stated in one account to have been
originally in the service of the University--protected by the
Privilege--and this, of course, was regarded as an aggravation of his
offence. The end of it was that the rights before mentioned were
confirmed with certain extensions--namely, the supervision of the
pavement, and the custody of the peace as well between laics as
scholars, while the Mayor was excluded from the custody of the peace
between scholars.

As a species of penance the Mayor and his fellows were enjoined by the
Bishop of Lincoln to attend an anniversary mass at St. Mary's on St.
Scholastica's Day; and the scholars were forbidden, on pain of a long
term of imprisonment, to inflict on any layman of the town, whilst on
his way to the church, during the celebration of the mass, or in the
course of his return, any injury or violence, lest he should be deterred
from the observance of the duty. This caution was proclaimed through the
schools year by year on the "legible day" immediately preceding the
festival. Good relations were hard to restore, and as long after as 1432
the authorities were reduced to publishing the following edict in the
hope of abating the scandal:

"Whereas there are no more suitable means of allaying the lamentable
dissensions between the University and the Town, which are a sign of the
wrath of the Almighty, than the devout supplications of priests walking
in procession, therefore this ordinance is made for the regulation of
such processions. First shall walk the Chancellor, after him the Doctors
by two and two, in the rank of their several faculties, then Masters of
Arts, then Bachelors in Theology, then Non-Regents, then beneficed
Bachelors, then all other Bachelors, then secular priests non-graduates,
then scholars, all by two and two, and all silently praying for the
King and other benefactors living and dead, and for the peace and
prosperity of the University. Priests non-graduates shall be bound to
attend on pain of a fine of sixpence, but no licentiates of any faculty
soever may in any wise be present at the act."

It would not be fair to conclude this account without giving the
townsmen's version of the way in which the Privilege was exercised. This
can be conveniently presented in the terms of two petitions, one of
which certainly, and the other probably, dates from the second year of
Edward III. (1328). If there be any truth in the allegations, it must be
owned that the Chancellor abuse