DISCUSSION

This copy of a London record (the translation above being a reconciliation of the two versions) was entered into Winchester's book of memoranda in the context of a later document, likewise originally a London record, concerning renewed complaints in 1408 made by the Winchester authorities before the London authorities of distraints made on Winchester citizens to obtain payment of tolls on goods they had bought at London and were carting out. The complaint was of course that this exaction was contrary to the agreement of 1304. In 1407 Winchester had procured a royal writ addressed to the mayor and sheriffs of London stating that Winchester has possessed liberties granted by kings since Henry I, including that "they be exempt from toll, lastage, pesage, passage, cheminage, murage, pavage, quayage, picage, and all other kinds of tolls and customs in perpetuity" [Black Book, p.13], and ordering the London authorities not to harass Winchester men on this matter without first presenting their case to the king. In October 1408 a further writ from the king, issued in response to arguments presented to him by lawyers engaged by Winchester, repeated the tenor of the city liberties and ordered the London sheriffs to appear before him to explain why they had not respected Winchester's exemptions.

The London authorities responded to this situation in November 1408 by ordering that any distraints taken by the sheriff or his officers from Winchester gildsmen should be restored, and no such further action taken in the future unless specifically ordered by the mayor. They reserved the right to make future distraints related to toll-taking in cases where Winchester citizens could not demonstrate that they were exempt; the expectation appears to have been that a citizen present proof of being a member of the merchant gild. The agreement between the two cities did not extend to the Winchester fair, which belonged to the bishop, not the citizens.

In 1329 a similar agreement was drawn up between Southampton and Salisbury, citizens of the latter (whose chartered exemption from toll dated to the twelfth century) having been aggrieved by the imposition of tolls at the former. Southampton acknowledged the right of Salisbury citizens not to have to pay pontage, murage, pavage, quayage or other normal tolls on their merchandize, while Salisbury agreed that its citizens would pay tolls on a list of specified goods, at a rate considerably lower than that charged others. For urban authorities, formal compromises such as these must have seemed preferable to the prospect of confrontation that might harm the economic interests of both sides and sour relations between two communities that were as much collaborators as competitors within a multi-layered economic network characterized by a strong degree of interdependence of the various hubs and nodes of production, exchange, and distribution.

Salisbury was also in dispute with Lincoln, in 1367, over their opposing claims, of the latter to have the right to impose tolls and the former to be exempt from tolls. The king had sent instructions to the Lincoln authorities to respect his grant of exemption to Salisbury's citizens, but the authorities responded with the argument that their royal charter granted them custody of Lincoln, in return for paying an annual fee-farm, with the responsibility of preserving it undiminshed for the king, and that since they had long been accustomed to taking toll from all merchants coming to, or passing through, the city, without exempting anyone, and since Salisbury citizens could show no royal acquittance from tolls that pre-dated Lincoln's charter, the Lincoln authorities could not rightfully allow any exemption until the matter was discussed before king and council, lest such an allowance should prove to the detriment of the king and the city. [Calendar of Inqisitions Miscellaneous, vol.3, p.249] It seems unlikely this delaying tactic would have won the day for Lincoln.