CHARTER OF WILLIAM I TO THE CITIZENS OF LONDON.

CHARTER OF WILLIAM I GRANTING LANDS TO DEORMAN.

London and the Kingdom
A HISTORY—DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

By REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L.,
RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON; EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

London:
Printed by Blades, East & Blades,
23, Abchurch Lane, E.C.

[pg iii]

PREFACE.

Of the numerous works that have been written on London, by which I mean more especially the City of London, few have been devoted to an adequate, if indeed any, consideration of its political importance in the history of the Kingdom. The history of the City is so many-sided that writers have to be content with the study of some particular phase or some special epoch. Thus we have those who have concentrated their efforts to evolving out of the remote past the municipal organization of the City. Their task has been to unfold the origin and institution of the Mayoralty and Shrievalty of London, the division of the City into wards with Aldermen at their head, the development of the various trade and craft guilds, and the respective powers and duties of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, and of the Livery of London assembled in their Common Hall. Others have devoted themselves to the study of the ecclesiastical and monastic side of the City's history—its Cathedral, its religious houses, and hundred and more parish[pg iv] churches, which occupied so large an extent of the City's area. The ecclesiastical importance of the City, however, is too often ignored. "We are prone," writes Bishop Stubbs, "in examining into the municipal and mercantile history of London, to forget that it was a very great ecclesiastical centre." Others, again, have confined themselves to depicting the every-day life of the City burgess, his social condition, his commercial pursuits, his amusements; whilst others have been content to perpetuate the memory of streets and houses long since lost to the eye, and thus to keep alive an interest in scenes and places which otherwise would be forgotten.

The political aspect of the City's history has rarely been touched by writers, and yet its geographical position combined with the innate courage and enterprise of its citizens served to give it no small political power and no insignificant place in the history of the Kingdom. This being the case, the Corporation resolved to fill the void, and in view of the year 1889 being the 700th Anniversary of the Mayoralty of London—according to popular tradition—instructed the Library Committee to prepare a work showing "the pre-eminent position occupied by the City of London and the important function it exercised in the shaping and making of England."

It is in accordance with these instructions that this and succeeding volumes have been compiled. As the title of the work has been taken from a chapter in Mr. Loftie's book on London ("Historic Towns" series, chap. ix), so its main features are delineated in that chapter. "It would be interesting"—writes Mr. Loftie—"to go over all the recorded instances in which the City of London interfered directly in the affairs of the Kingdom. Such a survey would be the history of England as seen from the windows of the Guildhall." No words could better describe the character of the work now submitted to the public. It has been compiled mainly from the City's own archives. The City has been allowed to tell its own story. If, therefore, its pages should appear to be too much taken up with accounts of loans advanced by the City to impecunious monarchs or with wearisome repetition of calls for troops to be raised in the City for foreign service, it is because the City's records of the day are chiefly if not wholly concerned with these matters. If, on the other hand, an event which may be rightly deemed of national importance be here omitted, it is because the citizens were little affected thereby, and the City's records are almost, if not altogether, silent on the subject.

The work does not affect to be a critical history so much as a chronique pour servir, to which the historical student may have recourse in order to learn what was the attitude taken up by the citizens of London at important crises in the nation's history. He will there see how, in the contest between Stephen and the Empress Matilda, the City of London held as it were the balance; how it helped to overthrow the tyranny of Longchamp, and to wrest from the reluctant John the Great Charter of our liberties; how it was with men and money supplied by the City that Edward III and Henry V were enabled to conquer France, and how in after years the London trained bands raised the siege of Gloucester and turned the tide of the Civil War in favour of Parliament. He will not fail to note the significant fact that before Monk put into execution his plan for restoring Charles II to the Crown, the taciturn general—little given to opening his mind to anyone—deemed it advisable to take up his abode in the City in order to first test the feelings of the inhabitants as to whether the Restoration would be acceptable to them or not. He will see that the citizens of London have at times been bold of speech even in the presence of their sovereign when the cause of justice and the liberty of the subject were at stake, and that they did not hesitate to suffer for[pg vii] their opinions; that, "at many of the most critical periods of our history, the influence of London and its Lord Mayors has turned the scale in favour of those liberties of which we are so justly proud"; and that had the entreaties of the City been listened to by the King and his ministers, the American Colonies would never have been lost to England.

There are two Appendices to the work; one comprising copies from the City's Records of letters, early proclamations and documents of special interest to which reference is made in the text; the other consisting of a more complete list of the City's representatives in Parliament from the earliest times than has yet been printed, supplemented as it has been by returns to writs recorded in the City's archives and (apparently) no where else. The returns for the City in the Blue Books published in 1878 and 1879 are very imperfect.

R. R. S.

The Guildhall, London,
April, 1894.

Contents

[pg 001]

CHAPTER I.

The greatness of London. How far due to its geographical position.

The wealth and importance of the City of London are due to a variety of causes, of which its geographical position must certainly be esteemed not the least. The value of such a noble river as the Thames was scarcely over-estimated by the citizens when, as the story goes, they expressed to King James their comparative indifference to his threatened removal of himself, his court and parliament, from London, if only their river remained to them. The mouth of the Thames is the most convenient port on the westernmost boundary of the European seaboard, and ships would often run in to replenish their tanks with the sweet water for which it was once famous.[1]

After the fall of the Western Empire (A.D. 476), commercial enterprise sprang up among the free towns of Italy. The carrying trade of the world's merchandise became centred for a time in Venice, and that town led the way in spreading the principles of commerce along the shores of the Mediterranean, being closely followed by Genoa, Florence, and Pisa. The tide, which then set westward, and continued its course beyond the Pillars of Hercules, was met in later years by another stream of commerce from the[pg 002] shores of the Baltic.[2] Small wonder, then, if the City of London was quick to profit by the continuous stream of traffic passing and repassing its very door, and vindicated its title to be called—as the Venerable Bede had in very early days called it the Emporium of the World.[3]

But if London's prosperity were solely due to its geographical position, we should look for the same unrivalled pre-eminence in commerce in towns like Liverpool or Bristol, which possess similar local advantages; whilst, if royal favour or court gaieties could make cities great, we should have surely expected Winchester, Warwick, York, or Stafford to have outstripped London in political and commercial greatness, for these were the residences of the rulers of Mercia, Northumbria, and Wessex, and the scenes of witena-gemóts long before London could boast of similar favours. Yet none of these equals London in extent, population, wealth, or political importance.

The tenure of the City of London compared with other boroughs.

We must therefore look for other causes of London's pre-eminence, and among these, we may reckon the fact that the City has never been subject to any over-lord except the king. It never formed a portion of the king's demesne (dominium), but has ever been held by its burgesses as tenants in capite by burgage (free socage) tenure. Other towns like[pg 003] Bristol, Plymouth, Beverley, or Durham, were subject to over-lords, ecclesiastical or lay, in the person of archbishop, bishop, abbot, baron or peer of the realm, who kept in their own hands many of the privileges which in the more favoured City of London were enjoyed by the municipal authorities.

In the early part of the twelfth century, the town of Leicester, for instance, was divided into four parts, one of which was in the king's demesne, whilst the rest were held by three distinct over-lords. In course of time, the whole of the shares fell into the hands of Count Robert of Meulan, who left the town in demesne to the Earls of Leicester and his descendants; and to this day the borough bears on its shield the arms of the Bellomonts.[4] The town of Birmingham is said, in like manner, to bear the arms of the barons of that name; the town of Cardiff, those of the De Clares; and Manchester, those of the Byrons. Instances might be multiplied. But the arms of the City of London and of free boroughs, like Winchester, Oxford, and Exeter, are referable to no over-lord, although the borough of Southwark still bears traces in its heraldic shield of its former ecclesiastical connection.

The powers of an over-lord.

The influence of an over-lord for good or evil, over those subject to his authority, was immense. Take for instance, Sheffield, which was subject, in the reign of Elizabeth, to the Earl of Shrewsbury. The cutlery trade, even in those days, was the main-stay of the town, and yet the earl could make and unmake the rules and ordinances which governed the Cutlers'[pg 004] Company, and could claim one half of the fines imposed on its members.[5]

When, during the reign of Charles II, nearly every municipal borough in the kingdom was forced to surrender its charter to the king, the citizens of Durham surrendered theirs to the Bishop, who, to the intense horror of a contemporary writer, reserved to himself and his successors in the See the power of approving and confirming the mayor, aldermen, recorder, and common council of that city.[6]

London under the Roman Empire.

The commercial greatness of London can be traced back to the time of the Roman occupation of Britain. From being little more than a stockaded fort, situate at a point on the river's bank which admitted of an easy passage by ferry across to Southwark, London prospered under the protection afforded to its traders by the presence of the Roman legions, but it never in those days became the capital of the province. Although a flourishing centre of commerce in the middle of the first century of the Christian era, it was not deemed of sufficient importance by Suetonius, the Roman general, to run the risk of defending against Boadicea,[7] and although thought worthy of the title of Augusta—a name bestowed only on towns of exceptional standing—the Romans did not hesitate to leave both town and province to their fate as soon as danger threatened them nearer home.

Roman highways.

For military no less than for commercial purposes—and the Roman occupation of Britain was mainly a military one—good roads were essential, and these the Romans excelled in making. It is remarkable that in the Itinerary of Antoninus Pius, London figures either as the starting point or as the terminus to nearly one-half of the routes described in the portion relating to Britain.[8] The name of one and only one of these Roman highways survives in the city at the present day, and then only in its Teutonic and not Roman form—the Watling or "Wathelinga" Street, the street which led from Kent through the city of London to Chester and York, and thence by two branches to Carlisle and the neighbourhood of Newcastle. The Ermin Street, another Roman road with a Teutonic name, led from London to Lincoln, with branches to Doncaster and York, but its name no longer survives in the city.

London bridge and the city wall.

The same reasons that led the Romans to establish good roads throughout the country led them also to erect a bridge across the river from London to Southwark, and in later years to enclose the city with a wall. To the building of the bridge, which probably took place in the early years of the Roman occupation, London owed much of its youthful prosperity; whenever any accident happened to the bridge the damage was always promptly repaired. Not so with the walls of the city. They were allowed to fall into decay until the prudence and military genius of the great Alfred caused them to be repaired as a bulwark against the onslaughts of the Danes.

The departure of the Roman legions, and its consequences.

"Britain had been occupied by the Romans, but had not become Roman,"[9] and the scanty and superficial civilization which the Britons had received from the Roman occupation was obliterated by the calamities which followed the northern invasions of the fifth and following centuries. A Christian city, as Augusta had probably been, not a vestige of a Christian church of the Roman period has come down to us.[10] It quickly lapsed into paganism. Its very name disappears, and with it the names of its streets, its traditions and its customs. Its inhabitants forgot the Latin tongue, and the memories of 400 years were clean wiped out. There remains to us of the present day nothing to remind us of London under the Roman empire, save a fragment of a wall, a milestone, a few coins and statuettes, and some articles of personal ornament or domestic use—little more in fact, than what may be seen in the Museum attached to the Guildhall Library. The long subjection to Roman rule had one disastrous effect. It enervated the people and left them powerless to cope with those enemies who, as soon as the iron hand of the Roman legions was removed, came forth from their hiding places to harry the land.

Appeal to Rome for aid against the Picts and Scots. A. D. 446.

Thus it was that when the Picts and Scots again broke loose from their northern fastnesses and threatened London as they had done before (A.D. 368), they once more appealed for aid to the Roman emperor, by whose assistance the marauders had formerly been driven back. But times were different in 446 to[pg 007] what they had been in 368. The Roman empire was itself threatened with an invasion of the Goths, and the emperor had his hands too full to allow him to lend a favourable ear to the "groans of the Britons."[11]

Meeting with refusal, the Britons call in the Saxons.

Compelled to seek assistance elsewhere, the Britons invited a tribe of warriors, ever ready to let their services for hire, from the North Sea, to lend them their aid. The foreigners came in answer to the invitation, they saw, they conquered; and then they refused to leave an island the fertility of which they appreciated no less than they despised the slothfulness of its inhabitants.[12] They turned their weapons against their employers, and utterly routed them at Crayford, driving them to take refuge within the walls of London.

The battle of the "Creegan Ford." A.D. 457.

"A.D. 457 (456). This year Hengist and Æsc [Eric or Ash] his son fought against the Britons at a place called Creegan-Ford [Crayford] and there slew four thousand men, and the Britons then forsook Kent, and in great terror fled to London."[13] So runs the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and this is the sole piece of information concerning London it vouchsafes us for one hundred and fifty years following the departure of the Romans. The information,[pg 008] scant as it is, serves to show that London had not quite become a deserted city, nor had yet been devastated as others had been by the enemy. Its walls still served to afford shelter to the terrified refugees.

London, the metropolis of the East Saxons.

When next we read of her, she is in the possession of the East Saxons. How they came there is a matter for conjecture. It is possible that with the whole of the surrounding counties in the hands of the enemy, the Londoners were driven from their city to seek means of subsistence elsewhere, and that when the East Saxons took possession of it, they found houses and streets deserted. Little relishing a life within a town, they probably did not make a long stay, and, on their departure, the former inhabitants returned and the city slowly recovered its wonted appearance, as the country around became more settled.

Mellitus, the first Bishop of London, A.D. 604.

Christianity in the country had revived, and London was now to receive its first bishop. It is the year 604. "This year," writes the chronicler, "Augustine hallowed two bishops, Mellitus and Justus; Mellitus he sent to preach baptism to the East Saxons, whose king was called Seberht, son of Ricula, the sister of Ethelbert whom Ethelbert had there set as king. And Ethelbert gave to Mellitus a bishop's see at London." This passage is remarkable for two reasons:—(1) as shewing us that London was at this time situate in Essex, the kingdom of the East Saxons, and (2) that Seberht was but a roi fainéant, enjoying no real independence in spite of his dignity as ruler of the East Saxons and nominal master of London, his uncle Ethelbert, king of the Cantii, exercising a hegemony[pg 009] over "all the nations of the English as far as the Humber." [14]

Hence it is that London is spoken of by some as being the metropolis of the East Saxons,[15] and by others as being the principal city of the Cantii;[16] the fact being that, though locally situate in Essex, it was deemed the political capital of that kingdom which for the time being happened to be paramount.

St. Paul's Cathedral founded by Ethelbert.

After the death of Seberht, the Londoners became dissatisfied with their bishop and drove him out. Mellitus became in course of time Archbishop of Canterbury, whilst the Londoners again relapsed into paganism.[17] Not only was the erection of a cathedral in the city due to Ethelbert, but it was also at his instigation, if not with his treasure, that Seberht, the "wealthy sub-king of London," was, as is believed, induced to found the Abbey of Westminster.[18]

The rival Cities of London and Winchester.

When the Saxon kingdoms became united under Egbert and he became rex totius Britanniæ (A.D. 827),[pg 010] London began to take a more prominent place among the cities of the kingdom, notwithstanding its having been three times destroyed by fire between 674 and 801.[19] It became more often the seat of the royal residence, and the scene of witena-gemóts; nevertheless it was not the seat of government, much less the capital. Then and for a long time to come it had a formidable rival in Winchester, the chief town of Egbert's own kingdom of Wessex. To Winchester that king proceeded in triumph after completing the union of the Saxon kingdoms, and thither he summoned his vassals to hear himself proclaimed their overlord. From Winchester, Alfred, too, promulgated his new code of Wessex law—a part of the famous Domboc, a copy of which is said to have been at one time preserved among the archives of the City of London[20]—and the Easter gemót, no matter where the other gemóts of the year were held, was nearly always held at Winchester. When it came to a question of trade regulation, then London took precedence of Winchester. "Let one measure and one weight pass, such as is observed at London and at Winchester,"[21] enacted King Edgar, whose system of legislation was marked with so much success that "Edgar's Law" was referred to by posterity as to the old constitution of the realm.

London in the hands of the Danes.

In the meantime, the country had been invaded by a fresh enemy, and the same atrocities which the Briton had suffered at the hands of the Saxon, the[pg 011] Saxon was made to suffer at the hands of the Dane. London suffered with the rest of the kingdom. In 839 we read of a "great slaughter" there;[22] in 851 the city was in the hands of the enemy, and continued to remain at the mercy of the Danes, so much so, in fact, that in 872 we find the Danish army taking up winter quarters within its walls, as in a city that was their own.[23]

The Treaty of Wedmore, A.D. 878.

It was now, when the clouds were darkest, that Alfred, brother of King Ethelred, appeared on the scene, and after more than one signal success by land and sea, concluded the treaty of Wedmore (A.D. 878)[24] by which a vast tract of land bounded by an imaginary line drawn from the Thames along the river Lea to Bedford, and thence along the Roman Watling Street to the Welsh border, was ceded to the enemy under the name of Danelagh. The treaty, although it curtailed the Kingdom of Wessex, and left London itself at the mercy of the Danes, was followed by a period of comparative tranquillity, which allowed Alfred time to make preparations for a fresh struggle that was to wrest from the enemy the land they had won.

The Danes expelled from London.

The Danes, like the Angles and the Jutes before them, set little store by fortifications and walled towns, preferring always to defend themselves by combat in open field, and the Roman wall of the City was allowed to fall still further into decay. In the eyes of[pg 012] Alfred on the other hand, London, with its surrounding wall, was a place of the first importance, and one to be acquired and kept at all hazards. At length he achieved the object of his ambition and succeeded in driving out the Danes, (A.D. 883 or 884).[25]

Alfred "restores" London, 886-887.

Whilst the enemy directed their attention to further conquests in France and Belgium, Alfred bent his energies towards repairing the City walls and building a citadel for his defence—"the germ of that tower which was to be first the dwelling place of Kings, and then the scene of the martyrdom of their victims."[26] To his foresight in this respect was it due that the city of London was never again taken by open assault, but successfully repelled all attacks whilst the surrounding country was often devastated.

Nor did Alfred confine his attention solely to strengthening the city against attacks of enemies without or to making it more habitable. He also laid the foundation of an internal Government analagous to that established in the Shires. Under the year A.D. 886, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[27] records that "King Ælfred restored London; and all the Anglo race turned to him that were not in bondage of the Danish men; and he then committed the burgh to[pg 013] "the keeping of the aldorman Æthelred." In course of time the analogy between shire and city organization became more close. Where the former had its Shiremote, the latter had its Folkmote, meeting in St. Paul's Churchyard by summons of the great bell. The County Court found its co-relative in the Husting Court of the City; the Hundred Court in the City Wardmote.[28]

An attack of the Danes in the absence of Alfred gallantly repelled by the Citizens, A.D. 894.

For the next ten years Alfred busied himself founding a navy and establishing order in different parts of the country, but in 896 he was compelled to hasten to London from the west of England to assist in the repulse of another attack of the Danes. Two years before (894) the Danes had threatened London, having established a fortification at Beamfleate or South Benfleet, in Essex, whence they harried the surrounding country. The Londoners on that occasion joined that part of the army which Alfred had left behind in an attack upon the fort, which they not only succeeded in taking, but they "took all that there was within, as well money as women and children, and brought all to London; and all the ships they either broke in pieces or burned, or brought to London or to Rochester."[29] Nor was this all: Hasting's wife and his two sons had been made prisoners, but were chivalrously restored by Alfred.

Successful strategy of Alfred against the Danes, A.D. 896.

The Danes, however, were not to be daunted by defeat nor moved from their purpose by the generous conduct of Alfred. In 896 they again appeared. This time they erected a work on the sea, twenty miles above London. Alfred made a reconnaissance[pg 014] and closed up the river so that they found it impossible to bring out their ships.[30] They therefore abandoned their vessels and escaped across country, and "the men of London" writes the chronicler, "brought away the ships, and all those which they could not bring off they broke up, and those that were stalworth they brought into London."[31]

The London "frith-gild" under Athelstan, 925-940.

The principle of each man becoming responsible to the Government for the good behaviour of the neighbour, involved in the system of frankpledge which Alfred established throughout the whole of his kingdom, subject to his rule, was carried a step further by the citizens of London at a later date. Under Athelstan (A.D. 925-940) we find them banding together and forming an association for mutual defence of life and property, and thus assisting the executive in the maintenance of law and order. A complete code of ordinances, regulating this "frith" or peace gild, as it was called, drawn up by the bishops and reeves of the burgh, and confirmed by the members on oath, is still preserved to us.[32]

First mention of a Guildhall in London.

The enactments are chiefly directed against thieves, the measures to be taken to bring them to justice, and the penalties to be imposed on them, the formation of a common fund for the pursuit of thieves, and for making good to members any loss they may have sustained. So far, the gild undertook duties of a public character, such as are found incorporated among[pg 015] other laws of the kingdom, but it had, incidentally, also its social and religious side. When the ruling members met in their gild-hall,[33] which they did once a month, "if they could and had leisure," they enjoyed a refection with ale-drinking or "byt-filling."

The "frith-guild," something more than a mere friendly society.

Some writers see in the "frith-gild" of Athelstan's day, nothing more than a mere "friendly society," meeting together once a month, to drink their beer and consult about matters of mutual insurance and other topics of more or less social and religious character.[34] But there is evidence to show that the tie which united members of a "frith-gild" was stronger and more solemn than any which binds the members of a friendly society or voluntary association. The punishment of one who was guilty of breaking his "frith" was practically banishment or death. Such a one, in Athelstan's time, was ordered to abjure the country, which probably meant no more than that he was to leave his burgh or perhaps the shire in which he dwelt, but if ever he returned, he might be treated as a thief taken "hand-habbende" or one taken with stolen goods upon him, in other words, "with the mainour."[35] A thief so taken might lawfully be killed by the first man who met him, and the slayer was, according to the code of the "frith-gild,"[pg 016] "to be twelve pence the better for the deed."[36] Under these circumstances, it is more reasonable to suppose, that the "frith-gild" was not so much a voluntary association as one imposed upon members of the community by some public authority.[37]

Encouragement given to London merchants.

The commercial supremacy of London, not only over Winchester but over every other town in the kingdom, now becomes more distinct, for when Athelstan appointed moneyers or minters throughout the country, he assigned eight (the largest number of all) to London, whilst for Winchester he appointed only six, other towns being provided with but one or at most two.[38] The king, moreover, showed his predilection for London by erecting a mansion house for himself within the city's walls.

The encouragement which Athelstan gave to commercial enterprise by enacting, that any merchant who undertook successfully three voyages across the high seas at his own cost (if not in his own vessel) should rank as a thane,[39] must have affected the London burgess more than those of any other town.

Return of the Danes temp. Ethelred the Unready, 991-994.

Under Ethelred II, surnamed the "Unready" or "redeless" from his indifference to the "rede" or council of his advisers, the city would again have[pg 017] fallen into the hands of the Danes, but for the personal courage displayed by its inhabitants and the protection which, by Alfred's foresight, the walls were able to afford them. In 994, Olaf and Sweyn sailed up the Thames with a large fleet and threatened to burn London. Obstinate fighting took place, but the enemy, we are told, "sustained more harm and evil than they ever deemed that any townsman could do to them, for the Holy Mother of God, on that day, manifested her mercy to the townsmen and delivered them from their foes."[40]

The first payment of Danegelt, 991.

Matters might not have been so bad had not the king already committed the fatal error of attempting to secure peace by buying off the enemy. In 991, he had, with the consent of his witan, raised the sum of £10,000 with which he had bribed the Danish host. This was the origin of the tax known as Danegelt, which in after years became one of the chief financial resources of the Crown and continued almost uninterruptedly down to the reign of Henry II. The effect of the bribe was naturally enough to induce the enemy to make further depredations whenever in want of money; and accordingly, a Danish fleet threatened London the very next year (992) and again in 994. On this last occasion, the same wretched expedient was resorted to, and the Danes were again bought off.

The massacre of Danes 13th Nov., 1002.

Nor was cowardice the only charge of which Ethelred was guilty. To this must be added treachery and murder. In the year 1002, when he married the daughter of the Duke of Normandy, hoping thereby[pg 018] to win the Duke's friendship and to close the harbours on the French coast against Sweyn, Ethelred issued secret orders for a massacre of all Danes found in England. In this massacre, which took place on the Festival of St. Brice (13th Nov.), perished Gunhild, sister of Sweyn. Under these circumstances, it can scarcely be wondered at, that thenceforth the Danish invasions became more frequent, more systematic, and more extensive than ever.

For four years they continued their depredations "cruelly marking every shire in Wessex with burning and with harrying." Then they were again bought off with a sum of £36,000, and two years' respite (1007-8) was gained.[41] It was a respite and no more. As soon as they had spent their money, they came again, and in 1009 made several assaults on London—"They often fought against the town of London, but to God be praise that it yet stands sound, and they have ever fared ill."[42] Every year they struck deeper into the heart of the country, and carried their plundering expeditions from Wessex into Mercia and East Anglia.

The murder of Abp. Alphage, 1012.

In 1011 Canterbury was taken and sacked, Alphage, the Archbishop, being made prisoner, and carried away by the Danish fleet to Greenwich. Finding it impossible to extort a ransom, they brutally murdered him (19th May, 1012), in one of their drunken moods, pelting him in their open court or "husting" with bones and skulls of oxen.[43] The worthy prelate's corpse was allowed to be removed to London[pg 019] where it was reverently interred in St. Paul's. A few years later, Cnut caused it to be transferred with due solemnity to the Archbishop's own metropolitan church of Canterbury.

Sweyn again attacks London, A.D. 1013.

In the following year, Sweyn was so successful in reducing the Northumbrians and the inhabitants of the five boroughs,[44] as well as the towns of Winchester and Oxford, taking hostages from each as he went, that he thought he might venture once more to attack London itself; hoping for better success than had attended him on previous occasions. He was the more anxious to capture London, because Ethelred himself was there, but he again met with such determined resistance, and so many of his followers were drowned in the Thames that for the fourth time he had to beat a retreat.[45]

London submits.

Leaving London for a while, Sweyn proceeded to conquer that part of England which still held out against him, and having accomplished his purpose, was again preparing to attack the one city which had baffled all his attempts to capture, when the Londoners themselves, finding further opposition hopeless, offered their submission and left Ethelred to take care of himself.[46] This he did by betaking himself to Normandy, where he remained until Sweyn's death in the following year (3rd Feb., 1014).

Election of Cnut, 1014.

Upon this event taking place, the crews of the Danish fleet assumed the right of disposing of the[pg 020] English crown, and elected Sweyn's son, Cnut, to be king. The English, however, compelled as they had been by superior strength to submit to the father, were in no mood to accept without a struggle the sovereignty of his son. The whole of the Witan at once declared in favour of sending for Ethelred, with the assurance "that no lord was dearer than their natural lord," if only he would promise to govern them more justly than before.[47] Ethelred sent word by Edmund his son that "he would be to them a kind lord, and amend all the things which they eschewed, and all the things should be forgiven which had been done or said to him, on condition that they all, unanimously and without treachery, would turn to him." Pledges were given and taken on either side, and thenceforth a Danish king was to be looked upon as an outlaw.[48]

Ethelred returns to London.

When Ethelred arrived in England, he was accompanied according to an Icelandic Saga,[49] by King Olaf, of Norway, who assisted him in expelling the Danes from Southwark, and gaining an entrance into the city. The manner in which this was carried out, is thus described. A small knot of Danes occupied a stronghold in the City, whilst others were in possession of Southwark. Between the two lay London Bridge—a wooden bridge, "so broad that two waggons could pass each other upon it"—fortified by barricades, towers, and parapets, and manned by Danes. Ethelred was naturally very anxious to get possession[pg 021] of the bridge, and a meeting of chiefs was summoned to consult how it could be done. Olaf promised to lay his fleet alongside the bridge if the English would do the same. This was agreed upon. Having covered in the decks of the vessels with a wooden roof to protect the crew and fighting men, Olaf succeeded in rowing light up to the bridge and laying cables round its piers. This done, he caused his ships to head down stream and the crews to row their hardest. The result was that the piles were loosened and the bridge, heavily weighted by the Danes who were fighting upon it, gave way. Many were thrown into the river, whilst others made good their retreat to Southwark, which was soon afterwards stormed and taken. This incident in connection with Ethelred's return formed the subject of more than one Scandinavian poem, of which the following may serve as a specimen:—

"London Bridge is broken down—

Gold is won and bright renown.

Shields resounding,

War-horns sounding,

Hildur shouting in the din!

Arrows singing,

Mail-coats ringing—

Odin makes our Olaf win!"

Drives Cnut out of England.

For a short while after his return Ethelred displayed a spirit of patriotism and courage beyond any he had hitherto shown. He succeeded in surprising and defeating the Danes in that district of Lincolnshire known as Lindsey, and drove Cnut to take refuge in his ships, and eventually to sail away to Denmark.[50]

Return of Cnut, A.D. 1015.

It was not long before he again appeared; he was then, however, to meet in the field Ethelred's son, Edmund, whose valour had gained for him the name of Ironside. This spirited youth, forming a striking contrast to the weak and pusillanimous character of his father, had collected a force to withstand the enemy, but the men refused to fight unless Ethelred came with them, and unless they had "the support of the citizens of London."[51] A message was therefore sent to him at London to take the field with such a force as he could gather. Father and son thereupon joined forces; but the king was in ill-health, and it wanted but a whisper of treachery to send him back to the security of London's walls. Thither, too, marched Cnut, but before he arrived Ethelred had died (23rd April, 1016).[52] The late king was buried in St. Paul's.[53]

The laws of Ethelred regulating foreign trade.

The city of London had by this time attained a position higher than it had ever reached before. "We cannot as yet call it the capital of the kingdom, but its geographical position made one of the chief bulwarks of the land, and in no part of the realm do we find the inhabitants outdoing the patriotism and courage of its valiant citizens."[54] Under Edgar the foreign trade with the city had increased to such an extent that Ethelred, his son, deemed it time to draw up a code of laws to regulate the customs to be paid by the merchants of France and Flanders as well as by the "emperor's men," the fore-runners of those "easterling" merchants, who, from their headquarters[pg 023] in the Steel-yard at Dowgate, subsequently became known as merchants of the Steel-yard.[55]

Among the multitude of foreigners that in after-years thronged the streets of the city bartering pepper and spices from the far east, gloves and cloth, vinegar and wine, in exchange for the rural products of the country, might be seen the now much hated but afterwards much favoured Dane.[56] The Dane was again master of all England, except London, and Ethelred's kingdom, before the close of his reign, was confined within the narrow limits of the city's walls; "that true-hearted city was once more the bulwark of England, the centre of every patriotic hope, the special object of every hostile attack."[57]

Election of Edmund Ironside by the Londoners, 1016.

At Ethelred's death the Witan who were in London united with the inhabitants of the city in choosing Edmund as his successor. This is the first recorded instance of the Londoners having taken a direct part in the election of a king. Cnut disputed Edmund's right to the crown, and proceeded to attack the city. He sailed up the Thames with his fleet, but being unable to pass the bridge, he dug a canal on the south side of the river, whereby he was enabled to carry his ships above bridge, and so invest the city along the whole length of the riverside. To complete the investment, and so prevent any of the inhabitants escaping either by land or water, he[pg 024] ditched the city round, so that none could pass in or out.[58]

Cnut's attempts on London frustrated.

This, as well as two other attempts made by Cnut within a few weeks of each other to capture London by siege, were frustrated by the determined opposition of the citizens.[59] "Almighty God saved it," as the chronicler piously remarks.[60]

Victory of the Danes at Assandun, 1016.

Nor was Cnut more successful in the field, being worsted in no less than five pitched battles against Edmund, until by the treachery of Edmund's brother-in-law, Eadric, alderman of Mercia, he succeeded at last in vanquishing the English army on the memorable field of Assandun.[61]

Agreement between Edmund and Cnut for partition of the kingdom.

After this Edmund reluctantly consented to a conference and a division of the kingdom. The meeting took place at Olney, and there it was agreed that Edmund should retain his crown, and rule over all England south of the Thames, together with East Anglia, Essex and London, whilst Cnut should enjoy the rest of the kingdom. "The citizens, beneath whose walls the power of Cnut and his father had been so often shattered, now made peace with the Danish host. As usual, money was paid to them, and they were allowed to winter as friends within the unconquered city."[62]

Cnut king of all England, 1016-1035.

The partition of the kingdom between Edmund and Cnut had scarcely been agreed upon before the former unexpectedly died (30th Nov., 1016) and Cnut[pg 025] became master of London and king of all England. His rule was mild, beneficent and just, recognising no distinction between Dane and Englishman, and throughout his long reign of nearly twenty years the citizens of London enjoyed that perfect peace so necessary for the successful exercise of their commercial pursuits.

Election of Cnut's Successors. 1183.

At the election of Cnut's successor which took place at Oxford in 1035, the Londoners again played an important part. This time, however, it was not the "burhwaru or burgesses" of the City who attended the gemót which had been summoned for the purpose of election, but "lithsmen" of London.

The lithsmen of London attend gemót at Oxford.

As to who these "lithsmen" were, and how they came to represent the City (if indeed they represented the City at all) on this important occasion much controversy has arisen. To some they appear as nothing more than the "nautic multitude" or "sea-faring men" of London.[63] On the other hand, there are those who hold that they were merchants who had achieved thane right under the provisions of Athelstan's day already mentioned;[64] whilst there are still others who are inclined to look upon them as so many commercial travellers who had made their way to Oxford by river in the ordinary course of business, and who happened by good fortune to have been in that city at the time of a great political crisis.[65] The truth[pg 026] probably lies somewhere between these extremes. The "lithsmen" may not themselves have been thanes, although they are recorded as having been at Oxford with almost all the thanes north of the Thames;[66] but that they were something more than mere watermen, such as we shall see joining with the apprentices of London at important political crises, and that they were acting more or less as representatives of the Londoners who had already acquired a predominant voice in such matters, seems beyond doubt.

Londoners desire for peace above all things.

During the next thirty years London took no prominent part in the affairs of the country, content if only allowed to have leisure to mind its own business. The desire for peace is the key-note to the action of the citizens of London at every important crisis. Without peace, commerce became paralyzed. Peace could be best secured by a strong government, and such a government, whether in the person of a king or protector could count upon their support. "For it they were ready to devote their money and their lives, for commerce, the child of opportunity, brought wealth; wealth power; and power led independence in its train." The quarrels of the half-brothers, Harold and Harthacnut, the attempt by one or both of the sons of Ethelred and Emma to recover their father's kingdom, and the question of the innocence or guilt of Earl Godwine in connection with the murder of one of them, affected the citizens of London only so far as such disturbances were likely to impede the traffic of the Thames or to make it dangerous for them to convey their merchandise along the highways of the country.

Revival of Danegelt, A.D., 1040.

The payment of Danegelt at the accession of Harthacnut (A.D. 1040),[67] probably touched the feelings, as it certainly did the pockets, of the Londoners, more than any other event which happened during this period.

London the recognised capital, temp. Edward, Confessor.

Upon the sudden death of Harthacnut (A.D. 1042), who died in a fit "as he stood at his drink,"[68] the choice of the whole nation fell on Edward, his half-brother—"before the king buried were, all folk chose Edward to king at London."[69] The share that the Londoners took in this particular election is not so clear as in other cases. Nevertheless, the importance of the citizens was daily growing, and by the time of the accession of Edward the Confessor, the City was recognised as the capital of the kingdom, the chief seat for the administration of the law, and the place where the king usually resided.[70]

Gemóts held in London.

In early Saxon times the witan had met in any town where the king happened at the time to be; and although theoretically every freeman had a right to attend its meetings, practically the citizens of the town wherein the gemót happened at the time to be held, enjoyed an advantage over freemen coming from a distance. Alfred ordained that the witan should[pg 028] meet in London for purposes of legislation twice a year.[71] Athelstan, Edmund and Edgar had held gemóts in London, the last mentioned king holding a great gemót (mycel gemót) in St. Paul's Church in 973.

London declares for Godwine, 1052.

During the reign of Edward the Confessor, at least six meetings of the witan took place in London; the more important of these being held in 1051 and the following year. By the gemót of 1051, which partook of the nature of a court-martial, Earl Godwine was condemned to banishment; but before a twelve-month had elapsed, he was welcomed back at a great assembly or mycel gemót held in the open air without the walls of London.[72] The nation had become disatisfied owing to the king's increasing favour to Norman strangers, but the earl desired to learn how stood the City of London towards him, and for this purpose made a stay at Southwark. He was soon satisfied on this point. "The townsfolk of the great city were not a whit behind their brethren of Kent and Sussex in their zeal for the national cause. The spirit which had beaten back Swend and Cnut, the spirit which was in after times to make London ever the stronghold of English freedom, the spirit which made its citizens foremost in the patriot armies alike of the thirteenth and of the seventeenth centuries, was now as warm in the hearts of those gallant burghers as in any earlier or later age. With a voice all but unanimous, the citizens declared in favour of the deliverer; a few votes only, the votes, it may be, of strangers or of courtiers, were given[pg 029] against the emphatic resolution, that what the earl would the city would."[73] Having secured the favour of London his cause was secure. That the citizens heartily welcomed the earl, going forth in a body to meet him on his arrival, we learn also from another source;[74] although, one at least of the ancient chroniclers strongly hints that the favour of the citizens had been obtained by bribes and promises.[75] The earl's return was marked by decrees of outlawry against the king's foreign favourites, whose malign influence he had endeavoured formerly to counteract, and who had proved themselves strong enough to procure the banishment of himself and family.

The dedication of Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1065.

The last gemót held under Edward was one specially summoned to meet at Westminster at the close of the year 1065, for the purpose of witnessing the dedication of the new abbey church which the king loved so well and to which his remains were so shortly afterwards to be carried.

Death of Edward the Confessor.

He died at the opening of the year, and the same witan who had attended his obsequies elected Harold, the late Earl Godwine's son, as his successor. This election, however, was doomed to be overthrown by the powerful sword of William the Norman.

[pg 030]

CHAPTER II.

The landing of William, and Battle of Senlac, 1066.

As soon as the news of Harold's coronation reached William of Normandy, he claimed the crown which Edward the Confessor had promised him. According to every principle of succession recognised in England, at the time, he had no right to the crown whatever. When the Norman invader landed at Pevensey, Harold was at York, having recently succeeded in defeating his brother Tostig, the deposed Earl of Northumbria, who, with the assistance of Harold Hardrada, had attacked the northern earls, Edwine and Morkere. On hearing of the Duke's landing, Harold hastened to London. A general muster of forces was there ordered, and Edwine and Morkere, who were bound to Harold by family tie—the King having married their sister—were bidden to march southward with the whole force of their earldoms. But neither gratitude for their late deliverance at the hands of their brother-in-law, nor family affection, could hurry the steps of these earls, and they arrived too late. The battle of Senlac, better known as the battle of Hastings, had been won and lost (14th Oct., 1066), the Norman was conqueror, and Harold had perished. For a second time within twelve months the English throne was vacant.[76]

The times were too critical to hold a formal gemót for the election of a successor to the throne; but the[pg 031] citizens of London and the sailors or "butsecarls" (whom it is difficult not to associate with the "lithsmen" of former days) showed a marked predilection in favour of Edgar the Atheling, grandson of Edmund Ironside, and the sole survivor of the old royal line. The Archbishop, too, as well as the northern earls, were in his favour, but the latter soon withdrew to their respective earldoms and left London and the Atheling to their fate.[77] Thus, "the patriotic zeal of the men of London was thwarted by the base secession of the northern traitors."

William's March to London.

After waiting awhile at Hastings for the country to make voluntary submission, and finding that homagers did not come in, William proceeded to make a further display of force. In this he betrayed no haste, but made his way through Kent in leisurely fashion, receiving on his way the submission of Winchester and Canterbury, using no more force than was absolutely necessary, and endeavouring to allay all fears, until at length he reached the suburbs of London.[78]

He had been astute enough to give out that he came not to claim a crown, but only a right to be put in nomination for it. To the mind of the Londoner, such quibbling failed to commend itself, and the citizens lost no time in putting their city into a posture[pg 032] of defence, determined not to surrender it without a blow.

Sets fire to Southwark in hopes of terrifying the citizens.

Upon William's arrival in Southwark, the citizens sallied forth. They were, however, beaten back after a sharp skirmish, and compelled to seek shelter again within their city's walls. William hesitated to make a direct attack upon the city, but hoped by setting fire to Southwark to strike terror into the inhabitants and bring them to a voluntary surrender. He failed in his object; the city still held out, and William next resorted to diplomacy.

Negotiations between William and the City.

The ruling spirit within the city at that time was Ansgar or Esegar the "Staller" under whom, as Sheriff of Middlesex, the citizens had marched out to fight around the royal standard at Hastings. He had been carried wounded from the field, and was now borne hither and thither on a litter, encouraging the citizens to make a stout defence of their city. To him, it is said, William sent a private message from Berkhampstead, asking only that the Conqueror's right to the crown of England might be acknowledged and nothing more, the real power of the kingdom might remain with Ansgar if he so willed. Determined not to be outwitted by the Norman, Ansgar (so the story goes) summoned a meeting of the eldermen (natu majores) of the City—the forerunners of the later aldermen—and proposed a feigned submission which might stave off immediate danger. The proposal was accepted and a messenger despatched. William pretended to accept the terms offered, and at the same time so worked upon the messenger with fair promises and gifts that on his return he converted his fellow citizens and[pg 033] induced them by representations of the Conqueror's friendly intentions and of the hopelessness of resistance, to make their submission to him, and to throw over the young Atheling.

London submits to the Conqueror.

Whatever poetic tinge there may be about the story as told by Guy of Amiens, it is certain that the citizens came to the same resolution, in effect, as that described by the poet, nor could they well have done otherwise. The whole of the country for miles around London, had already tendered submission or been forced into it. The city had become completely isolated, and sooner or later its inhabitants must have been starved out. There was, moreover, a strong foreign element within its walls.[79] Norman followers of Edward the Confessor were ever at hand to counsel submission. London submitted, the citizens accepting the rule of the Norman Conqueror as they had formerly accepted that of Cnut the Dane, "from necessity." An embassy was despatched to Berkhampstead, comprising the Archbishop of York, the young Atheling, the earls Edwine and Morkere, and "all the best men of London," to render homage and give hostages,[80] and thus it was, that within three months of his landing, William was acknowledged as the lawfully elected King of England, and, as such, he crowned himself at Westminster, promising to govern the nation as well as any king before him if they would be faithful to him.

His charter to the citizens of London.

The conciliatory spirit of William towards the Londoners is seen in the favourable terms he was ready to concede them. Soon after his coronation—[pg 034] the precise date cannot be determined—he granted them a charter,[81] by which he clearly declared his purpose not to reduce the citizens to a state of dependent vassalage, but to establish them in all the rights and privileges they had hitherto enjoyed.

The charter, rendered into modern English, runs as follows:—

"William, King, greets William, Bishop, and Gosfregdh, Portreeve, and all the burgesses within London, French and English, friendly. And I give you to know that I will that ye be all those laws worthy that ye were in King Eadward's day.[82] And I will that every child be his father's heir after his father's day and I will not suffer that any man offer you any wrong. God keep you."

The terms of the charter are worthy of study. They are primarily remarkable as indicating that the City of London was, at the time, subject to a government which combined the secular authority of the port-reeve with the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop. It was said, indeed, to have been greatly due to the latter's intercession that the charter was[pg 035] granted at all, and, in this belief, the mayor and aldermen were long accustomed to pay a solemn visit to the bishop's tomb in St. Paul's church, there to hear a De profundis on the day when the new mayor took his oath of office before the Barons of the Exchequer.[83]

The office of port-reeve.

As regards the port-reeve—the port-gerefa, i.e., reeve of the port or town of London[84]—the nature and extent of his duties and authority, much uncertainty exists. Whilst, in many respects, his position in a borough was analogous no doubt to the shire-reeve or sheriff of a county, there were, on the other hand, duties belonging to and exercised by the one which were not exercised by the other. Thus, for instance, the port-reeve, unlike the sheriff, exercised no judicial functions in a criminal court, nor presided over court-leets in the city as the sheriff did in his county by turn, the latter being held independently by the alderman of each ward.[85]

The foreign element already existing in the City.

Its increase after the Conquest.

The charter makes no new grant.

In the next place the charter brings prominently to our notice the fact that there was already existing within the City's walls a strong Norman element, existing side by side with the older English burgesses,[pg 036] which the Conqueror did well not to ignore. The descendants of the foreign merchants from France and Normandy, for whose protection Ethelred had legislated more than half a century before, had continued to carry on their commercial intercourse with the Londoners, and were looking forward to a freer interchange of merchandise now that the two countries were under one sovereign. Their expectation was justified. No sooner had London submitted to the Norman Conqueror than, we are told, "many of the citizens of Rouen and Caen passed over thither, preferring to be dwellers in that city, inasmuch as it was fitter for their trading, and better stored with the merchandise in which they were wont to traffic."[86] But by far the most important clause in the charter is that which places the citizens of London in the same position respecting the law of the land as they enjoyed in the days of their late king, Edward the Confessor. Here there is distinct evidence that the Conqueror had come "neither to destroy, nor to found, but to continue."[87] The charter granted nothing new; it only ratified and set the royal seal[88] to the rights and privileges of the citizens already in existence.

William's other charter granting the sheriffwick of London.

It is recorded that William granted another charter to the citizens of London, vesting in them the City and Sheriffwick of London, and this charter the citizens proffered as evidence of their rights over the cloister and church of St. Martin le Grand, when those[pg 037] rights were challenged in the reign of Henry VI.[89] This charter has since been lost.

The strong government of William.

The compact thus made between London and the Conqueror was faithfully kept by both parties. Having ascended the English throne by the aid of the citizens of London, William, unlike many of his successors, was careful not to infringe the terms of their charter, whilst the citizens on the other hand continued loyal to their accepted king, and lent him assistance to put down insurgents in other parts of the kingdom. The fortress which William erected within their city's walls did not disturb their equanimity. It was sufficient for them that, under the Conqueror's rule, the country was once more peaceful, so peaceful that, according to the chronicler, a young maiden could travel the length of England without being injured or robbed.[90]

"Doomsday" Book completed.

The close of the reign of William the First witnessed the completion of "Doomsday," or survey of the kingdom, which he had ordered to be made for fiscal purposes. For some reason not explained, neither London nor Winchester—the two capitals, so to speak, of the kingdom—were included in this survey. It may be that the importance of these boroughs,[pg 038] their wealth and population, necessitated some special method of procedure; but this does not account for the omission of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, and Durham, from the survey. We know that Winchester was afterwards surveyed, but no steps in the same direction were ever taken with respect to London. The survey was not effected without disturbances, owing to the inquisitorial power vested in the commissioners appointed to carry it out.

Death of William the Conqueror, and accession of his son, 1087.

William died whilst on a visit to his duchy of Normandy, and "he who was before a powerful king, and lord of many a land, had then of all his land, only a portion of seven feet."[91] the same which, to this day, holds his mortal remains in the Abbey at Caen. He was succeeded by William his son. The death of the father and accession of his son was marked by fire, pestilence, and famine.[92]

St. Paul's destroyed by fire, 1087.

A fire destroyed St. Paul's and the greater part of the City. Maurice, Bishop of London, at once set to work to rebuild the Cathedral on a larger and more magnificent scale, erecting the edifice upon arches in a manner little known in England at that time, but long practised in France. The Norman Conquest was already working for good. Not only the style of architecture, but the very stone used in re-building St. Paul's came from France, the famous quarries of Caen being utilised for the purpose.[93]

There was already in the city, one church built after the same manner, and on that account called St. Mary of Arches or "le Bow." The object of[pg 039] setting churches and other buildings upon vaults was to guard against fire. Whatever defence against fire this method of building may have afforded, it was certainly no defence against wind. In 1091, the roof of St. Mary-le-Bow was clean blown off, huge baulks of timber, 26 feet long, being driven into the ground with such force that scarce 4 feet of them could be seen.[94]

The Tower strengthened and the bridge repaired, 1097.

The reign of the new king was one of oppression. Nevertheless, he continued to secure that protection for life and property which his father had so successfully achieved, so that a man "who had confidence in himself" and was "aught," could travel the length and breadth of the land unhurt, "with his bosom full of gold."[95] He also had an eye for the protection of the city, and the advancement of its commerce, surrounding the Tower of London by a wall, and repairing the bridge which had been nearly washed away by a flood.[96]

Election of Henry I by the Witan at Winchester, 1100.

On the 2nd August, 1100, the Red King met his death suddenly in the New Forest, and the next day was buried at Winchester. According to a previous agreement, the crown should have immediately devolved upon his brother Robert. Crowns, however, were not to be thus disposed of; they fell only to those ready and strong enough to seize them. Robert was far away on a crusade. His younger brother Henry was on the spot, and upon him fell the choice of such of the witan as happened to be in or near Winchester at the time of the late king's death.[97]

Their choice confirmed by the City of London.

The two days that elapsed before his coronation at Westminster (5th August), the king-elect spent in London, where by his easy and eloquent manner, as well as by fair promises, he succeeded in winning the inhabitants over to his cause, to the rejection of the claims of Robert. The election, or perhaps we should rather say, the selection of Henry by the witan at Winchester, was thus approved and confirmed by the whole realm (regni universitas), in the city of London.

The choice was made however on one condition, viz.:—that Henry should restore to his subjects their ancient liberties and customs enjoyed in the days of Edward the Confessor.[98] The charter thus obtained served as an exemplar for the great charter of liberties which was to be subsequently wrung from King John.

Henry's charter to the City of London.

Another charter was granted by the new king—a charter to the citizens of London—granted, as some have thought, soon after his accession, and by way of recognition of the services they had rendered him towards obtaining the crown. This however appears to be a mistake. There is reason for supposing that this charter was not granted until at least thirty years after he was seated on the throne.[99]

The main features of the charter.

The chief features of the grant[100] were that the citizens were thenceforth to be allowed to hold Middlesex to farm at a rent of £300 a year, and to[pg 041] appoint from among themselves whom they would to be sheriff over it; they were further to be allowed to appoint their own justiciar to hold pleas of the crown, and no other justiciar should exercise authority over them; they were not to be forced to plead without the city's walls; they were to be exempt from scot and lot and of all payments in respect of Danegelt and murder; they were to be allowed to purge themselves after the English fashion of making oath and not after the Norman fashion by wager of battle; their goods were to be free of all manner of customs, toll, passage and lestage; their husting court might sit once a week; and lastly, they might resort to "withernam" or reprisal in cases where their goods had been unlawfully seized.

The grant of Middlesex to ferm, and choice of sheriff.

Touching the true import of this grant of Middlesex to the citizens at a yearly rent, with the right of appointing their own sheriff over it, no less than the identity of the justiciar whom they were to be allowed to choose for themselves for the purpose of hearing pleas of the crown within the city, much divergence of opinion exists. Some believe that the government of the city was hereby separated from that of the shire wherein it was situate, and that the right of appointing their own justiciar which the citizens obtained by this charter was the right of electing a sheriff for the city of London in the place of the non-elective ancient port-reeve. Others deny that the charter introduced the shire organization into the government of the city, and believe the justiciar and sheriff to have been distinct officials.[101] The latter appear to hold the more plausible view. Putting aside[pg 042] the so-called charter of William the First, granting to the citizens in express terms civitatem et vice-comitatum Londoniæ, as wanting in corroboration, a solution of the difficulty may be found if we consider (1) that the city received a shire organization and became in itself to all intents and purposes a county as soon as it came to be governed by a port-reeve, if not as soon as an alderman had been set over it by Alfred; (2) that the duties of the shrievalty in respect of the county of the city of London were at this time performed either by a port-reeve or by one or more officers, known subsequently as sheriffs, and (3) that for the right of executing these duties no rent or ferm was ever demanded or paid.[102]

If this be a correct view of the matter, it would appear that the effect of Henry's grant of Middlesex to the citizens to farm, and of the appointment of a sheriff over it of their own choice, was not so much to render the city independent of the shire, as to make the shire subject to the city. It must be borne in mind that no sheriff (or sheriffs) has ever been elected by the citizens for Middlesex alone, the duties appertaining to the sheriff-wick of Middlesex having always been performed by the sheriffs of the city for the time being.[103] Hence it is that the shrievalty of London and Middlesex is often spoken of as the shrievalty of "London" alone, and the shrievalty of[pg 043] "Middlesex" alone (the same officers executing the duties of both shrievalties) and the firma of £300 paid for the shrievalty of Middlesex alone is sometimes described as the firma of "London," sometimes of "Middlesex," and sometimes of "London and Middlesex."[104]

The citizens' right to elect their own Justiciar.

The right of electing their own justiciar granted to the citizens by Henry resolves itself into little more than a confirmation of the right to elect their own sheriffs.[105] Just as sheriffs are known to have held pleas of the crown in the counties up to the time of the Great Charter (although their duties were modified by Henry I, and again by Henry II, when he appointed Justices in eyre) so in the city of London, no one, except the sheriffs of London could hold pleas of the crown, and an attempt made by the Barons in 1258 to introduce a justiciar into the Guildhall was persistently challenged by the citizens.[106]

Even those who stedfastly maintain that in the country the sheriff and justiciar grew up to be two distinct officers, the one representing local interest and the other imperial, are willing to allow that in the[pg 044] city of London such distinction was evanescent. The office of justiciar in the city was twice granted eo nomine to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and it is twice mentioned as having been held by one named Gervase, who (there is reason to believe) is identical with Gervase de Cornhill, a Sheriff of London in 1155 and 1156; but the office became extinct at the accession of Henry II.[107]

London and the election of Stephen, 1135

The events which followed Henry's decease afford us another instance of the futility of all attempts at this early period to settle the succession to the crown before the throne was actually vacant. The King's nephew, Stephen of Blois, and the nobility of England had sworn to accept the King's daughter Matilda, wife of Geoffery of Anjou, as their sovereign on the death of her father; yet when that event took place in 1135, Stephen, in spite of his oath, claimed the crown as nearest male heir of the Conqueror's blood.[108]

There was no doubt of his popularity, whilst Matilda on the other hand injured her cause by marrying an Angevin. On the continent a bitter feud existed between Norman and Angevin; in England the Norman had steadily increased in favour, and England's crown was Stephen's if he had courage enough to seize it.

Landing on the Kentish coast, his first reception was far from encouraging. Canterbury and Dover, held by the Earl of Gloucester, refused to acknowledge[pg 045] him and closed their gates on his approach. Undismayed by these rebuffs, Stephen pushed on to London, where he was welcomed by every token of good will. The Londoners had been no party to the agreement to recognise Matilda as Henry's successor; they had become accustomed to exercising a right of sharing in the choice of a king who should reign over them, and they now chose Stephen. "It was their right, their special privilege," said they, "on the occasion of the king's decease, to provide another in his place."[109] There was no time to be lost, the country was in danger, Stephen was at hand, sent to them, as they believed, by the goodness of Providence. They could not do better than elect him: and elected he was by the assembled aldermen or eldermen (majores natu) of the City.

Such is the story of Stephen's election as given by the author of the "Gesta Stephani," one who wrote as an eye-witness of what took place, but whose statements cannot always be taken as those of an independent chronicler of events. Informal as this election may have been, it marks an important epoch in the annals of London. Thenceforth the city assumes a pre-eminent position and exercises a predominant influence in the public affairs of the kingdom.[110]

Coronation of Stephen, December, 1135.

From London Stephen went down to Winchester, where he was heartily welcomed by his brother Henry,[pg 046] recently appointed papal legate. Next to London, it was important that Stephen should secure Winchester, and now that London had spoken, the citizens of Winchester no longer hesitated to throw in their lot with the king. Winchester secured, and Stephen put in possession of the royal castle and treasury, he returned to London, where all doubts as to the validity or invalidity of his election were set at rest by the ceremony of coronation (Dec. 1135).

A great Council held in London, April, 1136.

In the spring of the following year (April 1136), a brilliant council of the clergy and magnates of the realm was held in London,[111] reminding one of the Easter courts of the days of the Conqueror which latterly had been shorn of much of their splendour. The occasion was one for introducing the new king to his subjects as well as for confirming the liberties of the church, and Stephen may have taken special care to surround it with exceptional splendour as a set off against the meagreness which had characterised the recent ceremony of his coronation.[112]

Arrival of the Empress Matilda in England. 1139.

In the meanwhile the injured Matilda appealed to Rome, but only with the result that her rival received formal recognition from the Pope. Three years later (1139) she landed in England accompanied by her brother, the Earl of Gloucester. She soon obtained a following, more especially in the west; and Winchester—the seat of the royal residence of the queens of England since the time when Ethelred presented the city as a "morning gift" to his consort at their marriage—became her headquarters and rallying[pg 047] point for her supporters, whilst London served in the same way for Stephen.

Attempted negotiations between Stephen and Matilda, May, 1140.

After nine months of sieges and counter sieges, marches and counter marches, in which neither party could claim any decided success, Stephen, as was his wont, withdrew to London and shut himself up in the Tower, with only a single bishop, and he a foreigner, in his train. Whilst safe behind the walls of that stronghold, negotiations were opened between him and the empress for a peaceful settlement of their respective claims (May, 1140), Henry of Winchester acting as intermediary between the rival parties.[113] The negotiations ended without effecting the desired result.

Matilda formally acknowledged "Lady of England," 1141.

Matters assumed an entirely different aspect when Stephen was made prisoner at Lincoln in the following year (2nd Feb., 1141). Henry of Winchester forsook his rôle of arbitrator, and entered into a formal compact with the empress who arrived before Winchester with the laurels of her recent success yet fresh, agreeing to receive her as "Lady of England," (Domina Angliæ) and promising her the allegiance of himself and his followers so long as she would keep her oath and allow him a free hand in ecclesiastical matters.[114]

A synod at Winchester, 7th April, 1141.

This compact was entered into on the 2nd March, and on the following day the empress was received with solemn pomp into Winchester Cathedral. It remained for the compact to be ratified. For this purpose an ecclesiastical synod was summoned to sit at Winchester on the 7th April. The day was spent by the legate holding informal communications with the bishops, abbots, and archdeacons who were in attendance, and who then for the first time in England's history claimed the right not only of consecration, but of election of the sovereign.[115]

On the 8th April, Henry in a long speech announced to the assembled clergy the result of the conclave of the previous day. He extolled the good government of the late king who before his death had caused fealty to be sworn to his daughter, the empress. The delay of the empress in coming to England (he said) had been the cause of Stephen's election. The latter had forfeited all claim to the crown by his bad government, and God's judgment had been pronounced against him. Lest therefore, the nation should suffer for want of a sovereign, he, as legate, had summoned them together, and by them the empress had been elected Lady of England. The speech was received with unanimous applause, those to whom the election did not commend itself being wise enough to hold their tongue.

The Londoners summoned to attend the synod.

But there was another element to be considered before Matilda's new title could be assured. What would the Londoners who had taken the initiative in setting Stephen on the throne, and still owed to them[pg 049] their allegiance, say to it? The legate had foreseen the difficulty that might arise if the citizens, whom he described as very princes of the realm, by reason of the greatness of their city (qui sunt quasi optimates pro magnitudine civitatis in Anglia), could not be won over. He had, therefore, sent a special safe conduct for their attendance, so he informed the meeting after the applause which followed his speech had died away, and he expected them to arrive on the following day. If they pleased they would adjourn till then.

They arrive and request the king's release, 9th April, 1141.

The next day (9th April) the Londoners arrived, as the legate had foretold, and were ushered before the council. They had been sent, they said, by the so called "commune" of London; and their purpose was not to enter into debate, but only to beg for the release of their lord, the king.[116] The statement was supported by all the barons then present who had entered the commune of the city[117] and met with the approval of the archbishop and all the clergy in attendance. Their solicitations, however, proved of no avail. The legate replied with the same arguments he had used the day before, adding that it ill became the Londoners who were regarded as nobles (quasi proceres) in the land to foster those who had basely deserted their king on the field of battle, and who only curried favour with the citizens in order to fleece them of their money.

Their request backed up by a letter from the Queen.

Here an interruption took place. A messenger presented to the legate a paper from Stephen's queen to read to the council. Henry took the paper, and after scanning its contents, refused to communicate them to the meeting. The messenger, however, not to be thus foiled, himself made known the contents of the paper. These were, in effect, an exhortation by the queen to the clergy, and more especially to the legate himself, to restore Stephen to liberty. The legate, however, returned the same answer as before, and the meeting broke up, the Londoners promising to communicate the decision of the council to their brethren at home, and to do their best to obtain their support.

The Londoners after much hesitation receive the Empress into their city, June, 1141.

The next two months were occupied by the empress and her supporters in preparing the way for her admission into the city, the inhabitants of which, had as yet shown but little disposition towards her. But however great their inclination may have been to Stephen, they at length found themselves forced to transfer their allegiance and to offer, for a time at least, a politic submission to the empress. Accordingly, a deputation went out to meet her at St. Albans (May 1141), and arrange terms on which the city should surrender.[118]

More delay took place; and it was not until shortly before midsummer (1141), that she entered the city. Her stay was brief. She treated the inhabitants as vanquished foes,[119] extorted large sums of[pg 051] money,[120] and haughtily refused to observe the laws of Edward the Confessor they valued so much, preferring those of the late king, her father.[121]

The Empress forced to leave the city.

The consequence was that, within a few days of her arrival in London, the inhabitants rose in revolt, drove her out of the city[122] and attacked the Tower, of which Geoffrey de Mandeville was constable, as his father William had been before him.[123]

Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and Constable of the Tower, won over by the Empress.

This Geoffrey de Mandeville had been recently created Earl of Essex by Stephen, in the hope and expectation that the fortress over which Geoffrey was governor, would be held secure for the royal cause. The newly fledged earl, however, was one who ever fought for his own hand, and was ready to sell his fortress and sword to the highest bidder. The few days that the empress was in the city, afforded her an opportunity of risking a trial to win over the earl from his allegiance. To this end she offered to confirm him in his earldom and to continue him in his office of Constable of the Tower, conferred upon him[pg 052] by Stephen; in addition to which, she was ready to allow him to enjoy lands of the rent of £100 a year, a license to fortify his castles, and the posts of sheriff and justiciar throughout his earldom. The bait was too tempting for the earl not to accept; and a charter to the above effect was drawn up and executed.[124]

Forsakes the Empress for the Queen.

Scarcely had the fickle earl consented to throw in his lot with the empress before she had to flee the city. The departure of the empress was quickly followed by the arrival of her namesake, Matilda, the valiant queen of the captured Stephen; and again the earl proved false to his allegiance and actively supported the queen in concert with the citizens.[125]

Capture of Winchester, and release of Stephen, Sept., 1141.

With his aid[126] and the aid of the Londoners,[127] the queen was enabled to reduce Winchester and to effect the liberation of her husband by exchanging the Earl of Gloucester, brother of the empress, for the captured king.

His second charter to Mandeville.

After being solemnly crowned, for the second time,[128] at Canterbury, Stephen issued a second charter[pg 053] (about Christmas time, 1141),[129] to Geoffrey de Mandeville, confirming and augmenting the previous grant by the empress. Instead of sheriff and justiciar of his own county of Essex merely, he is now made sheriff and justiciar of London and Middlesex, as well as of Hertfordshire.

London holds the balance between the rival powers.

But even these great concessions failed to secure the earl's fidelity to the king. Again he broke away from his allegiance and planned a revolt in favour of the empress who recompensed him with still greater dignities and possessions than any yet bestowed. This second charter of the empress,[130] is remarkable for a clause in which she promises never to make terms with the Londoners without the earl's consent, "because they are his mortal foes."[131] But the plans of the earl were doomed to be frustrated. The empress, tired of the struggle, soon ceased to be dangerous, and eventually withdrew to the continent, and Stephen was left free to deal with the rebel earl alone. With the assistance of the Londoners, who throughout the long period of civil dissension, were generally to be found on the winning side, and held as it were the balance between the rival powers, Stephen managed after considerable bloodshed to capture the fortifications erected by the Earl at Farringdon.[132]

Arrest of the earl, his freebooting life and death, September, 1143.

The earl was subsequently treacherously arrested and made to give up his castles. Thenceforth his life was that of a marauding freebooter, until, fatally wounded at the siege of Burwell, he expired in September, 1143.

Arrival of Henry of Anjou in England, 1153

Notwithstanding the absence of the empress and the death of the faithless earl, a desultory kind of war continued to be carried on for the next ten years on behalf of Henry of Anjou, son of the empress. In 1153 that prince arrived in England to fight his own battles and maintain his right to the crown, which the king had already attempted to transfer to the head of his own son Eustace. This attempt had been foiled by the refusal of the bishops, at the instigation of the pope, to perform the ceremony. The sudden death of Eustace made the king more ready to enter into negotiations for effecting a peaceful settlement.

Peace concluded between Stephen and Henry at Winchester, November, 1153.

Henry conducted to London.

A compromise was accordingly effected at Winchester,[133] whereby Stephen was to remain in undisputed possession of the throne for life, and after his death was to be succeeded by Henry. The news that at last an end had come to the troubles which for nineteen years had disturbed the country, was received with universal joy, and Henry, conducted to London by the king himself, was welcomed in a manner befitting one who was now the recognised heir to the crown.[134]

[pg 055]

CHAPTER III.

Fitz-Stephen's description of London.

Both London and Winchester had been laid in ashes during Stephen's reign, the former by a conflagration—which took place in 1136, again destroying St. Paul's and extending from London Bridge to the church of St. Clement Danes—the latter by the burning missiles used in the conflict between Stephen and the empress in 1141. Winchester never recovered her position, and London was left without a rival. Fitz-Stephen, who wrote an account of the city as it stood in the reign of Henry II, describes it as holding its head higher than all others; its fame was wider known; its wealth and merchandise extended further than any other; it was the capital of the kingdom (regni Anglorum sedes).[135]

Thomas of London.

It was through the mediation of an intimate friend and fellow citizen of Fitz-Stephen that Archbishop Theobald had invited Henry of Anjou over from France in 1153. Thomas of London, better known as Thomas Becket, although of foreign descent, was born in the heart of the city, having first seen the light in the house of Gilbert, his father, some time Portreeve of London, situate in Cheapside on a site now occupied by the hall and chapel of the Mercers' Chapel. Having been ordained a deacon of the Church, he became in course of time clerk or chaplain[pg 056] to the archbishop. Vigorous and active as he was, Thomas soon made his influence felt, and it was owing to his suggestion (so it is said[136]) that the bishops had declined to be a party to the coronation of Eustace during Stephen's lifetime.

On the accession of Henry, Thomas passed from the service of the archbishop, then advanced in years, to the service of the young king. He was raised to the dignity of chancellor, and became one of the king's most trusted advisers. By their united efforts order was once again restored throughout the kingdom. The great barons, who had established themselves in castles erected without royal licence, were brought into subjection to the crown and compelled to pull down their walls. Upon the death of the archbishop, Thomas was appointed to the vacant See (1162). From that day forward the friendship between king and archbishop began to wane. Henry found that all his attempts to establish order in his kingdom were thwarted by exemptions claimed by the archbishop on behalf of the clergy. He found that allegiance to the Crown was divided with allegiance to the Pope, and this state of things was likely to continue so long as the archbishop lived. Becket's end is familiar to us all. His memory was long cherished by the citizens of London, who made many a pilgrimage to the scene of his martyrdom and left many an offering on his tomb in the cathedral of Canterbury. It is hard to say for which of the two, the father or the son, the citizens entertained the greater reverence. For many years after his death it was the custom for the Mayor of the City for the[pg 057] time being, upon entering into office, to meet the aldermen at the church of St. Thomas of Acon—a church which had been erected and endowed in honour of the murdered archbishop by his sister Agnes, wife of Thomas Fitz-Theobald of Helles[137]—and thence to proceed to the tomb of Gilbert Becket, the father, in St. Paul's churchyard, there to say a De profundis; after which both mayor and aldermen returned to the church of St. Thomas, and, each having made an offering of two pence, returned to his own home.[138] St. Thomas's Hospital, in Southwark, was originally dedicated to the murdered archbishop, but after its dissolution and subsequent restoration as one of the Royal Hospitals, its patron saint was no longer Thomas the Martyr, but Thomas the Apostle.

Charter of Henry II to the City of London.

Whilst the king and his chancellor were busy settling the kingdom, establishing a uniform administration of justice and system of revenue, and not only renewing but extending the form of government which had been instituted by Henry I, the citizens of London, availing themselves of the security afforded by a strong government, redoubled their energy in following commercial pursuits and succeeded in raising the city, as Fitz-Stephen has told us, to a pitch of prosperity far exceeding that of any other city in the world.

They obtained a charter from Henry,[139] although of a more limited character than that granted to them by his grandfather. The later charter, for instance, although in the main lines following the older charter, makes no mention of Middlesex being let to ferm nor of any appointment of sheriff or justiciar being vested in the citizens. It appears as if Henry was determined to bring the citizens no less than the barons of the realm within more direct and immediate subservience to the crown. The concession made by the king's grandfather had been ignored by Stephen and the empress Matilda, each of whom in turn had granted the shrievalty of London and Middlesex to the Earl of Essex. For a time the appointment of sheriffs was lost to the citizens. Throughout the reigns of Henry II and his successor they were appointed by the crown. Richard's charter to the citizens makes no mention of the sheriffwick, nor is it mentioned in the first charter granted by John. When it was restored to the citizens (A.D. 1199), by John's second charter, the office of sheriff of London had lost much of its importance owing to the introduction of the communal system of municipal government under a mayor.

The Inquest of sheriffs, 1170.

In the meantime the sheriffs of the counties, who had by reason of Henry's administrative reforms, risen to be officers of greater importance and wider jurisdiction, and who had taken advantage of their positions to oppress the people during the king's prolonged absence abroad, were also made to feel the power of the crown. A blow struck at the sheriffs was calculated to weaken[pg 059] the nobility and the larger landowners—the class from which it had been the custom hitherto to select these officers. Henry saw the advantage to be gained, and on his return to England in 1170 deposed most of the sheriffs and ordered a strict enquiry to be made, as to the extortions they had committed in his absence. Their places were filled for the most part by men of lower rank, and therefore likely to be more submissive. Some, however, were reinstated and became more cruel and extortionate than ever.[140]

The revolt of the barons, 1174.

The last fifteen years of Henry's life were full of domestic trouble. He had always found it an easier matter to rule his kingdom than his household. His sons were for ever thwarting his will and quarrelling with each other. It was his desire to secure the succession to the crown for his eldest son Henry, and to this end he had caused him to be crowned by the Archbishop of York (14th June, 1170), who was thereupon declared excommunicated by his brother of Canterbury. The son began to clamour for his inheritance whilst his father still lived, and appealed in 1173 to the French king, whose daughter he had married, to assist him in his unholy enterprise. Whilst Henry was engaged in defending his crown against his own son on the continent, the great barons of England rose in insurrection, and the king was obliged to hasten home, where he arrived in July, 1174. The rebellion was quickly put down, and the strife between king and nobles for a time ceased.

Disturbances in the city, 1174-1177.

In the city there were occasional disturbances caused by the younger nobility—the young bloods of[pg 060] the city[141]—who infested the streets at night, broke into the houses of the rich and committed every kind of excess. In 1177 the brother of the Earl of Ferrers was waylaid and killed, and for some time the streets were unsafe at night. The chronicler records a singular outrage perpetrated three years before, by these sprigs of nobility. They forcibly entered the house of a wealthy citizen whose name has not come down to us, he is simply styled the pater-familias. Of his courage we are left in no doubt, for we are told that he slipt on a coat of mail, armed his house-hold, and awaited the attack. He had not long to wait. The leader of the band—one Andrew Bucquinte soon made his appearance, and was met by a pan of hot coals. Swords were drawn on both sides and pater-familias, whose coat of mail served him well, succeeded in cutting off the right hand of his assailant. Upon the cry of thieves being raised, the delinquents took to their heels, leaving their leader a prisoner. The next day, being brought before the king's justiciar, he informed against his companions. This cowardly action on the part of Bucquinte led to many of them being taken, and among them one who is described by the chronicler as the noblest and wealthiest of London citizens, but to whom the chronicler gives no other name than "John, the old man" (Johannes Senex). An offer was made to John to prove his innocence by what was known as the ordeal by water,[142] but the offer was[pg 061] declined, and he was eventually hanged. The whole story looks suspicious.

The last days of Henry II. 1177-1189.

Having settled the succession of the crown of England upon his eldest son, the king put his second son, Richard, into possession of the Duchy of Aquitaine, and provided for his third son, Geoffrey, by marriage with the heiress of Brittany. There was yet another son, John, who was too young to be provided for just now, and who being without any territory, assigned to him, acquired the name of Lackland. Both Richard and Geoffrey had taken the part of their brother Henry in 1173, and in 1177 the three brothers were again quarrelling with their father and with each other. After the deaths of Henry and Geoffrey, the quarrel was taken up by the surviving brothers, Richard and John.

In all these—more or less—petty wars with his sons, the king had always to deal with the ruler of France. At last, in 1189, the loss of Le Mans—his own birth-place—and the unexpected discovery that his youngest and best beloved son, John, had turned traitor towards him, left the king nothing to live for, and after a few days suffering he died, ill and worn out, at Chinon.

Accession of Richard I, and administration of Longchamp, 1189-1190.

Richard had scarcely succeeded to the throne, before he set out on a crusade, leaving the government of his country in the hands of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, as chancellor.[143] With him was associated in the government, Hugh de Puiset, or Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, but Longchamp soon got the[pg 062] supreme control of affairs into his own hands, and commenced to act in the most tyrannical fashion. He increased the security of the Tower of London, which had been committed to his charge, by surrounding it with a moat,[144] and having got himself nominated papal legate, made a progress through the country committing the greatest extortion.[145]

Longchamp opposed by Prince John, 1191.

Arrival of Longchamp in London; the citizens divided, 7th October, 1191.

Report of the Chancellor's conduct having reached the ears of Richard, he despatched the Archbishop of Rouen to England with a new commission, but the worthy prelate on arrival (April, 1191), was afraid to present the commission, preferring to let matters take their course.[146] Already a fierce rivalry had sprung up between the chancellor and John, the king's brother, who, for purposes of his own, had espoused the cause of the oppressed. Popular feeling at length became so strong, that Longchamp feared to meet John and the bishops, and, instead of going to Reading, where his attendance was required, he hastened to London. Arriving there (7 Oct.), he called the citizens together in the Guildhall, and prayed them to uphold the King against John, whom he denounced as aiming plainly at the Crown. The leading men in the city at the time were Richard Fitz-Reiner and Henry de Cornhill. These took opposite sides, the former favouring John, whilst the latter took the side of the chancellor.[147] John's party proving the stronger of the two, Longchamp thought it safest to seek refuge in the Tower.[148]

John admitted into the city.

As soon as John found that the chancellor had gone to London instead of Reading, he too hastened thither. On his arrival he was welcomed and hospitably entertained by Richard Fitz-Reiner who gave him to understand on what terms he might expect the support of the city.[149] As to terms, John was ready to accede to any that might be proposed.

A meeting of barons and citizens in St. Paul's, 8 Oct., 1191.

Longchamp deposed and John recognised as head of the kingdom.

The next day (8 Oct.), a meeting of the barons of the realm, as well as of the citizens of London, was convened in St. Paul's Church, to consider the conduct of the chancellor, and it was thereupon decided that Longchamp should be deposed from office. The story, as told by different chroniclers,[150] varies in some particulars, but the main features are the same in all. The king's minister was set aside, John was recognised as the head of the kingdom, and new appointments made to judicial, fiscal, and military offices. The Archbishop of Rouen, who attended the council, seeing the turn affairs had taken, no longer hesitated to produce the letters under the king's sign manual appointing a new commission for the government of the kingdom.

John grants or confirms to the citizens their commune.

The same day that witnessed the fall of Longchamp was also a memorable one in the annals of the City of London; for immediately after judgment had been passed on the chancellor, John and the assembled barons granted to the citizens "their commune," swearing to preserve untouched the dignities of the city during the king's pleasure. The citizens on[pg 064] their part swore fealty to King Richard, and declared their readiness to accept John as successor to the throne in the event of his brother dying childless.[151]

Change of name from port-reeve to mayor.

This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words their commune (communam suam) imply a commune of which they were de facto, if not de jure already in enjoyment. How long the commune may have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined; but that the term communio in connection with the city's organization was known half a century before, we have already seen;[152] and, according to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction between the words communio, communa and communia.[153] Bishop Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate communio as "commune," the latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of municipal government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or "franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization" in Stephen's reign, an idea which became fully developed in the succeeding[pg 065] reign.[154] He is also in favour of dating the foundation of the communa in London from this grant by John and the barons,[155] and in this view he is supported by Richard of Devizes, who distinctly states that the communia of London was instituted on that occasion, and that it was of such a character that neither King Richard nor Henry his father would have conceded it for a million marks of silver, and that a communia was in fact everything that was bad. It puffed up the people, it threatened the kingdom, and it emasculated the priesthood.[156]

Change of name from port-reeve to mayor.

With the change from a shire organization to that of a French commune, whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon "port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"[157] occurred, down to the present day, the sheriff's position has always been one of secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor.

When did the change take place?

The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal document is said to occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.[158] The popular opinion, however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a statement to be found in an early manuscript record still preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and known as the Liber de Antiquis Legibus.[159] The original portion of this manuscript purports to be a chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative to the year 1274.

After naming the sheriffs who were appointed at Michaelmas, A.D. 1188, "the first year of the reign of King Richard,"[160] it goes on to say that "in the same year Henry Fitz-Eylwin of Londenestane was made mayor of London, who was the first mayor of the city, and continued to be such mayor to the end of his life, that is to say, for nearly five and twenty years." That Henry Fitz-Eylwin was mayor in the first year of Richard's reign is stated no less than three times in the chronicle.[161]

Arnald Fitz-Thedmar, the compiler of the Liber de Antiquis.

The compiler of the chronicle is supposed to have been Arnald or Arnulf Fitz-Thedmar,[162] an Alderman of London, although it is not known over which ward he presided. Particulars of his life are given in the volume itself, from which we gather that he was a grandson on the mother's side of Arnald de Grevingge[163] a citizen of Cologne; that his father's name was Thedmar, a native of Bremen; that he was born on the vigil of St. Lawrence [10 August] A.D. 1201, his mother being forewarned of the circumstances that would attend his birth in a manner familiar to biblical readers; that he was deprived of his aldermanry by the king, but was afterwards restored; that he became supporter of the king against Simon de Montfort and the barons, and that he was among those whom Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the leader of the democratic party and his followers, had "intended to slay" on the very day that news reached London of the battle of Evesham, which crushed the hopes of Montfort and his supporters. The date of his death cannot be precisely determined, but there can be but little doubt that it took place early in the third year of the reign of Edward the First, inasmuch as his will was proved and enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, held on Monday, the morrow of the Feast of St. Scolastica [10 Feb.] of that year (A.D. 1274-5).[164]

Setting aside the statement—namely that mention is made of a mayor of London, in a document of the reign of Henry II—as wanting corroboration, the first instance known at the present day of any such official being named in a formal document occurs in 1193 when the Mayor of London appears among those who were appointed treasurers of Richard's ransom.[165]

The title of Mayor, first mentioned in a Royal Charter of 1202.

Richard's first charter to the City (23 April, 1194)[166] granted a few weeks after his return from abroad makes no mention of a mayor, nor does the title occur in any royal charter affecting the City until the year 1202, when John attempted to suppress the guild of weavers "at the request of our mayor and citizens of London." A few years later when John was ready to do anything and everything to avoid signing the Great Charter which the barons were forcing on him, he made a bid for the favour of the citizens by granting them the right to elect annually a mayor, and thus their autonomy was rendered complete.

Richard's return from captivity, March, 1194.

When Richard recovered his liberty and returned to England he was heartily welcomed by all except his brother John. One of his first acts was to visit the City and return thanks for his safety at St. Paul's.[167] The City was on this occasion made to look its brightest, and the display of wealth astonished the foreigners in the King's suite, who had been led to believe that[pg 069] England had been brought to the lowest stage of poverty by payment of the King's ransom.[168]

Is crowned for the second time.

The custom of the Mayor assisting the Chief Butler at coronation banquets.

In order to wipe out the stain of his imprisonment, he thought fit to go through the ceremony of coronation for the second time. His first coronation had taken place at Westminster (3 Sept., 1189,) soon after his accession, and the citizens of London had duly performed a service at the coronation banquet—a service which even in those days was recognised as an "ancient service"—namely, that of assisting the chief butler, for which the mayor was customarily presented with a gold cup and ewer. The citizens of the rival city of Winchester performed on this occasion the lesser service of attending to the viands.[169]

The second coronation taking place at Winchester and not at Westminster, the burgesses of the former city put in a claim to the more honourable service over the heads of the citizens of London, and the latter only succeeded in establishing their superior claim by a judicious bribe of 200 marks.[170]

Heavy taxation.

Richard was ever in want of money, and cared little by what means it was raised. He declared himself ready to sell London itself if a purchaser could be found.[171] The tax of Danegelt, from which the citizens of London had been specially exempted by[pg 070] charter of Henry I, and which had ceased to be exacted under Henry II, mainly through the interposition of Thomas of London, was practically revived under a new name. The charter already mentioned as having been granted to the citizens by Richard after his return from captivity was probably purchased, for one of the king's regular methods of raising money was a lavish distribution of charters to boroughs, not from any love he had for municipal government, but in order to put money in his purse. As soon as Richard had collected all the money he could raise in England, he again left the country, never to return.

The rising in the city under Longbeard. 1196.

The pressure of taxation weighed heavily on the poor, and occasioned a rising in the city under the leadership of William Fitz-Osbert. The cry was that the rich were spared whilst the poor were called upon to pay everything.[172] Accounts of the commotion differ according as the writer favoured the autocratic or democratic side. One chronicler, for instance, finds fault with Fitz-Osbert's personal appearance, imputing his inordinate length of beard—he was known as "Longbeard"—to his desire for conspicuousness, and declares him to have been actuated by base motives.[173]

Others describe him as a wealthy citizen of the best family, and yet as one who ever upheld the cause[pg 071] of the poor against the king's extortions.[174] Whatever may have been the true character of the man and the real motive of his action, it is certain that he had a large following. When Hubert Walter, the justiciar, sent to arrest him, "Longbeard" took refuge in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow. Thither he was followed by the king's officers—described by a not impartial chronicler as men devoid of truth and piety and enemies of the poor.[175]—who with the aid of fire and faggot soon compelled him to surrender. On his way to the Tower, he was struck at and wounded by one whose father (it was said) he had formerly killed;[176] but this again may or may not be the whole truth. A few days later he and a number of his associates were hanged.[177]

Richard's so-called second charter ordering the removal of wears in the Thames, 14 July, 1197.

Two years before his death at Chaluz, Richard, with the view of aiding commerce, caused the wears in the Thames to be removed, and forbade his wardens of the Tower to demand any more the toll that had been accustomed. The writ to this effect was dated from the Island of Andely or Les Andelys on the Seine, the 14th July, 1197, in the neighbourhood of that fortress which Richard had erected, and of which he was so proud—the Château Gaillard or "Saucy Castle," as he jestingly called it. The reputation which the castle enjoyed for impregnability[pg 072] under Richard, was lost under his successor on the throne.

First mention of a deliberative municipal body in the city, 1200.

Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city, and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor."[178] Just as in the constitution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the city—described by Lord Coke as epitome totius regni—the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of the common council.

The council held at St. Paul's, 25th Aug., 1213.

When, after thirteen years of misgovernment, during which John had enraged the barons and excited general discontent by endless impositions, matters were brought to a climax by his submission to the pope, it was in the city of London that the first steps were taken by his subjects to recover their lost liberty. On the 25th August, 1213, a meeting of the clergy and barons was held in the church of St. Paul; a memorable meeting, and one that has been described as "a true parliament of the realm, though no king presided in it."[179] Stephen Langton, whose appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury had so raised John's ire, took the lead and produced to the assembly a copy of the Charter of Liberties, granted by Henry I, when that king undertook to put an end to the tyranny of William Rufus. If the barons so pleased, it might (he said) serve as a[pg 073] precedent. The charter having been then and there deliberately read, the barons unanimously declared that for such liberties they were ready to fight, and, if necessary, to die.[180]

The clergy and people who had hitherto supported the king against the barons, having now engaged themselves to assist the barons against the tyranny of the king, John found himself with but one friend in the world, and that was the Pope. "Innocent's view of the situation was very simple," writes Dr. Gardiner, "John was to obey the Pope, and all John's subjects were to obey John." Within a few weeks of the council being held at St. Paul's, the same sacred edifice witnessed the formality of affixing a golden bulla to the deed—the detestable deed (carta detestabilis)—whereby John had in May last resigned the crown of England to the papal legate, and received it again as the Pope's feudatory.[181]

Meeting of the barons at Bury St. Edmunds, 1214.

In the following year (1214), whilst the king was abroad, the barons met again at Bury St. Edmunds, and solemnly swore that if John any longer delayed restoring the laws and liberties of Henry the First, they would make war upon him. It was arranged that after Christmas they should go in a body and demand their rights, and that in the meantime they should provide themselves with horses and arms, with the view of bringing force to bear, in case of refusal.[182] The citizens at the same time took the opportunity of strengthening their defences by digging a foss on the further side of the city wall.[183]

Open hostility between John and the barons, 1215.

Christmas came and a meeting between John and the barons took place in London at what was then known as the "New" Temple. The result, however, was unsatisfactory, and both parties prepared for an appeal to force, the barons choosing as their leader Robert Fitz-Walter, whom they dubbed "Marshal of the army of God and of Holy Church."[184]

Robert Fitz-Walter, castellain of London.

This Fitz-Walter was Baron of Dunmow in Essex, the owner of Baynard's Castle in the City of London, and lord of a soke, which embraced the whole of the parish known as St. Andrew Castle Baynard. He moreover enjoyed the dignity of castellain and chief bannerer or banneret of London. The rights and privileges attaching to his soke and to his official position in time of peace were considerable, to judge from a claim to them put forward by his grandson in the year 1303. Upon making his appearance in the Court of Husting at the Guildhall, it was the duty of the Mayor, or other official holding the court, to rise and meet him and place him by his side. Again, if any traitor were taken within his soke or jurisdiction, it was his right to sentence him to death, the manner of death being that the convicted person should be tied to a post in the Thames at the Wood Wharf, and remain there during two tides and two ebbs.[185]

In later years, however, upon an enquiry being held by the Justiciars of the Iter (a° 14 Edward II, a.d. 1321), the claimant was obliged to acknowledge that he had disposed of Baynard's Castle in the time[pg 075] of Edward I, but had especially reserved to himself all rights attaching to the castle and barony, although he very considerately declared his willingness to forego the right and title enjoyed by his ancestor of drowning traitors at Wood Wharf.[186]

Duties of the castellain of the City in time of war.

But it was in time of war that Fitz-Walter achieved for himself the greatest power and dignity. It then became the duty of the castellain to proceed to the great gate of St. Paul's attended by nineteen other knights, mounted and caparisoned, and having his banner, emblazoned with his arms, displayed before him. Immediately upon his arrival, the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, who awaited him, issued solemnly forth from the church, all arrayed in arms, the mayor bearing in his hand the city banner, the ground of which was bright vermilion or gules, with a figure of St. Paul, in gold, thereon, the head, feet, and hands of the saint being silver or argent, and in his right hand a sword.[187] The castellain, advancing to meet the mayor, informed him that he had come to do the service which the city had a right to demand at his hands, and thereupon the mayor placed the city's banner in his hands, and then, attending him back to the gate, presented him with a charger of the value of £20, its saddle emblazoned with the arms of Fitz-Walter, and its housing of cendal or silk, similarly enriched.

A sum of £20 was at the same time handed to Fitz-Walter's chamberlain to defray the day's expenses.[pg 076] Having mounted his charger, he bids the Mayor to choose a Marshal of the host of the City of London; and this being done, the communal or "mote-bell" is set ringing, and the whole party proceed to the Priory of Holy Trinity at Aldgate. There they dismount, and entering the Priory, concert measures together for the defence of the city. There is one other point worthy of remark, touching the office of chief banneret, and that is that on the occasion of any siege undertaken by the London forces, the castellain was to receive as his fee the niggardly sum of one hundred shillings for his trouble, and no more.

Feud between Fitz-Walter and King John.

It is not improbable that Fitz-Walter's election as leader of the remonstrant barons was in some measure due to his official position in the city. It is also probable, as Mr. Riley has pointed out, that the unopposed admission of the barons into the city, on the 24th May, 1215, may have been facilitated by Fitz-Walter's connexion, as castellain, with the Priory of Holy Trinity, situate in the vicinity.

But there were other reasons for selecting Fitz-Walter as their leader at this juncture. If the story be true, Fitz-Walter had good reason to be bitterly hostile to King John, for having caused his fair daughter Maude or Matilda to be poisoned, after having unsuccessfully made an attempt upon her chastity.[188] This is not the only crime of the kind laid to the charge of this monarch,[189] and there appears to be too much reason for believing most of the charges[pg 077] against him to be true. It is certain that Fitz-Walter was one of the first to entertain designs against John, and that he and Eustace de Vesci, on whose family the king is said to have put a similar affront, were forced to escape to France. The story how Fitz-Walter attracted John's notice by his prowess at a tournament in which he was engaged on the side of the French, and was restored to the King's favour and his own estates, is familiar to all.

The Barons admitted into the City, May, 1215.

After a feeble attempt to capture Northampton, the barons, with Fitz-Walter at their head, accepted an invitation from the citizens of London to enter the city. They made their entry through Aldgate.[190]

The concession which John had recently made to the citizens, viz.:—the right of annually electing their own mayor[191]—had failed to secure their allegiance. The city became thenceforth the headquarters of the barons,[192] and the adhesion of the Londoners was followed by so great a defection from the King's party (including among others that of Henry de Cornhill), that he was left without any power of resistance.[193]

The city and Magna Carta, 15th June, 1215.

The citizens met their reward for fidelity to the barons when John was brought to bay at Runnymede. In drafting the articles of the Great Charter the barons, mindful of their trusty allies, made provision for the preservation of the city's liberties, and the names of[pg 078] Fitz-Walter and of the mayor of the city appear among those who were specially appointed to see that the terms of the charter were strictly carried out.[194]

By way of further security for the fulfilment of the articles of the charter the barons demanded and obtained the custody of the City of London, including the Tower, and they reserved to themselves the right of making war upon the king if he failed to keep his word. For a year or more the barons remained in the city, having entered into a mutual compact with the inhabitants to make no terms with the king without the consent of both parties.[195]

Open war between John and the barons.

The right of resistance thus established was soon to be carried into execution. Before the year was out, John had broken faith, and was besieging Rochester with the aid of mercenaries. An attempt to raise the siege failed, owing to the timidity (not to say cowardice) of Fitz-Walter, who, like the rest of the barons, was inclined to be indolent so soon as the struggle with the king was thought to have ended.[196]

London under an interdict.

The Pope supported his vassal king. For a second time during John's reign London was placed under an interdict. The first occasion was in 1208, when the whole of England was put under an interdict, and for six years the nation was deprived of all religious rites saving the sacraments of baptism and extreme unction.[197] It was then the object of Innocent[pg 079] to stir up resistance against John by inflicting sufferings on the people, now his purpose was to punish the people for having risen against John.

The arrival of the Dauphin, May, 1216.

Death of John, 19th October, 1216.

The barons saw no other course open to them but to invite Louis the Dauphin to come and undertake the government of the kingdom in the place of John. On the 21st May, 1216, Louis landed at Sandwich and came to London, where he was welcomed by the barons. Both barons and citizens paid him homage, whilst he, on his part, swore to restore to them their rights, to maintain such laws of the realm as were good, and to abolish those (if any) that were bad.[198] Suspicion, however, had been aroused against Louis by the confession of a French nobleman who had come over in his train, and who had solemnly declared on his deathbed that his master had sworn when once on the throne of England to banish all John's enemies.[199] Just when matters seemed to be approaching a crisis and the barons were wavering in their allegiance, John died (19th October, 1216).

[pg 080]

CHAPTER IV.

The barons desert Louis.

Although London remained faithful to Louis after John's death, the barons began to desert him, one by one (quasi stillatim),[200] and to transfer their allegiance to John's eldest son, a boy of nine years of age, who had been crowned at Gloucester soon after his father's death, the disturbed state of the country not allowing of his coming to London for the ceremony.[201]

Defeat of Louis at Lincoln, 20th May, 1217.

After his defeat at Lincoln (20th May, 1217), by William the Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, one of Henry's guardians, Louis beat a hasty retreat to London and wrote to his father, the French king, to send him military assistance, for without it he could neither fight nor get out of the country.

Fitz-Walter and Muntfichet made prisoners.

Among the prisoners taken at Lincoln were Robert Fitz-Walter, and a neighbour of his in the ward of Castle Baynard, Richard de Muntfichet, who, like Fitz-Walter, had also suffered banishment in 1213. The tower or castle of Muntfichet lay a little to the west of Baynard's Castle, and was made over in 1276 by Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor, and citizens of London to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of erecting a new house for the Dominican or Black Friars, in place of their old house in Holborn.[202] We hear little of Fitz-Walter after this, beyond the[pg 081] facts that he soon afterwards obtained his freedom, that he went on a crusade, and continued a loyal subject to Henry until his death in 1235. He is said to have been in the habit of wearing a precious stone suspended from his neck by way of a charm, which at his last moments he asked his wife to remove in order that he might die the easier.[203]

London invested by the Earl Marshal.

A French fleet which had been despatched in answer to Louis was defeated off Dover by Hubert de Burgh, who had gallantly held that town for John, and continued to hold it now for Henry. London itself was invested by the Marshal, and threatened with starvation; but before matters came to extremes, Louis intimated his willingness to come to terms.[204]

Treaty of Lambeth, 11th Sept., 1217.

A meeting was held on the 11th of September (some say at Kingston,[205] others at Staines[206]), and a peace concluded.[207] Louis swore fealty to the Pope and the Roman Church, for which he was absolved from the ban of excommunication that had been passed on him, and surrendered all the castles and towns he had taken during the war. He, further, promised to use his influence to obtain the restoration to England of the possessions that had been lost beyond the sea.

Departure of Louis after borrowing a sum of money from the citizens.

Henry, on his part, swore to preserve to the barons and the rest of the kingdom, all those liberties which they had succeeded in obtaining from John. Everything being thus amicably settled, Louis went to London,[pg 082] and, after borrowing a large sum of money from his former trusty supporters, betook himself back to his native country.[208] The general pardon which was granted by the young king extended to the Londoners, who became reconciled and received back their lands,[209] but did not extend to the clergy, who were left to the tender mercy of the papal legate.

Attempt by Constantine Fitz-Athulf or Olaf, to raise a cry in favour of Louis, 1222.

For some years to come there remained a party in the city who cherished the memory of Louis, and the cry of "Mountjoy!" the war-cry of the French king—was sufficient to cause a riot as late as 1222, when Constantine Fitz-Athulf or Olaf, an ex-sheriff of London, raised the cry at a tournament, in order to test the feeling of the populace towards Louis. Any serious results that might have arisen were promptly prevented by Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, who very quickly sought out the ringleader, and incontinently caused him and two of his followers to be hanged at the Elms in Smithfield. Whilst the halter was round his neck, Fitz-Athulf offered 15,000 marks of silver for his life. The offer was declined. He was not to be allowed another chance of stirring up sedition in the city.[210]

A more circumstantial account of this event is given us by another chronicler,[211] who relates that the[pg 083] wrestling match which took place on the festival of Saint James (25th July),—the same as that mentioned by Matthew Paris—was held at Queen Matilda's hospital in the suburbs,[212] and was a match between the citizens of London and those outside; that victory declared itself in favour of the Londoners, and that their opponents, and among them the steward of the Abbot of Westminster, thereupon left in high dudgeon. With thoughts of revenge in their hearts, the latter caused invitations to be issued for another match to be held at Westminster, on the following feast of Saint Peter ad Vincula (1st August).

It was at this second and later match that the trouble began. The steward was not content with collecting the most powerful athletes he could find, but caused them to seize weapons and to attack the defenceless citizens who had come to take part in the games. The Londoners hurried home, bleeding with wounds, and immediately took counsel as to what was best to be done. Serlo, the mercer, who had held the office of mayor of the city for the past five years, and was of a peaceable disposition, suggested referring the matter to the abbot; and it was then that Constantine, who had a large following, advocated an attack upon the houses of the abbot and of his steward. No sooner said than done, and many houses had already suffered before the justiciar appeared upon the scene with a large force. As to the seizure of Constantine and his subsequent execution, the chroniclers agree.

Constantine's fellow citizens were very indignant at the indecent haste with which the justiciar had[pg 084] caused his execution to be carried out, and did not fail to bring the matter up in judgment against him, when, some ten years later, Hubert de Burgh himself fell into disgrace.[213] The result was, that the justiciar took refuge in the Priory of Merton. When the citizens received the king's orders to follow him there, and to take him dead or alive, they obeyed with unconcealed joy. They allowed little time to elapse, but set out at once, 20,000 strong, ready to tear him limb from limb; but luckily they were stopped in time by another message from the king, and Hubert obtained a respite.[214]

The foreign element in the country.

At the time of Constantine's execution, there was real danger to be anticipated from raising the cry in favour of any foreigner. The land was already swarming with foreigners, and in that very year (viz. 1222), the archbishop had been under the necessity of summoning a council of bishops and nobles to be held in London, owing to dissensions that had arisen between the Earl of Chester, William of Salisbury, the king's uncle, and Hubert de Burgh, and to a rumour that had got abroad, that foreigners were inciting the Earl of Chester to raise an insurrection.[215]

A few years later, the country was over-run by a brood of Italian usurers who battened on the inhabitants, reducing many to beggary. When attempts[pg 085] were made to rid the city of these pests, they sheltered themselves under the protection of the Pope.[216]

Throughout the reign of Henry III, there was one continuous struggle against foreign dominion, either secular or ecclesiastical. In this struggle, none took a more active part than the citizens of London, and "when [in 1247], the nobles, clergy, and people of England put forth their famous letter denouncing the wrongs which England suffered at the hands of the Roman bishop, it was with the seal of the city of London, as the centre of national life that the national protest was made."[217]

The city's struggle against encroachment by the king.

Side by side with this struggle another was being carried on, a struggle for the liberty of the subject against the tyranny and rapacity of the king. More especially was this the case with the city. Henry was for ever invading the rights and liberties of the citizens. Thus in 1239, he insisted upon their admitting to the shrievalty one who had already been dismissed from that office for irregular conduct, and because they refused to forego their chartered right of election and to appoint the king's nominee, the city was deprived of a mayor for three months and more.[218]

The city "taken into the king's hand" on the most frivolous pretences.

The substitution of a custos or warden appointed by the king for a mayor elected by the citizens, and of bailiffs for sheriffs,—a procedure known as "taking the city into the king's hands,"—was frequently[pg 086] resorted to both by Henry and his successors, and notably by Edward I, in whose reign the city was deprived of its mayor, and remained under government of a custos for thirteen consecutive years (1285-1298).[219]

Any pretext was sufficient for Henry's purpose. If the citizens harboured a foreigner without warrant, not only was the city taken into the king's hand, but the citizens were fined £1,000,[220] a sum equal to at least £20,000 at the present day. A widow brings an action for a third part of her late husband's goods in addition to her dower. The case goes against her in the Court of Husting, and is heard on appeal before the king's justiciar sitting at St. Martin's-le-Grand. The verdict is not set aside, but some flaw is discovered in the mode of procedure; the explanation of the citizens is deemed insufficient, and the mayor and sheriffs are forthwith deposed, to be reinstated only on the understanding that they will so far forego their chartered right—viz.: of not impleading nor being impleaded without the walls of their city—as to consent to attend the king's court at Westminster, where finally, and after considerable delay, they are acquitted.[221]

Take another instance. The king had shown an interest in the Abbey Church of Westminster, and had caused a new chapel to be built in 1220, he himself laying the first stone. Thirty years later, or thereabouts, he made certain concessions to the Abbot of Westminster—what they were we are not told—but it is certain that they, in some way or other,[pg 087] infringed the rights of the citizens of London in the County of Middlesex. The king promised to compensate them for the loss they would sustain; but failing to get their consent by fair promises, he resorted to his favourite measure of taking the city into his own hands. For fifteen years the dispute between the citizens and the Abbot as to their respective rights in the County of Middlesex was kept alive, and was at last determined by a verdict given by the barons of the exchequer, which completely justified[222] the attitude taken up by the citizens of London.

Money extorted from the Jews as well as the citizens for payment of the king's tradesmen.

In 1230 he extorted a large sum of money from the citizens at a time when he was meditating an expedition to the continent for the purpose of recovering lost possessions. The citizens, however, were not the only sufferers. The religious houses were heavily mulcted, as were also the Jews, who, whether they would or not, were made to give up one third of their chattels.[223] Again in 1244, the citizens of London and the Jews were made to open their purse-strings that the king might the better be able to pay his wine merchant, his wax chandler, and his tailor; but even then his creditors were not paid in full.[224]

Only once does it appear that the king's conscience pricked him for the extortions he was continually practising on the citizens. This was in 1250, when[pg 088] he called the citizens together at Westminster, and begged their forgiveness for all trespasses, extortions of goods and victuals under the name of "prises," and for forced loans or talliages. Seeing no other way out of it, the citizens acceded to his request.[225] As recently as the previous year (1249) he had exacted from them a sum of £2,000.[226]

The coronation of king and queen, 1236.

Henry had been crowned at Gloucester soon after his accession.[227] Nevertheless he was again crowned—this time in London in 1236, after his marriage with Eleanor of Provence. The city excelled itself in doing honour to the king and queen as they passed on their way to Westminster: but the joy of the citizens was damped by the king refusing to allow Andrew Bukerel the mayor to perform the customary service of assisting the chief butler at the coronation banquet. It was not a time for raising questions of etiquette, so the mayor pocketed the affront, preferring to settle the question of the city's rights at some more convenient time, rather than damp the general joy of the company by pressing his claim.[228]

The king's custom of formally taking leave of his citizens before going abroad.

Yet, notwithstanding his manifestly unjust treatment of the citizens of London, and the cynical contempt with which he looked upon their ancient claim to the title of "barons," he usually went through the formality of taking leave of them at Paul's Cross[pg 089] or at Westminster, before crossing the sea to Gascony[229] and was not above making use of them when compelled to sell his plate and jewels to satisfy his debts. In 1252, he even went so far as to grant them a charter of liberties, but for this concession the citizens had to pay 500 marks.[230]

The Mad Parliament, 11th June, 1258.

It is scarcely to be wondered at if, when the crisis arrived, and king and barons found themselves in avowed hostility, the citizens of London joined the popular cause. By the month of June, 1258, the barons had gained their first victory over Henry. He was forced to accept the Provisions of Oxford, passed by the Mad Parliament,[231] as it came to be called in derision. The Tower of London was transferred to the custody of the barons, and they were for the future to appoint the justiciar. Towards the end of July, a deputation from the barons waited upon the mayor and citizens to learn if they approved of the agreement that had been made with the king.[232]

The Citizens throw in their lot with the Barons.

The mayor, aldermen, and citizens, after a hasty consultation, gave their assent, but with the reservation "saving unto them all their liberties and customs," and the city's common seal was set to the so-called "charter" which the deputation had brought.

Hugh Bigod the baron's justiciar in the city, 1258.

It was not long before the city discovered that the barons were as little likely to respect its liberties as the king himself. Hugh Bigod, whom they had[pg 090] appointed justiciar gave offence by the way he exercised his office. In spite of all remonstrance he insisted upon sitting at the Guildhall to hear pleas, a jurisdiction which belonged exclusively to the sheriffs. He summoned the bakers of the city to appear before him, and those who were convicted of selling bread under weight he punished, in a way that was not in conformity with city usage.[233]

The king takes leave of the citizens. November, 1259.

In November of the following year (1259), Henry took occasion of his departure for the continent to make some popular concessions to the citizens. He appeared at a Folkmote, which was being held at Paul's Cross, and, before taking leave, he announced that in future the citizens should be allowed to plead their own cases (without employing legal aid) in all the courts of the city, excepting in pleas of the crown, pleas of land, and of wrongful distress. On the same day John Mansel who had been one of the king's justiciars in 1257, when the city was "taken into the king's hand," and Fitz-Thedmar had been indicted and deprived of his aldermanry for upholding the privileges of the citizens[234]—publicly acknowledged on the king's behalf the injustice of Fitz-Thedmar's indictment, and announced that Henry not only recalled him to favour, but commanded that he should be restored to his former position.[235]

The king's return from abroad, April, 1260.

During the king's absence abroad, the barons' cause was materially strengthened by the support afforded Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, by the king's son. Upon hearing of the defection of his son, Henry hurried back to England.[pg 091] A consultation took place in the city as to the attitude which the citizens ought to take up, with the result that when Henry appeared (April, 1260), both he and the Earl of Gloucester were admitted into the city, whilst the Earl of Leicester and "Sir Edward," as the chronicler styles the king's son, had to find accommodation in the suburbs.[236]

Henry was now master of the situation. The city was his, and he determined that it should remain so. Strict watch was kept over the gates, which for the most part, were kept shut night and day in order to prevent surprise. Every inhabitant of the age of twelve years and upwards was called upon to take an oath of allegiance before the alderman of his ward, and those of maturer age were bound to provide themselves with arms. The king, who now ruled again in his own way, stirred the anger of the barons, by presuming to appoint Philip Basset, his chief justiciar, without first asking their assent; and the barons retaliated by removing the king's sheriffs, and appointing "wardens of the counties" in their stead.[237] In June 1261, Henry produced a Bull of Alexander IV, annulling the Provisions of Oxford, and freeing him from his oath.[238]

The king summoned to observe the Provisions of Oxford. 1263.

For eighteen months the king reigned supreme. The barons could do nothing, and the Earl of Leicester, finding their cause hopeless, withdrew in August (1261) to France, and remained there until the spring of 1263, when he returned as the unquestioned head of[pg 092] the baronial party, to take up arms against the king. The citizens professed loyalty to Henry, who was residing in the Tower, and bound themselves by oath to acknowledge his son Edward as heir to the crown.[239] At Whitsuntide, the barons sent a letter to the king requiring him to observe the Provisions of Oxford, and shortly afterwards, addressed another letter to the citizens "desiring to be certified by them whether they would observe the said ordinances and statutes made to the honour of God in fealty to his lordship the king, and to his advantage of all the realm, or would, in preference, adhere to those who wished to infringe the same."[240]

Arrangements made between the king, the barons, and the city, July, 1263.

Before sending a reply, the citizens had an interview with the king in the Tower, to whom they showed the barons' letter. The result was, that Henry availed himself of their services to mediate between him and the barons. A deputation of citizens accordingly travelled to Dover, where an understanding was arrived at between the hostile parties. The citizens were prepared to support the barons, subject to their fealty to the king and saving their own liberties; whilst the king promised to dismiss his foreign supporters—the real cause of all the mischief. Hugh le Despenser, whom Henry had deposed, was again installed justiciar of all England in the Tower; and the king and his family left the city for Westminster, the day after the barons entered it. "Thus was a league made between the barons and the citizens with this reservation—'saving fealty to his lordship the king.'"[241]

Organization of the Craft Guilds under Fitz-Thomas the Mayor. 1262.

Whilst the commons of England were thus winning their way to liberty, the commons of the city were engaged in a similar struggle with the aristocratic element of the municipal government. The craft guilds cried out against the exclusiveness of the more wealthy and aristocratic trade guilds, the members of which monopolized the city's rule. They found an able champion of their cause in the person of Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the mayor for the time being (1261-1265). The mayor's action in the matter disgusted Fitz-Thedmar, the city alderman and chronicler, who complains that he "so pampered the city populace," that they styled themselves the "commons of the city," and had obtained the first voice in the city. The mayor would ask them their will as to whether this or that thing should be done; and if they answered "ya" "ya," it was done, without consulting the aldermen or chief citizens, whose very existence was ignored.[242] It is not surprising that, under a mayor so thoroughly in sympathy with the people, opportunity was taken by the citizens to rectify abuses from which they had so long suffered. Their trade had been prejudiced by the number of foreigners which the king had introduced into the city, and accordingly we read of an attack made on the houses of some French merchants. Rights of way which had been stopped up, were again opened, and where land had been illegally built upon, the buildings were abated.

The chronicler complains of the populace acting "like so many justices itinerant." It was in vain that the king addressed a letter to the mayor and citizens, setting forth that the dissensions between himself and the barons had been settled, and commanding his peace to be kept as well within the city as without.[243]

The movement favoured by the barons.

The popular movement received every encouragement from the barons. Let those who were disaffected put their complaints into writing, and the barons would see that the matter was duly laid before the king, and that the city's liberties were not diminished. Fortified with such promises, the mayor set to work at once to organize the craft guilds. Ordinances were drawn up "abominations" Fitz-Thedmar calls them[244] for the amelioration of the members, and everything was done that could be done to better their condition.

The queen insulted by the citizens, 13th July, 1263.

A few days before Henry and the barons had concluded a temporary peace, the citizens had been greatly excited by an action of the king's son. Henry was, as usual, in want of money, and had failed to raise a loan in the city. His son came to his assistance and seized the money and jewels lying at the Temple (29th June). The citizens were so exasperated at this high-handed proceeding on the part of the prince that they vented their spleen on the queen, and pelted her with mud and stones, calling her all kinds of opprobrious names, as she attempted to pass in her barge under London Bridge on her way from the Tower to Windsor. (13th July).[245]

Such conduct very naturally incensed the king and his son against the citizens. Henry was angry with them, moreover, for having admitted the barons contrary to his express orders.[246] It is not surprising, therefore, that when Fitz-Thomas presented himself before the Barons of the Exchequer to be admitted to the mayoralty for the third year in succession, they refused to admit him by the king's orders, Henry "being for many reasons greatly moved to anger against the city."[247]

The Mise of Amiens. 23rd Jan., 1264

Before the end of the year (1263), both king and barons agreed to submit to the arbitration of the King of France. The award known as the Mise of Amien—from the place whence it was issue—which Louis made on the 23rd Jan., 1264, proved of so one-sided a character that the barons had no alternative but to reject it. However unjustifiable such repudiation on the part of the barons may have been from a moral point of view, it was a matter of necessity. Many of them, moreover, including those of the Cinque Ports, as well as the Londoners, and nearly all the middle class of England, had not been parties to the arbitration, and therefore, were not pledged to accept the award.[248]

League between the citizens of London and the barons.

The citizens and the barons now entered into solemn covenant to stand by each other "saving however their fealty to the king." A constable and a marshal were appointed to command the city force, which was to stand prepared night and day to muster at the sound of the great bell of St. Paul's. The[pg 096] manor of Isleworth, belonging to Richard, King of the Romans, the king's brother, was laid waste, and Rochester besieged, but, disturbances again breaking out at home, Leicester had to hurry back to restore order and prevent the city being betrayed to the king's son.[249]

The Battle of Lewes, 14th May, 1264.

In May the earl set out again with a force of Londoners[250] to meet the king, who was threatening the Cinque Ports. In the early morning of the 14th he came upon the royal army at Lewes. Prince Edward himself led the charge against the Londoners—he had not forgotten the insult they had recently offered to his mother—and succeeded in driving them off the field. They scarcely indeed awaited his onslaught, so unpractised in warfare had they become of recent years, but turned their backs and sped away towards London, followed in hot pursuit by Edward. When he returned he found that, owing to his absence, the day was lost, and that his father and brother had been made prisoners.[251] In spite of his own success, he also had to surrender.

The Mise of Lewes.

The barons returned to the city in triumph, bringing the king and Richard, king of the Romans, in their train. Edward had been placed in custody in Dover Castle, pending negotiations. Henry was lodged in the Bishop's Palace, whilst Richard was committed to[pg 097] the Tower. An agreement was drawn up which secured the safety of the king, and left all matters of dispute to be again referred to arbitration.[252] This treaty formed the basis of a new system of government, and led to the institution of Simon de Montfort's famous Parliament.

The short respite—for it proved to be no more—from civil war was welcomed by the Londoners. The city had been drained of a large part of its population in order to increase the Earl of Leicester's army, and business had been seriously disturbed. For the past year no Court of Husting had been held, and therefore no wills or testaments had received probate; whilst all pleas of land, except trespass, had to stand over until the country became more settled.[253]

Meeting of Simon de Montfort's Parliament, 20th Jan., 1265.

The parliament which Leicester summoned to meet on the 20th January, 1265, marked a new era in parliamentary representation. It was the first parliament in which the merchant and the trader were invited to take their seats beside the baron and bishop. Not only were the shires to send up two representatives, but each borough and town were to be similarly privileged.[254]

Terms of reconciliation between king and barons were arranged, and once more the mayor and aldermen did fealty to Henry in person in St. Paul's church. Fitz-Thomas, who for the fourth time was mayor, was determined to lose nothing of his character for independence; "My lord," said he, when taking the oath,[pg 098] so long as you are willing to be to us a good king and lord, we will be to you faithful and true."[255]

Jealousy between the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester.

Peace was not destined to last long. Dissensions quickly broke out between Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester, and Simon de Montfort, owing in a great measure to jealousy. Gloucester insisted that the Mise of Lewes and the Provisions of Oxford had not been properly observed, hinting unmistakably at the foreign birth and extraction of his rival. Endeavours were made to arrange matters by arbitration, but in vain; and by Whitsuntide the two earls were in open hostility. Gloucester was joined by Edward, who had succeeded by a ruse in escaping from Hereford, where he was detained in honourable captivity.[256]

The Battle of Evesham, 4th August, 1265.

With their combined forces they fell on Earl Simon at Evesham and utterly defeated him (4 Aug.). Simon himself was killed, and his body barbarously mutilated.[257] The king, who was in the earl's camp, only saved himself by crying out in time "I am Henry of Winchester, your king." Whilst the battle was raging the city was visited with a terrible thunderstorm—an evil omen of the future.

If credit be given to every statement made by the city alderman and chronicler, Fitz-Thedmar, we must believe that the battle of Evesham took place just in time to prevent a wholesale massacre of the best and foremost men of the city, including the chronicler himself, which was being contrived by the[pg 099] mayor, the popular Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the no less popular Thomas de Piwelesdon or Puleston, and others.[258]

The city taken into the king's hands from 1265 to 1270.

The citizens of London were soon to experience the change that had taken place in the state of affairs. The day after Michaelmas, the mayor and citizens proceeded to Westminster to present the new sheriffs to the Barons of the Exchequer; but finding no one there, they returned home. The truth was that the king had resorted to his favourite measure of taking the city into his own hands for its adherence to the late Earl of Leicester; and for five years it so remained, being governed by a custos or warden appointed by the king, in the place of a mayor elected by the citizens.[259]

Threat of the king to subdue the city by force.

There had been some talk of the king meditating an attack upon the city, and treating its inhabitants as avowed enemies.[260] The very threat of such a proceeding was sufficient to throw the city into the utmost state of confusion. Some there were "fools and evil-minded persons," as our chronicler describes them—who favoured resisting force by force; but the "most discreet men" of the city, and those who had joined the Earl under compulsion, would have none of it, preferring to solicit the king's favour through the mediation of men of the religious orders. Henry[pg 100] still remained unmoved, and the fear of the citizens increased to such an extent that it was finally resolved that the citizens as a body should make humble submission to the king; and that the same should be forwarded to him at Windsor under the common seal of the city. Whilst the deputation bearing this document was on its way it was met by Sir Roger de Leiburn, who turned it back on the ground that he himself was on his way to the city for the express purpose of arranging terms of submission.[261]

Fitz-Thomas and others summoned to Windsor.

That night Sir Roger lodged at the Tower, and the next morning he went to Barking Church, on the confines of the city,[262] where he was met by the mayor and a "countless multitude" of the citizens. The advice he had to give the citizens was that if they wished to be reconciled to the king, they would have to submit their lives and property unreservedly to his will. Letters patent were drawn up to that effect under the common seal, and taken by Sir Roger himself to Windsor. The citizens had not long to wait for an answer. The king's first demand was the removal of the posts and chains which had been set up in the streets as a means of defence. His next was that the mayor—his old antagonist Fitz-Thomas—and the principal men of the city should come in person to him at Windsor, under letters of safe conduct. Trusting to the royal word, the mayor and about forty of the more substantial men of the city proceeded to Windsor, there to await a conference with the king. To their great surprise, the whole of the[pg 101] party were made to pass the night in the Castle keep. They were practically treated as prisoners.

The fate of Fitz-Thomas unknown.

Some regained their liberty, but of Fitz-Thomas nothing more is heard. From the time that he entered Windsor Castle, he disappears from public view. That he was alive in May, 1266, at least in the belief of his fellow-citizens, is shown by their cry for the release of him and his companions "who are at Windleshores." They would again have made him Mayor, if they could have had their own way. "We will have no one for mayor" (they cried) "save only Thomas Fitz-Thomas."[263]

The city taken into the king's hand, 1265.

In the meantime the king had himself gone to London and confiscated the property of more than sixty of the citizens, driving them out of their house and home. Hugh Fitz-Otes, the Constable of the Tower, had been appointed warden of the city in the place of the imprisoned mayor; bailiffs had been substituted for sheriffs, and the citizens made to pay a fine of 20,000 marks. Then, and only then, did the king consent to grant their pardon.[264]

London Bridge bestowed on the queen.

Queen Eleanor, who had interceded for the Londoners,[265] was presented by the king with the custody of London Bridge, the issues and profits of which she was allowed to enjoy. She allowed the bridge, however, to fall into such decay, that she thought she[pg 102] could not do better than restore it to its rightful owners. This she accordingly did in 1271, but soon afterwards changed her mind, and again took the bridge into her charge.[266]

The Earl of Gloucester master of the city, April, 1267.

At Easter, 1267, the Earl of Gloucester, who had constituted himself the avowed champion of those who had suffered forfeiture, and become "disinherited" for the part they had taken with the Earl of Leicester, sought admission to the city. The citizens hesitated to receive him within their gates, although according to some, he was armed with letters patent of the king addressed to the citizens on his behalf.[267] Under pretence of holding a conference with the papal legate at the Church of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, he gained admission for himself and followers: and there he remained, having made himself master of the city's gates.[268] Thereupon many citizens left the city, fearing the wrath of the king, and once more the city was in the hands of the populace. The leading citizens were placed under a guard; the aldermen and bailiffs were deposed to make way for the earl's own supporters, and, for better security, a covered way of timber was made from the city to the Tower.[269]

Whatever may have been the actual part played by the legate in admitting the disinherited into the city, he soon showed his dissatisfaction at the state of things within its walls, by leaving the Tower, to join [pg 103] the king at Ham, and placing the disinherited—"the enemies of the king"—under an interdict.[270]

Terms arranged between Gloucester and the king, 16th June, 1267.

At length the king and the Earl of Gloucester came to terms (16 June). The earl was to have his property restored to him, and the city was to be forgiven all trespasses committed against the king since the time that the earl made his sojourn within its walls. The earl gave surety in 10,000 marks for keeping the peace, and the citizens paid the king of the Romans 1,000 marks for damages they had committed three years before in his manor of Isleworth.[271] Not a word about the imprisoned mayor, Fitz-Thomas!

Charter of Henry III, 26th March, 1268.

The king's letters patent granting forgiveness to the citizens for harbouring the Earl of Gloucester[272] were followed in the spring of the following year by another charter to the city.[273] But inasmuch as this charter did not restore the mayoralty, the citizens had little cause to be thankful and looked upon it as only an instalment of favours to come.

The city recovers its rights to elect mayor and sheriffs, 1270.

Towards the end of this year or early in the next (1269), the city was committed by the king to his son Edward, who ruled it by deputy, Sir Hugh Fitz-Otes being again appointed Constable of the Tower, and warden of the city.[274] It was through the good[pg 104] offices of the prince, that the citizens eventually recovered the right to elect their mayor, so long withheld. "About the same time, that is to say, Pentecost, 1270," writes Fitz-Thedmar, "at the instance of Sir Edward, his lordship the king granted unto the citizens that they might have a mayor from among themselves in such form as they were wont to elect him."[275]

The sheriff's ferm increased to £400.

He further allowed them to choose two sheriffs who should discharge the duties of sheriff, (qui tenerent vicecomitatem) of the City and Middlesex, as formerly; but instead of the yearly ferm of £300 in pure silver (sterlingorum blancorum), formerly paid for Middlesex, they were thenceforth to pay an annual rent of £400 in money counted (sterlingorum computatorum.)[276]

Election of John Adrian, Mayor, 1270.

The citizens lost no time in exercising their recovered rights. Their choice fell upon John Adrian for the mayoralty, whilst Philip le Taillour and Walter le Poter were elected sheriffs. After they had been severally admitted into office—the mayor before the king himself on Wednesday, the 16th July, and the sheriffs at the Exchequer two days later—the king restored the city's charters, and the citizens acknowledged the royal favour by a gift of 100 marks to the king, and 500 marks to Prince Edward, who had proved so good a friend to them, and who was about to set out for the Holy Land.[277]

Election of Hervy, 1272, disputed.

Adrian was succeeded in the mayoralty by Walter Hervy, who had already served as sheriff or[pg 105] bailiff on two occasions, once by royal appointment. He made himself so popular with the "commons" of the city during his year of office, that when October, 1272, came round and the aldermen and more "discreet" citizens were in favour of electing Philip le Taillour as his successor, the commons or "mob of the city"—as the chronicler prefers to style them—cried out, "Nay, nay, we will have no one for mayor but Walter Hervi."[278]

Appeal made by both parties to the king's council.

The aldermen finding themselves in a minority, appealed to the king and council at Westminster. Hervy did the same, being accompanied to Westminster by a large number of supporters, who took the opportunity of the aldermen laying their case before the council to insist loudly, as they waited in the adjacent hall, upon their own right of election and their choice of Hervy. It was feared that the noise might disturb the king who was confined to his bed with what proved to be his last illness. All parties was therefore dismissed, injunction being laid upon Hervy not to appear again with such a following, but to come with only ten or a dozen supporters at the most.

The king's illness and death, 16th November, 1272.

Hervy paid no heed to this warning, but continued to present himself at Westminster every day for a fortnight, accompanied by his supporters in full force, expecting an answer to be given by the council. At length the council resolved to submit the whole question to arbitration, the city in the meanwhile being placed in the custody of a warden. Before the arbitrators got to work, the king died (16 Nov.),[pg 106] and rather than the city should continue to be disturbed at such a crisis, the aldermen agreed to a compromise, and Hervy was allowed to be mayor for one year more.[279]

[pg 107]

CHAPTER V.

Fitz-Thedmar's prejudice against Hervy.

Although the aldermen had been prevailed upon to give their assent to Hervy's election to the mayoralty, his democratic tendencies made him an object of dislike, more especially to Fitz-Thomas. When, therefore, that chronicler records that throughout Hervy's year of office he did not allow any pleading in the Husting for Pleas of Land except very rarely, for the reason that the mayor himself was defendant in a suit brought against him by Isabella Bukerel,[280] we hesitate to place implicit belief in his statement.[281] We are inclined, moreover, to give less credit to anything that Fitz-Thedmar may say against the mayor when we bear in mind that the former had a personal grievance against the latter.[282]

Hervy's so-called "charter" to the guilds.

Hervy was a worthy successor to Fitz-Thomas, and, under his government, the craft guilds improved their position. Fresh ordinances for the regulation of various crafts were drawn up, and to these the mayor, on his own responsibility, attached the city seal.[283][pg 108] When Hervy's year of office expired—these so-called "charters" were called in question as having been unauthorised by the aldermen of the city and as tending to favour the richer members of the guilds to the prejudice of the poorer. After a "wordy and most abusive dispute" carried on in the Guildhall between the ex-mayor and Gregory de Rokesley who acted as spokesman for the body of aldermen, Hervy left the hall and summoned the craft-guilds to meet him in Cheapside. There he told them that it was the wish of Henry le Galeys (or Waleys) the mayor and others to infringe their charters, but that if they could stand by him he would maintain those charters in all their integrity.

Fearing lest a riot might follow, the chancellor—Walter de Merton, through whose mediation Hervy had been at last accepted as mayor by the aldermen—ordered his arrest. This was on the 20th December, 1273. Hervy was, accordingly, attached but released on bail, and early in the following January (1274), his charters were duly examined in the Husting before all the people, and declared void. Thenceforth, every man was to enjoy the utmost freedom in following his calling, always provided that his work was good and lawful.[284]

Dispute between Hervy and the Mayor, 1274.

When the mayor removed certain butchers' and fishmongers' stalls from Cheapside, in order that the main thoroughfare of the city might present a creditable appearance to the king on his return from abroad, the owners of the stalls, who complained of being disturbed in their freeholds—"having given to the sheriff a great sum of money for the same"—found[pg 109] a champion in Hervy. Their cause was pleaded at the Guildhall, and such "a wordy strife" arose between Hervy and the mayor, that the session had to be broken up, and Hervy's conduct was reported to the king's council. The next day, upon the resumption of the session, a certain roll was produced and publicly read, in which "the presumptuous acts and injuries, of most notorious character" which Hervy was alleged to have committed during his mayoralty were set forth at length.

Charges against Hervy for acts done during his mayoralty.

Is discharged from his aldermanry.

The charges against him were eight in number, of which some at least appear to be in the last degree frivolous. He had on a certain occasion borne false witness; he had failed on another occasion to attend at Westminster upon a summons; he had failed to observe all the assizes made by the aldermen and had allowed ale to be sold in his ward for three halfpence a gallon; he had taken bribes for allowing corn and wine to be taken out of the city for sale, and he had misappropriated a sum of money which had been raised for a special purpose. Such was the general run of the charges brought against him, in addition to which were the charges of having permitted the guilds to make new statutes to their own advantage and to the loss of the city and all the realm, as already narrated, and of having procured "certain persons of the city, of Stebney, of Stratford, and of Hakeneye" to make an unjust complaint against the mayor, "who had warranty sufficient for what he had done, namely, the council of his lordship the king." This last charge had reference to the recent removal of tradesmen's stalls from Chepe. No defence appears to have been allowed Hervy. The charges[pg 110] were read, and he was then and there declared to be "judicially degraded from his aldermanry and for ever excluded from the council of the city"; a precept being at the same time issued for the immediate election of a successor, to be presented at the next court.[285]

The after-results of the policy of Hervy and Fitz-Thomas.

From this time forward nothing more is heard of Hervy. The same cloud envelopes his later history, that gathered round the last years of his predecessor and political tutor Thomas Fitz-Thomas. The misfortune of both of these men was that they lived before their age. Their works bore fruit long after they had departed. The trade or craft guilds, as distinguished from the more wealthy and influential mercantile guilds, eventually played an important part in the city. Under Edward II, no stranger could obtain the freedom of the city (without which, he could do little or nothing), unless he became a member of one of these guilds, or sought the suffrages of the commonalty of the city, before admission to the freedom in the Court of Husting.[286]

The normal and more expeditious way of obtaining the freedom was thus through a guild. If Hervy or Fitz-Thomas lived till the year 1319, when the Ordinances just cited received the king's sanction, he must have felt that the struggle he had made to raise the lesser guilds had not been in vain. The mercantile element in the city, which had formerly overcome[pg 111] the aristocratic element,[287] in its turn gave way to the numerical superiority and influence of the craft and manufacturing element. Hence it was that in 1376—when the number of trade or craft guilds in the city compared with the larger mercantile guilds was as forty to eight—the guilds succeeded in wresting for a while from the wards the right of electing members of the city's council.[288]

Arrival of Edward I, in London, 18th August, 1274.

In the meantime, King Edward I, arrived in London (18th August, 1274), where he was heartily welcomed by the citizens,[289] and was crowned the following day. He had expected to have returned much earlier, and had addressed a letter to the mayor, sheriffs, and commonalty of the City of London, eighteen months before, informing them of his purposed speedy return, and of his wishes that they should endeavour to preserve the peace of the realm.[290] He was, however, detained in France.

Edward's hereditary right to the crown clearly acknowledged.

Edward's right to succeed his father was never disputed. For the first time in the annals of England, a new king commences to reign immediately after the death of his predecessor. Le Roi est mort, vive le[pg 112] Roi! Within a week of his father's decease, a writ was issued, in which the hereditary right of succession was distinctly asserted as forming Edward's title to the crown.[291]

Four citizens to be sent to confer with Edward at Paris, 3rd April, 1274.

Before setting sail for England, Edward despatched a letter (3rd April), "to his well-beloved, the mayor, barons, and reputable men of London," thanking them for the preparations he understood they were making for the ceremony of his coronation, and bidding them send a deputation of four of the more discreet of the citizens, to him at Paris, for the purpose of a special conference.[292]

The object of the conference.

The difficulty which gave rise to this conference and to the signal mark of distinction bestowed upon the citizens of London, proved to be of a commercial character, and, as such, one upon which the opinions of the leading merchants of London would be of especial value. Ever since the year 1270, the commercial relationship between England and Flanders had been strained. The Countess of Flanders had thought fit to lay hands upon the wool and other merchandise belonging to English merchants found within her dominions, and to appropriate the same to her own use. Edward's predecessor on the throne had thereupon issued a writ to the mayor and sheriffs of London, forbidding in future the export of wool to any parts beyond sea whatsoever,[293] but this measure not having the desired effect, he shortly afterwards had recourse to reprisals.

On the 28th June, 1270, a writ had been issued to the same parties ordering them to seize the goods of[pg 113] all Flemings, Hainaulters, and other subjects of the Countess, for the purpose of satisfying the claims of English merchants; and all subjects of the Countess, except those workmen who had received express permission to come to England for the purpose of making cloth, and those who had taken to themselves English wives, and had obtained a domicile in this country, were to quit the realm by a certain date.[294] Those Flemings who neglected this injunction were to be seized and kept in custody until further orders, and the same measures were to be taken with those who harboured them. In the meantime, an inquisition was ordered to be made as to the amount and value of the goods seized by the Countess, and the English merchants were to lodge their respective claims for compensation.

Interruption of trade between England and Flanders.

The interruption of trade between England—at that time the chief wool-exporting country in the world—and Flanders where the cloth-working industry especially flourished, caused much tribulation; and the King of France, the Duke of Brabant, and other foreign potentates, whose subjects began to feel the effect of this commercial disturbance, addressed letters to the King of England, requesting that their merchants might enter his realm and stay, and traffic there as formerly. They had never offended the King or his people; the Countess of Flanders was the sole offender, and she alone ought to be punished. The matter having received due consideration, the embargo on the export of wool was taken off with respect to all countries, except Flanders, with the proviso that no wool should be exported out of the kingdom without special license from the king.[295]

By the month of October, 1271, the inquisitors, who had been appointed to appraise the goods and chattels of Flemings in England, were able to report to parliament that their value amounted to £8,000 "together with the king's debt," whilst the value of merchandise belonging to English merchants and seized by the countess amounted to £7,000, besides chattels of other merchants. Parliament again sat in January of the new year to consider the claims of English merchants, when those whose goods had been taken in Flanders, "and the Londoners more especially," appeared in person. Each stated the amount of his loss and the amount of goods belonging to Flemings which he had in hand, and a balance was struck. An inquisition was, at the same time, taken in each of the city wards, as to the number of merchants who bought, sold, exchanged, or harboured the goods of persons belonging to the dominion of the Countess; and also as to who had taken wools out of England to the parts beyond the sea, contrary to the king's prohibition.[296] Many Flemings, still lurking in the city, were arrested, and only liberated on condition they abjured the realm so long as the dispute between England and Flanders should continue. Nearly six months elapsed before any further steps were taken by either party in the strife. The Countess then showed signs of giving way. Envoys from her arrived in England. She was willing to make satisfaction to all English merchants for the losses they had sustained, but this was to be subject to the condition that the king should bind himself to discharge certain alleged debts, which had been the cause of all the mischief from[pg 115] the outset, within a fixed time. In the event of the king failing to discharge these claims, the justice of which he never recognised, the Countess was to be allowed to distrain all persons coming into her country from England by their bodies and their goods, until satisfaction should be made for arrears. This haughty message only made matters worse. The king and his council became indignant, and contemptuously dismissed the envoys, commanding them to leave England within three days on peril of life and limb.[297]

Writ for the expulsion of all Flemings, 8th Sept., 1273.

Time went on; Henry died, and before his son Edward arrived in England from the Holy Land to take up the reins of government, his chancellor, Walter de Merton, had caused a proclamation to be made throughout the city, forbidding any Fleming to enter the kingdom, under penalty of forfeiture of person and goods. The proclamation was more than ordinarily stringent, for it went on to say that if perchance any individual had received special permission from the late king to sojourn and to trade within the realm, such permission was no longer to hold good, but the foreigner was to pack up his merchandise, collect his debts, and leave the country by Christmas, 1273, at the latest.[298]

Negotiations opened with Edward at Paris for peace with Flanders.

The Countess had probably hoped that a change of monarch on the English throne would have favoured her cause. This proclamation was sufficient to show her the character of the king with whom she had in future to deal, and destroyed any hope she may have entertained in this direction. She therefore took the opportunity of Edward's passing through Paris to London, to open negotiations for the purpose[pg 116] of restoring peace between England and Flanders; and it was to assist the king in conducting these negotiations, that he had summoned a deputation of citizens of London to meet him at Paris.

Particulars of the four citizens sent to confer with the king at Paris.

The choice of the citizens fell upon Henry le Waleys, their mayor for the time being, one who was known almost as well in France as in the city of London, if we may judge from the fact of his filling the office of Mayor of Bordeaux in the following year. With him were chosen Gregory de Rokesley who, besides being a large dealer in wool, was also a goldsmith and financier, and as such was shortly to be appointed master of the exchange throughout England;[299] John Horn, whose name bespeaks his Flemish origin,[300] and who may on that account have been appointed, as one who was intimate with both sides of the question under discussion; and Luke de Batencurt, also of foreign extraction, who was one of the Sheriffs of London this same year.

Peace concluded between England and Flanders, July, 1274.

These four accordingly set out to confer with the king at Paris, having previously seen to the appointment of wardens over the city, and of magistrates to determine complaints which might arise at the fair to be held at St. Botolph's, or Boston, in Lincolnshire, during their absence.[301] The deputation were absent[pg 117] a month. On the 19th July, Gregory de Rokesle and certain others whose names are not mentioned again set out in compliance with orders received from the king; the object of their journey being, as we are expressly told, to treat of peace between the king and the Countess of Flanders at Montreuil.[302] A month later Edward himself was in England.

Strong Government of the city under Edward I.

The king ruled the city, as indeed he ruled the rest of the kingdom, with a strong hand. Londoners had already experienced the force of his arm and his ability in the field, when he scattered them at Lewes; they were now to experience the benefit of his powers of organization in time of peace. Fitz-Thedmar's chronicle now fails us, but we have a new source of information in the letter books[303] of the Corporation.

The necessity for an immediate supply of money.

The first and the most pressing difficulty which presented itself to Edward, was the re-organization of finance. Without money the barons could not be kept within legitimate bounds. Having won their cause against the usurpations of the crown, they began to turn their arms upon each other, and it required Edward's strong hand not only to impose order upon his unruly nobles, but also, to bring[pg 118] Scotland and Wales into submission. The country was flooded with clipt coin. This was called in, and new money minted at the Tower, under the supervision of Gregory de Rokesley as Master of the Exchange.[304] Parliament made large grants to the king; and he further increased his resources by imposing knighthood upon all freeholders of estates worth £20 a year.[305] When the Welsh war was renewed in 1282, the city sent him 6,000 marks by the hands of Waleys and Rokesley.[306]

The so-called Parliament at Shrewsbury. 1283.

In 1283 an extraordinary assembly—styled a parliament by some chroniclers—was summoned to meet at Shrewsbury to attend the trial of David, brother of Llewelyn, Prince of Wales. To this so-called parliament the city sent no less than six representatives, viz.: Henry le Waleys, the mayor, Gregory de Rokesley, Philip Cissor, or the tailor, Ralph Crepyn, Joce le Acatour, or merchant, and John de Gisors.[307] Their names are worthy of record, inasmuch as they are the first known representatives of the city in any assembly deserving the name of a parliament, the names of those attending Simon de Montfort's parliament not having been transmitted to us. David was convicted and barbarously executed, his head being afterwards carried to London, and set up on the Tower, where his brother's head, with a mock crown of ivy, had recently been placed.[308]

Ralph Crepyn and Laurence Duket.

Of Ralph Crepyn, one of the city's representatives at Shrewsbury, a tragic story is told. Meeting, one day, Laurence Duket, his rival in the affections of a woman known as "Alice atte Bowe," the two came to blows, and Crepyn was wounded. The affray took place in Cheapside, and Duket, fearing he had killed his man, sought sanctuary in Bow Church. Crepyn's friends, hearing of the matter, followed and having killed Duket, disposed of their victim's body in such a way as to suggest suicide. It so happened, however, that the sacrilegious murder had been witnessed by a boy who informed against the culprits and no less than sixteen persons were hanged for the part they had taken in it. Alice, herself, was condemned to be burnt alive as being the chief instigator of the murder; others, including Ralph Crepyn, were sent to the Tower, and only released on payment of heavy fines.[309] The church was placed under interdict, the doors and windows being filled with thorns until purification had been duly made. Duket's remains, which had been interred as those of a suicide, were afterwards taken up and received the rights of Christian burial in Bow Churchyard.

Legislative enactments of 1285.

The year 1285 was a memorable one both for London and the kingdom. It witnessed the passing of two important statutes. In the first place the statute De Donis legalised the principle of tying up real estate, so as to descend, in an exclusive perpetual line; in other words, it sanctioned entails, and its[pg 120] effect is still experienced at the present day in every ordinary settlement of land. In the next place the Assise of Arms of Henry II was improved so as to secure for the king a national support in the time of danger. In every hundred and franchise each man's armour was to be viewed twice a year; and defaults reported to the king "who would find a remedy." The gates of walled towns were to be closed from sun-set to sun-rise, and watch and ward were to be kept as strictly as in times past, "that is to wit, from the day of the Ascension until the day of S. Michael, in every city by six men at every gate; in every borough, twelve men; every town, six or four, according to the number of the inhabitants of the town, and they shall watch the town continually all night from the sun-setting unto the sun-rising."[310] Three years previous to the passing of this statute the mayor, alderman and chamberlain had made very similar provisions for the keeping of the City of London, the city's gates, and the river Thames.[311]

The justiciars at the Tower, 1285

For the city, the year was a memorable one, owing to the suspension of its franchise. The circumstances which caused the loss of its liberties for a period of thirteen years (1285-1298) were these. The king's justiciars were sitting at the Tower, where the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of the city had been summoned to attend. Owing to some informality in the summons, Gregory de Rokesley, the Mayor, declined to attend in his official capacity, but formally "deposed himself" at the Church of All Hallows Barking—the limit of the city jurisdiction—[pg 121] by handing the city's seal to Stephen Aswy or Eswy, a brother alderman. On entering the chamber where sat the justiciars, the mayor excused his unofficial appearance on the ground of insufficient notice. This was not what the justiciars had been accustomed to. On the contrary, the citizens had usually shown studied respect towards the justiciars whenever they came to the Tower for the purpose of holding pleas of the crown.

The customary procedure when the citizens waited on the justices at the Tower.

The rules of procedure on such occasions are fully set out in the city's "Liber Albus,"[312] and they contain, curiously enough, a provision expressly made for cases where the full notice of forty days had not been given. In such an event the prescribed rule was to send some of their more discreet citizens to the king and his council to ask for the appointment of another day. Whether Rokesley had taken this step before resorting to the measures he did we are not told. It was also the custom on such occasions for the citizens to gather at Barking Church, clothed in their best apparel, and thence proceed in a body to the Tower. A deputation was appointed—selected members of the common council—who should also proceed to the Tower for the purpose of giving an official welcome to the justiciars on behalf of the citizens. It was not thought to be in any way derogatory to secure the goodwill of the king's justiciars by making ample presents. It had been done time out of mind. The sheriffs and aldermen were to attend with their respective sergeants and beadles, the benches at the Tower were to be examined beforehand and necessary repairs carried out, all shops[pg 122] were to be closed and no business transacted during the session. In a word, everything was to be done that could add to the dignity of the justiciars and the solemnity of the occasion. In contrast with all this, Rokesley's conduct was indeed strange, and leads us to suppose that his action was caused by some other and stronger reason than the mere omission to give the usual notice of the coming of the king's justiciars.

The city declared to be taken into the king's hand.

Be this as it may, the king's treasurer, who may possibly have been forewarned of what was about to take place, at once decided what course to take. He declared the city to be there and then taken into the king's hands, on the pretext that it was found to be without a mayor, and he summoned the citizens to appear on the morrow before the king at Westminster. When the morrow came, the citizens duly appeared, and about eighty of them were detained. Those who accompanied Rokesley to Barking Church on the previous day were confined in the Tower, but after a few days they were all set at liberty, with the exception of Stephen Aswy, who was removed in custody to Windsor.[313]

For thirteen years the city governed by a custos instead of a mayor.

The king appointed Ralph de Sandwich custos or warden of the city, enjoining him at the same time to observe the liberties and customs of the citizens, and for the next thirteen years (1285-1298) the city continued to be governed by a warden in the person of Sandwich or of John le Breton, whilst the sheriffs[pg 123] were sometimes appointed by the Exchequer and sometimes chosen by the citizens.[314]

Both the king and the city in straits for money, 1289-1290.

In May, 1286, the king went to Gascony, leaving the country in charge of his nephew, Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, and did not return until August, 1289. He was then in sore straits for money, as was so often the case with him, and was glad of a present of £1,000 which the citizens offered by way of courtesy (curialitas). The money was ordered (14th October) to be levied by poll,[315] but many of the inhabitants were so poor that they could only find pledges for future payment, and these pledges were afterwards sold for what they would fetch.[316] A twelve-month later (October, 1290) when Edward visited London, he was fain to be content with the smaller sum of 1,000 marks.[317]

The king's difficulties increased by the expulsion of the Jews, 1290.

The expulsion of the Jews in 1290 increased Edward's difficulties, for on them he chiefly depended for replenishing his empty exchequer. Their expulsion was not so much his own wish as the wish of his subjects, who, being largely in debt to the Jews, regarded them as cruel tyrants. The nation soon discovered that it had made a mistake in thus getting rid of its creditors, for in the absence of the Jews,[pg 124] Edward was compelled to resort to the Lombard merchants. It may possibly have been owing to some monetary transactions between them that the king was solicitous of getting a life interest in the city's Small Beam made over to a lady known as Jacobina la Lumbard. No particulars are known of this lady, but to judge from her name she probably came of a family of money-lenders, and if so, the king's action in writing from Berwick (28th June, 1291) to the warden and aldermen of the city—at a time when he was completely in the hands of the Italian goldsmiths and money-lenders—soliciting for her a more or less lucrative post is easily intelligible.[318] The king's request was refused, notwithstanding the city being at the time in charge of a custos of his own choice instead of a mayor elected by the citizens themselves. Such requests produced friction between the king and the city, and the former's financial relations with the foreign merchants were fraught with danger to himself and to his son.[319]

Edward's domestic troubles of 1290.

Edward's anxiety was in the meanwhile increased by domestic troubles. In 1290 he suffered a bitter disappointment by the death of a Scottish princess who was affianced to his son, the Prince of Wales, and thus a much-cherished plan for establishing friendly relations between the two countries was frustrated. But this disappointment was quickly[pg 125] cast in the shade by the more severe affliction he suffered in the loss of his wife. In November Queen Eleanor died. Her corpse was brought from Lincoln to Westminster, and the bereaved husband ordered a memorial cross to be set up at each place where her body rested. One of these crosses was erected at the west end of Cheapside. After the Reformation the images with which the cross was ornamented, like the image of Becket set over the gate of the Mercers' Chapel, roused the anger of the iconoclast, who took delight in defacing them.

Seizure of treasure in monastries and churches, 1294.

Time only increased the king's pecuniary difficulties. In February, 1292, all freeholders of land of the annual value of £40 were ordered to receive knighthood, and in the following January the estates of defaulters were seized by the king's orders.[320] In June, 1294, war was declared against France. Money must be had. Every monastery and every church throughout England was ransacked for treasure, and the sum of £2,000, found in St. Paul's Church, was appropriated for the public service.[321] The dean was seized with a fit (subita percussus passione) and died in the king's presence.[322]

The city furnishes ships and men for the defence of the coast 1295, 1296.

Instead of invading France, Edward found his own shores devastated by a French fleet, whilst at the same time his hands were full with fresh difficulties from Scotland and Wales. In the summer of 1295, the city furnished the king with three ships, the cost being defrayed by a tax of twopence in[pg 126] the pound charged on chattels and merchandise. John le Breton, then warden, advanced the sum of £40, which the aldermen and six men of each ward undertook to repay.[323] In the following year (1296) the city agreed, after some little hesitation, to furnish forty men with caparisoned horses, and fifty arbalesters for the defence of the south coast, under the king's son, Edward of Carnarvon.[324]

The subjection of Scotland, 1296.

Edward again turned his attention to Scotland, and, having succeeded in reducing Balliol to submission, he carried off from Scone the stone which legend identifies with Jacob's pillow, and on which the Scottish kings had from time immemorial been crowned,[325] By Edward's order the stone was enclosed in a stately seat, and placed in Westminster Abbey, where it has since served as the coronation chair of English sovereigns.

The parliament of Bury St. Edmund's, 3rd Nov., 1296.

From Berwick Edward issued (26 Aug., 1296,) writs for a Parliament to meet at Bury St. Edmund's, in the following November. The constitution of this Parliament was the same as that which had met at Westminster in November of the previous year (1295) and which was intended to serve as a model parliament, a pattern for all future national assemblies. The city was represented by two aldermen, namely, Sir Stephen Aswy, or Eswy, who had been confined in Windsor Castle ten years before for his conduct towards the king's justiciars at the Tower, and Sir William de Hereford.[326] From this time forward[pg 127] down to the present day we have little difficulty in discovering from one source or another the names of the city's representatives in successive parliaments. Edward, of course, wanted money. The barons and knights increased their former grants; so also did the burgesses. The clergy, on the other hand, declared themselves unable to make any grant at all in the face of a papal prohibition,[327] and the king was at last driven to seize the lay fees of the clergy of the province of Canterbury. In the spring of the following year he proceeded to seize all the wool of the country, paying for it by tallies, and to levy a supply of provisions on the counties. The act was only justifiable on the plea of necessity, and led to measures being taken to prevent its repetition.[328]

Edward's altercation with Roger Bigod, Feb., 1297.

It was an easier matter for Edward to raise money than to get the barons to accompany him abroad. To leave them behind was to risk the peace of the country. He therefore spared no efforts to persuade them to join in a projected expedition, and when persuasion failed tried threats. It was his desire that the barons should go to Gascony, whilst he took the command in Flanders. This was not at all to the taste of the barons, who declined to go abroad, except in the personal retinue of the king himself. "With you, O king," said Roger Bigod, "I will gladly go; as belongs to me by hereditary right, I will go in front of the host, before your face;" but without the king he positively declined to move. "By God, earl," cried the king, fairly roused by the[pg 128] obstinacy of his vassal, "you shall either go or hang;" to which the earl replied, with equal determination, "By the same token, O king, I will neither go nor hang."[329]

Nothing daunted, the king issued writs (15 May) for a military levy of the whole kingdom for service abroad, to meet at London on the 7th July, a measure as unconstitutional as the seizure of wool and the levying of taxes without the assent of Parliament. On the day appointed, the barons, who had received a large accession of strength from the great vassals, appeared with their forces at St. Paul's; but instead of complying with the king's demands—or rather requests, for the king had altered his tone—they prepared a list of their grievances.

The "Confirmatio Cartarum," Oct. 1297.

With difficulty civil war was avoided, and in August Edward set sail for Flanders. No sooner was his back turned, than the barons and the Londoners made common cause in insisting upon a confirmation and amplification of their charters.[330] Prince Edward, the king's son, who had been appointed regent in his father's absence, granted all that was asked, and on the 10th October (1297), the Confirmatio Cartarum, as it was called, was issued in the king's name.[331] Thenceforth, no customs duties were to be exacted without the consent of parliament.

The mayoralty restored to the city, 11th April, 1298.

In view of the king's return to England in March (1298), the warden of the city, Sir John Breton, the aldermen, and a deputation from the wards met together and resolved that every inhabitant of the[pg 129] city, citizen and stranger, should pay to the king's collectors the sum of sixpence in the pound of all their goods up to £100.[332] In the following month Edward issued letters patent (11th April), restoring to the citizens their franchises and the right of again electing their mayor.[333] The choice of the citizens fell upon Henry le Waleys, who was duly admitted by the Barons of the Exchequer after presentation to the king.[334]

Suppression of the Scottish rising under Wallace, 1298, 1304.

In the summer Edward marched to Scotland for the purpose of putting down the rising under Wallace. An account of the battle of Falkirk, fought on the 22nd July, was conveyed to the mayor, aldermen, and "barons" of London, by letter from Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, or, as he was then styled, Bishop of Chester, who wrote as an eye-witness, if not indeed as a partaker in that day's work.[335] It was the first battle of any consequence in which the English long-bow was brought into prominence. Edward's victory was complete. The enemy's loss was great, the number that perished, according to the bishop's information, being two hundred men-at-arms and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Edward was unable, however, to follow up his success for want of supplies, and so retreated. In 1304, he again marched northward, notwithstanding the defection of many nobles. He had previously resorted once more to the questionable practice of talliaging the city of[pg 130] London,[336] levying from the citizens the fifteenth penny of their moveable goods and the tenth penny of their rents.[337] The campaign was eminently successful. Sterling surrendered after a siege of two months, and Wallace himself shortly afterwards fell into his hands, having refused the terms of an amnesty which Edward had generously offered.

Wallace brought to London, 22 Aug., 1305.

He was carried to London, where a crowd of men and women flocked out to meet one, of whose gigantic stature and feats of strength they had heard so much. He was lodged in the house of William de Leyre, an alderman of the city, situate in the parish of All Hallows at the Hay or All Hallows the Great. Having been tried at Westminster and condemned to death on charges of treason, sacrilege and robbery, he was hanged, drawn, and quartered, and his head set up on London Bridge.[338]

Knighthood conferred on John le Blound, the mayor, and others, May 1306.

No sooner was Wallace disposed of than another claimant to the Scottish crown appeared in the person of Bruce. Before Edward took the field against the new foe, he conferred knighthood upon his son and nearly three hundred others, including John le Blound the mayor. The number of knights within the small compass of the city was reckoned at that time to be not less than a thousand.[339] Knighthood, as we have seen, was one of the means Edward resorted to for raising money, and on this occasion the citizens of[pg 131] London are said to have made him a free gift of £2,000, in recognition of the honour bestowed on their mayor.[340]

Death of the king, 7th July, 1307.

In the summer of 1307, Edward set out to execute the vow of vengeance against Bruce that he had made on the occasion of the knighthood of his son, but the hand of death was upon him, and before lie reached the Scottish border he died (7th July).

[pg 132]

CHAPTER VI.

The accession of Edward II.

The new king's character, differing as it did so much from that of his father, was not one to commend itself to the citizens of London. With them he never became a favourite. The bold and determined character of Queen Isabel, the very antipodes of her husband, was more to their liking, and throughout the contests that ensued between them, the citizens steadily supported her cause. At her first appearance, as a bride, in the city, the streets were compared with the New Jerusalem, so rich were they in appearance;[341] whilst at the coronation ceremony, which took place a month later (25th February, 1308), she and her husband were escorted by the mayor and aldermen in their most gorgeous robes, quartered with the arms of England and France, and were served at the banquet as custom commanded.[342]

The king's foreign favourites.

But even thus early in Edward of Carnarvon's reign the presence of foreigners—to whom the king was even more addicted than his father—was likely to prove a source of trouble; and it was necessary to make special proclamations forbidding the carrying of[pg 133] arms on the day of the coronation and enjoining respect for foreigners attending the ceremony.[343] The king's foreign favourites proved his ruin, and contributed in no small degree to the eventual defection of the city. They were for ever desiring some favour of the citizens. At one time it was Piers de Gavestone who wanted a post for his "valet";[344] at another it was Hugh le Despenser who desired (and obtained) a lease of the Small Beam for a friend.[345] The friend only held the Beam for little more than six months, and then, at the urgent request of the queen herself, it was given to another.[346]

The Ordainers and their work, 1308-1311.

The barons were especially irritated at being supplanted by the king's favourites, and in 1308 succeeded in getting Edward to send Gaveston out of England. In the following year, however, he was recalled, and the barons became so exasperated that in 1310, when the king summoned an assembly of bishops and barons, the latter appeared, contrary to orders, in full military array. The king could not do otherwise than submit to their dictation. Ordainers were appointed from among the barons for the purpose of drawing up ordinances for the government of the kingdom. These ordinances were promulgated in their complete form in 1311, when they received the sanction of a parliament assembled at the House of the Black Friars, in the month of August, and were afterwards publicly proclaimed in St. Paul's Churchyard,[347] special precautions being taken at the time to[pg 134] safeguard the gates of the city by night and day.[348] Gaveston was condemned to banishment for life.

The City's gift of 1,000 marks to assist the king against Scotland, March, 1311.

In the meantime, whilst the Ordainers were engaged on their work, Edward had put himself at the head of his army and marched against the Scots, who were rapidly gaining ground under Bruce. He remained on the border until July, 1311, trying every means to raise money. In March of that year the city sent him one thousand marks, by the hands of Roger le Palmere and William de Flete, the mayor, Richer de Refham, contributing no less than one hundred pounds of the whole sum. The money was despatched on horseback, tied up in baskets covered with matting and bound with cords, and the cost of every particular is set out in the city's records.[349]

Richer de Refham, Mayor, 1310-1311.

Refham was a mayor of the popular type. He had already suffered deprivation of his aldermanry for some reason or another, but was reinstated in 13O2.[350] No sooner was he chosen mayor than he caused a collection to be made of the ancient liberties and customs of the city, from the books and rolls preserved in the city's Chamber, and having assembled the aldermen and best men of the city, he caused them to be publicly read. This having been done, he next proceeded to ask the assembly if it was their will that these ancient customs and liberties, which had so often been infringed by the removal of mayors[pg 135] and sheriffs, should be for the future maintained. Their answer being given unanimously in the affirmative, he at once took steps to obtain the king's writ of confirmation, and caused them to be proclaimed throughout the city. He made a perambulation of the city and abated all nuisances and encroachments. He went further than this. For some time past the streets had been rendered unsafe to pass after dark by bands of rioters who at that day were known by the sobriquet of "roreres." A few years later, the same class went under the name of "riffleres." They were the precursors of the "Muns," the "Tityre Tus," the "Hectors," and the "Scourers,"—dynasties of tyrants, as Macaulay styles them, which domineered over the streets of London, soon after the Restoration, and at a later period were superseded by the "Nickers," the "Hawcubites," and the still more dreaded "Mohawks," of Queen Anne's reign. By whatever name they happened at the time to be known, their practice was the same, viz.:—assault and robbery of peaceful citizens whose business or pleasure carried them abroad after sundown.

During Refham's mayoralty, a raid was made on all common nightwalkers, "bruisers" (pugnatores), common "roreres," wagabunds and others, and many were committed to prison, to the great relief of the more peaceably disposed.[351]

His strictness and impartiality were such as to raise up enemies, and an excuse was found for removing him not only from the office of mayor, but[pg 136] once again from his aldermanry.[352] On this point, however, the city archives are altogether silent, they only record the appointment of his successor to the mayoralty chair at the usual time and in the usual manner.

The fall of Gaveston.

In January, 1312, the king returned to the north, and as soon as he had arrived at York ignored the ordinance touching Gaveston, and instead of sending his favourite into exile, received him into favour and restored his forfeited estates. Foreseeing the storm that he would have to meet from the barons, the king wrote from Knaresborough (9th Jan.) to Refham's successor, John de Gisors, enjoining him to put the city into a state of defence, and not allow armed men to enter on any pretext whatever.[353] On the 21st he wrote again, not only to the mayor, but to nineteen leading men of the city, exhorting them to hold the city for him.[354] Other letters followed in quick succession—on the 24th and 31st January and the 8th February—all couched in similar terms.[355] When, however, he saw how hopeless his case was, Edward sent word to the mayor and sheriffs that the barons might be admitted provided the city was still held for the king. Accordingly the barons were admitted without bloodshed, and held consultation at St. Paul's as to what was best to be done.[356] Gaveston's days were numbered. On the 12th June he was forced to[pg 137] surrender unconditionally to the Earl of Warwick, and that day week was beheaded without the semblance of a trial.[357]

The influence he had exercised over the king had been remarkable from their youth. The son of a Gascon knight, he had been brought up with Edward as his foster brother and playfellow, and in course of time the strong will of the favourite gained a complete mastery over the weaker will of the prince. But his arrogant behaviour soon raised such a storm among the nobles at Court that he was forced to leave England. When Edward succeeded to the throne, one of his first acts was to recall Gaveston, to whom he gave his own niece in marriage, after having bestowed upon him the Earldom of Cornwall. The king seemed never tired of heaping wealth upon his friend. Among other things, he bestowed upon his favourite (28th Aug., 1309) the sum of 100 shillings payable out of the rent of £50 due from the citizens of London for Oueenhithe, to be held by him, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies.[358]

Both of them had friends and enemies in common. As Prince of Wales, Edward had made an attempt to encroach upon some woods belonging to Walter Langton, Bishop of Chester. This caused a breach between father and son, and the prince was banished from Court for a whole half-year. Gaveston also bore the same bishop a grudge, for it was owing in a great measure to Langton's influence as treasurer to Edward I that he was in the first instance forced into exile. When the prince succeeded[pg 138] his father, there came a day of retribution for the bishop; his property was handed over to Gaveston, and he himself carried prisoner from castle to castle by the now all powerful favourite. A proclamation was also issued at the instance of Gaveston, inviting complaints against the bishop.[359]

Parliament at London. August, 1312.

Edward had purposed holding a parliament at Lincoln towards the end of July, 1312, but the turn that affairs had taken induced him to change his mind, and he summoned it to meet at Westminster.[360] It was important that he should secure the city, if possible, in his favour. In this he was successful; so that when the barons appeared to threaten London, having arrived with a large force at Ware, they found the city's gates strongly guarded.[361]

The birth of a prince, 13 Nov., 1312.

In November (1312), the queen gave birth to a son, who afterwards ascended the throne as Edward III. Isabel herself informed the citizens of the auspicious event by letter sent by the hands of John de Falaise, her "taillur."[362] The news had already reached the city, however, before the queen's own messenger arrived, and he signified his disappointment at being forestalled by declining to accept a sum of £10 and a silver cup of 32 ozs., which the city offered him by way of gratuity, as being inadequate to his deserts. As nothing further is recorded of the matter, it is probable that the offended tailor had reason to repent of his folly. For more than a week the city was given up to merry-making, in honour of the birth of[pg 139] an heir to the crown. The conduits ran with wine; a solemn mass was sung at St. Paul's, and the mayor and aldermen rode in state to Westminster, accompanied by members of the fraternities of drapers, mercers, and vintners of London, in their respective liveries, to make offering, returning to dine at the Guildhall, which was hung with tapestry as befitted the occasion.

The question of the king's rights to talliage the city, 1312-1314.

After the death of Gaveston, his old enemy Walter Langton again found favour and resumed his office as treasurer. The city had little reason to be gratified at his return to power; for it was by his advice that the king in December of this year (1312), issued orders for a talliage, which the great towns, and especially London, objected to pay. Early in the following January (1313), the mayor and aldermen were summoned to attend the royal council, sitting at the house of the White Friars. The question was there put to them—would they make fine for the talliage, or be assessed by poll on their rents and chattels? Before making answer, the mayor and aldermen desired to consult the commons of the city. An adjournment accordingly took place for that purpose. When next the mayor and aldermen appeared before the council, they resisted the talliage on the following grounds:[363]—In the first place, because, although the king might talliage cities and boroughs that were of his demesne, he could not, as they understood, talliage the City of London, which enjoyed exemption from such an imposition by charter. In the next place, there were prelates and barons, besides citizens, who enjoyed rents and[pg 140] tenements in the city, and their consent would first have to be obtained before the municipal authorities could levy such a tax. Thirdly, the citizens held the city by grant of former kings, at a fee ferm for all services payable into the exchequer, and on that account ought not to be talliaged. Under these circumstances the council was asked to delay the talliage until Parliament should meet.

This request the king and council expressed themselves as ready to comply with on condition that the city made an immediate advance of 2,000 marks. The city refused, and the king's assessors appeared at the Guildhall, and read their commission. They were on the point of commencing work, when the city obtained a respite until the meeting of Parliament by a loan of £1,000. More than eighteen months elapsed, and at last a Parliament was summoned to meet at York (Sept. 1314); but the country was in such a disturbed state, owing to the renewal of the war with Scotland, that the talliage question was not discussed. Nevertheless the king's officers appeared again in the city to make an assessment, and again they were bought off by another loan of £400. The king took the money and broke his word, and the record of pledges taken from citizens for "arrears of divers talliages and not redeemed," is significant of the hardship inflicted by this illegal exaction on a large number of inhabitants of the city.[364]

The renewal of the war with Scotland, 1314.

Out of this sum of £400, nearly one-half (£178 3s. 4d.), was allowed the city for the purpose of furnishing the king with a contingent of 120[pg 141] arbalesters, fully equipped for the defence of Berwick. Edward had been defeated by the Scots at Bannockburn (24 June, 1314), and Berwick was threatened. On the 21st November, Edward wrote from Northampton, asking for 300 arbalesters if the city could provide so many; but the city could do no more than furnish him with 120.[365] The fall of Berwick was only postponed. In 1318 the great border fortress against Scotland was captured by Bruce. Edward was forced soon afterwards to come to terms with the Earl of Lancaster and the barons with whom he had so long been in avowed antagonism, and a general pacification ensued, which received the sanction of Parliament sitting at York in November.[366] On the 4th December, the king sent home the foot soldiers which the city had furnished, with a letter of thanks for the aid they had afforded him. They were immediately paid off and disbanded.[367]

Dissension in the city, 1318-1319.

It was not long before the king and Lancaster were preparing to join forces for the recovery of Berwick. In the meantime, the Barons of the Exchequer appeared at the Guildhall (25th February, 1319), and summoned the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen to answer for certain trespasses. Several holders of office, and among them Edmund le Lorimer, Gaoler of Newgate, for whom Hugh le Despenser had solicited the Small Beam, were deposed: a proceeding which gave rise to much bickering between mayor, aldermen and commons. Disputes, moreover, had arisen in the city touching the election and removal of the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, which[pg 142] required some pressure from the Earl Marshal and other of the king's ministers, sitting in the Chapter-house of St. Paul's, before peace could be restored.[368]

Articles for the better government of the city confirmed by the king, 8th June, 1319.

According to the writer of the French Chronicle, to which reference has frequently been made,[369] the dissension in the city was mainly attributable to John de Wengrave, the mayor. The citizens had lately been busy drawing up certain "points" for a new charter. Wengrave, who was at the time, or until quite recently, the city's Recorder, had contrived, in 1318, to force himself into the mayoralty having served as mayor the two years preceding—"against the will of the commons." He had shown no little opposition to the "points" of the proposed charter, possibly because one of the points precluded the mayor, for the time being, from drawing or hearing pleas, saving only "those pleas which, as mayor, he ought to hear, according to the custom of the city."[370] If this received the king's approval, Wengrave's occupation as Recorder, at least so long as he was mayor, was gone. However this may be, the mayor's opposition was rendered futile, and the articles were confirmed by the king's letters patent.[371] Their main feature has already been alluded to; thenceforth the direct way to the civic franchise was to be through membership of one of the civic guilds. A foreigner or stranger, not a member of a guild, could only obtain it by appealing to the full body of citizens before admission[pg 143] through the Court of Husting. Conscious of their newly acquired importance, the guilds began to array themselves in liveries, and "a good time was about to begin."[372] Edward did not give his assent to these articles without receiving a quid pro quo. The citizens were mulcted in a sum of £1,000 before the king's seal was set to the letters patent.[373] They did not mind this so much as they did the annoyance caused by the king's justiciars eighteen months later.

The Iter at the Tower of 1321.

Early in 1321 commenced a memorable Iter at the Tower which lasted twenty-four weeks and three days. No such Iter had been held before, although the last Iter held in 1275 had been a remarkable one for the courageous conduct of Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor. This was to surpass every other session of Pleas of the Crown in its powers of inquisition, and was destined to draw off many a would-be loyal citizen from the king's side. Its professed object was to examine into unlawful "colligations, confederations, and conventions by oaths," which were known (or supposed) to have been formed in the city.[374] The following particulars of its proceedings are gathered from an account preserved in the city's records and supervised, if not compiled, by Andrew Horn, the city's Chamberlain, an able lawyer who was employed as Counsel for the city during at least a portion of the Iter.[375] The annoyance caused by this Iter, the general stoppage of trade and commerce, the hindrance of municipal business, is realised when we consider that[pg 144] for six months not only the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen for the time being, but everyone who had filled any office in the city since the holding of the last Iter—a period of nearly half a century—as well as twelve representatives from each ward, were called upon to be in constant attendance. All charters were to be produced, and persons who had grievances of any kind were invited to appear. Great commotion prevailed among the citizens upon receiving the king's writ, and they at once addressed themselves to examining the procedure followed at former Iters. It is probable, as Mr. Riley suggests, that for this purpose they had resort to the "Ordinances of the Iter" already mentioned as set out in the city's Liber Albus.[376] When the dreaded day arrived and the justiciars had taken their seat at the Tower, the mayor and aldermen, who, according to custom, as already seen in Rokesley's day, were assembled at the church of All Hallows Barking, sent a deputation to welcome them, and to make a formal request for a safe conduct to the citizens on entering the Tower. This favour being granted, the king's commission was read.

Complaint of negligence of duty by the sheriffs.

The opening of the Iter did not augur well for the city. Fault was found, at the outset, by Geoffrey le Scrop, the king's sergeant-pleader, because the sheriffs had not attended so promptly as they should have done. The excuse that they had only acted according to custom in waiting for the grant of a safe conduct was held unsatisfactory, and nothing would please him but that the city should be at once taken into the king's hand.[377]

The city claims to record its custom by mouth of the Recorder.

Again, when the citizens claimed to record their liberties and customs by word of mouth without being compelled to reduce them into writing, as the justices had ordered, the only reply they got was that they did so at their own peril.[378] Three days were consumed in preliminary discussion of points of etiquette and questions of minor importance.

the 4th day of the Iter.

On the fourth day the mayor and citizens put in their claim of liberties, which they supported by various charters.[379] The justiciars desired answers on three points, which were duly made,[380] and matters seemed to be getting forward when there arrived orders from the king that the justiciars should enquire as to the ancient right of the aldermen to record their liberties orally in the king's courts. Having heard what the citizens had to say on this point, the justiciars were instructed to withhold their judgment; and this and other questions touching the liberties of the city were to be postponed for future determination.[381]

The 9th day of the Iter.

On the ninth day of the Iter, a long schedule, containing over 100 articles upon which the Crown desired information, was delivered to each ward of the city.[382] Days and weeks were consumed in considering various presentments, besides private suits and pleas of the Crown. Suits were determined in the Great Hall of the Tower facing the Thames, whilst pleas of the Crown were heard in the Lesser Hall, beneath the eastern tower. The justiciars occasionally protracted their sittings till dusk, much to the disgust of the citizens, whose business was[pg 146] necessarily at a stand-still, and as yet no indictments had been made.[383] These were to come.

Indictment against a late mayor.

On the thirty-fourth day of the Iter, John de Gisors was indicted for having during his mayoralty (1311-1313), admitted a felon to the freedom of the city, and fraudulently altered the date of his admission. The question of criminality turned upon this date. Had the felony been committed before or after admission? The accused declared in his defence that admission to the freedom had taken place before the felony; a jury, however, came to the opposite conclusion, and not only found that admission had taken place after an indictment for the felony, but that the mayor at the time was aware of the indictment. The judges therefore ordered Gisors into custody. He was soon afterwards released on bail, but not without paying a fine of 100 marks.[384]

The city taken into the king's hand.

A similar indictment against his son Anketin, as having participated in his father's offence, failed. Within a week of Gisors's indictment, the mayor for the time being, Nicholas de Farndon, was deposed, and the city placed in the hands of Sir Robert de Kendale, the king's commissioner.[385]

Adjournment of the Iter over Easter.

For nine weeks in succession the citizens had suffered from the inconveniences of the Iter, when a brief adjournment over Easter took place. In the meantime, an assay was held at the Guildhall of the new weights and measures which Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, had, in his capacity as the king's[pg 147] treasurer, caused to be issued throughout the country. One result of the trial was that whilst the city's weight of eight marks was discovered to be slightly deficient, the city's bushel was found to be more true than the king's.

Sudden change in the attitude of the judges after Easter.

After Easter the sittings of the justiciars were resumed. A great change, however, had come over them during the recess. They no longer behaved "like lions eager for their prey; on the contrary, they had become very lambs."[386] The reason for this sudden change, we are told, was the insurrection in Wales, under the Earl of Hereford, the king's brother-in-law.

Andrew Horn appears as counsel for the City.

The chief questions discussed before the justices were the right of the weavers of London to hold their guild, and the right of the fishmongers of Fish-wharf to sell their fish at their wharf by retail instead of on their vessels or at the city markets. The claim of the fishmongers was opposed by Andrew Horn, himself a fishmonger by trade, as well as an eminent lawyer, who acted on this occasion as leading counsel for the City.

The indictment brought against the Constable of the Tower.

When Whitsuntide was approaching, an indictment was brought by the city wards against their old enemy John de Crombwelle, the Constable of the Tower. He had already made himself obnoxious to the citizens by attempting to enclose a portion of the city's lands;[387] and now he was accused of seizing a small vessel laden with tiles, and converting the same to his own use, and further, with taking bribes for[pg 148] allowing unauthorised "kidels" to remain in the Thames. The judges, having heard what he had to say in defence, postponed the further hearing until after Trinity Sunday (14th June). In the meantime, the citizens had the gratification of seeing the constable removed from office, for allowing the Tower to fall into such a dilapidated state, that the rain came in upon the queen's bed, while giving birth to a daughter, afterwards known as Joanna of the Tower,[388] and destined to become the wife of David the Second, King of Scotland.

The Iter brought to a sudden termination. 4 July, 1321.

On the judges resuming their sittings after Trinity Sunday, they sat no longer in the Great Hall or the Lesser Hall, "as well by reason of the queen being in childbed there, as already mentioned, as of the fortifying of the Tower, through fear of the Earl of Hereford and his accomplices, who were in insurrection on every side." Temporary buildings had to be found for them. A fortnight later there were signs of the Iter being brought to an abrupt termination, the citizens having represented that they could not possibly keep proper watch and ward owing to disturbances consequent to the holding of the Iter;[389] and within a week, viz., on 4th July, it was actually closed.

The mayoralty restored to the city.

It was the bursting of the storm which had long been gathering against the king's new favourites, the Despensers, father and son, that caused the sudden termination of the Iter, and it was the fear lest he should lose the support of the city against Lancaster and his allies that caused the king quickly to restore[pg 149] to the citizens their Mayor. Hamo de Chigwell took the place of the deposed Farndon.[390]

The City promises to support the king, July, 1321.

Within a few hours of the closing of the Iter Chigwell and the aldermen were summoned to Westminster to say whether they would be willing to support the king and to preserve the city of London to his use in his contest with the barons. Edward and his council received for answer that the mayor and his brethren "were unwilling to refuse the safe keeping of the city," but would keep it for the king and his heirs. They were thereupon enjoined to prepare a scheme for its defence for submission to the king's council, and this was accordingly done.[391]

Letter from the Earl of Hereford and the City's reply.

The city was, however, wavering in its support; Chigwell did his best to hold the balance between king and baron, and to hold a middle course, avoiding offence as far as was possible to one side and the other. After the lapse of a few days, a letter came from the Earl of Hereford, addressed to the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen and commonalty of the city, asking for an interview. It was then decided, after due deliberation in the Court of Husting, to ask Edward's advice on the matter before returning an answer. At first the king was disinclined to allow the interview, but when the lords approached nearer London, and resistance would have been hopeless, he gave way, and a deputation was appointed to meet the lords at the Earl of Lancaster's house in Holborn. To them[pg 150] the earl explained the aim and object of himself and his confederates. They were desirous of nothing so much as the good of the realm and the overthrow of the Despensers, father and son, who led the king astray and had caused the Iter to be held at the Tower in order to injure the city. Having listened to the earl's statement, the recorder, on behalf of the deputation, asked for a few days' delay in order to consult with the mayor and commonalty. The matter was laid before an assembly which comprised representatives from each ward (30th July), and again it was resolved to ask the king's advice. At length a reply was sent to the lords to the effect that the citizens would neither aid the Despensers nor oppose the lords, but the city would in the meantime be strongly guarded for the preservation of order. With this the lords were satisfied.[392]

Terms arranged between the king and the lords, 14 August.

A fortnight later (14th August) the king, moved by the intercession of the Earl of Pembroke, the bishops, and his queen, yielded to the lords, and an agreement between them was reduced to writing and publicly read in Westminster Hall.[393]

Chigwell continued in the mayoralty.

Chigwell's conduct throughout met with so much favour from the citizens as well as from the king that when the latter issued letters patent[394] granting a free election of a mayor in October of this year, it was decided to continue Chigwell in office without a fresh election.[395]

The queen insulted by Lady Badlesmere.

Such popularity as the king had for a time achieved by his concession to the demands of the lords, however unwillingly made, was enhanced by another circumstance. An insult had been offered to the queen by Lady Badlesmere, who had refused to admit her into her castle at Ledes, co. Kent, when on her way to Canterbury. The queen was naturally indignant, and the unexpected energy displayed by Edward in avenging the insult gave fresh strength to his cause. With the assistance of a contingent sent by the citizens of London, the king beseiged the castle, and, having taken it, hanged the governor.[396] Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, the owner of the castle, was afterwards taken and put to death at Canterbury.

Attempt to issue a "charter of service."

Elated with his success, the king forthwith proceeded to issue "a charter of service"—i.e., a charter binding the citizens to serve him in future wars—which he wished the good people of London to have sealed, "but the people of the city would not accede to it for all that the king could do."[397] In the place of this charter, however, he was induced to grant the citizens one of a diametrically opposite nature, whereby it was provided that the aids granted by the citizens upon this occasion should not be prejudicial to the mayor and citizens, nor be looked upon as establishing a precedent.[398]

The Londoners at Boroughbridge, 16 March, 1322.

Having thus secured an acknowledgment of their rights, the citizens were ready enough to waive them[pg 152] when occasion required. The battle of Boroughbridge (16 March, 1322) was won for the king by the aid of Londoners. We know, at least, that when he started from London at the close of 1321 he was accompanied by five hundred men at arms from the city, and one hundred and twenty more were sent after him on the 3rd March.[399]

The character of the citizen soldier in the field.

The Londoners were by no means to be despised in the field. Froissart describes them as being very dangerous when once their blood was up, and slaughter on the battle field only gave them fresh courage.[400] A late writer[401] who was pleased to describe the city's military force as "an army of drapers' apprentices and journeymen tailors, with common councilmen for captains and aldermen for colonels," gave it credit, nevertheless, for natural courage, which, combined with befitting equipment and martial discipline, rendered the force a valuable ally and a formidable enemy.

Defeat and execution of the Earl of Lancaster, March, 1322.

The Earl of Lancaster, who was made prisoner at Boroughbridge, and afterwards executed before his own castle at Pomfret, had come to be a great favourite with the Londoners, in whose eyes he appeared as the champion of the oppressed against the strong. His memory was long cherished in the city, and miracles were believed to have taken place—the crooked made straight, the blind receiving sight[pg 153] and the deaf hearing—before the tablet he had set up in St. Paul's commemorative of the king's submission to the Ordinances. Edward ordered the removal of the tablet, but it was again set up as soon as all power had passed from his hands.[402]

Edward again despotic, 1322-1323.

Edward, again a free ruler, lost no time in revoking these Ordinances. The elder Despenser he raised to the earldom of Winchester.[403] This was in May, 1322; a year later (April, 1323), he deposed Chigwell, who had again been re-elected to the mayoralty in the previous October, and put in his place Nicholas de Farndon,[404] thus reversing the order of things in 1321, when Farndon had been deposed and his place taken by Chigwell.

The deposed mayor, however, was ordered to keep close attendance on the Court, as were also three other London citizens, viz.: Hamo Godchep, Edmund Lambyn, and Roger le Palmere; and in the following November he recovered his position,[405] and held it for the rest of Edward's reign.

Escape of Roger Mortimer from the Tower. Aug. 1323.

The king's triumph was destined to be short-lived. In August, 1323, Roger Mortimer, a favourite of the queen, effected his escape from the Tower, where he had lain prisoner since January, 1322. The divided feeling of the citizens which had been more or less apparent since the year of the great Iter, now began to assert itself. Mortimer's escape had taken[pg 154] place with the connivance, if not active assistance, of a leading citizen, Richard de Betoyne, and he took sanctuary on the property of another leading citizen, John Gisors.[406] In November the citizens thought fit to close their gates, to prevent surprise.[407]

A feud between the Weavers and the Goldsmiths, 1324.

In the following year (1324), a quarrel broke out between two of the city guilds, the weavers and the goldsmiths. Fights took place in the streets and lives were lost.[408] How far, if at all, such a quarrel had any political significance it is difficult to say, but it is not unlikely, at a time when the guilds were winning their way to chartered rights, that occasionally their members took sides in the political struggle that was then being carried on.

Departure of the queen for France, 9 March, 1324.

Edward, in the meanwhile, was threatened with war by France, unless he consented to cross the sea and do homage to the French king for the possessions he held in that country. This the Despensers dared not allow him to do. A compromise was therefore effected. Queen Isabel, who was not sorry for an opportunity of quitting the side of a husband who had seized all her property, removed her household, and put her on board wages at twenty shillings a day,[409] undertook, with the king's assent, to revisit her home and to bring about a settlement. Accordingly, on the 9th March,[410] 1324, she crossed over to France, where she was afterwards joined by Mortimer and her son.

Her return to England, 24 September, 1326.

Once on the continent, the queen threw off the mask, and immediately began to concert measures against the king and the Despensers. By negotiating a marriage for her son with the daughter of the Count of Hainault, she contrived to raise supporters in England, whilst by her affected humility and sorrow, displayed by wearing simple apparel as one that mourned for her husband, she won the sympathy of all who beheld her.[411] The king, on the other hand, publicly forbade any one holding correspondence with her, caused provisions to be laid up in the Tower in case of emergency, and prepared a fleet to prevent her landing.

The City lost to Edward.

It was all in vain. The majority of the citizens had made up their mind to give him no more support. On the 24th September, 1326, Isabel, in spite of all precautions, effected a landing near Harwich; and Edward, as soon as he was made aware of her arrival in England, took fright and left London for the west. The queen, who was accompanied by her son and her "gentle Mortimer," gave out that she came as an avenger of Earl Thomas, whose memory was yet green in the minds of the citizens, and as the enemy of the Despensers.[412] Adherents quickly came in from all sides, and with these she leisurely (quasi peregrinando) followed up the king.[413]

In the meantime a letter had been despatched to the city in her name and that of her son, desiring its[pg 156] assistance in destroying "the enemies of the land." To this letter, we are told, no answer was sent "through fear of the king." Another letter was therefore sent to the same effect, in which Hugh Despenser was especially named as one to be destroyed, and an immediate answer was requested.[414] This letter was affixed to the cross in Cheapside and copies circulated through the city.

On the 15th October, the city broke out into open rebellion. The mayor and other leading men had gone to the house of the Blackfriars to meet the Bishops of London and Exeter. The mob, now fairly roused by the queen's second letter, hurried thither and forced them to return to the Guildhall, the timid Chigwell "crying mercy with clasped hands," and promising to grant all they required. A proclamation was made shortly afterwards to the effect that "the enemies to the king and the queen and their son" should depart the city.[415]

The murder of Bishop Stapleton, 15 October, 1326.

One unfortunate man, John le Marchall, suspected of being employed by Hugh Despenser as a spy, was seized and incontinently beheaded in Cheapside. The mob, having tasted blood, hastened to sack the house of Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, who as Edward's treasurer, had confiscated the queen's property. It so happened, that the bishop himself, attended by two esquires, was riding towards the city intending to have his midday meal at his house in Old Dean's Lane (now Warwick Lane), before proceeding to the Tower. Hearing cries of "Traitor!" he[pg 157] guessed that something was wrong, and made for sanctuary in St. Paul's. He was caught, however, just as he was about to enter the north door, dragged from his horse, carried to Chepe, and there put to death in the same way as John le Marchall had been executed a short hour before.[416]

The bishop's two attendant esquires also perished at the hands of the mob. Their bodies were allowed to lie stark naked all that day in the middle of Chepe. The head of the bishop was sent to the queen at Gloucester,[417] but his corpse was reverently carried into St. Paul's after vespers by the canons and vicars of the cathedral. It was not allowed, however, to remain there long; for hearing that the bishop had died under sentence of excommunication, the authorities caused it to be removed to the church of St. Clement Danes, near which stood the bishop's new manor house of which we are reminded at the present day by Exeter Hall. The parish church was in the gift of the Bishop of Exeter for the time being, and John Mugg, then rector, owed his preferment to Stapleton. He was, therefore, guilty of gross ingratitude when he refused to take in the corpse of his patron, or to allow it the rites of burial. Certain poor women had more compassion; they at least cast a piece of old cloth over the corpse for decency's sake and buried it out of sight, although without any attempt to make a grave and "without any office of priest or clerk." Thus, it remained till the following month of February, when it was disinterred and taken to Exeter. The[pg 158] treatment of Bishop Stapleton caused other prelates to look to themselves, and many of them, including the primate himself, began to make overtures of submission to Queen Isabel.

After the Bishop's murder there was no pretence of government in the city. The mob did exactly as they liked. They sacked the houses of Baldock, the Chancellor, and carried off the treasure he had laid up in St. Paul's. The property of the Earl of Arundel, recently executed at Hereford, which lay in the Priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, shared the same fate. The banking house of the Bardi, containing the wealth accumulated by the younger Despenser, was sacked under cover of night. The Tower was entered, the prisoners set free, and new officers appointed.[418] All this was done in the face of a proclamation, calling upon the citizens to sink their differences and to settle their disputes by lawful means.[419]

The queen confirms to the citizens their right to elect their mayor, Nov., 1326.

Betoyne elected mayor.

When the Feast of St. Simon and Jude again came round, and Chigwell's term of office expired by efflux of time, no election of a successor took place, but on the 15th November, the Bishop of Winchester paid a visit to the Guildhall, where, after receiving the freedom of the city, and swearing "to live and die with them in the cause, and to maintain the franchise," he presented a letter from the queen, permitting the citizens freely to elect their mayor as in the days before the Iter of 1321, for since that time no mayor had been elected, save only by the king's[pg 159] favour.[420] They at once elected Richard de Betoyne, whom the queen had that day appointed Warden of the Tower, conjointly with John de Gisors.[421] Thus were these two aldermen recompensed for the assistance they had rendered Mortimer in his escape from the Tower.

Public declaration in favour of the queen and the City's rights. 13 Jan., 1327.

On the 13th January, 1327—exactly one week before the king met his wretched end in Berkeley Castle—Mortimer came to the Guildhall with a large company including the Archbishop of Canterbury and several bishops, and one and all made oath to maintain the cause of the queen and of her son, and to preserve the liberties of the City of London. This was solemnly done in the presence of the mayor, the chamberlain, Andrew Horn, and a vast concourse of citizens. The Archbishop, who had offended many of the citizens by annulling the decree of exile passed against the Despensers in 1321, now sought their favour by the public offer of a gift to the commonalty of 50 tuns of wine.[422]

[pg 160]

CHAPTER VII.

Edward's charter to the city, 6 March, 1327.

Edward III was only fourteen years of age when he succeeded to the throne. For the first three years of his reign the government of the country was practically in the hands of Mortimer, his mother's paramour; and it was no doubt by his advice and that of the queen-mother that the young king rewarded the citizens of London, who had shown him so much favour, by granting them not only a general pardon[423] for offences committed since he set foot in England in September, 1326, but also a charter confirming and enlarging their ancient liberties.[424]

This latter charter, which has been held to be of the force of an Act of Parliament,[425] established (among other things) the ferm of the Sheriffwick of London and Middlesex at the original sum of £300 per annum, instead of the increased rental of £400 which had been paid since 1270;[426] it appointed the mayor one of the justices at the gaol delivery of Newgate, as well as the king's escheator of felon's goods within the city; it gave the citizens the right of devising real estate within the city; it restored to them all the privileges they had enjoyed before the memorable Iter of the[pg 161] last reign; and granted to them a monopoly of markets within a circuit of seven miles of the city.[427] These two charters—the charter of pardon and the charter of liberties—together with another charter[428] releasing the citizens from all debts due to the late king, were publicly read and explained in English to the citizens assembled at the Guildhall by Andrew Horn, the Chamberlain, on the 9th March.[429]

The City sends a contingent to assist the king against the Scots.

Scarcely was he knighted and crowned king before necessity compelled him to take the field against the Scots. The Londoners were, as usual, called upon to supply a contingent towards the forces which had been ordered to assemble at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.[430] They responded to the king's appeal by sending 100 horsemen fully equipped, each one supplied with the sum of 100 shillings at least for expenses, and a further contingent of 100 foot-men. They made their rendezvous at West Smithfield, whence they proceeded to "la Barnette."[431]

This act not to be made a precedent.

Whilst furnishing this aid to the king the citizens were anxious that their liberality should not be misconstrued, or tend to establish a precedent in derogation of their chartered privileges. Their fears[pg 162] on this score were set at rest by the receipt of letters patent from the king declaring that their proceedings on this occasion should not be to their prejudice.[432]

The City's representatives at the Parliament at Lincoln, Sept., 1327.

A parliament held in September, at Lincoln, in which the citizens were represented by Benedict de Fulsham and Robert de Kelseye,[433] granted the king an aid of a twentieth to defray expenses; and Hamo de Chigwell, among others, was appointed by the king to collect the tax from the citizens.[434]

Petition against removing the courts and the exchequer to York.

The City's representatives were accompanied to Lincoln by the mayor, Richard de Betoyne, who was the bearer of letters under the seal of the commonalty addressed to the king, the queen, and members of the king's council praying that the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer might not be removed from Westminster to York.[435] The removal was inconvenient to the city merchants, whatever advantage might accrue to those dwelling in the north of England. Negotiations between the City and the king on this subject were protracted for some weeks; the king at length promising that the courts should return to Westminster as soon as the country was in a more settled state.[436]

Peace with Scotland, 1328.

The campaign against the Scots brought little credit to either side, and terminated in a treaty, the terms of which were for the most part arranged by[pg 163] Mortimer and the queen-mother. One of the articles of peace stipulated for the surrender of all proofs of the subjection of Scotland; and accordingly the abbot of Westminster received orders to deliver up the stone of Scone to the Sheriffs of London for transmission to Isabel, who was in the north.[437] This the abbot refused to do—"for reasons touching God and the church,"—without further instructions from the king and his council.[438]

When negotiations were opened in 1363 for the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, it was proposed that Edward should be crowned king at Scone on the royal seat (siége roial) which he should cause to be returned from England. These negotiations, however, fell through, and the stone remains in Westminster Abbey to this day.[439]

The treaty which had been arranged at Edinburgh (17 March, 1328), was afterwards confirmed by a Parliament held at Northampton, in which the city was represented by Richard de Betoyne and Robert de Kelseye.[440]

The revolt of the Earl of Lancaster, Oct., 1328.

When the terms of this treaty of Northampton (as it was called) came to be fully understood, the nation began to realise the measure of disgrace which they involved, and Mortimer and the queen became the objects of bitter hatred. Henry, Earl of Lancaster,[pg 164] the king's nominal guardian, had grown weary of his false position, and of serving only as Mortimer's tool. Determined to throw off the yoke, he refused to attend a parliament which met at Salisbury in October (1328),[441] unless certain changes in the government and in the king's household were first made. In the meantime, Bishop Stratford of Winchester and Thomas, Lord Wake, two of his supporters, had paid a visit to the city and had endeavoured to rouse the citizens to action. The king, hearing of this, wrote to the municipal authorities for an explanation. They frankly acknowledged, in reply, that the bishop had been in the city for the purpose of discussing the ill state of affairs, and themselves expressed a hope, amid vows of the utmost loyalty, that the king would redress the grievances under which the nation suffered.[442]

The earl's letter to the City, 5 Nov., 1328.

Instead of attending the parliament at Salisbury, the earl marched in full force to Winchester. On the 5th November he wrote to the citizens from Hungerford, to the effect that he had made known to parliament his honourable intentions, but had received no reply; that the parliament had been adjourned to London; that he had been informed of certain matters about which he could not write, but which the bearer would communicate to them; and he concluded with assuring them that he desired nothing so much as the king's honour and the welfare of the kingdom, and declaring his implicit confidence in their loyalty.[443]

The election of John de Grantham, mayor, in place of Chigwell.

The mayor of the city at this time was John de Grantham. His election had taken place but recently, and was the result of a compromise. Chigwell, who had again been chosen mayor at the expiration of Betoyne's year of office in 1327, was a decided favourite with the citizens, notwithstanding a certain want of firmness of character, and he was again put up as a candidate for the mayoralty in October, 1328. He had enemies, of course. Towards the close of his last mayoralty he was ill-advised enough to sit in judgment upon a brother alderman on a charge of having abused him two years previously. During the troublous times of 1326, John de Cotun, alderman of Walbrook ward, was alleged to have described Chigwell, who was then mayor, as "the vilest worm that had been in the city for twenty years," adding that the city would know no peace so long as Chigwell was alive, and that it would be a blessing if he lost his head.[444] After some hard swearing on both sides, leading to the discovery of bad blood existing between the informer and the alderman, the charge was dismissed.

At the outset it appeared that Chigwell's reelection was assured; but the city as well as the country was in a disturbed state, and political reasons may have led to an endeavour to force another candidate in the person of Benedict de Fulsham over his head. Be that as it may, it is certain that when Chigwell's name was proposed to the assembled citizens at the Guildhall, the cry was raised of "Fulsham! Fulsham!" So high did party spirit run,[pg 166] that the election had to be postponed, and eventually it was thought best that both candidates should be withdrawn. This having been done, the choice of the electors fell on John de Grantham, a pepperer.[445]

The king desires a deputation from the city to meet him at Windsor, Nov., 1328.

On the 8th November the new mayor despatched a letter to the king, expressing the joy of the city at the news of a proposed visit, and the prospect of the next parliament being held in London. His majesty might be assured of the city's loyalty.[446] Four days later (12 November), Edward despatched a messenger from Reading with a letter to John de Grantham, bidding him cause a deputation to be nominated for the purpose of proceeding to Windsor. The messenger arrived late on Sunday evening, and the deputation was to be at Windsor on the following Tuesday. A meeting was therefore summoned on Monday, when six aldermen and six commoners were nominated to meet the king. On Thursday the deputation returned and reported the result of the interview. It appears that Edward had complained to the deputation of armed men having left the city to join the earl at Winchester. He was also desirous to know if the city was in a proper state of defence and the king's peace preserved therein. On these points the mayor endeavoured to satisfy him by letter of the 18th November. As to armed men having left the city for Winchester, his majesty was informed that none had so left with the knowledge of the municipal authorities, and if any should be found to have done so, they would most assuredly be punished.[447]

The king pays a short visit to London, Dec., 1328.

Early in December the king and queen came to London, accompanied by the queen-mother and Mortimer, and took up their quarters at Westminster. The whole of the city went forth to welcome them, and they were made the recipients of valuable gifts. Their stay, however, lasted but one short week.[448]

The king's letter from Gloucester to the Mayor, &c., of London. 16 Dec., 1328.

By the 16th the king was at Gloucester, where he wrote to the Mayor of London, enclosing a copy of particulars of all that had passed between himself and the Earl of Lancaster—the charges made by the earl and his own replies—in order, as he said, that the citizens might judge for themselves of the rights of the quarrel between them. These particulars, the mayor was desired to have publicly read at the Guildhall.[449] This was accordingly done (20 Dec.), in the presence of some of the earl's supporters, who took the opportunity of explaining the earl's position.[450]

The bishops and barons in the city.

Whilst notifying the king that his wishes had been complied with, the mayor and commonalty besought him that all measures of hostility between himself and the barons might be suspended until parliament should meet. The city became the headquarters of the dissatisfied bishops and nobles. The Sunday before Christmas, the pulpit in St. Paul's was occupied by the primate, who was equally anxious with the civic authorities that matters should be left to be adjusted by parliament.[451]

Failure of Lancaster to raise a confederation against the king. 2 Jan., 1329.

The barons in the city, in the meanwhile, awaited the arrival of the Earl of Lancaster. On New Year's day he came, and on the 2nd January (1329) a conference of bishops and barons took place at St. Paul's.[452] The futility of an attempt to form a confederation soon became apparent. The city stood fast to the king; some of the barons wavered, and nothing was left to Lancaster but to make the best terms he could. Edward had already offered pardon to all who should submit before the 7th January, with certain exceptions.[453]

Trial at the Guildhall of those implicated with Lancaster. Feb., 1329.

Now that the king, or rather, we should say, Mortimer, was once more master of the situation, the citizens who had favoured the constitutional party became the objects of retribution. On Sunday, the 22nd January (1329), the mayor and twenty-four citizens were ordered to meet the king at St. Albans. They returned on the following Thursday with instructions to see if the city was prepared to punish those who had favoured Lancaster. No sooner were the king's wishes made known, than an enquiry was at once set on foot. On Wednesday (1st February), the deputation returned to the king, who was then at Windsor, to report the sense of the city; and on the following Sunday (4th February), the king's justices commenced to sit at the Guildhall for the trial of those implicated in the late abortive attempt to overthrow Mortimer. Three days were consumed in preliminary proceedings; and it was not until Wednesday (8th February) that the real business of the session commenced. By that time the king himself had[pg 169] come to London, and had taken up his headquarters at the Tower, having passed through the city accompanied by his consort, the queen-mother, and many of the nobility.[454] It does not appear that Mortimer came with them.

Trial of Hamo de Chigwell, 13 Feb., 1329.

Among those who were brought to trial at the Guildhall was Chigwell. He was accused of being implicated in the abduction of the Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, and of feloniously receiving two silver basins as his share of the plunder. Being convicted, he claimed the benefit of clergy, and the Bishop of London, after some delay, was allowed to take possession of him on the ground that he was a clerk. His life was thus saved and he was conveyed to the episcopal prison amid general regret, although, as we have already seen, he was not a universal favourite. "Many said, he is a good man; others, nay, but he deceiveth the people."[455] He was kept for some months in honourable confinement at the bishop's manor of Orset, co. Essex, and early in 1330 was admitted to purgation. Thus encouraged, he hastened once more to return to the city. He was still popular with a large body of the citizens, who, on hearing of his approach, flocked to meet him, his re-entry into the city being made to resemble a triumphal progress. Both Isabel and her son were seized with alarm; and a writ was forthwith issued for his arrest.[456] He was, however, forewarned, and able to make his escape. Little is known of his subsequent career; Stow places his death in or about 1328, but this must be a mistake. By his will dated 1332, he left some real estate in the[pg 170] city to the dean and chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral for the maintenance of a chantry.[457]

Execution of Mortimer, 29 Nov., 1330.

Mortimer's vengeance was not confined to a few leading citizens. Lancaster's life was spared, but he was mulcted in a heavy fine. Many of his associates took refuge in flight. The Earl of Kent, the king's uncle, was shortly afterwards charged with treason, into which he had been drawn by the subtlety of Mortimer, and made to pay the penalty with his head. This, more than anything else, opened the king's eyes to Mortimer's true character, and at length (Oct., 1339,) he caused him to be privily seized in the castle of Nottingham.[458] Thence he was carried to London, and hanged at the Elms in Smithfield.

The queen retires into privacy.

Queen Isabel, who witnessed the seizure of her favourite and whose prayers to spare the "gentle Mortimer" were of no avail, was made to disgorge much of the wealth she had acquired during her supremacy, and was put on an allowance. The rest of her life, a period of nearly thirty years, she spent in retirement. Before her death[459] she gave the sum of forty shillings to the Abbess and Minoresses of Aldgate of the Order of St. Clare, for the purpose of purchasing for themselves two pittances or doles on the anniversaries of the decease of her husband the late king and of Sir John de Eltham his son.[460] The[pg 171] removal of Mortimer corresponded very closely with the king's coming of age. He was now eighteen years old, and thenceforth he "ruled as well as reigned."

Increase of trade with Flanders.

The king's marriage with Philippa of Hainault, which had taken place at York on the 30th January, 1328, had been popular with the city[461] as tending to open up trade with Flanders. Hitherto nearly all the wool produced by this country had been sent to Flanders for manufacture, the export trade being so large that the king is said to have received more than £30,000 in a single year from duties levied on this commodity alone.[462] We have already seen how, in order to punish the Countess of Flanders for injuries inflicted upon English merchants, the king's grandfather resorted, in 1270, to the expedient of forbidding all export of wool to her country.[463] The misery which her half-starved people were then compelled to suffer soon induced the Countess to come to terms. It was also in no small measure owing to the fear of a similar stoppage by the intervention of the French fleet, that the Flemings laid aside their neutrality in 1339, and openly assisted Edward in his war with France.

The establishment of staples in England.

Towards the close of the last reign the "staples" or market towns for the sale of certain commodities,[pg 172] but more especially of wool, had been removed from the continent and established at various places in England, Ireland and Wales.[464] London was one of those places. No wool was to be exported abroad until it had remained at one or another of the staples for a period of forty days. This rule appears however to have been relaxed by Edward II, in favour of all staple towns but London; merchants being allowed to remove their goods from other staples after a stay of only fifteen days. The London merchants, therefore, were under the disadvantage of finding the market always forestalled. Edward III had not long been on the throne before they took the opportunity of submitting this hardship not only to the king, but also to the queen-mother, and prayed that the relaxation of the rule touching the forty days with respect to other staples might be withdrawn.[465] Their prayer, however, would seem to have had but little effect, for within a week of the petition to the king we find that monarch issuing an order to the collector of customs on wool, leather and wool-fells in the port of London, to enforce the delay of forty days before goods could be removed.[466]

A new tax on wool, leather, and wool-fells.

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[pg 173] 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]

Proposal to remove the Staple to the continent, Feb., 1328.

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[pg 174] 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 opposed to the wish of the commonalty of London[474]; and another to Betoyne's colleagues informing them of the City's action, and bidding them to exert themselves to the utmost to keep the Staple in England.[475]

The account of Betoyne's difference with his colleagues, as related in the letter from the City of York, was subsequently found to require considerable modification, when a letter was received by the Mayor of London from two of his colleagues, Grantham[pg 175] and Priour.[476] Their account of what had actually taken place was to the effect that Betoyne had been publicly requested by a number of representatives from various towns, assembled in the Chapter House at York, to resign his mayoralty (of the Staple) and to deliver up the charters which had been acquired at no little expense. Betoyne replied that the charters were in the possession of John de Charleton,[477] who refused to give them up, but that he had himself, four years since, caused a transcript of the charters to be made, which he was prepared to give up to them if they so wished. Thereupon, there suddenly appeared upon the scene the Mayor of York, hand in hand with John de Charleton himself, and followed by a number of burgesses of York. The appearance of John de Charleton was eminently distasteful to Betoyne, and he got up and left the room, declining to take any further part in the discussion so long as Charleton was present. That was practically all that had occurred, and the writers expressed themselves as much hurt if anything more than this had been reported from the mayor and commonalty of York, for in their opinion Betoyne had never shown himself otherwise than diligent in his duty. The letter concluded with a report of general news, the chief item being the announcement of the death of the King of France, and the writers expressed a wish that the same publicity[pg 176] might be given to their letter as was given to the letter received from the Mayor of York.

Betoyne's own account of his disagreement with his colleagues.

Betoyne on the same day sent home his own account of what had taken place at York.[478] It agrees in the main with the account sent by his colleagues, but contains some particulars of interest not mentioned in the latter. He relates how he had been asked to retire from the Mayoralty of the Staple beyond the seas, and to give up the charters and other muniments which the several towns had obtained at considerable cost. To this he had replied that many charters he had left behind on the continent, but he had brought over with him the charters of the franchises of the staples which had been purchased of the late king. These were in the hands of John de Charleton, who refused to give them up. He had himself, however, gone to Dover in the eighteenth year of Edward II, when the king himself was there, and had caused a duplicate of the charters to be made, which he had expressed his readiness to show them. He encloses a copy. As a proof of the bad feeling (la malencolye) which the burgesses of York entertained towards him, he proceeds to relate how the Mayor of York, maliciously and without any warning, had appeared at the assembly with four or five of his suite, accompanied by John de Charleton, clothed in the mayor's livery, and by a crowd of citizens, to the terror of the assembled merchants. Thereupon, Bretoyne had declared that he would not sit nor remain where Charleton was, and had left the meeting; for, said he, he would never make peace with Charleton except with the assent of the Mayor and[pg 177] Commonalty of London. He concluded by asking that his character might not be allowed to suffer by anything which the Mayor of York may have written. By a postscript he informs the Mayor of London, that on the eve of the Purification (the day fixed for the re-assembly of parliament) the Mayor of York had come to his hostel, accompanied by many others, and had accused him of having come to the city for the express purpose of annoying their fellow-burgess John de Charleton, which he had denied. This insult, he is advised, touches not only himself, but the Corporation of London whose representative he was.

Betoyne's action approved by the citizens, 19 Feb., 1328.

Both these letters were laid before the commonalty of London assembled at the Guildhall on the 19th February, when Betoyne's action was approved, and on the following day a letter was addressed to him to that effect. The Mayor and Commonalty of York received also a missive in which their late conduct to Betoyne was severely criticised.[479] Betoyne's recent services were recognized by the grant, at his own request, of a handsome coverlet furred with minever, in part payment of his expenses incurred in attending the parliament at York.[480]

Temporary abolition of Staples. Aug., 1328.

The king, finding that the opposition to the removal of the staple displayed not only by London but by York, Winchester, Bristol and Lincoln was too great to be overcome, abolished staples altogether (August, 1328), and re-established free-trade.[481] He[pg 178] even invited Flemish weavers to settle in England so as to give a stimulus to the manufacture of woollen fabrics. These he took under his special protection,[482] for the native looked askance upon all foreigners, traders or craftsmen.

England and France, 1329-1331

One of the last political acts of Mortimer had been to send Edward over to France to do homage to Philip of Valois, the new king, for his possessions in that country. This homage Edward paid in 1329, but subject to certain reservations.[483] In 1330 he was making preparations for war, and took the opportunity of the presence of Stephen de Abyndone and John de Caustone, the City's representatives in the parliament held that year at Westminster, to ask them what assistance the City would be likely to afford him. The City members asked leave to consult the commonalty on the matter. Eventually the sum of 1,000 marks was offered, a sum so trifling that Edward consented to accept it only as a free gift, and plainly intimated that he looked for more substantial aid in the future.[484]

In July, he summoned the mayor and twenty-four of the leading citizens to attend him at Woodstock. The mayor (Simon de Swanlonde) would have had them excused on the ground of the disturbed state of the city, but the king was not to be denied. Substitutes were appointed for the mayor during his absence, and he and seven aldermen and sixteen commoners went to Woodstock, where they gave[pg 179] assurances of the City's loyalty.[485] In 1331, after Mortimer's fall, when Edward was his own master, lie again visited France, and a peace was concluded between the two kings.[486]

The war with Scotland, 1332-1335.

From 1332 to 1335 the king was chiefly occupied with Scotland. It was part of the policy of Philip of Valois to encourage disturbance in the north of England, as a means of recovering his lost possessions in France.[487] The period of four years during which peace had been assured by Edward with Scotland by the treaty of Northampton had now elapsed,[488] and active operations on both sides re-commenced. In 1334 the city voted 1,000 marks, afterwards raised to 1,200, for raising 100 horsemen and as many men-at-arms to assist the king for a period of forty days.[489]

A spy was also despatched to Normandy and Brabant to see how matters were going there, and gifts were made to the courts of Juliers and Namur to secure their favour. The parliament which sat at York in May, 1335,[490] having decided in favour of a fresh expedition to Scotland,[491] the king sent orders to the City to hold its forces in readiness to march under the leadership of two of its aldermen, John de[pg 180] Pulteney and Reginald de Conduit.[492] A commission to seize ships in the port of London to the king's use, resulted in the detention of six ships.[493]

Preparations for war with France, 1337.

At length, the friendly attitude which Philip of Valois had taken up towards Scotland, much to Edward's prejudice, determined the latter to go in person to France for the purpose, not only of defending his possessions there, but also of enforcing his claim to the French crown. The year 1337 was devoted to active preparations for the struggle. The City of London, in spite of its franchise, was called upon to furnish 500 men at arms, and to send them to Portsmouth by Whitsuntide.[494] The date was subsequently altered to Trinity Sunday.[495] The king took occasion to find fault with the city's dilatoriness in executing his demands, as well as with the physique of the men that were being supplied. At the request of the mayor, Sir John de Pulteney (he had recently received the honour of knighthood[496]), the number of men to be furnished was reduced to 200, the rest to be supplied on further notice.[497]

Charter, 26 March, 1337.

When Parliament met in London in February, the City made presents of money to the king, the queen, the chancellor, the treasurer, and others,[498] for no other purpose apparently, but to win their favour. In the following month the City obtained a charter[pg 181] declaring its liberties and customs to be unaffected by the recent statute establishing free trade,[499] when presents in money or kind were again made to the officers of state.[500]

The services of John de Pulteney, Mayor.

The services which the mayor had done the city in the work of obtaining this charter were acknowledged by a gift of two silver basins and the sum of £20 from his fellow citizens.[501] It was by Pulteney's influence that the king consented to allow a sum of 1,000 marks to be taken into account at a future assessment for a fifteenth, instead of insisting upon its being a free gift from the citizens.[502]

The king monopolises the wool of the country.

In March, 1337, a statute forbade the importation of wool, as a preliminary to the imposition of an additional custom, and in the following year parliament granted the king half the wool of the kingdom.[503] The Londoners having no wool of their own, paid a composition,[504] and were often reduced to sore straits. Thus in April, 1339, an assessment had to be made in the several wards of the City to discharge a debt to the king of 1,000 marks. The men of Aldersgate ward refused to pay their quota of £9. A precept was thereupon issued to the sheriffs to levy the larger sum of £16 10s., on the lands, tenements, goods, and chattels of the ward, and pay the same into the Chamber of the Guildhall by a certain day.[505] The citizens of London, and the nation generally, would[pg 182] the more willingly have borne these exactions if any adequate good had resulted from them. But Edward's first campaign resulted in nothing more than the assumption by him of the name and arms of the King of France, at a cost of £300,000.[506]

Naval and military preparations in the City.

Among the ships which had been prepared for the king's expedition to France, three were known as "La Jonette," of London; "La Cogge," of All Hallows; and "La Sainte Marie Cogge." The last mentioned belonged to William Haunsard,[507] an ex-sheriff of London, who subsequently did signal service in the great naval battle of Sluys. Prior to the king's departure, measures were taken for the safe custody of the city during his absence.[508] The City had difficulties in raising a contingent of soldiers, for many of the best men had joined the retinue of nobles, and all that could be mustered amounted to no more than 100 men, viz: 40 men-at-arms, and 60 archers.[509]

The city put into a posture of defence after the king's departure, July, 1338.

After the king's departure (12 July, 1338) the City laid in provisions for transmission abroad, 500 quarters of corn and 100 carcases of oxen to be salted down. In addition to which it purchased 1,000 horseshoes and 30,000 nails.[510] In October steps were taken to protect London from attack by sea and land. Piles were driven into the bed of the river to prevent the approach of a hostile fleet; the wharves were "bretasched" with boards, and springalds set at different gates and posterns.[511]

Orders for city to provide more ships and men, Feb., 1339.

In February, 1339, the citizens received the king's orders to furnish four ships with 300 men, and four scummars[512] with 160 men, victualled for three months, to proceed to Winchester. Upon some demur being made to this demand, the number of ships was reduced to two, well equipped with men and arms. Pursuant to these orders each ward was assessed for the purpose of levying 110 men armed with haketon, plates, bacinet with aventail, and gloves of plate; and sixty men armed with only haketon and bacinet. The pay of the men was to be threepence a day each for two months. The vessels were to be joined by ships from various other ports, and proceed to sea in charge of Sir William Trussel by the middle of March to intercept, if possible, the enemy's fleet.[513]

A threatened invasion up the Thames, Easter, 1339.

By Easter time the danger appeared more imminent, and the mayor and aldermen met hurriedly in the Guildhall, on Easter Sunday afternoon after dinner. An immediate attack up the Thames was expected. The mayor and aldermen agreed to take it in turns to watch the river night and day. On the following Wednesday, each alderman was ordered to enquire as to the number of arbalesters, archers, and men capable of bearing arms in his ward. A number of carpenters were sworn on the same day to safe-guard the engines of war laid up in the new house near Petywales.[514] This new house appears to have been known as "La Bretaske," and was used for storing springalds, quarels, and other war material.[515]

Implements of war stored at the Guildhall.

At this period there were kept in the chamber of the Guildhall six instruments called "gonnes," which were made of latten, a metal closely resembling brass, five "teleres" or stocks for supporting the guns, four cwt. and a half of pellets of lead, and thirty-two pounds of gunpowder by way of ammunition.[516] The mention of "teleres" and the small amount of ammunition favours the assumption that the instruments were rather hand-guns than heavy pieces, as has been supposed.[517] A "telere" or tiller was a common name for the stock of a cross-bow,[518] and the earliest hand-guns or fire-arms known consisted of a simple tube of metal with touch-hole, fixed on a straight stick or shaft, which when used was passed under the arm so as to afford a better grip of the weapon.

The king's return, Feb., 1340.

The danger blew over, and before the close of the year the king was expected to return to England.[519] He did not return however before February, 1340, having intimated his intention to the mayor of London, by letter from Sluys, dated Sunday the 20th.[520][pg 185] Notwithstanding his long absence, he had accomplished little or nothing.

A City loan of £5,000.

He had come to the end of his resources and was in want of money to carry on the war. The City was asked to lend him £20,000. It offered 5,000 marks. This was contemptuously refused, and the municipal authorities were bidden to re-consider the matter, or in the alternative to furnish the king with the names of the wealthier inhabitants of the City. At length the City agreed to advance the sum of £5,000 for a fixed period, and this offer the king was fain to accept.[521] At the close of 1339, the chief towns of Flanders had entered into an offensive and defensive alliance with Edward, and an arrangement was made for paying the sum of £1,500 out of the £5,000 to Jacques van Arteveldt, the king's agent at Bruges.[522] Three aldermen and nine commoners were appointed to make the necessary assessment for the loan, for the repayment of which John de Pulteney was one of the king's sureties.[523]

The king again sets sail, June, 1340.

Provided with this and other money supplied by parliament, Edward again set out for the continent (June, 1340). With him went a contingent of 283 men-at-arms, furnished by the City, 140 of them being drawn from that part of the city which lay on the east side of Walbrook, and 143 from the western side. It had been intended to raise 300 men, and the better class of citizens had been called upon to supply each a quota, or in default to serve in person; but eleven had failed in their duty and, on that account, had[pg 186] been fined 50 shillings each, whilst six others, making up the deficit, had set out in the retinue of Henry Darcy, the late mayor.[524]

The battle of Sluys, 24 June, 1340.

The names of the transport ships and the number of men-at-arms supplied by each city, the number of mariners and serving-men (garzouns), which were about to take part in the great battle fought off Sluys (24 June), are on record.[525] Although the French fleet was superior to his own in numbers and equipment, Edward did not hesitate to attack. The struggle was long and severe, lasting from noon on one day until six o'clock the next morning. If any one person was more conspicuous for valour on that occasion than another, it was William Haunsard, an ex-sheriff of London, who came with "a ship of London" and "did much good."[526]

An account of the battle was despatched by the king to his son the Prince Regent, dated from his ship, the "Cogg Thomas," the 28th June.[527]

[pg 187]

CHAPTER VIII.

The king's unexpected return, 30 Nov., 1340.

It was one of the conditions of the Flemish alliance, mentioned at the close of the last chapter, that the campaign of 1340 should open with the siege of Tournay, and it was with this object specially in view that Edward had set out from England. After his brilliant victory over the French fleet which opposed his passage Edward marched upon Tournay. Its siege, however, proved fruitless, and, disappointed and money-less, he slipt back again to England and made his appearance unexpectedly one morning at the Tower[528] (30 Nov.).

Dismisses ministers and orders an enquiry as to collection of revenue.

The justices at the Tower, March-April. 1341.

The king attributed the failure of the war to the remissness of his ministers in sending money and supplies. Scarcely had he landed before he sent for the chancellor, the treasurer, and other ministers who were in London, and not only dismissed them from office, but ordered them each into separate confinement. John de Pulteney was one of those made to feel the king's anger, and he was relegated to the castle of Somerton, but as soon as Edward's irritability had passed off he and others obtained their freedom.[529] A searching enquiry was instituted in the spring of[pg 188] the following year (1341) as to the way in which the king's revenues had been collected in the city. Objection was raised to the judges holding their session within the city and they sat at the Tower. Great tumult prevailed, and the citizens refused to answer any questions until the judges had formally acknowledged the City's liberties. A special fund was raised for the purpose of defending the City's rights.[530] From the 5th March to the 17th March the justices sat, and then an adjournment was made until the 16th April. On resumption of the session another adjournment immediately took place owing to parliament sitting at Westminster, and when the judges should have again sat, the Iter was suddenly determined by order of the king.[531] The king showed much annoyance at the attitude taken up by the citizens, or at least by a certain portion of them, with respect to this enquiry, and endeavoured to procure the names of the ringleaders.[532] Failing in this, and not wishing to make an enemy of the city on which he largely depended for resources to carry out his military measures, he bestowed a general pardon on the citizens, and promised that no Iter should be held at the Tower for a period of seven years.[533]

Charter to the city, dated 26 March, 1341.

As a further mark of favour he granted to the City, soon after the abrupt termination of the Iter, a charter confirming previous charters; allowing the citizens in express terms to vary customs that might in course of time have become incapable of being put[pg 189] into practice, and declaring the city's liberties not subject to forfeiture through non-user.[534]

The city called upon to furnish the king with 26 ships.

In August (1341) the citizens met to consider the question of levying a sum of £2,000, of which 2,000 marks was due to certain citizens in part payment of the £5,000 lent to the king, and 1,000 marks was required for the discharge of the city's own debts. A certain number of aldermen and commoners were at the same time appointed to confer with the king's council touching the sending of ships of war beyond the seas. The result of the interview was made known to the citizens at a meeting held later on in the same month. A further grievous burden (vehemens onus) was to be laid upon them; they were called upon to provide no less than twenty-six ships, fully equipped and victualled at their own cost.[535]

The king's expedition to Brittany, Oct., 1342.

The ships were probably wanted for conveying forces over to Brittany under the command of Sir Walter de Maunay, in the following year. The king himself made an expedition to that country in October, 1342, having previously succeeded in borrowing the sum of £1,000 from the citizens. He had asked for £2,000, but was fain to be content with the lesser sum, security for repayment of which was demanded and granted.[536]

A truce with France for three years.

In March, 1343, Edward returned to England, having made a truce with France for three years.[537] He was beginning to learn the value of the English[pg 190] longbow and the cloth-yard shaft in the field of battle. Hitherto he, like others before him, had placed too much reliance on charges by knights on horseback. What the longbow could effect, under proper management, had been experienced at Falkirk in 1298. It had proved a failure at Bannockburn in 1314 through bad strategy, but at Halidon Hill twenty years later (1333) it was again effective. It was destined soon to work a complete reform in English warfare; and the yeoman and archer were to supersede the noble and knight. The London burgess and apprentice were especially apt with the weapon from constant practice in Finsbury fields. Edward realised the necessity of fostering the martial spirit of the Londoners, and on one occasion (January, 1344) invited the wives of the burgesses to witness a tournament at Windsor, where they were entertained right royally.[538]

Renewal of the war in 1345.

Before the expiration of the truce Edward was busy with preparations for a renewal of the war. Four hundred London archers were to be got ready by Midsummer of 1344, as the king was soon to cross the sea; and 100 men-at-arms and 200 horsemen were to be despatched to Portsmouth.[539] In 1345, a royal commission was issued for the seizure for the king's use of all vessels lying in the river.[540] A further contingent of 160 archers was ordered to Sandwich by Whitsuntide, and in August the city received another order for yet more archers.[541] In September, the king informed the mayor by letter that, owing to the defective[pg 191] state of his fleet and the prevalence of contrary winds, he had postponed setting sail for a short time; the civic authorities were to keep their men-at-arms and archers ready to set out the morrow after the receipt of orders to march.[542] Six months elapsed, during which the citizens were kept under arms waiting for orders, when, on the 18th March, 1346, another letter was sent by the king to the effect that he had now fully made up his mind to set sail from Portsmouth a fortnight after Easter. The men-at-arms, the horsemen, and the archers, were to be ready by a certain day on pain of losing life, limb, and property. On the 28th March, the archers mustered in "Totehull" or Tothill Fields, near Westminster.[543]

Expedition to France sets sail, 10 July, 1346.

The expedition did not actually sail from Portsmouth until the 10th July, the fleet numbering 1,000 vessels more or less.[544] Previous to his departure, Edward caused proclamation to be made in the city and elsewhere, to the effect that the assessments that had been made throughout the country for the purpose of equipping the expedition, should not be drawn into precedent.[545]

News of the king's arrival and success in Normandy, 3 Aug.

On the 3rd August the regent forwarded to the city a copy of a letter he had received from the king, giving an account of his passage to Normandy and of the capture of various towns, and among them of Caen. There he had discovered a document of no little importance. This was none other than an[pg 192] agreement made in 1338, whereby Normandy had bound itself to assist the king of France in his proposed invasion and conquest of England.[546] This document the king transmitted to England by the hands of the Earl of Huntingdon, who was returning invalided, and it was publicly read in St. Paul's Churchyard, with the view of stirring the citizens to fresh exertions in prosecuting the war. The king's own letter was also publicly read in the Husting by the regent's order.[547] The City was exhorted to have in readiness a force to succour the king, if need be. Every effort was made to raise money, and the regent did not hesitate to resort to depreciation of the coinage of the realm in order to help his father. The City made a free gift to the king of 1,000 marks and lent him 2,000 more.[548]

The battle of Creçy, 26 Aug., 1346.

On the 26th August the battle of Creçy was won against a force far outnumbering the English army. The victory was due in large measure to the superiority of the English longbow over the crossbow used by the Genoese mercenaries; but it was also a victory of foot soldiers over horsemen. The field of Bannockburn had shown how easy a thing it was for a body of horsemen to crush a body of archers, if allowed to take them in the flank, whilst that of Halidon Hill had more recently taught the king, from personal experience, that archers could turn the tide of battle against any direct attack, however violent. Edward profited by the experience of that day. He not only protected the flank of his archers, but interspersed among them dismounted horsemen with levelled[pg 193] spears, the result being that the French were driven off the field with terrible slaughter.

Siege and surrender of Calais, 1346-1347.

Flushed with victory Edward proceeded to lay siege to Calais. His forces, which had been already greatly reduced on the field of Creçy, suffered a further diminution by desertion. The mayor and sheriffs of London were ordered to seize all deserters, whether knights, esquires, or men of lower order, found in the city, and to take steps for furnishing the king with fresh recruits and store of victuals.[549] By Easter of the following year, the City was called upon to furnish two vessels towards a fleet of 120 large ships, which the council had decided to fit out. All ships found in the port of London were pressed into the king's service.[550]

In July (1347) the king was in need of more recruits and provisions.[551] Calais still held out, although both besiegers and besieged were reduced to sore straits. At last it surrendered (4 Aug.). Edward spared the lives of its principal burgesses at the intercession of his queen, but he cleared the town of French inhabitants, and invited Londoners and others to take up their abode there, offering them houses at low rents and other inducements.[552] A truce with Philip was agreed on, and Edward returned home. For a time England was resplendent with the spoils of the French war—"A new sun seemed to shine," wrote Walsingham.[553] Every woman of position went gaily decked with some portion of the plunder of the[pg 194] town of Caen or Calais; cupboards shone with silver plate, and wardrobes were filled with foreign furs and rich drapery of continental workmanship. The golden era was of short duration.

The Black Death, 1348-1349.

In August, 1348, the pestilential scourge, known as the Black Death,[554] appeared in England, and reached London in the following November. The number of victims it carried off in the city has been variously computed,[555] but all conjectures of the kind must be received with caution. All that is known for certain is that the mortality caused a marked increase in the number of beggars, and, at the same time, raised the price of labour and provisions within the city's walls to such a degree that measures had to be taken to remedy both evils.[556] Besides the losses by death, the population of the city and the country generally was sensibly diminished by the flight of numbers of inhabitants to the continent, with the hope of escaping the ravages of the plague. The king's treasury threatened soon to become empty, and the country left defenceless, if this were allowed to go on unchecked; he therefore ordered the sheriffs of London to see that no men-at-arms, strangers or otherwise, left[pg 195] the kingdom, with the exception of well-known merchants or ambassadors, without the king's special order.[557] Pilgrimages to Rome or elsewhere were made an excuse for leaving England, at a time when the king's subjects could ill be spared. The king endeavoured to limit this drain upon the population of the kingdom by allowing none to cross the sea without his special licence. The city authorities having negligently executed his orders in this respect, received a rebuke in October, 1350, and were told to be more strict in their observance for the future.[558]

A fresh truce with France, commencing 13 June, 1350.

On the night which ushered in New Year's day, 1350, an abortive attempt had been made by the French to recapture Calais. This ill success rendered Philip the more willing to agree to a further prolongation of the truce with England. Notification of this cessation of hostilities was duly sent to the sheriffs of London.[559] Before the truce had come to an end Philip of Valois had ceased to live, and had been succeeded on the throne of France by John II.

Measures taken for the suppression of piracy, July, 1350.

The city had scarcely recovered from the ravages of the late pestilence, before it was called upon (24 July, 1350) to furnish two ships to assist the king in putting down piracy. These were accordingly fitted out; the ship of Andrew Turk being furnished with 40 men-at-arms and 60 archers, whilst that of Goscelin de Cleve had on board 30 men-at-arms and 40 archers.[560] With their aid, Edward succeeded in utterly defeating a Spanish fleet which had recently inflicted much damage on the Bordeaux wine fleet,[pg 196] and capturing 24 large ships laden with rich merchandise.[561] The citizens had further to submit to a tax on wool and wine, in order to maintain the king's vessels engaged in putting down piracy.[562]

Charter relative to the City's gold mace, 10 June, 1354.

In 1354 an exception was made by special charter of the king in favour of the City of London, and its sergeants were permitted to carry maces of gold or silver, or plated with silver, and bearing the royal arms. Ten years before the commons of England had petitioned the king (inter alia) not to allow any one to carry maces tipped with silver in city or borough, except the king's own officers. All others were to carry maces tipped with copper only (virolez de cuevere), with staves of wood as formerly. The petition was granted saving that the sergeants of the City of London might carry their mace within the liberties of the city and before the mayor in the king's presence.[563] This same year (1354), moreover, the king with the assent of parliament had again forbidden the carrying of gold or silver maces. Thenceforth, maces were to be of iron, brass or tin, or staves tipped with latten, and not to bear representations of the royal arms, but the arms or signs of the city using them. Again exception was made in the case of London; two sergeants of the City as well as of the City of York being permitted to carry gold or silver maces, but they were not to be surmounted with the royal arms. This led to a humble remonstrance from the whole body of the citizens of London, presented to the chancellor and[pg 197] the council by their mayor, Adam Fraunceys, and within a month the charter above mentioned was granted. That the charter originated or authorized the title of "Lord" Mayor, as some have supposed, is extremely improbable.

Renewal of war with France, 1355.

In 1355, all efforts to convert the truce into a final peace having failed, war with France was renewed. Edward was soon called home by fresh troubles in Scotland. Having recovered Berwick, which had been taken by surprise, and formally received the crown of Scotland from Edward Baliol, he prepared to rejoin his son, the Black Prince, in France, and in March, 1356, ordered the city to furnish him with two vessels of war.[564]

Battle of Poitiers, 19 Sept., 1356

News of the battle of Poitiers (19 September, 1356), and of the defeat and capture of the French king, was received in the city by letter from the Prince of Wales, dated 22nd October.[565] Again the English longbow, combined with superior tactics, gained the day. The prince, on his return, made a triumphal entry into the city, passing over London Bridge on his way to Westminster, with the captive king and the king's son in his train.[566] The streets were almost impassable for the multitude that thronged them; and for the moment the citizens forgot at what cost to themselves the victory had been gained. A truce—a welcome truce—for two years followed.[567]

Grievances of the city laid before the king.

Only a few weeks before the prince's return the citizens had laid before the king a list of their grievances and prayed for redress.[568] They had complained of being charged taxes and talliages in excess of any other of the commons. They had lent the king at Dordrecht no less a sum than £60,000, and had incurred further loss by the discrepancy between the weight for weighing wool at Dordrecht and that of England. They had lent the king further sums of £5,000 and £2,000 on two separate occasions, which had not been repaid. The sum of £40,000 had been advanced to the king's merchants at Calais and elsewhere, and this, together with other sums lent (amounting to over £30,000), was still outstanding to the grievous hurt of many citizens. They had, moreover, been called upon to undergo more charges than others with respect to the king's expeditions to Scotland, Flanders and France, and in providing men-at-arms, archers and ships, in aid of his wars. Nor did their complaints stop here. The king's purveyors had been accustomed to seize the carriages, victuals and merchandise of citizens without offering payment for the same, in direct contravention of the king's first charter to the city. Owing, moreover, to deaths by the plague, so much property had come into mortmain that the city had become impoverished, and one-third part of it rendered void of inhabitants. These points they had desired the king to consider, inasmuch as the city had always been loyal and peaceful, setting an example to the whole country. The petition wound up with the usual complaint against the privileges allowed foreign merchants, and a request[pg 199] that the king would grant them letters patent under the great seal, such as they might show to the purveyors whenever they attempted to take anything without payment.[569]

Edward's last invasion of France, 1359-1360.

After the expiration of the truce Edward again set out for France. That country, however, had suffered so much during the last two years at the hands of freebooters, that Edward experienced the greatest difficulty in finding sufficient provisions for his army. Whilst he was traversing France in search of a force with which to try conclusions in the field, a Norman fleet swept down upon the south coast and sacked Winchelsea. The news of this disaster so incensed the king that he determined to march direct on Paris. The Londoners, in the meantime, assisted in fitting out a fleet of eighty vessels, manned with 14,000 men, including archers, in order to wipe out this disgrace, but the enemy contrived to make good their escape.[570]

The peace of Bretigny, 1360.

At length Edward was induced to accede to the terms offered by France, and the peace of Bretigny was concluded (8th May, 1360). The terms were very favourable to England, although Edward consented to abandon all claim to the French crown. King John was to be ransomed, but the price set on his release was so high that some years elapsed before the money could be raised, and then only with the assistance of a few of the livery companies of the city,[pg 200] which showed their sympathy with the captured king by contributing to the fund being raised for the purpose of restoring him to liberty.[571] It was John's high sense of honour that kept him in captivity in England until his death in 1364. He had in fact been liberated and allowed to return to France soon after the conclusion of peace, on payment of part of his ransom, hostages being accepted for payment of the remainder. In 1363 one of the hostages broke his pledge and fled, and John, shocked at such perfidy, returned Regulus-like to England. Hence it was that he appears as one of the four kings whom Picard, the mayor, entertained that same year at a banquet, followed by play at dice and hazard.[572]

England at peace, 1360-1369.

The citizens now enjoyed a period of leisure which they were not slow to turn to account. The years which followed the peace of Bretigny, until war broke out afresh in 1369, witnessed the re-organisation of many of the trade and craft guilds. Some of these, like the Goldsmiths, the Tailors or Linen-Armourers, and the Skinners, had already obtained charters from Edward soon after his accession, so had also the Fishmongers, although the earliest extant charter of the company is dated 1363. The Vintners date their chartered rights from the same year; the Drapers from 1364; whilst the more ancient company of Weavers obtained a confirmation of their privileges in 1365.[pg 201] Minor guilds, like the Founders, the Plumbers, the Fullers and others, had to content themselves with the recognition of their ordinances by the civic authorities alone between 1364 and 1369.

The king's favour was purchased in 1363 by a gift of nearly £500, to which the livery companies largely contributed.[573] The amount of each subscription varied from half-a-mark to £40, the latter sum being contributed by the Mercers, the Fishmongers, the Drapers, and the Skinners respectively. The Tailors subscribed half that amount, being outdone by the Vintners, who contributed £33 6s. 8d.

The renewal of the war, 1369.

With the renewal of the war, a change comes over the pages of the City's annals. The London bachelor and apprentice is drawn off from his football and hockey, with which he had beguiled his leisure hours, and bidden to devote himself to the more useful pursuits of shooting with arrow or bolt on high days and holidays.[574] Once more we meet with schedules of men-at-arms and archers provided by the City for service abroad, and of assessments made on the City's wards to pay for them.[575] Every inducement in the shape of plunder was held out to volunteers for enlistment, and public proclamation was made to the effect that the spoils of France should belong to the captors themselves.[576]

City loans, 1370-1371.

It was an easier matter for the City to provide the king with money than men. In 1370 it advanced a[pg 202] sum of £5,000,[577] and in the following year a further sum of £4,000, and more was subscribed by the wealthier citizens, among whom were William Walworth, who contributed over £200, Adam Fraunceys, Simon de Mordon, and others.[578]

New form of taxation, 1371.

Still the expenses of the war exceeded the supply of money, and resort was had to a new form of taxation, by which it was hoped that a sum of £50,000 might be realised. By order of parliament, made in March, 1371, the sum of 22s. 3d. was to be levied on every parish in the kingdom, the number of parishes being reckoned as amounting to 40,000. It soon became apparent that the number of existing parishes throughout the country had been grossly miscalculated. There were not more than 9,000, and the amount of assessment had to be proportionately raised. It was necessary to summon a council at Westminster in June, to remedy the miscalculation that had been made in March. Half of the representatives of the late parliament were summoned to meet the king, and among them two of the city's members, Bartholomew Frestlyng and John Philipot—"the first Englishman who has left behind him the reputation of a financier."[579] The mistake was rectified, the charge of 22s. 3d. was raised to 116s. and the city was called upon to raise over £600.[580]

In the meantime the civic authorities had, in answer to the king's writ,[581] prepared a return of the[pg 203] number of parish churches, chapels and prebends within the city.[582] It was found that within the city and suburbs there were 106 parish churches[583] and thirty prebends, but only two of the latter were within the liberties. There was also the free chapel of St. Martin's-le-Grand, which embraced eleven prebends, all within the liberty of the city, and there were, moreover, two other chapels within the liberty. Besides these (the return stated) there were none other.

The city as an ecclesiastical centre.

The bare fact that there existed over 100 parishes, each with its parish church, within so small an area as that covered by the city and its suburbs, is of itself sufficient to remind us that, besides having a municipal and commercial history, the city also possesses an ecclesiastical. The church of St. Paul, the largest foundation in the city, with its resident canons exercising magnificent hospitality, was a centre to which London looked as a mother, although it was not strictly speaking the metropolitan cathedral. That title properly applies to the Minster at Canterbury; but the church of Canterbury being in the hands of a monastic chapter left St. Paul's at the head of the secular clergy of southern England.[584] Besides the hundred and more churches there were monastic establishments and colleges which covered a good fourth part of the whole city. The collegiate church of St. Martin's-le-Grand almost rivalled its neighbour the[pg 204] cathedral church itself in the area of its precinct. The houses of the Black Friars and Grey Friars in the west were only equalled by those belonging to the Augustine and Crossed Friars towards the east; while the Priory of St. Bartholomew found a counterpart in the Priory of Holy Trinity. The church was everywhere and ruled everything, and its influence manifests itself nowhere more strongly than in the number of ecclesiastical topics which fill the pages of early chronicles in connection with London.[585]

The prosecution of the war, 1371-1375.

The war brought little credit or advantage in return for outlay. In January, 1371, the Black Prince had returned to England with the glory of former achievements sullied by his massacre at Limoges, and the City of London had made him a present of valuable plate.[586] The conduct of the war was transferred to his eldest surviving brother, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. In 1372 the king himself set out with the flower of the English nobility, and accompanied by a band of London archers and crossbow men.[587] The expedition, which had for its object the relief of Rochelle, and which is said to have cost no less than £900,000, proved disastrous, and Edward returned after a brief absence.[588] In 1373 the city furnished him with a transport barge called "The Paul of London." The barge when it left London for Southampton was fully supplied with rigging and tackle; nevertheless, on its arrival at the latter port, it was found to be so deficient in equipment that it[pg 205] could not proceed to sea. The only explanation that the master of the barge could give of the matter was that a certain number of anchors and cables had been lost on the voyage. The City paid twenty marks to make up the defects.[589] The year was marked by a campaign under Lancaster which ended in the utmost disaster. The French avoided a general action; the English soldiers deserted, and as the winter came on the troops perished from cold, hunger and disease. By 1374 the French had recovered nearly all of their former possessions. England was tired of the war and of the ceaseless expenditure it involved. It was with no little joy that the Londoners heard, in July, 1375,[590] that peace had been concluded.

Charges against city aldermen, 1376.

In April, 1376, a parliament met, known as the Good Parliament,[591] and before granting supply it demanded an account of former receipts and expenditure. No less than three city aldermen were charged with malversation. Richard Lyons, of Broad Street ward, was convicted with Lord Latimer of embezzling the king's revenue, and sentenced to imprisonment and forfeiture of goods.[592] Adam de Bury, of Langbourn ward, who had twice served the office of mayor, was charged with appropriating money subscribed for the ransom of the French king and fled to Flanders to avoid trial;[593] whilst John Pecche of Walbrook ward[pg 206] was convicted of an extortionate exercise of a monopoly of sweet wines and his patent annulled. All three aldermen were deposed from their aldermanries by order of an assembly of citizens composed of representatives from the various guilds and not from the wards.[594]

A new system of election by the guilds, instead of the wards, introduced, 1376.

The guilds, indeed, were now claiming a more direct participation in the government of the city than they had hitherto enjoyed, and their claim had given rise to so much commotion that the king himself threatened to interpose.[595] The threat was not liked, and the citizens hastened to assure him that no disturbance had occurred in the city beyond what proceeded from reasonable debate on an open question, and that to prevent the noise and tumult arising from large assemblies, they had unanimously decided that in future the Common Council should be chosen from the guilds and not otherwise.[596] This reply was sent to the king by the hands of two aldermen—William Walworth and Nicholas Brembre—and six commoners, and the following day (2 August) the king sent another letter accepting the explanation that had been offered, and expressing a hope that the city would be so governed as not to require his personal intervention.[597]

Not only was the common council to be selected in future by the guilds, but the guilds were also to elect the mayor and the sheriffs. The aldermen and the[pg 207] commons were to meet together at least once a quarter,[598] and no member of the common council was to serve on inquests, nor be appointed collector or assessor of a talliage. This last provision may have been due to the recent discoveries of malversation, but, however that may be, it was found to work so well that it was more than once re-enacted.[599] These changes in the internal administration of the city were avowedly made by virtue of Edward's charter, which specifically gave the citizens a right to remedy hard or defective customs.[600]

The old system of election by wards reverted to in 1384.

The power of the guilds in the matter of elections to the common council was not of long duration. Before ten years had elapsed representation was made that the new system had been forced on the citizens, and in 1384 it was resolved to revert to the old system of election by and from the wards.[601]

Proceedings against Alice Perers, the king's mistress, 1376.

Encouraged by the success which had so far attended their efforts of reform, the good parliament next attacked Alice Perers, the king's mistress. Of humble origin, and not even possessing the quality of good looks, this lady, for whom the mediæval chroniclers have scarcely a good word to say,[602] nevertheless gained so complete a mastery over the king as to favour the popular belief that she indulged in magic. At length her barefaced interference in public affairs[pg 208] led to an award against her of banishment and forfeiture. Upon the dissolution of the good parliament (6 July, 1376), and the meeting of a new parliament, elected under the direct influence of the Earl of Lancaster, who once more gained the upper hand now that the Black Prince was dead, Alice Perers was allowed to return.[603] She was again in disgrace soon after Richard's accession, when her property, much of which consisted of real estate in the City,[604] became escheated, and the citizens of London were promised redress for any harm she might have done them.[605] She was afterwards married to Sir William de Windsor, who, in 1376, had got himself into trouble over a disturbance in Whitefriars[606]—a quarter of the city which, under the name of Alsatia, became afterwards notorious for riots, and as the resort of bad characters. Towards the close of 1379 her sentence of banishment, never strictly enforced, was revoked and pardon extended to her and her husband.[607]

Charter forbidding free trade to merchant strangers, 4 Dec., 1376.

In December, 1376, the citizens obtained a charter from the king, with the assent of parliament, granting that no strangers (i.e. non-freemen) should thenceforth be allowed to sell by retail within the city and suburbs. This had always been considered a grievance, ever since free trade had been granted to merchant strangers by the parliament held at York in 1335.

Hostility between the City and Lancaster.

The last year of Edward's reign was one of serious opposition between the City and the selfish and unprincipled[pg 209] Lancaster. In so far as the duke, with the assistance of Wycliffe, meditated a reform among the higher clergy, he might, if he would, have had the city with him. The citizens, like the great reformer himself, were opposed to the practice of the clergy heaping up riches and intermeddling with political matters. The duke, however, went out of his way to hurt the feelings of the citizens, by proposing to abolish the mayoralty and otherwise encroach upon their liberties.[608] Not content with this he took the occasion when Wycliffe was summoned to appear at St. Paul's (19 Feb., 1377), to offer violence to Courtenay, their bishop. This so incensed the citizens that the meeting broke up in confusion. The next day the mob, now thoroughly roused, hastened to the Savoy where the duke resided. He happened, however, to be dining in the city at the time, with a certain John de Ypre. The company had scarcely sat down to their oysters before a soldier knocked at the door and warned them of the danger. They forthwith jumped up from the table, the duke barking his shins (we are told) in so doing, and, making their way to the riverside, took boat for Kennington, where the duke sought protection in the house of the Princess of Wales. Thanks to the intervention of the bishop, who appeared on the scene, the mob did but little serious harm, beyond ill-using a priest and some of the duke's retainers whom they happened to come across.[609]

Interview between the king and the citizens to explain matters.

The civic authorities were naturally anxious as to what the king might say and do in consequence of the outbreak, and desired an interview in order to explain matters. Lancaster was opposed to any such interview taking place. The London mob had seized upon an escutcheon of the duke, displayed in some public thoroughfare, and had reversed it by way of signifying that it was the escutcheon of a traitor.[610] This had particularly raised his anger. Nevertheless, in spite of his efforts to prevent it, an interview was accorded to a deputation from the city, of which John Philipot acted as spokesman. After drawing the king's attention to the threatened attack on the privileges of the city, and the proposed substitution of a "captain" for a mayor, Philipot offered an apology for the late riot. It had taken place, he said, without the cognisance of the civic authorities. Among a large population there were sure to be some bad characters whom it was difficult to restrain, even by the authority of the mayor, when once excited. A mob acted after the manner of a tornado, flying hither and thither, bent on committing havoc at anybody's expense, even its own, but, thank God! the duke had suffered no harm nor had any of his retinue been hurt. The king having listened to the deputation, assured them in reply, that so far from wishing to lessen the privileges of the city, he had a mind to enlarge them. They were not to alarm themselves, but to go home and endeavour to preserve peace. On leaving the presence the deputation met the duke, with whom they interchanged courtesies.[611] In the meanwhile lampoons on the duke were posted in the city. The duke became[pg 211] furious and demanded the excommunication of the authors. The bishops hesitated through fear of the mob, but at last the Bishop of Bangor was induced by representations made to him by leading citizens, who wished it to be known that they did not approve of such libels, to execute the duke's wishes.[612]

Another interview with the king at Shene.

The duke was determined to have his revenge, and again the citizens were summoned to appear before the king, who was lying at Shene. This time they did not get off so easily. The mayor, Adam Stable, was removed, and Nicholas Brembre appointed in his place. A fresh election of aldermen took place,[613] and the City did penance for the recent insult to the duke's escutcheon by offering, at the king's confidential suggestion, a wax taper bearing the duke's arms in St. Paul's. Even that did not satisfy him; nay, it was adding insult to injury (he said), for such an act was an honour usually paid to one who was dead! The citizens were in despair, and doubted if anything would satisfy him, short of proclaiming him king.[614]

The king's death, 21 June, 1377.

One of the last acts of Edward was to restore the Bishop of Winchester to the temporalities of which he had been deprived by the duke, and this restitution was made at the instance and by the influence of Alice Perers,[615] who within a few weeks robbed her dying paramour of his finger rings and fled.[616]

[pg 212]

CHAPTER IX.

Reconciliation between Lancaster and the City, 1377.

Shortly after Edward had breathed his last, a deputation from the City waited upon the Prince of Wales at Kennington. John Philipot again acted as spokesman, and after alluding to the loss which the country had recently sustained, and recommending the City of London—the "king's chamber"—to the prince's favour, begged him to assist in effecting a reconciliation with Lancaster. This Richard promised to do, and a few days later the deputation again waited on the young king—this time at Shene, where preparations were being made for the late king's obsequies—and a reconciliation took place, the king kissing each member of the deputation, and promising to be their friend, and to look after the City's interests as if they were his own.[617] Formal announcement of the reconciliation was afterwards made at Westminster, and Peter de la Mare, long a prisoner in Nottingham Castle, was set free, to the great joy of the citizens.[618]

The coronation of Richard II, 16 July, 1377.

At the express wish of the citizens, Richard—the "Londoners' king," as the nobles were in the habit of cynically styling the new sovereign, for the[pg 213] reason that he had ascended the throne more by the assistance of the bourgeois Londoner than of the nobility[619]—took up his quarters at the Tower, whence he proceeded in state to Westminster for his coronation. Great preparations were made in the city to tender his progress through the streets one of exceptional splendour. The claim of the mayor and citizens to assist the chief butler at the banquet was discourteously refused by Robert Belknap, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who bluntly told them that they might be of service in washing up the pots and pans. The citizens had their revenge, however. They set up an effigy of the man at a conspicuous arch or tower in Cheapside, in which he appeared to the whole of the procession as it passed on its way to Westminster, in the ignominious attitude of vomiting wine.[620] This was enough; the Londoners gained the day, and were allowed to perform their customary services at the banquet, and the mayor got his gold cup.[621]

A city loan and parliamentary supplies, 1377.

Richard was only eleven years of age when raised to the throne. A council was therefore appointed to govern in his name. Neither the Duke of Lancaster nor any other of the king's uncles were elected councillors, and, for a time, John of Gaunt retired into comparative privacy. The task of the council was not easy. The French plundered the[pg 214] coast,[622] and the Scots plundered the borders. Money was sorely needed. The City consented to advance the sum of £5,000 upon the security of the customs of the Port of London and of certain plate and jewels,[623] and when parliament met (13 Oct., 1377) it made a liberal grant of two tenths and two fifteenths, which was to be collected without delay, on the understanding that two treasurers should be appointed to superintend the due application of the money.[624] The two treasurers appointed for this purpose were two citizens of note, namely, William Walworth and John Philipot, of whose financial capability mention has already been made.

Charter granted to the city with the assent of parliament, 4 Dec., 1377.

Before parliament broke up it gave its assent to a new charter to the City.[625] Foreigners (i.e. non-freemen) were again forbidden to traffic in the city among themselves by retail, and the City's franchises were confirmed and enlarged. So much importance was attached to this charter that Brembre, the mayor, caused its main provisions to be published throughout the city.[626]

The subsidy taken out of the hands of Walworth and Philipot, 1378.

Lancaster soon became tired of playing a subordinate part in the government of the kingdom. As[pg 215] a preliminary step to higher aims, he contrived, after some little opposition, to obtain the removal of the subsidy granted by the last parliament, out of the hands of Walworth and Philipot into his own, although these men had given no cause for suspicion of dishonourable conduct in the execution of their public trust.[627]

Patriotic conduct of John Philipot.

The energetic John Philipot soon found other work to do. The English coast had recently become infested with a band of pirates, who, having already made a successful descent upon Scarborough, were now seeking fresh adventures. Philipot fitted out a fleet at his own expense, and putting to sea succeeded in capturing the ringleader,[628] a feat which rendered him so popular as to excite the jealousy of the Duke of Lancaster and other nobles. His fellow citizens showed their appreciation of his character by electing him to succeed Brembre in the mayoralty in October (1378).[629]

Factions in the City for and against the Duke of Lancaster, 1378.

The citizens were, however, split up into factions, one party, with Philipot and Brembre at his head, maintaining a stubborn opposition to Lancaster, whilst another, under the leadership of Walworth and John de Northampton, favoured the duke. These factions were continually plotting and counter-plotting one against the other. At Gloucester, to which the duke had brought the parliament in 1378, in the hope of[pg 216] escaping from the interference of the "ribald" Londoners,[630] Brembre was arraigned on a charge of having connived during his recent mayoralty at an attack made on the house of the duke's younger brother, Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, and although he succeeded in proving his innocence, the earl and his party continued to use threats, and Brembre, in order to smooth matters over, consented to be mulcted in 100 marks. When the matter was reported to the Common Council at home (25 Nov.), that body not only signified its approval of his conduct—"knowing for certain that it was for no demerits of his own, but for the preservation of the liberties of the city, and for the extreme love which he bore it, that he had undergone such labours and expenses,"—but recouped him what he had disbursed.[631]

The Earl of Buckingham and his partizans withdraw themselves and their custom from the City, 1378.

In course of time the earl and his followers succeeded in persecuting Brembre to a disgraceful death. At present they contented themselves with damaging the trade of the city, so far as they could, by leaving the city en masse and withdrawing their custom. The result was so disastrous to the citizens, more especially to the hostel keepers and victuallers, that the civic authorities resolved to win the nobles back to the city by wholesale bribery, and, as the city's "chamber" was empty, a subscription list was set on foot to raise a fund for the purpose. Philipot, the mayor, headed the list with £10, a sum just double that of any other subscriber. Six others, among them being Brembre (the[pg 217] earl's particular enemy) and Walworth, subscribed respectively £5; whilst the rest contributed sums varying from £4 down to five marks, the last mentioned sum being subscribed by Richard "Whytyngdon" of famous memory.[632]

Another City loan of £5,000, Feb., 1379.

The grants made to the king by the parliament at Gloucester were soon exhausted by the war, and recourse was had, as usual, to the City. In February, 1379, the mayor and aldermen were sent for to Westminster. They were told that the king's necessities demanded an immediate supply of money, and that the Duke of Lancaster and the rest of the nobility had consented to contribute. What would the City do? After a brief consultation apart, the mayor and aldermen suggested that the usual course should be followed and that they should be allowed to consult the general body of the citizens in the Guildhall. Eventually the City consented to advance another sum of £5,000 on the same security as before, but any tax imposed by parliament at its next session was to be taken as a set off.[633]

The poll-tax of 1379.

At the session of parliament held in April and May (1379), the demand for further supply became so urgent that a poll-tax was imposed on a graduated scale according to a man's dignity, ranging from ten marks or £6 1s. 4d. imposed on a duke, to a groat or four pence which the poorest peasant was called upon to pay. The mayor of London, assessed as an earl, was to pay £4; and the aldermen, assessed as barons, £2. The sum thus furnished by the city amounted to less than £700,[634] and the whole amount levied on[pg 218] the country did not exceed £22,000, a sum far short of what had been anticipated.

Renewal of the poll-tax, 1380.

In the following year (1380) there was a recurrence to the old method of raising money, but this proving still insufficient a poll-tax was again resorted to. This time, the smallest sum exacted was not less than three groats, and was payable on everyman, woman and unmarried child, above the age of fifteen, throughout the country. The amount thus raised in the city and liberties was just over £1000.[635] The tax was especially irritating from its inquisitorial character, and led to serious consequences.

The peasants' revolt under Wat Tyler, 1381.

The country was already suffering under a general discontent, when a certain Wat Tyler in Kent struck down a collector of the poll-tax, who attempted in an indecent manner to discover his daughter's age. This was the signal for a revolt of the peasants from one end of England to the other, not only against payment of this particular tax, but against taxes and landlords generally. The men of Essex joined forces with those of Kent on Blackheath, and thence marched on London. With the aid of sympathisers within the City's gates, the effected an entrance on the night of the 12th of June, and made free with the wine cellars of the wealthier class. The next day, the rebels, more mad than drunk (non tam ebrii quam dementes), stirred up the populace to make a raid upon the Duke of Lancaster's palace of the Savoy. This they sacked and burnt to the ground. They next vented their wrath upon the Temple, and afterwards upon the house of the Knight's Hospitallers at[pg 219] Clerkenwell. In the meantime reinforcements were gathering in Essex under the leadership of one known as "Jack Straw," and were hurrying to London. At Mile End they were met (14 June) by the young king himself, who set out from the Tower for that purpose, accompanied by a retinue of knights and esquires on horseback, as well as by his mother in a drawn vehicle. The rebels demanded the surrender of all traitors to the king. To this Richard gave his assent, and having done so returned to the city to take up his quarters at the Wardrobe, near Castle Baynard, whilst the rebels, availing themselves of the king's word, hurried off to the Tower. There they found Simon of Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, and he and others were beheaded on Tower Hill. The rest of the day and the whole of the next were given up to plunder and massacre, so that the narrow streets were choked with corpses. Among those who perished at the hands of the rebels was Richard Lyons, the deposed alderman. At length, on the evening of Saturday, the 15th, when the king had ridden to Smithfield accompanied by Walworth, the mayor, and a large retinue in order to discuss matters with Wat Tyler (the Essex men had for the most part returned home), an altercation happened to arise between Tyler and one of the royal suite. Words were about to lead to blows when the mayor himself interposed, and summarily executed the king's order to arrest Tyler by bringing him to the ground by a fatal blow of his dagger. Deprived of their leader the mob became furious, and demanded Walworth's head; the mayor, however, contrived to slip back into the City, whence he quickly returned with such a force that the[pg 220] rioters were surrounded and compelled to submit. The king intervened to prevent further bloodshed, and knighted on the field not only Walworth, but also Nicholas Brembre, John Philipot and Robert Launde.[636] The same day a royal commission was issued to enquire into the late riot and to bring the offenders to account.[637]

Orders given for safeguarding the city, 20 June.

Orders were given on the 20th June to each alderman to provide men-at-arms and archers to guard in turns the city's gates, and to see that no armed person entered the city, except those who declared on oath that they were about to join the king's expedition against the rebels. In the meantime, the aldermen were to make returns of all who kept hostels in their several wards.[638] In a list, containing nearly 200 names of divers persons of bad character, who had left the city by reason of the insurrection,[639] there appear the names of two servants of Henry "Grenecobbe." The name is far from common, and we shall not perhaps be far wrong in conjecturing that the owner of it was a relation of William "Gryndecobbe," who led the insurgents against the abbey of St. Albans and compelled the abbot to surrender its charter.[640]

Confession made by "Jack Straw."

"Jack Straw," on being brought before the mayor, was induced by promises of masses for the good of his soul, to confess the nature of the intentions of the rioters, which were to use the king's person as a[pg 221] stalking horse for drawing people to their side, and eventually to kill him and all in authority throughout the kingdom. The mendicant friars, who were believed to be at the bottom of the insurrection,[641] were alone to be spared. Wat Tyler was to be made king of Kent, whilst others were to be placed in similar positions over the rest of the counties. The mayor sentenced him to be beheaded. This done, his head was set up on London Bridge, where Wat Tyler's already figured.[642]

Revulsion of feeling against the Lollards after the suppression of the peasants' revolt, 1382.

The discontent which had given rise to the peasants' revolt, had been fanned by the attacks made by Wycliffe's "simple priests" upon the rich and idle clergy. The revolt occasioned a bitter feeling among the landlord class against Wycliffe and his followers, and after its suppression the Lollards were made the object of much animadversion. Their preaching was forbidden,[643] and Wycliffe was obliged to retire to his country parsonage, where he continued to labour with his pen for the cause he had so much at heart, until his death in 1384.

Reforms in the city during Northampton's first mayoralty, 1381-1382.

The majority of the citizens favoured the doctrines of Wycliffe and his followers and endeavoured to carry them out. The Duke of Lancaster had no real sympathy with the Lollards; he only wished to make use of them for a political purpose. It was otherwise with the Londoners, and with John de Northampton, a supporter of the duke, who succeeded to the mayoralty soon after the suppression of the revolt. Under Northampton—a man whom even his enemies allowed to be of stern purpose, not truckling to those[pg 222] above him, nor bending to his inferiors,[644]—many reforms were carried out, ecclesiastical as well as civil.

The ecclesiastical courts having grossly failed in their duty, the citizens themselves, fearful of God's vengeance if matters were allowed to continue as they were, undertook the work of reform within the city's walls. The fees of the city parsons were cut down. The fee for baptism was not to exceed forty pence, whilst that for marriage was not as a general rule to be more than half a mark. One farthing was all that could be demanded for a mass for the dead, and the priest was bound to give change for a half-penny when requested or forego his fee.[645] Steps were taken at the same time to improve the morality of the city by ridding the streets of lewd women and licentious men. On the occasion of a first offence, culprits of either sex were subjected to the ignominy of having their hair cropt for future identification, and then conducted with rough music through the public thoroughfares, the men to the pillory and the women to the "thewe." After a third conviction, they were made to abjure the City altogether.[646] It was during Northampton's first year of the mayoralty that the citizens succeeded in breaking down the monopoly of the free fish-mongers. A number of "dossers" or baskets for carrying fish were also seized because they were deficient in holding capacity, and on that account were calculated to defraud the purchaser.[647] But,[pg 223] although a mayor in those days exercised, no doubt, greater power in the municipal government than now, we must be careful to avoid the common mistake of attributing to the individuality of the mayor for the time being what was really the action of the citizens as a body corporate.

Northampton re-elected mayor at the king's request, Oct., 1382.

In October, 1382, Northampton was elected mayor for the second time, and Philipot, his rival, either resigned or was deprived of his aldermancy.[648] His re-election was at the king's express wish. On the 6th he wrote to the sheriffs, aldermen and commons of the city intimating that, whilst anxious to leave the citizens free choice in the matter of election of their mayor, he would be personally gratified if their choice fell upon the outgoing mayor. At first Northampton declined re-election, but he afterwards consented to serve another year on receiving a written request from the king.[649] His hesitation was probably due to the factious state of the city. Brembre and Philipot were not his only enemies. Another alderman, Nicholas Exton, of Queenhithe Ward, had recently been removed from his aldermancy for opprobrious words used to Northampton during his first mayoralty. A petition had been laid before the Court of Common Council in August, 1382, when Exton himself being present, and seeing the turn affairs were taking, endeavoured to anticipate the judgment of the[pg 224] court, by himself asking to be exonerated from his office, declaring at the same time that he had offered a large sum of money to be released at his election in the first instance. The court wishing for further time to consider the matter adjourned. At its next meeting a similar petition was again presented, but the court hesitated to pronounce judgment in the absence of Exton, who was summoned to appear at the next Common Council. When the court met again, it was found that Exton had ignored the summons. Judgment was, therefore, pronounced in his absence and he was deprived of his aldermancy.[650]

Brembre succeeds Northampton in the mayoralty, Oct., 1383.

At the close of Northampton's second mayoralty (Oct., 1383), his place was taken by his rival, Nicholas Brembre,[651] and a general reversal of the order of things took place. The free-fishmongers recovered their ancient privileges,[652] and the judgment passed upon Exton as well as a similar judgment passed upon another alderman, Adam Carlile, were reversed.[653]

Richard's second charter to the City, 26 Nov., 1383.

Soon after Brembre's election the king confirmed the City's liberties by charter,[654] which had the assent of parliament. Two years previously the citizens had[pg 225] besought the newly-married queen to use her interest with Richard to that end.[655] Her good offices, as well as the fact that the City had recently advanced to the king the sum of 4,000 marks, on the security of the royal crown and other things,[656] may have been instrumental in obtaining for the citizens this fresh confirmation of their rights.

Proceedings against Northampton.

In January (1384) Northampton was bound over to keep the peace in the sum of £5,000;[657] but in the following month he was put under arrest (together with his brother, known as Robert "Cumberton," and another), for raising a disturbance in the City, and sent to Corfe Castle.[658] For Northampton's arrest, as well as for the summary execution of a certain John Constantyn, a cordwainer, who had been convicted of taking a leading part in the disturbance, Brembre received a letter of indemnity from the king.[659] The riot had one good effect. It roused public opinion against monopolies and restriction of trade to such an extent, that Richard very soon afterwards caused the city to be opened freely to all foreigners (i.e., non-freemen) wishing to sell fish or other victuals.[660]

Trial of Northampton at Reading.

In August (1384) the opinion of each individual member of the Common Council was taken on oath, as to whether it would be to the advantage or disadvantage of the city if Northampton were allowed to return; and it was unanimously found that his return[pg 226] would breed dissension rather than peace and unity.[661] Armed with this plébiscite the mayor and a number of citizens, whom the king had summoned by name, attended a council at Reading for the purpose of determining the fate of Northampton. The accused contented himself with objecting to sentence being passed against him in the absence of his patron the Duke of Lancaster. This, however, availed him nothing, and he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in Tintagel Castle.[662] Another authority[663] states that the mayor brought with him to the council a man named Thomas Husk or Usk (whose name, by the way, does not appear in the list which the king forwarded to the mayor), who made a number of charges against Northampton. The prisoner so far forgot himself in the royal presence as to call Usk a liar, and to challenge him to a duel. Matters were not improved by Northampton's appeal for delay in passing sentence upon him in the absence of the Duke of Lancaster. Richard flushed crimson with anger at the proposal, declaring that he was ready to sit in judgment upon the duke no less than on Northampton, and forthwith ordered the latter's execution, and the confiscation of his goods. The sentence would have been earned out but for the timely intercession of the queen, who flung herself at her husband's feet and begged for the prisoner's life. The queen's prayer was granted, and Northampton was condemned to perpetual imprisonment and remitted to Corfe Castle. Thence, at the beginning of September, he was removed[pg 227] to the Tower of London, where two of his partisans, John More, one of the sheriffs, and Richard Northbury, recently arrested, were lodged.

Is committed to Tintagel Castle.

The Chief Justice, Tressilian, hesitated to take any steps against the prisoners, one of whom had already been tried and sentenced, asserting that the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the mayor. His scruples, however, on this score were easily set aside, and on the 10th September, each of the prisoners was sentenced to be drawn and hanged. No sooner was sentence passed than the chancellor, Michael de la Pole, entered on the scene, and proclaimed that the king's grace had been extended to the prisoners, that there lives would be spared, but that they would be imprisoned until further favour should be shown them. They were accordingly sent off to various fortresses; Northampton to Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, Northbury to Corfe Castle, and More to Nottingham; and all this arose, says the Chronicler, from the rivalry of fishmongers.[664]

Brembre's re-election to the mayoralty, Oct., 1384.

When Brembre sought re-election to the mayoralty in October, 1384, he found a formidable competitor in Nicholas Twyford, with whom he had not always been on the best of terms. It was in 1378, when Twyford was sheriff and Brembre was occupying the mayoralty chair for the first time, that they fell out, the occasion being one of those trade disputes so frequent in the City's annals. A number of goldsmiths and pepperers had come to loggerheads in St. Paul's Churchyard during sermon time, and the[pg 228] mayor had committed one of the ringleaders to the compter. The culprit, however, happened to be, like Twyford, a goldsmith, and was one of his suite. Twyford resented his man being sent to prison, and for his pains got arrested himself.[665] It was felt that the election would be hotly contested and might lead to disturbance. Besides the customary precept issued by the mayor forbidding any to appear who were not specially summoned,[666] the king took the precaution of sending John de Nevill, of Roby, to the Guildhall to see that the election was properly conducted. In spite of all precautions, however, a disturbance took place, and some of the rioters were afterwards bound over to keep the peace.[667] It is said that Brembre himself secreted a body of men in the neighbourhood of the Guildhall, and that when he found the election going against him, he signalled for them, and Twyford's supporters were compelled to flee for safety, and that thus the election was won.[668] Nothing of this appears in the City's Records, where Brembre's re-election is entered in the manner of the day.[669]

Renewed efforts to obtain Northampton's release, March, 1386.

In 1385 Brembre was again elected mayor, and continued in office until October, 1386, when he was succeeded by his friend and ally, Nicholas Exton. This was the fourth and last time Brembre was mayor. In the meantime, the Duke of Lancaster and his party had renewed their efforts to effect the release of Northampton and of his fellow prisoners,[pg 229] More and Northbury, on the understanding that they were not to come near the City, and Brembre again took the opinion of the aldermen and commons severally as to the probable effect of the release of the prisoners. This occurred in March, 1386, when it was unanimously resolved that danger would result to the city if Northampton was allowed to come within 100 miles of it.[670] The resolution caused much annoyance to the duke, who characterised it as unreasonable and outrageous, and led to some heated correspondence.[671] It had, however, the desired effect of at least postponing the release of the prisoners.[672]

A book of ordinances, known as "Jubilee," burnt by order of mayor, Exton, March, 1387.

A few months after Exton had taken Brembre's place as mayor (Oct., 1386), the new mayor raised a commotion by ordering a book called "Jubilee," which Northampton is supposed to have compiled—or caused to be compiled for the better government of the City, to be publicly burnt in Guildhall yard.[673] The cordwainers of London, staunch supporters of Northampton (the leader of the riot which led to Northampton's arrest in 1384 was a cordwainer), complained to parliament of Exton. The book, said they, " comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good government of the City," which Exton and all the aldermen had sworn to maintain for ever, and now he and his accomplices had burnt it without consent of the commons, to the annihilation of many good liberties, franchises, and[pg 230] customs of the City.[674] The book had already been subjected to revision in June, 1384, when Brembre was mayor;[675] it was now utterly destroyed.

Further efforts to secure Northampton's release, 1387.

In 1387 efforts were again made to secure Northampton's release, and this time with success. On the 17th April Exton reported to the Common Council that Lord Zouche was actually engaged in canvassing the king for the release of Northampton and his allies. The Council thereupon unanimously resolved to send a letter to Lord Zouche, on behalf of the entire commonalty of the City, praying him to desist from his suit, and assuring him of their loyalty to the king even unto death.[676] It also resolved to send a deputation on horseback to the king, who was at "Esthamstede," to ask his favour for the City, and to beg of him not to annul the charters which he had already given to the citizens, more especially as touching the release of the prisoners in question.

Northampton set free, 27 April, 1387.

On the 4th May the Recorder, William Cheyne, reported to the Common Council assembled in the upper chamber of the Guildhall the result of the interview with the king. The deputation had been received most graciously, and the mayor had been particularly successful in his speech, setting forth the dangers that would inevitably ensue, both to the king and to the city, if pardon were granted to Northampton and his friends. The king had replied that he would take good precautions for himself before he[pg 231] granted them their liberty;[677] and with this answer the citizens had to be content. The answer was an evasive one, if it be true, as one authority states, that on the 27th April—the day on which the mayor had informed the citizens of the intervention of Lord Zouche—Northampton had received his pardon and been restored to his property.[678] His friends remained still unsatisfied, and plagued the king for more favourable terms to such a degree that Richard ordered (7 Oct.) proclamation to be made in the city against any further entreaties being made to him on the subject.[679]

Letter from the mayor to the king, 5 Oct.

Two days before the order for this proclamation, the king was informed by letter of the nature of a fresh oath of allegiance[680] that had been taken by the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city. He was furthermore exhorted to give credence to what Nicholas Brembre might inform him as to the state and government of the city, since there was no one better informed than Brembre on the subject.

The king's reply, 7 Oct.

To this the king sent a gracious reply.[681] He had learnt with much pleasure from Nicholas Brembre of the allegiance of the citizens, which he trusted would[pg 232] continue, as he would soon have good reason for paying a visit to the city in person. He had heard that the new sheriffs were good and trusty men, and he expressed a hope that at the approaching election of a mayor they would choose one of whom he could approve, otherwise he would decline to receive the mayor-elect at his presentation. He not only forbade any further entreaties to be made to him touching Northampton, More and Northbury, but commissioned enquiry to be made as to their property in the city. He was especially gratified to learn that, in accordance with his request, they had appointed Thomas Usk (the chief witness against Northampton) to the office of under-sheriff, and promised that such appointment should not be drawn into precedent. The citizens were not slow to take the hint about the election of a new mayor, and Exton was continued in office.[682]

The Parliament of 1386.

Great discontent had arisen meanwhile in the country at the lavish expenditure of the king, without any apparent result in victories abroad, such as had been gained in the glorious days of his predecessor. A cry for reform and retrenchment was raised, and found a champion in the person of the Duke of Gloucester, the youngest of the king's uncles. At his instigation, the parliament which assembled on the 1st October, 1386, demanded the dismissal of the king's ministers, and read him a lesson on constitutional government which ended in a threat of deposition unless the king should mend his ways. Richard was at the time only twenty-one years of age. In the impetuosity of his youth he is recorded as having contemplated a dastardly attempt upon the life of his uncle,[pg 233] whom he had grown to hate as the cause of all his difficulties. A plan was laid, which is said to have received Brembre's approbation, for beguiling the duke into the city by an invitation to supper, and then and there making away with him, but the duke was forewarned. The chronicler who records Brembre's complicity in this nefarious design against Gloucester's life also relates that Exton, who was mayor, refused to have anything to do with it.[683]

Appointment of a Commission of Regency.

The Commission declared illegal.

Richard applies to the City for assistance.

Before the end of the session, parliament had appointed a commission, with Gloucester at its head, to regulate the government of the country and the king's household. This very naturally excited the wrath of the hot-headed king, who immediately set to work to form a party in opposition to the duke. In August of the next year (1387) he obtained a declaration from five of the justices to the effect that the commission was illegal. On the 28th October he sent the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Suffolk into the city to learn whether he could depend upon the support of the citizens. The answer could not have been regarded as unfavourable, for, on the 10th November, the king paid a personal visit to the city and was received with great ceremony.[684] On the following day (11 Nov.) orders were given to the aldermen of the City to assemble the men of their several wards, to see that they were suitably armed according to their rank and estate, and to make a return of the same in due course.[685]

The king's advisers charged with treason, 14 Nov.

On the 14th Gloucester formally charged the king's five counsellors—the Archbishop of York, the[pg 234] Duke of Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, Chief Justice Tressilian and Nicholas Brembre, "the false London knight," with treason.[686] The king retaliated by causing proclamation to be made to the effect that he had taken these same individuals under his own protection, and that no one should harm them save at his own peril. This protection was extended also to the king's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Earls of Arundel and Warwick, the impeaching parties.

The mayor and aldermen summoned to Windsor, 28 Nov.

On the 28th the mayor and aldermen were summoned to proceed to Windsor forthwith, to consult upon certain matters very weighty (certeines treschargeauntes matirs).[687] The City's archives contain no record of what took place at the interview, but it appears that the object of the conference was to ascertain how many men-at-arms the city would be likely to furnish the king at a crisis. The answer given by the mayor was not encouraging; the citizens were merchants and craftsmen, and not soldiers, save for the defence of the city itself; and the mayor straightway asked the king's permission to resign his office.[688]

Richard obliged to submit.

Flight of the accused.

Finding that he could not rely on any assistance from the Londoners—whom Walsingham describes as fickle as a reed, siding at one time with the lords and at another time with the king[689]—Richard was driven to temporise. He had already promised that in the next parliament his unfortunate advisers should be called to account, but long before parliament met[pg 235] (3 Feb., 1388), four out of the five culprits had made good their escape—at least for a time. Brembre alone was taken.[690] He had anticipated the blow by making over all his property at home and abroad to certain parties by deed, dated the 15th October, 1387, no doubt, upon a secret trust.[691]

The lords appellant admitted into the city, Dec., 1387.

Notwithstanding the evident coolness of the citizens towards him, Richard determined to leave Windsor and spend Christmas at the Tower. He would be safer there, and less subject to the dominating influence of the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Arundel, Nottingham, Warwick and Derby, who objected to his shaking off the fetters of the commission. As soon as his intention was known, these five lords—who, from having been associated in appealing against Richard's counsellors, were styled "appellant"—hastened to London, and drawing up their forces outside the city's walls, demanded admittance. After some little hesitation, the mayor determined to admit them, defending his action to the king by declaring that they were his true liege men and friends of the realm.[692]

The lords at the Guildhall, 18 Jan., 1388.

On the 18th January, 1388, the lords appeared at the Guildhall, accompanied by the Archbishop, the Bishops of Ely, Hereford, Exeter, and others. The Archbishop absolved the citizens of their oaths of allegiance, whilst the Bishop of Ely, the lord treasurer, deprecated any remarks made to the disparagement of the lords. The lords and the bishops had been indicted on an iniquitous charge, and there were some[pg 236] among the citizens who had been similarly indicted, but whether justly or unjustly he (the bishop) could not say. That would be decided by parliament. In the meantime they were ready to assist in settling the trade disputes in the city, for it was absurd for one body of the citizens to attempt to exterminate another. The citizens, however, showed no desire to accept the proffered mediation.[693]

Trial of Brembre before parliament, Feb., 1388.

When parliament met (3 Feb.), a formidable indictment of thirty-nine charges was laid against the king's late advisers, of whom Brembre alone appeared. On the 17th February, he was brought up by the constable of the Tower, and was called on to answer off-hand the several charges of treason alleged against him. He prayed for time to take counsel's advice. This being refused, he claimed to support his cause by wager of battle, and immediately the whole company of lords, knights, esquires, and commons, flung down their gages so thick, we are told, that they "seemed like snow on a winter's day."[694] But the lords declared that wager by battle did not lie in such a case. When the trial was resumed on the following day, so much opposition arose between the king, who spoke strongly in Brembre's favour, and the lords, that it was decided to leave the question of the prisoner's guilt or innocence to a commission of lords, who, to the surprise and annoyance of the majority of the nobles, brought in a verdict of not guilty. Brembre was not to be allowed thus to escape. The lords sent for two representatives of the various crafts of the city to depose as to Brembre's guilt; but even[pg 237] so, the lords failed to get any definite verdict. At last they sent for the mayor, recorder, and some of the aldermen (seniores) to learn what they had to say about the accused.

Conviction and sentence of death.

One would have thought that with Nicholas Exton, his old friend and ally, to speak up for him, Brembre's life would now at least be saved, even if he were not altogether acquitted. It was not so, however. The mayor and aldermen were asked as to their opinion (not as to their knowledge), whether Brembre was cognisant of certain matters, and they gave it as their opinion that Brembre was more likely to have been cognisant of them than not. Turning then to the Recorder, the lords asked him how stood the law in such a case? To which he replied, that a man who knew such things as were laid to Brembre's charge, and knowing them failed to reveal them, deserved death. On such evidence as this, Brembre was convicted on the 20th February, and condemned to be executed.[695] He was drawn on a hurdle through the city to Tyburn, showing himself very penitent and earnestly desiring all persons to pray for him. At the last moment he confessed that his conduct towards Northampton had been vile and wicked. Whilst craving pardon of Northampton's son "he was suddenly turned off, and the executioner cutting his throat, he died."[696]

Character of Brembre as depicted by Walsingham.

If we are to believe all that Walsingham records of Brembre, the character and conduct of the city alderman and ex-mayor was bad indeed. Besides conniving at the plot laid against Gloucester's life, which[pg 238] involved the grossest breach of hospitality, he is recorded as having lain in wait with an armed force at the Mews near Charing Cross, to intercept and massacre the lords on their way to Westminster, to effect an arrangement with the king, as well as having entertained the idea of cutting the throats of a number of his fellow-citizens, and placing himself at the head of the government of the city, the name of which he proposed changing to that of "Little Troy."[697]

Deaths of Tressilian and Uske.

Of Brembre's associates, Tressilian was captured during the trial, torn from the Sanctuary at Westminster, and hanged on the 19th. Another to share the same fate was Thomas Uske, who had been one of the chief witnesses against Northampton. He was sentenced to death by parliament on the 4th March, and died asseverating to the last that he had done Northampton no injury, but that every word he had deposed against him the year before was absolutely true.[698]

The proceedings of the "merciless" parliament confirmed by oath.

The lords appellant, who were now complete masters of the situation, insisted upon the proceedings of this "merciless" parliament, as its opponents called it, being ratified by oath administered to prelates, knights, and nobles of the realm, as well as to the mayor, aldermen, and chief burgesses of every town. On the 4th June—the day parliament rose—a writ was issued in Richard's name, enjoining the administration of this oath to those aldermen and citizens of London who had not been present in parliament when the oath was administered there.[699]

Party spirit in the city, 1388-1389.

In the meantime the continued jealousy existing among the city guilds—the Mercers, Goldsmiths, Drapers, and others, objecting to Fishmongers and Vintners taking any part in the government of the city on the ground that they were victuallers, and as such forbidden by an ordinance passed when Northampton was mayor to hold any municipal office[700]—had led parliament (14 May) to proclaim free trade throughout the kingdom.[701] A party in the city tried to get parliament to remove Exton from the mayoralty on the ground of his having connived at the curtailment of the City's liberties and franchises. The attempt, however, failed, and he remained in office until succeeded by Nicholas Twyford (Oct., 1388).[702] Although Twyford belonged to the party of Northampton as distinguished from that of Brembre and Exton, his election raised little or no opposition, such as had been anticipated. When he went out of office in October, 1389, however, party strife in the city again showed itself. The majority of the citizens voted William Venour, a grocer, into the mayoralty, but the choice was strongly opposed by the Goldsmiths, the Mercers, and the Drapers, who ran another candidate, one of their own body, Adam Bamme, a goldsmith.[703]

The return of Northampton to the city, 1390.

Some months before the close of Twyford's mayoralty, Richard had succeeded in gaining his independence (May, 1389), which he was induced by Lancaster, on his return after a prolonged absence abroad, to exercise at length in favour of Northampton, by permitting him once more to return to London,[pg 240] although only as a stranger.[704] This was in July. In December, letters patent granting him a free pardon were issued, containing no such restriction.[705] His re-appearance in the streets of the city revived the old party spirit, and Adam Bamme, who had succeeded Venour in the mayoralty, found it expedient to forbid all discussion of the rights and the wrongs of the several parties of Northampton and Brembre on pain of imprisonment.[706] Four more years elapsed before Northampton was re-instated in the freedom of the city.[707]

Proclamation enforcing knighthood, Feb., 1392.

For some years Richard governed not unwisely. In 1392, however, he quarrelled with the city. Early in that year he called upon every inhabitant, whose property for the last three years was worth £40 in land or rent, to take upon himself the honour of knighthood. The sheriffs, Henry Vanner and John Shadworth, made a return that all tenements and rents in the city were held of the king in capite as fee burgage at a fee farm (ad feodi firmam); that by reason of the value of tenements varying from time to time, and many of them requiring repair from damage by fire and tempest, their true annual value could not be ascertained, and that, therefore, it was impossible to make a return of those who possessed £40 of land or rent as desired.[708]

The mayor summoned to Nottingham, June, 1392.

This answer was anything but agreeable to the king. But he had other cause just now for being[pg 241] offended with the city. Being in want of money, he had offered a valuable jewel to the citizens as security for a loan, and the citizens had excused themselves on the plea that they were not so well off as they used to be, since foreigners had been allowed to enjoy the same privileges in the city as themselves. Having failed in this quarter, the king had resorted to a Lombard, who soon was able to accommodate him; but when the king learnt on enquiry that the money so obtained had been advanced to the Lombard merchant by the very citizens who had refused to lend it to the king himself, his anger knew no bounds,[709] and he summoned John Hende, the mayor, the sheriffs, the aldermen, and twenty-four of the chief citizens[710] of the City to attend him in June, at Nottingham. They accordingly set out on their journey on the 19th June, and arrived in Nottingham on the 23rd; the government of the city being left in the meanwhile in the hands of William Staundon. On the 25th they appeared before the lords of the council, when the chancellor rated them roundly for paying so little attention to the king's writ—the writ touching knighthood—and complained of the defective manner in which the city was governed.[711]

The mayor and sheriffs committed to prison, June, 1392.

He thereupon dismissed the mayor from office, committing him to Windsor Castle. The sheriffs were likewise dismissed, one being sent to Odyham Castle,[pg 242] and the other to the Castle of Wallingford. The rest of the citizens were ordered to return home.[712]

Sir Edward Dalyngrigge appointed warden of the city, July, 1392.

At nine o'clock in the morning of the 1st July, Sir Edward Dalyngrigge appeared in the Guildhall, and there, before an immense assembly of the commons, read the king's commissions appointing him warden of the city and the king's escheator. The deposed sheriffs were succeeded by Gilbert Maghfeld, or Maunfeld, and Thomas Newton, who remained in office, by the king's appointment,[713] until the end of the year, when they were re-elected, the one by the warden and the other by the citizens.[714] Dalyngrigge was soon afterwards succeeded in the office of warden by Sir Baldwin de Radyngton.[715]

The City fined £100,000, July, 1392.

By way of inflicting further punishment upon the citizens, Richard had already removed the King's Bench and Exchequer from London to York;[716] but the removal proved so much more prejudicial to the nation at large than to the City of London that the courts were soon brought back.[717] He would even have waged open war on them had he dared.[718] Instead of proceeding to this extremity, he summoned the aldermen and 400 commoners to Windsor[719] and fined the City £100,000. This was in July (1392).[pg 243] In August the king notified his intention of passing through the city on his way from Shene to Westminster. The citizens embraced the opportunity of giving him a magnificent reception, which the king acknowledged in the following month by restoring to them their liberties and setting free their late mayor and sheriffs.[720] The fine of £100,000 recently imposed, as well as other moneys which the king considered to be due to him from the city, were also remitted.[721]

Municipal reforms, 1393.

Once more restored to their liberties, the citizens in the following year (1393), with the assent of parliament, effected a reform in the internal government of the city which the increasing population had rendered necessary. The Ward of Farringdon Within and Without had increased so much in wealth and population that it was deemed advisable to divide it into two parts, each part having its own alderman. Accordingly, in the following March (1394), Drew Barantyn was elected Alderman of Farringdon Within, whilst John Fraunceys was elected for Farringdon Without. A more important reform effected at the same time was the appointment of aldermen for life instead of for a year only.[722]

Change of conduct on the part of Richard, 1394-1398.

In the following year (1394) the queen—Anne of Bohemia—died. She had always shown a friendly disposition towards the city, and it was mainly owing[pg 244] to her intercession that Richard had restored its liberties.[723] Her death removed one good influence about Richard, and marks a change of policy or of character.[724] His second marriage in 1396 did not improve matters. In that year the mayor, Adam Bamme, died in office, and instead of allowing the citizens freely to elect a successor, he thrust upon them Richard Whitington.[725] He arrested the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Warwick and Arundel, and otherwise behaved so outrageously as to raise doubts as to his sanity. He gave out that he was afraid to appear in public for fear of the Londoners; but this was only a ruse for the purpose of raising money.[726] Like Edward II, he borrowed money from anybody and everybody, and often resorted to unconstitutional measures to fill his purse. He made the nobles and his wealthier subjects sign blank cheques for him to fill up at his pleasure.[727] These cheques, or "charters" as they were called, were afterwards burnt by order of his successor on the throne.

The landing of Henry of Lancaster, July, 1399.

A crisis was fast approaching. The Duke of Hereford, whom the king had banished, and who, on the death of his father "time honoured Lancaster," succeeded to the title early in 1399, was prevailed upon to return to England and strike a blow for the recovery of his inheritance which Richard had seized. Richard, as if infatuated, took this inopportune[pg 245] moment to sail to Ireland. Before setting out he made a last bid for the favour of the citizens by again granting them permission to rule the fish trade according to ancient custom.[728] It was too late; they had already resolved to throw in their lot with Henry of Lancaster.

As soon as Henry had landed at Ravenspur (4th July) a special messenger was despatched to the city with the news. The mayor was in bed, but he hurriedly rose and took steps to proclaim Henry's arrival in England. "Let us apparel ourselves and go and receive the Duke of Lancaster, since we agreed to send for him," was the resolution of those to whom the mayor conveyed the first tidings; and accordingly Drew Barentyn, who had succeeded Whitington in October, 1398, and 500 other citizens, took horse to meet the duke, whom they escorted to the city. The day that Henry entered the city was kept as a holiday, "as though it had been the day for the celebration of Easter."

Richard's surrender and deposition from the crown.

When Richard heard of Henry's landing he hurried back from Ireland. He was met by the duke with a large force, which comprised 1,200 Londoners, fully armed and horsed.[729] Finding resistance hopeless, the king made submission, craving only that he might be protected from the Londoners, who, he was convinced, bore him no good will. He was, in consequence, secretly conveyed to the Tower under cover[pg 246] of night. Articles were drawn up accusing him of misgovernment, and publicly read in the Guildhall. Four of his advisers and supporters, whose names he gave up, hoping to gain favour for himself thereby, were executed at a fishmonger's stall in Cheapside. Sentence of deposition was passed against him, and Lancaster proclaimed king in his stead under the title of King Henry IV.

[pg 247]

CHAPTER X.

Doubtful reports as to the late king's death.

The sentence passed on the late king proved his death warrant; his haughty spirit broke down, and he died at Pontefract the following year. According to Henry's account he died of wilful starvation. There were many, however, who believed him to have been put to death by Henry's orders; whilst others, on the contrary, refused to believe his death had actually taken place at all, notwithstanding the fact of the corpse having been purposely exposed to public view throughout its journey from Pontefract to London.[730] This belief that Richard was still alive was fostered by many, and, among others, by William Serle. He had been at one time the late king's chamberlain, and he kept up the delusion of Richard being still in the land of the living, by exhibiting the late king's signet, which had come into his possession. Serle was eventually arrested in the north of England and brought to London, to be executed at Tyburn.[731]

The "Trumpington" Conspiracy, 1416-1420.

Sixteen years later (1416), a certain Thomas Warde, called "Trumpyngtone," personated the late king, and a scheme was laid for placing him on the throne with the aid of Sigismund, king of the Romans[pg 248] Sigismund, however, refused to have anything to do with the plot, which was hatched within the city's liberties by Benedict Wolman and Thomas Bekering. The conspiracy having been discovered, its authors were thrown into prison. One died before trial, the other paid the penalty for his rashness with his head.[732] In August, 1420, long after Trumpington was dead, two others, Thomas Cobold and William Bryan, endeavoured still to keep up the delusion in the city. The mayor, Whitington, himself ordered their arrest. Bryan had time to escape from the house of William Norton, a barber given to Lollardry, where he and his fellow conspirator were lodged. Cobold tried to hide himself, but was discovered cunningly concealed in the house, and taken before the mayor and aldermen. Being questioned as to the identity of Trumpington and the late king, he gave an evasive reply, adding, that the question of identity had become immaterial since Trumpington had been dead some time. Cobold was thought to be too dangerous a man to be allowed at large, so he was committed to prison.[733]

Proceedings against the Lollards.

In the meantime Wycliffe had died (1384), and Lollardry had become only another name for general discontentment. The clergy made strenuous efforts to suppress the Lollards. Pope Boniface had invoked the assistance of the late king (1395) to destroy these[pg 249] "tares" (lolium aridum) that had sprung up amidst the wheat which remained constant to church and king, and called upon the mayor and commonalty of the city to use their interest with Richard to the same end.[734] Besides seeking the support of the commonalty against the powerful nobles, the new king sought the support of the church, and he had not been long on the throne before he issued commissions for search to be made in the city for Lollards, and for the arrest of all preachers found sowing the pestilential seed of Lollardry (semen pestiferum lollardrie).[735] Early in 1401 a price was put upon the head of the captain and leader of the sect, Sir John Oldcastle, otherwise known as Lord Cobham. Public proclamation was made in the city, that any one giving information which should lead to his arrest should be rewarded with 500 marks; any one actually arresting or causing him to be arrested should receive double that amount, whilst the citizens and burgesses of any city or borough who should take and produce him before the king, should be for ever quit of all taxes, talliages, tenths, fifteenths and other assessments.[736] Not only were conventicles forbidden, but no one was allowed to visit the ordinary churches after nine o'clock at night or before five o'clock in the morning.[737]

The statute of heresy, 1401.

Still the clergy were not satisfied. The ecclesiastical courts could condemn men as heretics, but they had no power to burn them. Accordingly, a statute was passed this year (1401), known as the[pg 250] statute of heresy (de hæretico comburendo), authorising the ecclesiastical courts to hand over to the civil powers any heretic refusing to recant, or relapsing after recantation, so that he might pay the penalty of being publicly burnt before the people.[738] It was the first English law passed for the suppression of religious opinion, and its first victim is said to have been one William Sautre, formerly a parish priest of Norfolk.[739]

Henry's other troubles.

Henry had other difficulties to face besides opposition from the nobles. France had refused to acknowledge his title to the crown, and demanded the restoration of Richard's widow, a mere child of eleven. The Scots[740] and the Welsh were on the point of engaging in open insurrection. Invasion was imminent; the exchequer was empty, and the Londoners appealed to could offer no more than a paltry loan of 4,000 marks.[741]

Supplies granted by parliament in 1404.

As time went on, Henry had to try new methods for raising money. The parliament which met at the opening of 1404, granted the king a 1s. in the pound on all lands, tenements and rents, besides 20s. for every knight's fee. The money so raised was not, however, to be at the disposal of the king's own ministers, but was to be placed in the hands of four officials to be known as treasurers of war (Guerrarum Thesaurarii). The names of the[pg 251] treasurers elected for the purpose are given as John Owdeby, clerk, John Hadley, Thomas Knolles, and Richard Merlawe, citizens of London.[742] Three of these were citizens of note. Hadley had already served as mayor in 1393, Knolles had filled the same office in 1399, and was re-elected in 1410, whilst Merlawe was destined to attain that honour both in 1409 and 1417.

More city loans in 1409 & 1412.

It was during Merlawe's first mayoralty that the citizens advanced to the king the sum of 7,000 marks,[743] to enable him to complete the reduction of Wales, which his son, the Prince of Wales, had already nearly accomplished. In 1412 they advanced a further sum of 10,000 marks.[744] At the beginning of that year a commission was addressed by Henry to Robert Chichele, the mayor, brother of the archbishop of the same name, to the sheriffs of the city, to Richard Whitington and Thomas Knolles, the late mayor, instructing them to make a return of the amount of land and tenements held in the city and suburbs, with the view of levying 6s. 8d. on every £20 annual rent by virtue of an act passed by the late parliament.[745] A return was made to the effect that it was very difficult to discover the true value of lands and tenements in the city and suburbs, owing to absence of tenants and dilapidations by fire and water, but that they had caused enquiry to be made, and the names of men, women and other persons (hominum, feminarum et aliarum personarum) mentioned in the commission were forwarded by them in[pg 252] the following a, b, c (in sequenti a, b, c). What lands and tenements the "men, women and other persons" had elsewhere they had no means of discovering.[746] The schedule, or "a, b, c," is not entered in the City Letter Book, but is to be found among the Exchequer Rolls, preserved at Her Majesty's Public Record[747] Office. The gross rental was returned at £4,220, and the sum paid into the exchequer at 6s. 8d. for every £20, under the provisions of the act amounted to £70 6s. 8d. The mayor and commonalty of the city are credited as possessing lands, tenements and rents of an annual value of no more than £150 9s. 11d., whilst the Bridge House Estate was returned at £148 15s. 3d. Of the livery companies, the Goldsmiths appear as the owners of the largest property, their rental of city property amounting to £46 10s. 1/2d., the Merchant Tailors following them closely with £44 3s. 7d. The Mercers had but a rental of £13 18s. 4d. whilst the Skinners had £18 12s. 8d. Robert Chichele, the mayor, was already a rich man, with an annual rental of £42 19s. 2d., derived from city property, or nearly double the amount (£25) with which Richard Whitington was credited.

Whitington mayor for the third time, 1406.

Whitington had already three times occupied the mayoralty chair; once (in 1396) at the word of a king, and twice (in 1397 and 1406) at the will of his fellow citizens. On the occasion of his third election a solemn mass was for the first time introduced into the proceedings, the mayor, aldermen and a large[pg 253] body of commoners attending the service at the Guildhall Chapel, before proceeding to the election.[748] The custom which then sprang up continues in a modified form to this day, the election of a mayor being always preceded by divine service. Its origin may perhaps be ascribed in some measure to the spirit of Lollardry which, in its best sense, found much favour with the citizens.

The enormous wealth which he succeeded in amassing was bestowed in promoting the cause of education, and in relieving the sufferings of the poor and afflicted. He built a handsome library in the house of the Grey Friars and also the Church of Saint Michael in the "Riole." He is credited by some writers with having purchased and presented to the corporation the advowson of the Church of St. Peter upon Cornhill. But this is probably a mistake arising from the fact of a license in mortmain having been granted by Henry IV to Richard Whitington, John Hende, and others, to convey the manor of Leadenhall, together with the advowsons of the several churches of Saint Peter upon Cornhill and Saint Margaret Patyns, held of the king in free burgage, to the mayor and commonalty of the City of London and their successors.[749]

Further proceedings against Oldcastle and the Lollards, 1413.

On the accession of Henry V, Archbishop Arundel, whom Walsingham describes as the most eminent[pg 254] bulwark and indomitable supporter of the church,[750] renewed his attack on the Lollards, and endeavoured to serve Oldcastle with a citation. Failing to accomplish this he caused him to be arrested. The bold defence made by the so-called heretic, when before his judges, gained additional weight from the reputation he enjoyed for high moral character. Nevertheless he was adjudged guilty of the charges brought against him. A formal sentence of excommunication was passed, and he was remitted to the Tower for forty days in the hope that at the expiration of that time he might be found willing to retract. This, however, was not to be.

Meeting of Lollards in St. Giles' Fields, 12 Jan., 1414.

He contrived to make his escape from prison,[751] and shortly afterwards appeared at the head of a number of followers in St. Giles's Fields. Great disappointment was felt at not receiving the assistance that had been expected from city servants and apprentices. According to Walsingham, no less than 5,000 men, comprising masters as well as servants, from the city, were prepared to join the insurgents, had not the king taken precautions to secure the gates. As soon as it was discovered that the young king had made ample preparations to meet attack, the Lollards took to flight. Many, however, failed to make good their escape, and nearly forty paid the penalty of their rashness with their lives.[752][pg 255] Walsingham was probably misinformed as to the number of the persons who were prepared to assist the Lollards. The fact is that, to the respectable City burgess, Lollardism was a matter of less moment than was the scandalous life led by the chantry priest and other ministers of religion, and this the civic authorities were determined to rectify as far as in them lay. Between the years 1400 and 1440, some sixty clerks in holy orders were taken in adultery and clapt into prison by ward beadles.[753] Nevertheless the clergy, and more especially the chantry priest, continued to live a life of luxury and sloth, oftentimes spending the day in dicing, card playing, cock fighting and frequenting taverns.

The last Statute against the Lollards, 1414.

The recent abortive attempt of Oldcastle gave rise to another Statute against the Lollards,[754] by which the secular power, no longer content with merely carrying into execution the sentences pronounced by ecclesiastical courts, undertook, where necessary, the initiative against heretics. Archbishop Arundel, the determined enemy of the Lollards, had had no hand in framing this Statute—the last that was enacted against them.[755] He had died a few months before parliament met, and had been succeeded by Henry Chichele.

The king's offer of pardon refused by Oldcastle, 1415.

Early in the following year (1415) the king made an offer of pardon to Oldcastle, who was still at large, if he would come in and make submission before[pg 256] Easter.[756] Instead of accepting so generous an offer, Oldcastle busied himself in preparing for another rising to take place as soon as the king should have set sail on his meditated expedition to France. Lollard manifestoes again appeared on the doors of the London churches; whilst Oldcastle himself scoured the country for recruits, to serve under a banner on which the most sacred emblems of the church were depicted.[757]

Trial and execution of Cleydon, a Lollard, 1415.

In August (1415) another Lollard, John Cleydone by name, a currier by trade, was tried in St. Paul's Church before the new Archbishop and others, the civic authorities having taken the initiative according to the provisions of the recent Statute, and arrested him on suspicion of being a heretic. The mayor himself was a witness at the trial, and testified as to the nature of certain books found in Cleydon's possession; they were "the worst and the most perverse that ever he did read or see." Walsingham, who styles Cleydon "an inveterate Lollard" (quidam inveteratus Lollardus), adds, with his usual acerbity against the entire sect, that the accused had gone so far as to make his own son a priest, and have Mass celebrated by him in his own house on the occasion when his wife should have gone to church, after rising from childbed.[758] Having been convicted of heresy by the ecclesiastical court, the prisoner was again delivered over to the secular authorities for punishment.[759] Both he and his books were burnt.[760]

Oldcastle taken and executed, 1417.

Two years later Oldcastle himself was captured in Wales and brought to London. At his trial he publicly declared his belief that Richard II was still alive; he was even fanatic enough to believe that he himself would soon rise again from the dead.[761] He was sentenced to be hanged and burnt on the gallows, a sentence which was carried out in St. Giles's Fields.[762] Lollardry continued to exist, especially in London and the towns, for some years, but it ceased to have any historical or political significance.[763]

Preparations for the invasion of France, 1414-1415.

Henry V was resolved to maintain not only the old religion of the days of Edward III, but also the old foreign policy, and in 1414 he commenced making preparations for renewing the claim of his great-grandfather to the crown of France. In 1415 this claim was formally made, and Henry gathered his forces together at Southampton. On the 10th March he informed the civic authorities of his intention of crossing over to France to enforce his claim and of his need of money. On the 14th a brilliant assembly, comprising the king's two brothers, John, Duke of Bedford, and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Edward, Duke of York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, and others, met at the Guildhall to consider the matter.

A question of precedence in the city.

A question arose as to order of precedence, and it was arranged that the mayor, as the king's representative in the City, should occupy the centre seat, having the Primate and the Bishop of Winchester on his[pg 258] right, and the Duke of York and the king's brothers on his left.[764] This question having been settled, the meeting, we presume, got to business; but what took place is not recorded in the City's archives. We know, however, that in June the king pledged his jewels to the City for a loan of 10,000 marks,[765] and that on the 1st August—just as he was preparing to set sail—he raised a further loan of 10,000 marks on the security of the customs.[766]

The king takes leave of the citizens on Blackheath, June, 1415.

On the 15th June the king, who was then on his way to the coast, took solemn leave of the civic authorities, who had accompanied him to Blackheath. He bade them go home and keep well his "chamber" during his absence abroad, giving them his blessing and saying "Cryste save London."[767] Arriving at Southampton, he there discovered a conspiracy to place the young Earl of March, the legitimate heir of Edward III, on the throne, as soon as he himself should have set sail. The traitors were seized and executed, and the City lost no time in sending the king a letter congratulating him upon his discovery of the plot.[768]

The capture of Harfleur, 18 Sept., 1415.

A few days later (12th August) he sailed for France and landed near Harfleur, to which town he[pg 259] laid siege. It offered, however, a stubborn defence, and it was not until the 18th September that the town surrendered. On the 22nd Henry sent a long account of the siege and capture to the mayor and citizens of London, bidding them render humble thanks to Almighty God for this mercy, and expressing a hope of further success in the near future.[769]

Volunteers for service in France required, Oct., 1415.

Citizens invited to reside in Harfleur.

Early in October the king caused proclamation to be made in the City, that all and singular knights, esquires and valets who were willing to go with him to Normandy, should present themselves to his uncle Henry, Bishop of Winchester and Treasurer of England, who would pay them their wages. By the same proclamation merchants, victuallers and handicraft-men were invited to take up their residence in the recently captured town of Harfleur, where houses would be assigned to them, and where they should enjoy the same privileges and franchises to which they had always been accustomed.[770]

Joy in the city at the news of the battle of Agincourt, Oct., 1415.

The citizens welcome the king on his return from France.

The battle of Agincourt was fought on the 25th October, and news of the joyous victory arrived in England on or before the 28th, on which day—the Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude—Nicholas Wotton, the recently elected mayor, was sworn into office at the Guildhall according to custom. On the following day, therefore, the mayor, aldermen and a large number of the commonalty made a solemn pilgrimage on foot to Westminster, where they first made devout thanksgiving for the victory that had been won, and then proceeded to present the new mayor before the Barons of the Exchequer. Care is taken in the City[pg 260] records to explain that the procession went on this occasion on foot, simply and solely for the purpose of marking their humble thanks to the Almighty and his Saints, and more especially to Edward the Confessor, who lay interred at Westminster, for the joyful news which so unexpectedly had arrived. The journey on foot was not to be drawn into precedent when others succeeded to the mayoralty, nor supplant the riding in state which had been customary on such occasions.[771] The reception given to the king by the Londoners on his return from France, was of so brilliant and varied a character, that one chronicler declares that a description of it would require a special treatise.[772] On the 16th November he landed at Dover and proceeded towards London. On Saturday, the 23rd, the mayor and aldermen and all the companies rode forth in their liveries to meet the king and conduct him and his train of French prisoners through the City to Westminster. On Sunday morning a deputation from the City waited upon Henry and presented him with the sum of £1,000 and two basons of gold worth half that sum.[773]

Preparations for another expedition, 1416-1417.

During the next eighteen months succeeding the battle of Agincourt, Henry devoted himself to making preparations at home for renewing active military operations. He had intended at midsummer, 1416, to lead an expedition in person to the relief of Harfleur, but the command was subsequently[pg 261] delegated to his brother, the Duke of Bedford. Proclamation was publicly made in the city by order of the king, dated the 28th May, that all and singular knights, esquires and valets holding any fief or annuity from the king should proceed to Southampton by the 20th June, armed each according to his estate, for the purpose of joining the expedition.[774] In 1417 France was rendered weak by factions, and Henry seized the opportunity for another attack. On the 1st February he issued his writ to the sheriffs of London for a return to be made of the number of men-at-arms and archers the City knights could furnish.[775] In March the mayor, Henry Barton, was made a commissioner for victualling the navy which was to rendezvous at Southampton.[776]

City loans, 1417.

In the same month the City advanced the king the sum of 5,000 marks,[777] and in the following June a further sum was advanced by private subscription among the wealthier citizens on the security of a Spanish sword, set in gold and precious stones, of the estimated value of £2,000. The sword was pledged with the subscribers on the understanding that they would not dispose of it before Michaelmas twelve-month.[778]

Letter from the king to the City announcing his success, 9 Aug., 1417.

Another letter informing them of the capture of Caen, 5 Sept.

On the 9th August the king addressed a letter to the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen and good folk of the City of London, informing them of his safe arrival in[pg 262] Normandy and of his success in making himself master of the castle of "Touque" without bloodshed.[779] To this the citizens sent a dutiful reply on the 28th day of the same month, assuring the king of the peaceful condition of the city. On the 2nd September an order went forth from the Common Council of the City that each alderman should immediately instruct the constables of his ward to go their rounds and warn all soldiers they might come across, to vacate the City and set out on the king's service before the end of the week on pain of imprisonment.[780] Success continued to attend Henry's arms. On the 5th September he was able to inform the citizens, by letter,[781] of the capture of Caen, excepting only the citadel, and this was to be rendered to him by the 19th day of the same month at the latest, unless relief should have previously arrived for the besieged from the King of France, his son the Dauphin, or the Count of Armagnac, Constable of France. The Duke of Clarence wrote a few days later to the citizens, notifying the extraordinary success which had followed the king. So many towns and fortresses had been taken that the only fear was that there were not sufficient men to keep guard over them.[782]

Proclamation by the Duke of Bedford, 18 Oct.

Supplies granted by parliament, Dec, 1417.

In order to keep the English force in Normandy better provided with victuals, the Duke of Bedford, who had been left behind as the king's lieutenant, caused the Sheriffs of London to proclaim that all persons willing and able to ship victuals to France for[pg 263] Henry's use, might do so without paying custom dues on their giving security that the victuals should be sent to Caen and not elsewhere.[783] Bedford, who was learning how to rule a free people—a lesson which, had he been allowed to practice in after years, might have saved the house of Lancaster from utter destruction[784]—presided in the parliament, which met in November, 1417. On the 17th December this parliament granted the king two fifteenths and two tenths. No time was lost in taking measures for collecting these supplies, the king's writ appointing commissioners for the City of London being issued the day following.[785]

Henry's conquest of Normandy, 1417-1419.

In Paris matters were going on from bad to worse. Whilst the capital of France was at the mercy of a mob, Henry proceeded to lay close siege to Rouen. Frequent proclamation was made in London for reinforcements to join the king, either at Rouen or elsewhere in Normandy.[786] This was in April, 1418, or thereabouts. On the 5th July, the Duke of Clarence informed Richard Merlawe, the mayor, by letter, of the fall of Louviers, and of the expected surrender of Pont de l'Arche,[787] from which latter place the duke wrote. On the 10th August Henry himself wrote to the citizens informing them of his having sat down before Rouen and of the[pg 264] straits his forces were in for lack of victuals and more especially of "drink." He begged them to send as many small vessels as they could, laden with provisions, to Harfleur, whence they could make their way up the Seine to Rouen.[788] In less than a month a reply was sent (8 Sept.) from Gravesend under the seal of the mayoralty, informing Henry that the citizens had been busy brewing ale and beer and purveying wine and other "vitaille," and that they had despatched thirty butts of sweet wine—comprising ten of "Tyre," ten of "Romesey," and ten of "Malvesy"—and 1,000 pipes of ale and beer. With these they had also sent 25,000 cups for the king's "host" to drink out of.[789] In the meantime, the besieged received no such relief from the pains of hunger and thirst, and on the 19th January, 1419, they were compelled to surrender their ancient town.[790] The war continued throughout the year (1419), all attempts at a reconciliation proving abortive. Pointoise fell into Henry's hands; and both Henry and the Duke of Clarence sent word of its capture to London. The duke took the opportunity of asking that the freedom of the City might be conferred on his servant, Roger Tillyngton, a skinner; but the citizens in acknowledging the duke's letter make no reference to his request.[791]

The king's letter to the City, 17 Aug., 1419.

On the 17th August the king wrote again to the mayor, aldermen and commons of the City, thanking[pg 265] them for their "kynde and notable prone of an ayde," which they had granted of their own free will, therein setting a good example to others, and prayed them to follow such directions as the Duke of Bedford should give them respecting their proffered assistance. The bearer of this letter having been taken prisoner at Crotoye, a duplicate copy of it was afterwards forwarded from Trie le Chastel on the 12th September.[792]

The treaty of Troyes, 20 May. 1420.

The murder of John, Duke of Burgundy, by a partisan of the Dauphin, which took place about this time, induced Duke Philip to come to terms with England in the hope of avenging his father's death;[793] and the French king, finding further resistance hopeless, was content to make peace. By the treaty of Troyes (20 May, 1420), the Dauphin was disinherited in favour of Henry, who was formally recognised as the heir to the French crown, and who agreed to marry Catherine, daughter of Charles VI.[794] The marriage took place on the 3rd June, and on the 14th a solemn procession was made in London and a sermon preached at Paul's Cross in honour of the event.[795]

The king's letter to the City, 12 July, 1420.

The mayor's reply, 2 Aug.

On the 12th July Henry addressed a letter from Mant to the corporation of London informing them of his welfare. He had left Paris for Mant in order to relieve the town of Chartres, which was being threatened by the Dauphin. The Duke of Burgundy had joined him and had proved himself "a trusty, lovvng and faithful brother." The king's expedition proved unnecessary, for the Dauphin had raised the siege before his arrival and had gone into Touraine.[pg 266] To this letter a reply was sent under the mayoralty seal on the 2nd August, congratulating Henry upon his success, and assuring him that there was no city on earth more peaceful or better governed than his City of London.[796]

The queen's coronation.

On the 26th January, 1421, the Duke of Gloucester, the Guardian of England in the king's absence, ordered the Sheriffs of London to announce that the queen's coronation would take place at Westminster on the third Sunday in Lent.[797] The king and queen landed at Dover with a small retinue on the 1st February, and after a few days' rest at Canterbury, entered the city of London amid tokens of welcome and respect from the laity and clergy. They took up their abode at the Tower, whence they were conducted on the day appointed for the coronation to Westminster by the citizens on foot and on horseback.[798]

Henry's last expedition, and death, Aug., 1422.

Henry had not been at home six months before he again left England, never to return.[799] The hopes that he entertained of reforming and governing his possessions in France, and his ambition to have headed, sooner or later, a crusade which should have stayed the progress of the Ottoman and have recovered the sepulchre of Christ, were not destined to be realised. He died at the Bois de Vincennes, near Paris, on the last day of August, 1422, leaving a child[pg 267] nine months old—the unhappy Henry of Windsor who succeeded to the throne as Henry VI. When the body of the late king was brought over from France to be buried at Westminster, the citizens showed it every token of respect in its passage through London. The streets of the city, as well as of the borough of Southwark, were cleaned for the occasion. The mayor, sheriffs, recorder and aldermen, accompanied by the chief burgesses, and clad in white gowns and hoods, went forth to meet the remains of the king they loved so well, as far as St. George's bar in Southwark, and reverently conducted them to St. Paul's Church, where the funeral obsequies were performed. The next day they accompanied the corpse to Westminster, where further ceremonies took place. Representatives of the various wards were told off to line the streets, the solemnity of the occasion being marked by the burning of torches, whilst chaplains stood in the porches of the various churches, clad in their richest copes, with thuribles in their hands, and chanted the venite and incensed the royal remains as they passed. The livery companies provided amongst them 211 torches, and to each torch-bearer the city chamberlain gave a gown and hood of white material or "blanket" (de blanqueto), at the "cost of the commonalty." [800]

[pg 268]

CHAPTER XI.

Rivalry between Bedford and Gloucester, 1422.

At the death of Henry V the administration of affairs fell into the hands of his two brothers, John, Duke of Bedford, and Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester. On the 29th September a writ was issued from Windsor, in the name of the infant on whom the crown of England had devolved, summoning four citizens of London to attend a parliament to be held at Westminster at Martinmas,[801] and two days afterwards another was addressed to the sheriffs of London, enjoining them to make proclamation for the keeping the king's peace, and authorising them to arrest and imprison rioters until the king and his council should determine upon their punishment.[802] The precise wishes of the late king as to the respective parts which Bedford and Gloucester were to undertake in the government of the realm are not clearly known, but it is generally thought that he intended the former to govern France, whilst the latter was to act as his vicegerent in England. An attempt to carry out the arrangement was doomed to failure.

As soon as parliament met (9 Nov.) it took into consideration the respective claims of the two dukes. Bedford had already (26 Oct.) despatched a letter from Rouen, addressed to the civic authorities,[pg 269] setting forth his right to the government of the realm, as elder brother of the deceased sovereign and as the party most interested in the succession to the crown. Without mentioning Gloucester by name, he warned the citizens against executing orders derogatory to himself. He professed to do this, not from any ambitious designs of his own, but from a wish to preserve intact the laws, usage and customs of the realm.[803] After some hesitation, parliament resolved to appoint Bedford protector as soon as he should return from France, but that during his absence Gloucester should act for him.[804]

An expedition to start for France, 1 March, 1423.

On the 8th February of the new year (1423), the sheriffs of London received orders to make proclamation for all soldiers who were in the king's pay to assemble at Winchelsea by the 1st day of March, as an expedition was to set sail from that port for the purpose of defending the town and castle of Crotoye. The business was pressing and necessitated a repetition of the order to the sheriffs a fortnight later (22 Feb.).[805]

Sir John Mortimer.

On the 23rd February William Crowmere, the mayor, William Sevenoke, William Waldene, and John Fray were appointed commissioners to enquire into cases of treason and felony within the city; and two days later they found Sir John Mortimer, who was charged with a treasonable design in favour of the Earl of March, guilty of having broken prison.[806] He was subsequently convicted of treason both by lords and commons, and sentenced to death.

The debts of Henry IV.

On the 5th June (1423) the hearts of the citizens were gladdened with the news that they were likely to be repaid some of the money they had advanced to the king's grandfather. Orders were given for all persons to whom Henry IV was indebted at the time of his decease, and who had not yet received from his executors a moiety of the sums due, to send in their bills and tallies to Sir John Pelham and John Leventhorp, two of the king's executors, sitting at the Priory of Saint Mary, Southwark, by the Monday next after Midsummer-day.[807] We can believe that few orders ever met with readier response from the inhabitants of the city.

Gloucester and Beaufort, 1425-1428.

At home as well as abroad Gloucester soon made enemies; among them was his own uncle, the Chancellor, Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, a wealthy and ambitious prelate. During Gloucester's absence on the continent, whither he had gone to recover the estates of his newly-married wife, the ill-fated Jacqueline of Hainault, Beaufort garrisoned the Tower with creatures of his own. When Gloucester returned mutual recriminations took place, and the mayor was ordered (29 Oct., 1425) to prevent Beaufort entering the city. A riot ensued in which the citizens took the part of the duke, and the bishop had to take refuge in Southwark. The quarrel was patched up for awhile until Bedford, who was sent for, should arrive to act as arbitrator.[808] He arrived in London on the 10th January, 1426. The citizens, who had more than once been in communication with[pg 271] the duke[809] during his absence abroad, presented him with a pair of basins, silver-gilt, containing 1,000 marks. The gift, however, does not appear to have been so graciously received as it might have been, for a London alderman records that the donors, for all their liberality, "hadde but lytylle thanke."[810]

End of the quarrel between Gloucester and Beaufort.

The two brothers had not met since the death of Henry V. After prolonged negotiations, a modus vivendi between the parties was arrived at, and Gloucester and the bishop were induced to shake hands. Beaufort left England soon afterwards with the Duke of Bedford, on the plea of making a pilgrimage, and did not return until September, 1428, by which time he had been made a cardinal and appointed papal legate in England. Notwithstanding his legatine authority being unacknowledged by Gloucester and others, the citizens received him on his return "worthily and loyally," riding out to meet him and escorting him into London.[811]

Gloucester loses the favour of the citizens.

Gloucester had always been a favourite with the Londoners, until his conduct to his Flemish wife, whom he left behind on the continent to fight her own battles as best as she could, and the undisguised attention he paid to Eleanor Cobham, a lady in his wife's suite, whom he eventually married, estranged their favour. In August, 1424, the Common Council had voted the duke a gift of 500 marks; and two years later—viz., in April, 1426—the citizens raised a sum, variously stated to have been £1,000 and 1,000 marks, for the benefit of his duchess.[812] The female[pg 272] portion of the community were specially incensed against the duke, and a number of women went the length of presenting themselves before parliament in 1427, with a letter complaining of his behaviour towards his wife. In March of the next year (1428) the citizens themselves followed suit, and drew the attention of parliament, through the mouth of John Symond, their Recorder, to the wretched straits to which the duchess had been reduced, as witnessed her own letters. They begged parliament to consider the best means for recovering for her the lands of Hainault, Holland and Zeeland, which had always been places of sure refuge for the English merchant, and the rulers of which had ever been friendly to the king of England. The citizens finally avowed themselves ready to take upon themselves their share in any undertaking the lords and commons of the realm might decide upon.[813]

The siege of Orleans, 1428-1429.

In the meantime matters had not gone well with the English in France. In July, 1427, the Earl of Salisbury came over to London for reinforcements.[814] In September of the following year he was able to inform the City of the success that had attended his recruited army.[815] He was then within a short distance of Orleans, before which town he shortly afterwards met his death. Bedford continued the siege, but the town held out until May, 1429, when it was relieved by the Maid from the little village of Domremi, and the English army was compelled to retreat.

Famine in London, 1429.

Whilst Bedford was conducting the siege of Orleans, and Jeanne Darc was meditating how best to[pg 273] relieve the town, the citizens of London were suffering from a severe dearth. At length the Common Council resolved (22 July, 1429) to send agents abroad for the purpose of transmitting all the corn they could lay their hands on to England. The assistance of Bedford, who had by this time been compelled to raise the siege of Orleans, was invoked.[816]