London, to enforce the delay of forty days
before goods could be removed.(466)

(M278)

Nor was this the only grievance that the London merchants had. In order to
raise money to put down the rebellion of the Scots which had broken out
soon after his accession, he had recourse to an extra tax upon wool,
leather, and wool-fells. The money thus raised was to be considered a
loan, receipts being given to the merchants under the king's seal, known
as "Coket," and the merchants in return were to be allowed absolute free
trade from the 2nd July, 1327, the date of the writ, up to the following
Christmas.(467) The Londoners objected altogether to this impost, on the
grounds that they had never been consulted on the matter, and had never
given their assent.(468)

A compromise was subsequently effected. In consideration of the good
service which the citizens of London had already done to the king in times
past, and for the good service which they were prepared to render again in
the future, they were released of arrears of the tax due from 2nd July to
the 23rd September, provided they were willing to pay it for the remainder
of the term.(469) After Christmas the restrictions upon free trade were
again enforced.(470)

(M279)

On the 11th December (1327), Edward issued a writ(471) to the Sheriffs of
London to choose two representatives to attend on behalf of the citizens
at a parliament to be held at York, on Sunday next after the Feast of the
Purification (2 Feb., 1328). Instead, however, of sending only two members
as directed, the citizens appear on this occasion to have sent no less
than four, viz.: Richard de Betoyne, Robert de Kelseye, John de Grantham,
and John Priour the Younger.(472)

One of the questions to be determined was the advisability of again
removing the Staple from England to the continent. On this question, there
appears to have arisen some difference of opinion among the city
representatives. Betoyne, who had formerly enjoyed the office of Mayor of
the Staple beyond the seas, favoured a return to the old order of things,
whilst his colleagues were opposed to any such proceeding. Notification of
Betoyne's disagreement with his colleagues was made to the mayor and
commonalty of the City by letter from the mayor and commonalty of York, to
which reply was made that Betoyne's action was entirely unauthorised.(473)
A letter was sent the same day to Betoyne himself, enjoining him to do
nothing in the matter op