norman-French word "bouget," which refers to a container for carrying liquids and from which the word "bucket" originates. A similar origin applies to "Becket Street" in Derby. This information is provided to avoid any confusion with the heritage linked to the story of Thomas Beckett when recounting stories about Henry II.
In pre-modern society, the ordeal typically ranked along with the oath and witness accounts as the central means by which to reach a judicial verdict. Indeed, the term ordeal, Old English ordeal, has the meaning of "judgment, verdict" (German Urteil, Dutch oordeel), from Proto-Germanic *uzdailiją "that which is dealt out".
Priestly cooperation in trials by fire and water was forbidden by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and replaced by compurgation. Trials by ordeal became rarer over the Late Middle Ages, but the practice was not discontinued until the 16th century. Certain trials by ordeal would continue to be used into the 17th century in witch-hunts.
In proximity to Walkelin's land, there existed an "ordeal pit." In this practice, the accused individual, clad in nothing but a loin cloth, was led to the pit, which measured twenty feet in width and twelve feet in depth, filled with water. A priest would perform a blessing on the water, and it was believed that God would act as the ultimate judge: the sanctified water would either accept the accused if they were innocent or reject them if they were guilty.
For those found guilty, the punishment decreed by the King awaited them. Hanging was reserved for the most heinous crimes, while thieves and robbers faced the possibility of losing a foot, and from the year 1176 onward, they could also lose their right hand. The legal system had a final judgment, even if the accused had been acquitted through the ordeal. If it was determined that the accused had an exceptionally tarnished reputation, as attested by the jury, they were compelled to leave the King's lands as an outlaw, bound by a sworn oath never to return.
To deter anyone from taking the law into their own hands and administering punishments independently, the King's justices had implemented a clear system of hefty fines for those who dared to do so. This was a measure to ensure order and prevent vigilantism. Henry, known for his astute administrative skills, had meticulously addressed all aspects of the legal system. Trial by jury eventually replaced this earlier, more barbaric form of judgment.
(Walkelin de Derby (c. 1135 – 1190), also known as Walkelin de Ferrers, was a Norman lord of Egginton, in Derbyshire. He was the last moneyer of the Derby Mint and the principal founder of Derby School.)
King Henry II ordered that twelve knights from the county and four honest men from each township were to "present" (that is, accuse) thieves, murderers and other offenders in their area to the king's courts. This was the Grand Jury which was only abolished a little over 100 years ago (October 29, 1921). Their duty was to tell the Assize Judge what people ought to be tried and for what crime. Now if the Grand Jury had "presented" someone to the assize for theft in Derby, twelve Derby men, who were supposed to know the facts because they came from the seat of the crime, were called to tell them to the Judge. This is the origin of our "petty" jury.
The accused were brought before the justices. Proof of their guilt or innocence could be established in a number of ways, such as witness testimony, documents or the swearing of oaths. Unlike criminal trials today, the jury acted as witnesses and not an impartial panel. They would give the account of what had happened.
In cases that were not clear cut, or in those of secret homicide where there were no witnesses, the justices used the ordeal. There was great ceremony and a long build-up attached to the ordeal, which would have added to the pressure on the accused to confess. The accused would be taken to church four days before the day on which the ordeal was due to take place. They had to wear the clothes of the penitent, fast and hear several masses. If they still did not confess, they would face the ordeal.
Civic rights had been a part of the town's heritage since its Danish inception, even though there were no formal written documents granting them. To remedy this, the people of Derby made a financial offer to King John, presenting him with sixty marks (equivalent to approximately £39,346.40 in today's currency) and two horses. They sought a charter similar to the one Nottingham possessed. Given King John's perpetual financial constraints, he readily agreed to their proposal. Consequently, Derby was granted identical privileges to Nottingham, with the exception that the Derby burgesses were not permitted to engage in activities that encroached upon Nottingham's rights.
The chief provisions were:
1. The town was freed from all service, save to the king. The office of reeve abolished. The burgesses now elected the chief officer, called the Bailiff, from among themselves, at the feast of St. Michael (September 29th) each year. The town was made self-governing and responsible for collecting the fee or tax, which the Bailiff had to pay half-yearly into the king's exchequer. Edward III, perhaps because the town had grown, allowed two Balliffs.
2. If one dwelt in the borough "for a year and a day" he should have peace, and no one afterwards, except the king, could have any right over him. This means that no townsman could be in bond, whilst a village slave, who fled to the town and escaped capture for a year and a day, was a free man.
3. The burgesses could hold fairs and markets, and the men of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, says the Charter, "ought to come" to the Borough of Derby on Wednesdays and Fridays with their wains and pack-horses. The burgesses were not allowed to distrain upon market peoples' goods for any debt other than the king's fee, and they might form a guild merchant.
4. The burgesses could:
i. Charge tolls on boats crossing the Derwent or mooring, but those passing in mid-stream went free.
ii. Take tolls in their own market, but were free of certain tolls in other towns.
5. The burgesses were given a monopoly of dyeing cloth within fifteen miles from the town.
6. They might hold a court.
King John's Charter did these three great things for the town:
1. made borough residents free men;
2. gave the town control of its affairs;
3. gave the burgesses valuable financial privileges, such as the wool-dyeing monopoly.
One thing may surprise us-the Charter does not recognise a town council, only a chief citizen. It is unlikely that the business was done by all the burgesses in a town's meeting, and we may suppose that a council was acting. The Borough Court yielded a good income from fees and fines. Time after time the burgesses had its powers enlarged.
King John is most famous as the king who was forced to agree to Magna Carta - a set of laws he had to follow giving rights to the people. This was after many conflicts with barons and the Church.
Medieval monks portrayed King John as an evil monster. Modern historians portray him as an energetic king who tried to increase his power in difficult circumstances. John's brother, Richard I, had spent all the money in the treasury on his Crusades. The Crusades were a series of military campaigns over hundreds of years to take sole control of Jerusalem for the Christian faith. Richard also let the barons become too powerful whilst he was in the Holy Land.
John collected taxes, modernised the government and exerted his power over the Church, Scotland and Ireland. This made him unpopular with the barons. In 1201-2, helped by King Philip of France, the lords of Lusignan, a powerful alliance of French nobles, rebelled against John. John mounted a huge campaign to re-conquer Normandy, but was badly defeated at the Battle of Bouvines (1214). John was forced to pay the huge sum of 20,000 marks and concede some lands in France in order for King Philip to recognise him as the heir to Richard I. John was exposed as diplomatically weak.
The reign of King John shows what often happened in the Middle Ages when a monarch lost a war – his authority was completely undermined. The barons rebelled and, on 15 June 1215, they forced John to agree to Magna Carta (The Great Charter) - a set of demands by which the barons tried to limit the power of the king to their advantage.
The reign of King John was a turning point in the history of England's government. The barons – successfully – had said 'no' to the king, and made him do as they wanted. The charter only spoke about freemen and not the majority of people who were peasants. No monarch of England ever had unrestricted, or 'absolute', power again and within a century England saw the beginnings of Parliament.
King Henry III, by allowing the town a Coroner, freed it from interference by county officials, and gave it the right to a gallows, which implied the right to the hanged criminal's goods. Useful, too, was the assize of bread and ale, or the power to fix the prices and quality of bread and ale. Lastly, Edward III allowed the town to have a gaol.
Punishments were barbarous. Offenders could be condemned to sit for hours in the stocks with their legs held down by a board. These were in the Market Place, and so was the pillory-an upright post against which the offender was tied with his head and hands fixed in holes in a cross-board. By these means criminals were publicly exposed to the derision of the mob, to all sorts of "soft missiles". The town had a "cucking," or ducking stool, kept at the mill called Cuckstool's Mill, near St. Werburgh's Church, which was used to punish scolds (quarrelsome
women) and bakers who broke the "assize of bread." The ducking stool was a see-saw plank with a chair at one end in which the victim was tied. As the constable operated the apparatus from the bank, the wrong-doer was "ducked" several times in the Markeaton Brook.
In 1295 the Bailiff received a novel notice from the Sheriff to call the burgesses together in order that they might choose two of their number to attend Parliament. Accordingly the Bailiff held a meeting of the burgesses. They chose, (in what way we do not know,) John le Cornere and Ralph of Makeney for Derby's first members. These two individuals embarked on a horseback journey all the way to Westminster, traversing roads that were in a deplorable state, mired deep in mud, given that it was late autumn. The town bore the responsibility of covering their travel expenses and providing them with a daily allowance of two shillings for their sustenance. On November 27th, 1295, John and Ralph took their seats in the inaugural true Parliament. Here, the primary agenda revolved around allocating funds for the ongoing wars with France and Scotland. Their encounter with the eminent nobles, the higher clergy, knights from the shires, and fellow representatives from various towns and cities must have been an unforgettable experience.
Three years later, Nic the Sadler, a resident of Sadler Gate, represented Derby in Parliament. During its early history, the borough sent not gentry but its craftsmen and merchants to Parliament. The free town of Derby actively participated in both local and national governance, though only the burgesses, a select group, had the privilege of voting. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the wealthier merchants exercised a dominant influence within the burgess community, effectively, if not officially, managing the town's affairs.
In ancient times, Western Europe had a single Church known as the Roman Church, now referred to as "Roman Catholic." The Pope was its highest authority. When a dispute arose between All Saints' College and the Abbot of Darley regarding tithes and complaints that the Abbey's servants attended the Abbey instead of All Saints', their parish church, the case was elevated to the Pope in Rome. The Pope ordered Giles, the Archdeacon of Berkshire, to resolve the matter. After conducting an inquiry, he announced the College of All Saints' as the victor in Oxford Cathedral. Churches used to collect contributions called "Peter's pence" to send to Rome, and abbeys typically forwarded a portion of their revenues to their parent monasteries abroad. The government, concerned about significant amounts of money leaving the country, prohibited the Prior of Darley Abbey from sending any part of his tithes and revenues overseas.
At this time, Darley Abbey had gained significance, and its abbot wielded influence. He once served as a judge in a dispute between the Chapter of York Cathedral and St. Oswald's Priory. On occasion, he presided over the Chapters or councils of the Augustinian Order. The people of Derby held the Abbey in high esteem. King Henry III granted it a "free warren," which permitted them to capture rabbits and specific other wild animals in Ripley, along with establishing a market and fair in that location.
King Edward I granted All Saints' the status of a "free chapel of the king," which removed it from the jurisdiction of the bishop, making it subject only to the Pope. On one occasion, Bishop Longspee dared to meddle in its affairs, and he was swiftly summoned to Westminster to explain his actions, which were seen as "prejudicial and disrespectful to the king." This chapel hosted remarkable ceremonies, more typical of cathedrals, such as when the Bishop of Carlisle, acting on behalf of the Bishop of Lichfield, ordained sixty-four priests.
The clergy played a crucial role in educating the people, not only through sermons but also by adorning our churches with painted images. During the Middle Ages, all Derby churches featured stained-glass windows portraying scenes from the Bible. On festive occasions, "miracle plays," based on biblical narratives, were performed in the churchyards, serving both educational and entertaining purposes. In a similar vein, young individuals sang carols during the Christmas season while participating in round dances.
It is no surprise that the residents of Derby cherished their churches. In those times, it was a common belief that prayers offered on behalf of the deceased aided them in the afterlife. In Darley Abbey, one hundred masses or services for the departed were conducted each year. John of Crich donated land to St. Peter's Church for constructing a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, where a priest could conduct masses for his soul and the souls of others. Such chapels established for this purpose were known as chantries. To establish these, John had to secure the king's permission due to a law that restricted the Church from acquiring additional land, given its existing extensive holdings. Similarly, Alan of Shardlow established a chantry at St. Peter's, while St. John Chandos of Radbourne and his associates established one at St. Werburgh's, where a priest was tasked with perpetual prayer for the founders' souls and the salvation of all souls.
Undoubtedly, people of the time were also quite superstitious, holding beliefs in fairies, hobgoblins, and witches. They considered relics like the bones of St. Alkmund and a portion of the shirt worn by the martyred Thomas Becket in the Nunnery to possess miraculous properties. People from distant places embarked on pilgrimages to Derby to visit these relics. Occasionally, we come across accounts of Derby residents embarking on pilgrimages. For instance, we find the story of John the palmer (pilgrim), a native of Derby, who, carrying a bag over his shoulder and a staff in hand, journeyed to Rome and perhaps even to the Holy Land.
Trade and manufacture were regulated by a Guild Merchant. Its function was to secure fair prices and guarantee good work. Since this body was authorised in the town's Charter, it was really a part of the corporation. It included both traders and master craftsmen. In King Edward Ill's reign, new members, having paid what was called a "fine," or entrance fee, obtained valuable privileges. A "foreigner," that is anyone living outside the borough, especially traders from other towns, could only sell wholesale and to a member of the Guild. If wool, for example, was brought into the town, it was the custom for a member of the Guild to put his foot upon it, after which none but a member dare buy, nor dare the stranger sell save to a member. This tyrannical way of doing business could not have paid the merchants, for it soon died out. The Guild, brought to court for charging high prices to the townsfolk and taking excessive tolls, was fined forty shillings (a large sum then) and told to mend its ways.
Information allows us to draw up a list of Derby trades (Table I), though we do not know how many people were engaged in them:
Derby's corn mills were beside the river Derwent and the Markeaton Brook. Some had romantic names, such as Priest's Mill, Marsh Mill and Twigrist. The craft workshops were small, employing perhaps a journeyman and two apprentices, a modern saddler's shop will give you a picture of them. Adam, the weaver, wove the yarn which women had spun in their homes. Women could be seen going about with distaffs (sticks on which combed wool was wound), their fingers twisting the thread as it dangled with a weighted spindle (or bobbin on which the spun thread was wound) at the end. The shoemaker in King Edward Ill's reign was Peter Swift. Merchants had their clothes made by Hereward, the tailor.
Map of fourteenth-century Derby, showing the most important buildings and the location of the principal trades. (unreadable parts were re-edited)
Each trade in Derby, as in other medieval towns, tended to have its own street. Hugh's and other sadlers' workshops were in Sadler Gate. Bakers, such as Godwin, congregated in St. Mary's Gate; butchers in the Butchery in the Market Place. Smith’s made horseshoes and tools in Irongate, the iron came from the Codnor forges on packhorses over St. Mary's Bridge.
Merchants lived about the Market Place, where John le Cornere, our first M.P., had twelve shops. He lived in one; another was rented by a draper named Payn. In others were a loriner's workshop, where metal fittings for harness were made, and Agnes, who sold tubs and barrels to the watercarriers. Simon of Nottingham had a stall at the top of the market. Robert, son of Colla, had two shops, one on the east side and one on the west side, and Henry, the loriner, had a
"merchant stall." The Market Place was not quite built in, because William Young had a croft there, and St.James' Hospital, with its garden, was on the west side.
The exclusive rights in the dyeing industry contributed to the wealth of individuals like Simon, the dyer. Jordan, located on Full Street, was a fuller who played a pivotal role in the cloth-making process. He placed newly woven fabric into elongated troughs containing a mixture of fuller's earth, soap, and substances to induce contraction, making it "full" or denser. These troughs were trodden upon by "walkers," individuals wearing minimal clothing, who resided in Walker Lane and were reputed for their rough and unruly behaviour. This street, it seems, rarely received favourable comments.
Following the trampling process, the cloth was stretched using ropes and pulleys. It was then sun-dried before "hurlers," laborers, employed thistle-like teasels to raise the nap. By 1286, a fulling mill had emerged, where a waterwheel-driven hammer handled the labour-intensive aspects of the process. The fullers, in need of both water for their techniques and a source of power, established mills along the riverbanks.
We may now take a view of our fourteenth-century trading and manufacturing in Table II. You will notice that:
(a) Wool, iron and lead were brought from the Derbyshire highland.
(b) Food-stuffs and hides come from the farming lowland.
(c) Raw materials were worked up by Derby craftsmen into useful articles.
(d) These articles were largely sent back to the countryside in exchange for their products.
(e) Only luxury goods (silks, etc.) were brought from a distance, to pay for which dyed wool, some cloth and lead were sent away.
(f) Lead was not manufactured, but brought from the hills and sold down country. Derby was only a market for it. So, Derby's medieval trade arose out of its varied countryside. With distant parts dealings were few and limited to valuable goods.
The Corporation (1) held their Court, (2) watched over the rights of the citizens, and (3) looked after the town.
Some of the chief burgesses were the magistrates, who formed the "bench" of the Borough Court, which punished minor offences and, after a first hearing of the case, committed anyone accused of a serious crime to gaol to await trial by the King's Judge at the Assizes. The Court dealt with debts and disputes between inhabitants, for example a quarrel over Twigrist Mill between William and Philip, Derby men, and Darley Abbey was brought before it. The Corporation increased the town's privileges. It paid King Henry III ten marks to expel Jews and Jewesses, for they were disliked as moneylenders. (The only trade they could practise in the Middle Ages.) To protect the Derby wool trade, suffering from underselling elsewhere, it persuaded King Edward III to proclaim that wool must not be sold below the Derby price. On the other hand, outsiders might get advantages here, as when King Henry III ordered the Corporation to take no tolls from the men of Horsley Castle in Derby Market. This giving and taking of tolls really restricted trade, so Nottingham and Derby in 1279 made a "bilateral" agreement that neither would take tolls from the other.
On the flip side, the vigilant Corporation was unwilling to let anyone defy the town's rights, not even the king himself. An incident occurred when William of Castre, an overzealous Excise Officer, confiscated wool for taxes in Derby Market, disregarding the citizens' entitlement to collect their own levy. In response, the king had to rectify the situation. Occasionally, the king's wool was stored in the Friary. During King Edward II's reign, an unlawful tax was imposed, which the town refused to pay. Consequently, William of Chellaston, the Sheriff, seized hay, grain, and farming implements belonging to Walter London, the Vicar of St. Werburgh's, as his share, but the outcome of this remains unclear.
Due to a Derby merchant's debt to it, the Abbey of Leicester, contrary to Charter rights, confiscated the possessions of certain Derby burgesses as they were crossing the ford at Breedon. Eventually, the Abbey was compelled to return these items. The Abbot of Dale constructed weirs across the Derwent at Borrowash, and the Bishop of Chester did the same at Wilne, even though the Derwent was a free river through which goods and provisions were transported to Derby. In response, the Corporation dispatched twelve jurors to "prosecute" (charge) both the Bishop and the Abbot at Derby Assizes. The Bailiff took legal action when merchants from Melbourne declined to pay tolls at Swarkeston Bridge "as required," and when Sir Roger Ashbourne seized the tolls on another bridge owned by the town. Similarly, Thomas Touchett of Markeaton faced repercussions when he caused distress to the townsfolk at Ashbourne Ford.
The Weir at Borrowash, Derby at the River Derwent
The Weir at Wilne, Derbyshire.
Inside the town the Corporation prevented a citizen doing what might be harmful to others. Ralph Fitzralph obstructed a road by a wall which he had to pull down. Thomas Rennaway built a gable overhanging the street to the nuisance of passers-by, and was brought to Court for it. The Corporation was no respecter of persons, but prosecuted the great Abbot of Darley for digging a marl pit in the highway.
The heavy farm wains that came every market day made ruts in the streets, which in wet weather were a sea of mud. To remedy this the king from time to time granted a "pavage," i.e. allowed the Corporation to raise a rate for paving. Men were thereupon employed to fetch pebbles from the river and lay them in the streets. Such "cobbled" pavements, uncomfortable to walk on, were better than ruts and sludge.
Cobbled street, this is where the term “on the cobbles” comes from.
Cannon Street, Derby with cobbled pavements.
In the thirteenth century we hear of the "Great Bridge of Derby," the original wooden St. Mary's Bridge having been taken down and replaced by one of stone. A hundred years later this was so badly out of repair that the Corporation obtained permission to levy a "pontage," or a "bridge-rate." The following tolls, greater in our money, were charged to traffic passing over the renovated bridge:
Each load of grass paid ¼ d. Skins paid ¼ d.
Horse ¼ d. "bacons" ¼ d.
Cow ¼ d. Salted eels ¼ d.
10 pigs paid 1d.
Pennies were, confusingly, abbreviated to 'd'. This is because the Latin word for this coin was 'denarius'.
A small chapel, dedicated to St. Mary, had been built on the south side of the stone bridge. In such chapels, common in the Middle Ages when travel was uncertain, travellers prayed for an easy journey and safe return. A chaplain was appointed to conduct the services, and a hermit lived there. These "bridge hermits," who were controlled by the bishop, depended on the alms of passers-by and collected the tolls. (it is believed that through this custom, this is where the idea of Bridge Trolls come from.)
Stone bridge crossing the river at St Mary’s in Derby.
The Chapel of St Mary on the Bridge, commonly known as the Bridge Chapel, was built on the first arch of a medieval bridge over the River Derwent; the springing of the arch can be seen below the east wall. It now stands beside the 18th-century St Mary's Bridge, which replaced the medieval bridge.
In the medieval era, Derby's water supply relied on wells. This worked well in the suburban areas but posed challenges around the Market Place. In the town centre, water from the Derwent had to be transported in barrels to individual residences, shops, and inns by individuals who made a livelihood as water-carriers. Around 1250, the Corporation initiated a system to convey water from Becket Well (not named after St. Thomas) to a tap in St. James's Place and a pump in the Market Place. The water was transported through wooden pipes crafted from hollowed-out tree trunks, a design similar to the one found in Derby Museum from a later period.
The town's revenue was derived from tolls, land rentals, and fines from the Court. It's noteworthy that, in those days, every time a rate was required for public improvements, special permission from the king had to be obtained. Of course, urban management was nothing like what we have today, and such requests were typically made only for pressing needs. The Corporation had no dedicated "sanitation department." In theory, each individual was responsible for sweeping and maintaining the road in front of their residence, though this duty was often neglected, even when mandated.
The streets were incredibly filthy, beyond description. There were no police force, as it was the duty of each citizen, in rotation, to watch over and protect the town at night. Unfortunately, this duty was frequently evaded. The town had an elected constable (unpaid), and each parish had one too, although their role was not to patrol the streets but to serve as Court Officers. In the event of a fire, the only means of fighting it was through a "bucket chain" from the nearest water source, often resulting in the destruction of houses, as exemplified by the case of St. James' Priory in 1335.
The town was spreading out. The Newlands (around modern Becket Street) was already covered with small-holdings or "tofts." Allured paid 1s, 4d. and a tallow candle each year for his toft, the usual rent being about 2s. with two hens at Christmas. Payments in kind were as welcome as payments in money. More houses sprang up. More and more trees were felled, though great woods still remained. The population was 3,000, giving about fifty people and ten houses to the acre. Assessments on people's goods and furniture in 1327 show that only one citizen possessed goods equal to £500 of our money and that most people had quite small possessions. There was an upper class of some 600 substantial burgesses and their families, and a lower of some 2,400 small craftsmen, journeymen, servants, farm-hands, water-carriers and so on, with their wives and children. Except the merchants, few townsfolk ever travelled far, but spent their whole lives in the neighbourhood.
Food for the richer was good in summer. In winter people lived on salted meat, bread and oatmeal, because winter food for cattle was so scanty that most of them were slaughtered in autumn. The poorer folk rarely tasted meat or wheaten flour, their chief food being oatmeal and bacon. Houses had no chimneys. Wood fires, lit by flint and steel, burnt on an open hearth. People went to bed early in winter after sitting a while round the fire, when there was story-telling and gossip. Women spun wool and flax by the only light available, namely that from home-made tallow candles and rushlights (rush stems dipped in fat). At night streets were dark and dangerous, so those who had to go out carried torches of bark dipped in pitch. There was no glass yet in the smaller houses. Children skipped, played ball and blind-man's-buff, called Hoodman Blind, and round games. Dancing in the streets or on the greens was popular. It wasn't for another 200 years that the common cotton pair of socks were invented. It was common for the poorer children to be seen out in the streets barefooted and wearing ragged clothing. Most of the poorer families either relied on second hand clothing or women making their own clothes after unpicking old rags. For men's clothing, The innermost layer of clothing were the braies or breeches, a loose undergarment, usually made of linen, which was held up by a belt. Next came the shirt, which was generally also made of linen, and which was considered an undergarment, like the breeches. Hose or chausses made out of wool were used to cover the legs, and were generally brightly coloured, and often had leather soles, so that they did not have to be worn with shoes. The shorter clothes of the second half of the century required these to be a single garment like modern tights, whereas otherwise they were two separate pieces covering the full length of each leg. Hose were generally tied to the breech belt, or to the breeches themselves, or to a doublet.
,_f.74v_-_BL_Add_MS_42130.jpg)
Two men threshing sheaf seen wearing braies, from the Luttrell Psalter (c.1325-1335)
A robe, tunic, or kirtle was usually worn over the shirt or doublet. As with other outer garments, it was generally made of wool. Over this, a man might also wear an over-kirtle, cloak, or a hood. Servants and working men wore their kirtles at various lengths, including as low as the knee or calf. However, the trend during the century was for hem-lengths to shorten for all classes.
However, in the second half of the century, courtiers are often shown, if they have the figure for it, wearing nothing over their closely tailored cotehardie. A French chronicle records: "Around that year (1350), men, in particular, noblemen and their squires, took to wearing tunics so short and tight that they revealed what modesty bids us hide. This was a most astonishing thing for the people"
The innermost layer of a woman's clothing was a linen or woollen chemise or smock, some fitting the figure and some loosely garmented, although there is some mention of a "breast girdle" or "breast band" which may have been the precursor of a modern bra. Women also wore hose or stockings, although women's hose generally only reached to the knee.
All classes and both sexes are usually shown sleeping naked—special nightwear only became common in the 16th century, yet some married women wore their chemises to bed as a form of modesty and piety. Many in the lower classes wore their undergarments to bed because of the cold weather at night time and since their beds usually consisted of a straw mattress and a few sheets, the undergarment would act as another layer.
Over the chemise, women wore a loose or fitted gown called a cotte or kirtle, usually ankle or floor-length, and with trains for formal occasions. Fitted kirtles had wide skirts made by adding triangular gores to widen the hem without adding bulk at the waist. Kirtles also had long, fitted sleeves that sometimes reached down to cover the knuckles.
Various sorts of over gowns were worn over the kirtle, and are called by different names by costume historians. When fitted, this garment is often called a cotehardie (although this usage of the word has been heavily criticised) and might have hanging sleeves and sometimes worn with a jewelled or metal worked belt. Over time, the hanging part of the sleeve became longer and narrower until it was the merest streamer, called a tippet, then gaining the floral or leaflike daggings in the end of the century.
Sleeveless over gowns or tabards derive from the cyclas, an unfitted rectangle of cloth with an opening for the head that was worn in the 13th century. By the early 14th century, the sides began to be sewn together, creating a sleeveless overgrown or surcoat. Outdoors, women wore cloaks or mantles, often lined in fur. The houppelande was also adopted by women late in the century. Women invariably wore their houppelandes floor-length, the waistline rising up to right underneath the bust, sleeves very wide and hanging, like angel sleeves.
When John gave his Charter, dress was simple and attractive. The town ladies wore long, rather full dresses, open at the neck, of handsome cloth, with floral designs and varied colours. For outdoors they had fur-lined cloaks. Both men and women wore their hair short with a fringe. The women covered it with a white linen cloth, called a wimple, over which was a white linen flat cap. Men wore a long garment reaching to the ankles, with wide sleeves like a university gown, and had a fur-lined cloak with a hood to draw over the head in bad weather. The labourers and journeymen wore a short smock with long cloth hose on their legs and cloth shoes, or, in wet weather, wooden clogs.
Dress was much more fanciful by the time of the Black Death. In place of the long gown men wore brightly coloured short coats, buttoned in front, close-fitting, with long sleeves. They had pointed leather shoes and turban-looking felt hats. The women's skirts were almost trailing and the bodice fitted closely. Over the dress they wore a short loose cloak with arm-holes. The wealthier wore furs, and had jewelled bands around their hair, which was plaited and rolled up. Children's dresses, as in all ages, were modelled on those of their elders.
People in the Middle Ages were anxious about their souls, cherished their church, were thoughtful for the poor and attached to their household goods. When Roger Duffield, of Derby, died, he left his bed, his oak chest and his drinking-cup to his friend, Walter of Normanton. He wished his body to be buried in the chantry chapel of St. Michael in St. Peter's Church. He left a coverlet, towel and some money to the altar of the Holy Cross there, and gave money to the Black Friars, to the Nunnery and to the poor.
Derby's involvement in the conflicts between monarchs and nobles appears to have been limited, except for the instance when Prince Edward arrived in 1246 to devastate the lands of Robert Ferrers, the Earl of Derby, who had risen against King Henry III. Following the Earl's capture in Chesterfield, the imposing Duffield Castle was completely demolished. When a peace agreement was reached between the king and the barons, the Bailiff proclaimed it in the Market Place. (which is the image I drew based on my own imagination at the very start of this blog)
In 1315, Edward II made a stop at the Friary for refreshments while en route to hunt in Duffield Frith. His presence might have been much less welcome seven years later when he arrived with his army in pursuit of the rebellious Duke of Lancaster into Yorkshire. His troops plundered the countryside to the extent that they faced shortages of food themselves. The extent of hardships endured by the townsfolk during this time remains largely undocumented.
Arms of Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby: Vairy or and gules.
Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby (1239–1279) was an English nobleman.
He was born at Tutbury Castle in Staffordshire, England, the son of William de Ferrers, 5th Earl of Derby, by his second wife Margaret de Quincy (born 1218), a daughter of Roger de Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester and Helen of Galloway.
In 1249, at the age of 10, he married the seven-year-old Mary (or Marie), daughter of Hugh XI of Lusignan Count of La Marche, the eldest of King Henry III's half-brothers, at Westminster Abbey. This arranged marriage is an indication of Henry's high regard for Robert's father. William died in 1254, so that Robert became a knight and inherited the title while he was still a minor. He and his estates became a ward of Prince Edward. In 1257, Edward sold the wardship to the queen and Peter of Savoy for 6000 marks, which might have been a source of the later antipathy of Ferrers for the prince.
Robert came of age in 1260 and took possession of the vast estates he inherited. The first of these passed to him from his Norman ancestors, a large part of Derbyshire that included the area later known as Duffield Frith, together with parts of Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire. In addition, he received Chartley Castle in Staffordshire, and all Lancashire between the Ribble and the Mersey. This came from the estate of Ranulph de Blondeville, 4th Earl of Chester, whose sister, Robert's grandfather had married. By careful management, the estate had become worth around £1500, (£1,094,739.60 today) which meant that the Ferrers family was among the wealthiest in the country.
However, the estate was crippled by charges arising from William's death. Firstly, a third of its worth was accounted for by his mother's dower, which included the major asset of Chartley. Nearly half was supporting a debt of around £800 incurred by his father, which the exchequer was calling in. To pay this he had taken a further loan, possibly from Jewish financiers in Worcester. Finally, there was provision for his brother William and his wife Mary, who held two manors herself. It would seem that before taking his inheritance his only income had been the maritagium bestowed by King Henry.
Unlike his predecessors, Robert was impetuous and violent, in part, perhaps, because he had inherited a severe form of gout from his grandfather. He was also unreliable and lacking in political sophistication. Almost as soon as he took control of his estate, he attacked the priory of Tutbury, which his family were patrons of.
In the early years, Robert had taken little interest in politics, perhaps because of his preoccupation with the estate. Nevertheless, he was acquainted with the reforms that were being pursued, and with Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and Simon de Montfort, friends of the family.
When Montfort returned to England in 1263 to begin a rebellion against King Henry III that became known as the Second Barons' War, Robert had to take sides, and moved towards Montfort. He is on record during May and June as taking the 'Three Castles'—Grosmont, Skenfrith, and Whitecastle in South Wales, which belonged to Prince Edward. When in January 1264, Louis IX of France declared the Provisions of Oxford unlawful and invalid, further unrest followed.
Robert first attacked Worcester in February 1264, sacking the Jewish quarter, plundering the religious and private houses, and damaging the fences and lands of the Royal parks in the neighbourhood. He carried away the bonds recording his loans, effectively ameliorating his debt problem. He then went on to join Simon de Montfort's forces at Gloucester Castle, recently taken by Edward. To Robert's extreme annoyance, Edward escaped, having made a truce with Henry de Montfort, Simon's son. It would seem that the motives of Ferrers were less about support for reform than they were about hatred of Edward.
The origins of this may well have been in the Ferrers family's long held claims on the estate of Peverel Castle through the marriage of Margaret Peverel to Robert the second earl. King John had assigned stewardship of the estate to the fourth earl, Robert's grandfather, but King Henry had taken it back and awarded it to Prince Edward. Finally there was Edward's custodianship during Robert's minority and the fact that some land had not been relinquished. Be that as it may, Robert of Gloucester observed that " Of no one was Edward more afraid."
Edward's brief escape, however, allowed him, to attack Northampton Castle where Ferrers brother William, Anker de Frescheville, Lord of Crich and Baldwin Wake, Lord of Chesterfield were taken prisoner in March 1264. Edward went on to attack Ferrers at Chartley Castle, and later to destroy Tutbury Castle. This was followed by the Battle of Lewes in May. That Robert did not join Montfort there would support the idea that his activities were largely motivated by self-interest.
Prince Edward and the king having finally been captured gave Ferrers his opportunity, gaining the royal castles of Bolsover, Horston, and Tickhill, in Yorkshire. By the end of 1264, he had also taken Peverel and, it is believed, Chester Castles.
Montfort's Parliament of 1265 broadened elected representation beyond the nobility to freeholder groups. Some of the Barons felt that he had gone too far and he began to lose support. Meanwhile, Edward continued under house arrest, and Montfort was working out an agreement for his release that included surrender of large portions of his lands.
That these were lands that Ferrers had appropriated made Montfort a new and dangerous adversary. Montfort summoned Ferrers to the session of Parliament for January 1265, ordered him to surrender Peverel Castle, and accused him of "divers’ trespasses", after which he had him arrested and sent to the Tower of London.
J. R. Maddicott, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, suggests that:
“The summons to a parliament that otherwise comprised only staunch Montfortians was an almost blatant device to remove Derby from the scene of his triumphs and to open his lands, new and old, to a Montfortian takeover ... It is a mark of Earl Robert's characteristic lack of political cunning that he fell into the trap, with predictable results. ... Derby's removal was essential to Montfort's territorial ambitions, and that it could be accomplished without much risk because the earl's violent self-seeking had left him friendless”
Meanwhile, Montfort was steadily losing support and, in May, the Earl of Gloucester deserted to the side of the King. With his assistance, and that of Roger de Mortimer, Edward escaped from Kenilworth Castle. When he defeated Montfort at the Battle of Evesham in August 1265, the rebels were shown little mercy.
In spite of Ferrers's activities against Prince Edward's estates, his support in the North Midlands was potentially useful to King Henry, as was his money. Ferrers was released and, on paying 1500 marks, was given a pardon, his inheritance was secured, and mediation arranged in his quarrel with Prince Edward.
Far from accepting his good fortune, in 1266 he joined a number of previous Montfortian supporters, including Baldwin de Wake, lord of Chesterfield, in a fresh rebellion. Initially, it would seem that the rebels gathered at Ferrers's substantial Duffield Castle. However, from Tutbury, the royalist army, under Prince Henry, a nephew of Henry III, bypassed Duffield and proceeded to Chesterfield to intercept a force from the North under John d'Ayville.
Robert was, therefore, compelled to move northwards, crossing the River Amber, which was then flooded, reaching Chesterfield on 15 May 1266, just as d'Ayville arrived from Dronfield. In what has come to be known as the Battle of Chesterfield, they engaged the Royal forces in battle and were defeated. One account suggests that they were surprised in their quarters and most of them killed. Other accounts suggest that Ferrers himself managed to take Chesterfield but was left exposed by the defeat of the other participants. Most of them withdrew into the forest where they lived as outlaws for two years. Ferrers was taken prisoner, some accounts suggesting that he was taken while having treatment for his gout, some that he was in hiding and was betrayed.
Robert was captured, attainted of high treason, and imprisoned in Windsor Castle until 1269. Duffield Castle was pulled down and Henry's second son, Edmund, was given possession of his lands and goods.
However, the Dictum of Kenilworth, issued in October 1266, provided that Ferrers could reclaim his lands in return for a redemption payment of seven times their annual value. They were returned at Windsor in 1269, with a debt of £50,000 to be paid to Edmund by 9th July.
Although the chances of Robert finding such a sum were remote, Edmund and his associates made their position more secure by a move that was unlikely to have been intended by those who drafted the Dictum of Kenilworth. Ferrers was taken to the manor of Cippenham, Buckinghamshire, the property of Richard, earl of Cornwall. There, in the presence of John Chishall, the chancellor, he was required to assign the lands to twelve manucapters.
He was kept imprisoned at Richard of Cornwall's Wallingford Castle until the end of May and on 9 July the estate was transferred to Edmund. In time it would provide a considerable part of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, while Ferrers was left virtually landless and deprived of his title.
Ferrers lived on for another ten years, during which he attempted to regain his estates, with little success, largely because the machinations at Cippenham had been quietly supported by the King and his council. Edmund, in any case, was absent at the crusades until 1273 and no legal redress could be sought.
Soon after Edmund's return, Ferrers seized his old Chartley Castle by force, but was soon ejected. He then took a more considered approach, enlisting the help of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester. In 1274, when Edward, now King, returned to England, Ferrers pleaded that he had accepted the Kenilworth ruling, with its seven years' redemption period, but that Edmund had refused. Edmund's defence was the Cippenham 'agreement' and Ferrers's failure to meet its terms. Ferrers argued that the 'agreement' was made under duress, but it was held that chancellor Chishall's presence at the signing gave it full legal validity.
Ferrers's case was dismissed and, although, in 1275, he was able to recover his manor at Chartley (but not the castle), it marked the end of the great position of what had been one of England's most powerful families.
His final years were spent in the company of his family. His first wife, Mary, had died some time between 1266 and 1269, and the marriage had been childless. He married (2nd) 26 June 1269 Eleanor, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Knt., of Kimbolton, Huntingdonshire, and Eleanor de Braose, and granddaughter of Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford. Until 1275, when he recovered Chartley, the family appeared to have lived on his mother's dower lands in Northamptonshire. The couple had two children: John born at Cardiff, Wales 20 June 1271 (who later became 1st Baron Ferrers of Chartley), and Eleanor, wife of Robert Fitz Walter, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz Walter.
Sir Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, died shortly before 27 April 1279, and was buried at St Thomas's Priory at Stafford, in Staffordshire. In Michaelmas term 1279 his widow, Eleanor, sued Edmund the king's brother for dower in a third of Tutbury, Scropton, Rolleston, Marchington, Calyngewode, Uttoxeter, Adgeresley, and Newborough, Staffordshire, and Duffield, Spondon, Chatesdene, and nine other vills named in Derbyshire, as well as other prominent landowners including Henry de Grenley. Edmund appeared in court and stated he held nothing in Spondon or Chatesdene, and as regards the rest Eleanor had no claim to dower in them, because neither at the time Robert had married her nor any time afterwards had he been seized of them. About 1280 Eleanor petitioned the king for the restoration of the manor of Chartley, Staffordshire, stating it was part of the inheritance of her son, John de Ferrers, who is under age and in the king's keeping. In 1284 she sued Thomas de Bray in a plea regarding custody of the land and heir of William le Botiller. In 1286 a commission was appointed by the king to investigate the persons who hunted and carried away deer and felled and carried away trees in the park of Eleanor late the wife of Robert de Ferrers at Chartley, Staffordshire. In 1290 she and her brother, Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, acknowledged they owed a debt of £200 to Robert de Tibetot and Matthew de Columbers, the king's butler. Eleanor, Countess of Derby, died 20 February 1313/4, and was buried at Walden Abbey, Essex.
In these unsettled times we hear of a few "incidents" but of no unusual outbreak of lawlessness. Hugh Meynell of Langley during a violent quarrel shed blood in St. Werburgh's Church. Later we find him accusing Derby people of taking his horse, goods and £10 in cash at Derby, adding that his servant had been assaulted at Derby and Markeaton. Ivo, a saddler of Derby, Gilbert of Chaddesden, and Will, a skinner from Repton, with others, who may have nursed a grievance against the Friary, broke into its gardens, felled the trees and ill-used the servants.
Then, in May 1349, the Black Death, the plague, sweeping through the land came to Derby and carried off a third of the people. It was worst in St. Peter's parish. Derby lost the Vicars of St. Peter's and St. Michael's, the Prioress of the Nunnery and the Abbot of Darley. At Osmaston-by-Derby the dead were so many that they could not be taken for burial to the mother church of St. Peter's, as was the custom, so the churchyard of the chapel at Osmaston had to be used. Hugh, Archdeacon of Derby, and many others, died in the less severe outbreak of 1361, but after that there was no visitation for two centuries.
(The Black Death (also known as the Pestilence, the Great Mortality or the Plague) was a bubonic plague pandemic occurring in Afro-Eurasia from 1346 to 1353. It is the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, causing the death of 75–200 million people in Eurasia and North Africa, peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.)