Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/745

 Mortinai)i in Medieval Boroughs 735 are unwilling to contribute their share;' and such opposition of the clergy to the demands of lay tax-collectors was supported by the canon law." Sometimes the clergy were obliged to pay the taxes,^ but they often succeeded either in maintaining their right of exemp- tion ''or in efifecting a compromise by which only men or tenants of the church engaged in trade as merchants were tallaged. Similar disputes arose regarding the payment of tolls or indirect taxes. The men of many boroughs and religious houses were exempted from tolls throughout the realm, and burgesses in their own town were either exempt or paid lower rates than others." Therefore we should not expect that conflicts regarding the clergy's claim of this immunity would arouse such bitter opposition as did their claim of freedom from tallage, which placed the clergy in a more privileged position than the burgesses. But dissensions re- garding tolls were frequent, and in some cities, especially on the Continent, they evoked much bitter feeling, because the clergy com- peted with the citizens in the sale of wine and other wares.' In the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I. the clergy of England claimed to be free from murage and other tolls.'* This claim was 1 Rot. Pari., III. 503. 2 Loning, Das Testament im Gebict des Magdcbnt-ger Stadtrechtes (1906), 128.' The bull Clericis Laicos. 1296, applied to rectores civitatum as well as to princes. Wilkins, Coiieilia, II. 221. ^Historic Documents, ed. Gilbert, 78-81, 360-361; Gilbert. Cat. of Dublin Records, I. 91, 133; Abbreviatio Placitorum. 212 (Grimsby) ; Hedges, li'allingford, II. 349; Morris, Chester, 134; Cartul. S. Johannis de Coleccstria. ed. Moore, 506-508 (cf. ibid.. 28, 108); Blomefield, Norfolk, III. 47; Ryley, Placita, 259; Madox, Firma Burgi, 270-271 ; Zeumer, Stddtcsteiiern, 81-82 ; Des Marez. £tude sur la Proprictc. 175-178; von Maurer, Studteverfassimg, II. 782-789, 863- 868; Flamraermont, Hist, de Senlis, 18, 142. ' Borough Customs, ed. Bateson, II. 203 ; Historic Documents ed. Gilbert, 247; Rot. Hundred., I. 203 (Canterbury); Duncumb, Hereford, I. 304; Madox, Firma Burgi, 270. For the Continent, see von Maurer, Stddteverfassung, II. 789-790, S64-868 ; Lau. Verf. der Stadt Kijln, 239 ; Reinicke, Gesch. der Stadt Cambrai, 214; Labande, Hist, de Beauvais, 104. 'Stanley v. Mayor of Norivich, 6-10; Blomefield, Norfolk, III. 71; Red Paper Book of Colchester, ed. Benham, 42; Izacke, E.reter (1731), 12-13; Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1334-1338, pp. 15-19; Drake, Eboracum, 555; Madox, Firma Burgi, 271, 273 ; Gross, Gild Merchant, II. 140-141 ; Rot. Lit. Claus., I. 345- 346 (Bristol). For the Continent, see Keutgen, Aemter und Zilnfte, 61-73; Espinas, Lcs Finances de Douai, 347-355; Lefranc, Hist, de Noyon, 137-140; Flammermont, Hist, de Senlis, 32-34. '' Gross, Gild Merchant, I. 43-44; Green, To'cvn Life, II. 50-53; Davies, South- ampton, 227-230; von Maurer, Stddteverfassung. I. 309-318. ' Liebe, Die Stddte und die Kirche, in Ncue Jahrb. fiir Klass. Alterthum. 1901, VII. 216. Majora, ed. Luard, VI. 362. Cf. Stanley v. Mayor of Norwich, 8 ; Morris, Chester, 124.
 * Papers from Northern Registers, ed. Raine, 72 ; Matthew Paris, Chronica