"It is and hath been accustomed," says an insertion in 1484 in the records of Leet, "that whatever the foresaid forty-eight persons ordaineth and establisheth for worship of mayoralty, bailiffs and commonalty of this city, according to the law, all the whole body of this city shall be bound thereby."[193] A certain latitude was allowed to the mayor as to whom summons should be sent "when he had need of forty-eight persons," save that he was always warned to require the attendance of "sufficient" men,[194] _i.e._ of suitable rank. After 1446 we find that the presence of a quorum of twelve persons was sufficient for the transaction of business, the whole body afterwards giving their assent to the measures ordained by this smaller company.[195] And it was most probably this small working body that was the ancestor of the inner council of the mayor and aldermen, which ultimately, by the charter of James I., gained complete and unchecked control over the municipal affairs of Coventry. The rule of this council gradually became a veritable tyranny. Even the official class rebelled against its dictates. We hear of a majority, "the most part" of the council, and this includes the idea of a dissentient minority. Those who transgressed the commands of this majority, if they had never filled the sheriff's post, lost the freedom of the city; while late mayors or sheriffs lost their official rank. He shall "be exempt," the order ran[196] in the sheriff's case, "from wearing scarlet among his company in all common assemblies, feasts, and processions"; and further, to be punished with fine and imprisonment at the mayor and council's discretion; on a late mayor the same penalty was laid, with the addition that he should be "exempt from his cloke and council"; while any citizens "comforting the disobedient" were to suffer the same penalties. When we learn that this order was framed in 1516 for the correction of John Strong, late mayor and _ex officio_ member of the council, we may form some conception of the tyranny of this body, whose doings even divided the corporation against itself. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 161: _Leet Book_, 597. They were afterwards reimbursed when the suit was decided against the prior.] [Footnote 162: _Leet Book_, 619.] [Footnote 163: See Green, _Town Life_, ii. 256, for examples of the punishments of those who insulted officials. In Coventry two men--John Smith and John Duddesbury--for their ill-behaviour to "men of worship" were, in 1495, put under surety from session to session until their submission should content the justices of the peace (_Leet Book_, 569).] [Footnote 164: Six of the mayor's council met every Wednesday. The sergeant kept the council-house doors so that no unauthorised person might enter (_Ib._, 516).] [Footnote 165: _Leet Book_, 544. The mayor was to be deprived of his "cloke" (_i.e._ official rank) and council, of which body he was an _ex-officio_ member.] [Footnote 166: _Leet Book_, 662.]