No records remain to tell us what was the ultimate decision at which the arbitrators, Catesby and Cumberford, arrived. In the July of the next year another set of arbitrators were at work, either party of litigants being bound in an obligation of 100 marks to abide by their decision. According to this verdict Bristowe was allowed to retain possession of the enclosed parts, but the mayor and community were to have "common for beasts from Lammas to Candlemas in the said land if it were fallow, and if it be sown as soon as the corn is carried away," while Bristowe and his heirs were allowed to common with the inhabitants of Coventry on the lands between his estate and the city.[390] It is very probable that the good folk of the city were ill-pleased with this decision, which was of the nature of a compromise; for although they were allowed, as of old, the use of the fields during the autumn and winter months, yet they must, according to the terms of the arbitration, admit Bristowe's cattle to a share in their pastures. And the large flocks, which he kept together with those of the prior, and another grazier, devoured, they said to one another, the pasture which of right belonged to their geldings and cattle. It appears that attempts had been made to break up the Prior's Waste and the close by the New Gate, for the leet fixed the penalty of those who should offend in this manner at forty shillings.[391] Men of long memories must have pointed out to the anxious crowds at Lammas these encroachments on the land of the community. "The people come at the opening and overseeing of the common," runs an order of leet for the year 1474, "in excess number and unruly to full ill example." And it was ordained that on this day none should accompany the chamberlains, when they rode out into the fields about the city to throw open the common lands, but those to whom permission had been previously given.[392] But those whose minds dwelt on these abuses of encroachment and surcharging with others permitted by the corporation found a spokesman and chief of their party in the dyer, Laurence Saunders. To judge from the position of Laurence and his friends, the heads of this party were men of good standing in the town and well-to-do. They could count among their number brethren of the guild, and men "of substance" sufficient to admit of their filling the lower municipal offices, the warden's post or the chamberlain's. These men had grievances other than the surcharging or enclosing of the common pasture--questions to which Laurence's formal petitions are wholly devoted: their trade was shorn of its profits. In complaints coming from Laurence's followers, we are told that the rulers of the city "picked away the thrift" of the "commonalty"; and reference is made to certain unpopular acts of leet touching the citizens, not only as sharers of the common pasture, but also as makers, buyers, and sellers--in short, as craftsmen.