Transcriber’s Notes

The cover was created by adding text to a plain background and is placed in the public domain.

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation and spelling remain unchanged except where in conflict with the index.

The ancient documents reproduced, particularly in Appendix IX, contain abbreviations represented by symbols no longer in use. These have been represented by the tilde˜ .

Lower case Latin numbers surmounted by xx (a score) are shown thus iiij ∕ xx.

The two genealogical trees in volume 3 chapter 19 have been supplemented with genealogical tables prepared by the transcriber.

UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME

PRICE 30/ NET EACH

LONDON
IN THE TIME OF THE TUDORS

With 146 Illustrations and a Reproduction of Agas’ Map of London in 1560.

“For the student, as well as for those desultory readers who are drawn by the rare fascination of London to peruse its pages, this book will have a value and a charm which are unsurpassed by any of its predecessors.”—Pall Mall Gazette.

“A vivid and fascinating picture of London life in the sixteenth century—a novelist’s picture, full of life and movement, yet with the accurate detail of an antiquarian treatise.”—Contemporary Review.

LONDON
IN THE TIME OF THE STUARTS

With 116 Illustrations and a Reproduction of Ogilby’s Map of London in 1677.

“It is a mine in which the student, alike of topography and of manners and customs, may dig and dig again with the certainty of finding something new and interesting.”—The Times.

“The pen of the ready writer here is fluent; the picture wants nothing in completeness. The records of the city and the kingdom have been ransacked for facts and documents, and they are marshalled with consummate skill.”—Pall Mall Gazette.

LONDON
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

With 104 Illustrations and a Reproduction of Rocque’s Map of London in 1741-5.

“The book is engrossing, and its manner delightful.”—The Times.

“Of facts and figures such as these this valuable book will be found full to overflowing, and it is calculated therefore to interest all kinds of readers, from the student to the dilettante, from the romancer in search of matter to the most voracious student of Tit-Bits.”—The Athenæum.

MEDIÆVAL LONDON
VOL. I. HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL

With 108 Illustrations, mostly from contemporary prints.

“The book is at once exact and lively in its statements; there is no slovenly page in it—everywhere there is the sense of movement and colour, and the charm which belongs to a living picture.”—Standard.

“One is struck by the admirable grouping, the consistency and order of the work throughout, and in none more than in this latest instalment.”—Pall Mall Gazette.

The Survey of London

MEDIÆVAL
LONDON
ECCLESIASTICAL

MEDIÆVAL
LONDON
VOL. II
ECCLESIASTICAL

BY
SIR WALTER BESANT

LONDON
ADAM & CHARLES BLACK
1906

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

		PAGE
Extract from Letter-Book E, dated 1316, relating to the Grocers’ Company		[5]
Obverse and Original Reverse of the Seal of the City of London, showing Figure of St. Thomas à Becket		[13]
Old Mayoralty Seal, Thirteenth Century		[15]
King John signing Magna Charta		Facing [20]
Aldgate House, Bethnal Green		[25]
Parts of the South and West Walls of a Convent		[30]
The Tower of London about 1480		[39]
The Crown offered to Richard III. at Baynard’s Castle		Facing [56]
King Richard holding a Council of Nobles and Prelates		[61]
Henry of Bolingbroke challenges the Crown		[62]
Richard II. consulting with his Friends in Conway Castle		[63]
Richard II. and his Patron Saints		[69]
Whittington and his Cat		[73]
Death of Whittington		[74]
Crossbowman		[77]
The Morning of Agincourt		[81]
Facsimile of Heading of Account, 1575-1576, showing Cooper at Work		[85]
South-East View of the Old House lately standing in Sweedon’s Passage, Grub Street		[91]
South-West View of Gerrard’s Hall		Facing [100]
Facsimile of Surgeons’ Arms, 1492, with St. Cosmo and St. Damian supporting		[101]
Interior of the Guildhall		[103]
A Tally for 6s. 8d. issued by Edward I.’s Treasurer to the Sheriff of Lincolnshire		[105]
Election Garland given by Robert and Cicely Chamberlayn, 1463		[105]
A Bagpipe-Player		[110]
Illustration from Zeller’s La France Anglaise et Charles VII.		[111]
The Seal of the Vintners’ Company, 1437		[112]
Tombstone of William Warrington, Master Mason, at Croyland Abbey, 1427		[113]
Coopers’ Marks, A.D. 1420		[114]
Part of Facsimile of the Original Charter granted by King Richard III. to the Worshipful Company ofWax Chandlers of the City of London (16th February, 1 Richard III.)		[116]
Liverymen of London		[117]
Frontispiece to the Grangerised Edition of Brayley’s London and Middlesex		Facing [118]
William Smallwood, Master of the Pewterers’ Company		[121]
St. Ethelburga’s Church, Bishopsgate Street		[129]
The Prioress		[131]
The Monk and his Greyhounds		[131]
Chantry Chapel of Henry V. in Westminster Abbey		[133]
Earl of Northumberland receiving Mass		[135]
Interesting Antiquities in Westminster Abbey		Facing [138]
Savoy Chapel and Palace		[141]
The Lollard’s Tower, Lambeth Palace		[149]
Knights of the Holy Ghost embarking for the Crusades		[151]
A Priest called John Ball stirs up great Commotion in England		[155]
Embroidery of the Fourteenth Century, supposed to be part of a Frontal or Antependium		[160]
Archbishop of Canterbury preaching on behalf of Henry, Duke of Lancaster		[161]
Queen Margaret, Wife of Henry VI., at Prayers		[168]
All Hallows, London Wall		[175]
Wilsdon, Middlesex		[181]
The Tabard Inn, Borough		[187]
Boss from the Ruins of the East Cloister of St. Bartholomew’s Priory		[195]
Sanctuary Knocker, Durham Cathedral		[202]
The Martyrdom of St. Thomas		[203]
Brasses in St. Bartholomew the Less, Smithfield		[207]
The Sanctuary Church at Westminster		[209]
North-West View of the Ruins of the Bishop of Winchester’s Palace, Southwark		[215]
Torments of Hell		[219]
The Chapel of the Hospital for Lepers in Kent Street, Southwark, called Le Lock		Facing [220]
Funeral Service		[223]
North View of the Oratory of the Ancient Inn situated in Tooley Street, Southwark, and formerlybelonging to the Priors of Lewes in Sussex		[229]
The Sanctuary of St. Martin’s-le-Grand		[235]
Plan of Holy Trinity Priory (Ground Floor Story)		Between [244] and[245]
Plan of Holy Trinity Priory (Second Floor Story)
The Charter House		[246]
Conjectural Restoration of the Buildings of the Priory Church of St. Bartholomew the Great as existingin Prior Bolton’s time (about A.D. 1530)		[251]
Part of the Choir, with the Remains of the South Transept, of the Church of St. Bartholomew the Great		[252]
Tomb of Prior Rahere		[253]
The Gate of St. Bartholomew’s Priory		[255]
St. Bartholomew the Less		[257]
Interior of St. Bartholomew the Great		[259]
Eastern Cloister of St. Bartholomew’s Priory		[261]
Seal of the Hospital of St. Thomas of Acon		[263]
Becket receiving a letter from Henry II. constituting him Chancellor. Consecration of Becket to theSee of Canterbury. Becket approaching the King with Disapprobation		[265]
The Priory of St. John of Jerusalem, London		[271]
Crypt of St. John’s Church, Clerkenwell		[273]
“The Templars”: an Ancient House at Hackney		[275]
Knight Templar		[276]
Knight Templar: Temple Church		[276]
An Effigy at the Temple Church, erroneously described as that of Sir Geoffrey de Mandeville		[277]
Interior of the Temple Church		[279]
Ancient Cloisters in Clerkenwell		[285]
The Arms and Seals of the Prior and Convent of St. Saviour at Bermondsey		[289]
Bermondsey Abbey		[293]
A General View of the Remains of Bermondsey Abbey, Surrey		Facing [294]
Figure of a Knight Templar		[298]
Traditional Figure of Old Overie
Gower’s Monument, St. Mary Overies		[299]
Bishop Andrewes’ Tomb, St. Mary Overies		[301]
Gateway of St. Mary’s Priory, Southwark		[303]
Ancient Crypt, Southwark		[305]
North-East View of St. Saviour’s Church		[307]
South-West View of the Interior of the Church of St. Helen, Bishopsgate Street		[314]
South-East View of the Nunnery of St. Helen, Bishopsgate Street		[315]
The Crypt of the Nunnery of St. Helen, in Bishopsgate Street		[317]
Seals of St. Helen’s Nunnery		[319]
The Gothic Altar-piece in the Collegiate Church of St. Katherine, with the Monuments of the Duke ofExeter and of the Hon. G. Montague		[335]
The Church of Austin Friars		[345]
Arms of Sir R. Whittington, Grey Friars, now Christ’s Hospital		[348]
Christ’s Hospital, from the Cloisters		[349]
“Ye Plat of Ye Graye Friers,” A.D. 1617		[351]
Blackfriars’ Priory		[355]
A Column of the Hall of Blackfriars’ Priory		[357]
Crypt of Old Whitefriars’ Priory		[361]
Flagellants		[367]
Interior of Old Lambe’s Chapel, Monkwell Street		[369]
Exterior of the South Side of Old Lambe’s Chapel		[371]
North-East View of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity, Leadenhall, in the Parish of St. Peter-upon-Cornhill,London		[375]
Hall of the Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity		[383]
Page of the Roll containing the names of the “Brethren and Sisters” of the Guild of Fraternity ofCorpus Christi, 1485, 1486, 1488		Facing [384]
North-West View of the Chapel and Part of the Great Staircase leading to the Hall of BridewellHospital, London		[386]

PART I
THE GOVERNMENT OF LONDON

CHAPTER I
THE RECORDS

Before entering upon the government of London under the Plantagenet Kings, let us first ask what are the documents in which we shall find information at first hand.

No city in the world possesses a collection of archives so ancient and so complete as the collection at the Guildhall. Riley, in his Introduction to the Liber Albus, begins his list of those who have consulted the archives with John Stow. Surely, however, the compiler of the Liber Albus itself, John Carpenter, also consulted archives even in his day valuable and ancient. Strype, in the preparation of his Edition of Stow, also consulted the City archives:—

“Again,” he says, “another Thing, that Labour and Diligence hath been bestowed in, relates to the Laws, Customs and Usages of the City. Wherein the Liberties and Privileges, as well as the Duties of the Citizens, are contained. And therefore ought to be known by them, and in that regard necessary to be set down, as accurately and largely as might be; being Things so material for them to be advised of. This was laudably begun by A. M. in the last Edition: but very much improved and enlarged in this. And to enable me the better in the doing the same, it was not only necessary to gather up, and present the many and most important Acts of Parliament and Common Council, relating to the City and its Affairs; but also to have recourse to the authentick Books and Records belonging to the Chamber of London: Where many ancient and curious Matters of this nature might be found. But this seemed to be somewhat difficult to be obtained. Yet by the Help of some friends of Quality and good Account, and making the Court of Aldermen acquainted with my Design, and requesting their Leave and Licence, I obtained an Order from them to Mr. Ashhurst, then Town Clerk, to give me Access to some of their Books, that might be most to my Purpose, and their Allowance to transcribe what I thought convenient out of them: but withal I was enjoined by the Court to leave in Mr. Town Clerk’s hands all my Notes that I should so collect thence, to be reviewed and examined; lest some things published from them might seem prejudicial some way or other to the City, or be judged not so convenient to be known; or lest any Mistakes might be made by me in transcribing. Which (as was fit), I readily complied with. Many Remarks I took out thence, respecting both the ancient State of the City, and also of the Courts, the Customs, the Magistrates, the Officers, &c. The Chief Books I conversed with, were those two famous ancient Volumes, the one called Liber Horne, from the Writer, the other called Liber Albus, i.e. the White Book. Both so often made use of and cited by Mr. Stow. This last mentioned Book was composed in Latin, An. 1419. 7. H. 5. mense Novembris. And what it contains is known by what is writ in one of the First Pages, viz. Continens tam laudabiles Observantias, non scriptas, in dict. Civitate fieri solitas, quam notabilia memoranda, &c., sparsim et inordinate scripta. That is, ‘Containing as well laudable Customs, not written, wont to be observed in the said City, as other notable things worthy remembering, here and there scatteringly, not in any Order written.’ The Compiler of this White Book was one Carpenter: whose Name fairly and largely writ fronts the first page. Who I suppose may be that J. Carpenter, sometime Town Clark in the Reign of Henry V., mentioned by Stow in his Survey among the worthy Benefactors of the City: and whose Gifts are there set down. In this Volume are inserted Memorials of the Maiors, Sheriffs, Recorders, Chamberlains, and the other chief officers of the City: likewise all the Charters granted by the several Kings of England from William the Conqueror: and the Confirmations thereof. There is also a Tract of the Manner and Order, ‘How Barones & Universitas Civitat. London, &c. That is, the Barons (i.e. the Freemen) and Commonality of the City of London, ought to behave and carry themselves towards the King and his Justitiaries Itinerants in the Time it pleaseth the King to hold Pleas of the Crown at the Tower of London: Together with many other Matters and Subjects, contained in this Choice MS.’

The other Book, which I had also the favour of perusing, namely Horne, was near an Hundred Years older, so named from Andrew Horne, sometime Chamberlain of the City, viz. in the time of King Edward the Second. What this Book contains, is told by this Inscription in one place of it, viz. ‘Iste Liber restat Andreae Horne Piscenario London, de Breggestrete. In quo continentur Cartae, & aliae Consuetudines predict. Civitat. Angliae & Statuta per Henricum Regem, & Edwardum Regem fil. predict. Regis Henrici edita.’ And again, ‘In isto Libro continentur tota Statuta, & Ordinationes & Cartae & Libertates, & Consuetudines Civitat. London & Ordo Justitiorum itinerantium apud Turrim Lond. & ipsum iter.’

EXTRACT FROM LETTER-BOOK E, DATED 1316, RELATING TO THE GROCERS’ CO.

A larger image is available [here].

Another Book also there was in the Chamber, which I also perused for the same purpose, called Liber Custumarum. The First Tract whereof is, de Laudibus Nobilitatis Insulae Britanniae. It is in old French, and consisteth of thirteen chapters; Beginning thus—

‘De Britaigne, que ore est appele Engleterre, & qui est si benure sur toutes autres Isles; & qui est si plentiuous de blez & des arbres, & large de boys & de rivers & de veneisons & de oisiaus convenables, et noble de mout de maneres bons chiens. Citees y ad mont belles et bien assises, & belles guameries de terre amyable; close de mere & de douces Ewes delitables: ceo est asavoir, de fluvies, de beaus undes, de clers fountaynes & de douces, &c.’

The writer then applies himself to treat of London; as, the several Charters, the Wards, and the Streets, Passages, and Places there, Privileges of Maiors, &c.

To which I add the Calendarium Cameræ, London, which was also another Book in the Chamber, of use to me also in my searches.”

During the eighteenth century, except for Strype, the archives appear to have been unmolested. Early last century Sir Francis Palgrave made many extracts from this treasury. More recently, M. Auguste Thierry published certain treaties of commerce of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, between the citizens of London and the merchants of Amiens. In 1843 M. Jules Delpit spent some time at the Guildhall collecting from copies of documents relating to the connections between France and England. Since then the work of publishing and annotating these papers has gone on with great diligence.

A list of the items which comprise the City archives is given by Riley:—

“In addition to the early Registers, or Letter-Books, from A to K inclusive (the respective dates of which are given at the conclusion of this volume), the Record-room at Guildhall contains the following compilations:—Journals and Repertories of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council from A.D. 1417 down to the present time. Liber de Antiquis Legibus, a Latin Chronicle of the City transactions from A.D. 1178 to 1274, the only one of the records hitherto published. Liber Horn, a miscellaneous collection, date 1311, and compiled probably by its original owner, Andrew Horn. Liber Custumarum, a compilation of a similar nature, date about 1320, and put together probably under the supervision of the same Andrew Horn. Liber Albus. Liber Dunthorn, a compilation in Latin, Anglo-French, and English, prepared between A.D. 1461 and 1490. Liber Legum, a collection of laws from A.D. 1342 to 1590. Liber Ordinationum de Itinere, compiled temp. Edward I.: in addition to which, there are the Assisa Panis, commencing in 1284; Liber Memorandorum, date 1298, and several other manuscript volumes of inferior note and value.

Among the books which are known to have formerly belonged to the Corporation of London, but are now lost, are the following:—Liber Niger Major, and Liber Niger Minor, both quoted in Liber Albus, Speculum, Recordatorium, possibly identical with the Liber Regum Antiquorum, also lost; Magnus Liber de Chartis et Libertatibus Civitatis; Liber Rubeus, and Liber de Heretochiis, both mentioned in the Letter-Books, according to M. Delpit, as formerly in existence. It is not improbable that these volumes may have disappeared on the disastrous occasion when, in the reign of Edward VI., the Lord Protector Somerset borrowed three cartloads of books from the Library at Guildhall, none of which were ever returned.”—Riley’s Introduction to Liber Albus.

Since this list was prepared, the Corporation have undertaken the publication of Riley’s Memorials of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries; Sharpe’s Calendar of Wills; the Calendar of Letters; Sharpe’s London and the Kingdom; Price’s Descriptive Account of the Guildhall; Agas’s “Map of London”; Riley’s Chronicles of Old London. In addition to these volumes, one must not omit Arnold’s Chronicle of Customs, published in 1811; the publications of the Camden Society, which include many documents invaluable to the student of City history; other Chronicles translation has made accessible, such as the “Dialogue de Scaccario,” published in full in Stubbs’s Select Charters.

CHAPTER II
THE CHARTER OF HENRY THE SECOND

The Charter granted by Henry the Second, though apparently full, contained certain omissions which are significant and important. Round has arranged this Charter side by side with that of Henry the First, dividing their contents into numbered clauses, italicising the points of difference (Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 368-369).

The text of the first is that of Stubbs’s Select Charters; that of the second is taken from the transcript in the Liber Custumarum (collated with the Liber Rubeus).

One very curious mistake was discovered by Round in the first. In clause 9 the word wardemotum is used. This, by comparison with the corresponding clause in the second Henry’s Charter, should be vadimonia: in other words, both Charters confirmed to the citizens “the property mortgaged to them and the debts due to them.”

To consider the differences:—

(1) No citizens are to plead without the walls. The second Charter adds “except in pleas for exterior tenures, my moneyers and servants excepted.”

By the second clause the citizens are freed from Scot and Lot and Danegeld and Murder. Henry the Second substitutes acquittance of murder within the City and Portsoken.

(6) Clause 6 is omitted in the second Charter.

(9) Clause 9. I have already shown the error discovered by Round in the word wardemotum.

(10) Here is a limitation, “quæ infra urbem sunt,” which are within the City.

(11) The clause concerning debtors omitted in the second Charter.

(12) About taking toll or any other custom from the citizens: for the “citizens” is substituted the Sheriff.

(13) Observe that Henry the Second does not speak of the Sheriff of London, but of my Sheriff.

The most important omission, however, in the second Charter is that which gives the citizens the right to hold Middlesex on the firma of £300 a year, and the right to elect their own Justiciar and Sheriff.

CHAPTER III
THE COMMUNE

We are now in a position to proceed to the establishment of the Commune. The stages of any important reform are, first, the right understanding of the facts; then a tentative discussion of the facts; then an animated discussion of the facts; next, an angry denial of the facts; then a refusal to consider the question of reform at all; finally, the unwilling acceptance of reform with gloomy prophecies of disaster and ruin. One knows nothing about these preliminary stages as regards the great Civic Revolution of 1191. But I am quite sure that, just as it was with the Reform Bill of 1832, so it was with the creation of a Mayor in 1191. There were no newspapers, no pamphlets, and no means of united action except the Folk Mote at Paul’s Cross—which would clearly be of no use on such a point—and the casual meeting day by day of the merchants by the riverside. There was no Royal Exchange; there were no Companies’ Halls for them to meet in; we have no record of any meeting; but we may be sure that the inconvenience of the situation was discussed whenever two or three were gathered together. We may be equally sure that there were Conservatives, those who loved the old days, and dreaded the power of a central authority. Opinion as regards reform has always been divided, and always will be divided; there are always those who would rather endure the ills that exist than meet unknown ills which may be brought upon them by change. I do not know how long the discussions continued and the discontent was endured. On this subject history is dumb. One or two points, however, are certain. The first is that all the great towns of Western Europe were eager for the Commune; the next is the model which they proposed to copy.

It must have been well known to our Kings throughout the twelfth century that the creation of the Commune in the great trading cities of Western Europe was not only ardently desired by the citizens, but had been actually achieved by many. What they desired was a Corporation, a municipality, self-government within their own walls. It is certain that London looked with eyes of envy upon Rouen, a City with which it was closely connected by ties of relationship, as well as those of trade, because Rouen obtained her Commune fifteen years before London obtained the mere shadow of one. It was, in fact, from Normandy that the City derived her desire to possess a Commune. The connection between London and Rouen was much closer than we are generally willing to recognise. Communication was easy, the Channel could be crossed whenever the wind was favourable, the Englishman was on a friendly soil when he landed in Normandy, a country ruled by his own Prince. The Normans found themselves also among a friendly people on the soil of England. They came over in great numbers, especially to London. The merchants of Rouen had their port at Dowgate from the days of Edward the Confessor. Many of the leading London merchants came from Rouen and Caen. Therefore, whatever went on in Rouen was known in London. Now, in the year 1145, great and startling news arrived. It was heard that the City of Rouen had obtained a Commune, that is to say, a municipality, with a Mayor for a central authority, and powers of government over the whole City. Further news came that the Commune was established in other parts of France and in the Netherlands, and that everywhere the cities were forming themselves into municipalities, breaking away from the old traditions and organising themselves. This was not done without considerable opposition. The rights of the Church, the rights of the Barons, the rights of the King, were all invaded by the creation of the Commune. It was, however, a great popular movement, irresistible. It succeeded for a time, but in one city after another it fell to pieces. In England it succeeded greatly, and it continued to extend and to flourish. Meanwhile the merchants of London understood very well that, in this respect, what suited the people of Rouen would suit them. Indeed, the conditions were very similar in the two Cities.[1]

Then began a serious agitation—but not after the modern fashion—among the London citizens in favour of the new civic organisation. Henry the Second would have none of it. In his jealousy of any transfer of power to the people, he allowed no guilds to be formed save with his consent; at one blow he suppressed eighteen “Adulterine” guilds which had thus been created. But he could not suppress the ardent desire of the people for the Commune.

Had the successor of Henry been as wise a King and as clear-sighted as his father, the desire of the City might have been staved off for another generation. But Richard was not Henry. When he was gone upon his crusade, the government was left in the hands of his Chancellor, William Longchamp. And then follows one of those episodes in which the history of London becomes actually the history of the whole country.

Longchamp had become unpopular with all classes. The barons felt the power of his hand and resented it; the merchants found themselves continually subject to extortionate fines, the clergy to exactions. He held all the Royal Castles; he was attended by a guard of a thousand horsemen; he affected the parade of royalty. In considering this personage, it must be remembered that he had many enemies in all ranks, and that his character has been chiefly drawn by his enemies. It was, of course, a great point against him—and always hurled in his teeth—that he was of humble origin; he was also, as a matter of course, charged with every kind of immorality. His haughtiness, which might be excused in his position of Viceroy, was undoubted; it was called by his enemies insolence; and there could be no doubt as to the taxes which he imposed. In the letter written by Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, after Longchamp’s deposition, even ecclesiastical invective seems to have done its very worst. The real reason of the deadly hatred is summed up in the following:—

“To omit other matters, he and his revellers had so exhausted the whole kingdom, that they did not leave a man his belt, a woman her necklace, a nobleman his ring, or anything of value even to a Jew. He had likewise so utterly emptied the King’s treasury, that in all the coffers and bags therein, nothing but the keys could be met with, after the lapse of these last two years.” (Roger de Hoveden, Riley’s trans., vol. ii. p. 235.)

OBVERSE AND ORIGINAL REVERSE OF THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LONDON, SHOWING FIGURE OF ST. THOMAS À BECKET
From a wax cast in the Guildhall Museum.

On the other hand, Peter of Blois replied to the gentle Bishop of Coventry with a letter which must have awakened in the mind of that prelate something of the ungovernable wrath which belonged to his time. He says: “The Bishop of Ely [Longchamp], one beloved by God and men, a man amiable, wise, generous, kind, and meek, bounteous and liberal to the highest degree, had by the dispensations of the Divine favour, and in accordance with the requirements of his own manners and merits, been honoured with the administration of the State, and had thus gained the supreme authority. With feelings of anger you beheld this, and forthwith he became the object of your envy. Accordingly, your envy conceived vexation and brought forth iniquity; whereas he, walking in the simplicity of his mind, received you into the hallowed precincts of his acquaintanceship, and with singleness of heart, and into the bonds of friendship and strict alliance. His entire spirit reposed upon you, and all your thoughts unto him were for evil.” (Roger de Hoveden, Riley’s trans., vol. ii. p. 238.)

We have not to determine the guilt or the innocence of the Chancellor; it is enough to learn that there were opposite views.

The Barons and Bishops were headed by John, Earl of Mortain,[2] brother of the King.

It was notorious that of all those who went out to fight the Saracen, few returned. Richard, in the Holy Land, was not sparing himself; it was therefore quite likely that he would meet his death upon the battlefield. Then, as the heir to the crown was a child, and as a man, and not a child, was wanted on the throne, John had certainly every reason to believe that his own accession would be welcomed. He prepared the way, therefore, by joining the popular cause, and put himself at the head of the malcontents.

And now, at last, the citizens saw their chance. They offered to use the whole power of the City for John and the barons, but on conditions. J. H. Round, in his Origin of the Mayoralty of London, p. 3, says:—

“It was at about the same time that the ‘Commune’ and its ‘Maire’ were triumphantly reaching Dijon in one direction, and Bordeaux in another, that they took a northern flight and descended upon London. Not for the first time in her history, the Crown’s difficulty was London’s opportunity, and when in October, 1191, the administration found itself paralysed by the conflict between the King’s brother John, and the King’s representative, the famous Longchamp, London, finding that she held the scales, promptly named the concession of a ‘Commune’ as the price of her support. The chroniclers of the day enable us to picture to ourselves the scene, as the excited citizens who had poured forth overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning, of the eventful 8th October, at the well-known summons of the great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul’s Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the ‘Commune,’ like a French King or Lord, and then London for the first time had a municipality of her own. What the English and territorial organisation could never have brought about, the foreign Commune, with its commercial basis, could and did accomplish.

And as London alone had her ‘Commune,’ so London alone had her Mayor. The ‘Maire’ was unquestionably imported with the ‘Commune,’ although it is not till the spring of 1193 that the Mayor of London is first mentioned. But already in 1194 we find a citizen accused of boasting that ‘come what may the Londoners shall never have any King but their Mayor.’”

“Not for the first time.” Remember that in 1066, after the battle of Hastings, London only admitted William as King on conditions. London elected Henry the First King on conditions. London made Stephen King on conditions. London received the Empress on conditions; a week later the Queen also on conditions; and now, once more, London saw its chance—such a chance as might never occur again—for getting what it wanted—on conditions.

Let us, however, enter more fully into the details of this victory, and into the causes which led to concession.

Longchamp gave the barons an opening by his attempted exclusion of Geoffrey, Archbishop of York (natural brother of the King), from the kingdom, and his forcible seizure of the Archbishop from the very horns of the Altar. Geoffrey complained to John, who gave orders that the Chancellor should stand his trial for the injury he had done to the Archbishop. Remembering the position of Longchamp, as the actual representative of the King, this summons was in the nature of an ultimatum. As regards the City, Longchamp had alienated many of the citizens by his exactions and by the great works which he carried on at the Tower, a point on which the citizens were always extremely jealous.

OLD MAYORALTY SEAL, 13TH CENTURY
From a wax cast in Guildhall Museum.

A day was named for the hearing of the case. The Court, or the Council, sat at Reading. There were present: John, Earl of Mortain; the Archbishop of York as plaintiff; the Archbishop of Rouen—his appearance is most significant, with the bishops and the principal barons of the realm.

But no Chancellor appeared, nor did any message or reply come from him.

The Court being broken up, the barons marched from Reading to Windsor, while the Chancellor retired from Windsor to the Tower of London.

On the day following, the barons marched from Windsor into London. By this statement we may clearly understand that everything had already been arranged with the citizens, otherwise the gates would have been shut. The barons, with their following, were admitted into the City; they held another meeting at the Chapter House of St. Paul’s; and here John, the Archbishops of York and Rouen, and nearly all the bishops and barons of the realm, received the principal citizens, and solemnly granted to the City of London its long-sought Commune, and swore to maintain it firmly so long as it should please the King.

The words of Roger of Hoveden are quite clear; it is extraordinary that there could be any doubt about what was done:

“On the same day, also, the Earl of Mortaigne, the Archbishop of Rouen, and the other justiciaries of the King, granted to the citizens of London the privilege of their commonalty; and, during the same year, the Earl of Mortaigne, the Archbishop of Rouen, and the other justiciaries of the King, made oath that they would solemnly and inviolably observe the said privilege, so long as the same should please their lord the King. The citizens of London also made oath that they would faithfully serve their lord King Richard, and his heirs, and would, if he should die without issue, receive Earl John, the brother of King Richard, as their King and Lord.” (Roger de Hoveden, Riley’s trans., vol. ii. p. 230.)

This done, they proceeded without any trouble to depose the Chancellor, who fled, and, after many adventures, got across to Normandy in safety.

Observe the very great importance attached to this step. It was the condition in return for which London joined the barons in getting rid of a rapacious Viceroy; the concession was not lightly, but solemnly, granted, as a measure of the greatest weight, in presence of the chief persons of the kingdom; all present set their hands to the Act; all present swore to maintain it.

One of the chroniclers, Richard of Devizes, a very strong Conservative, shows us what was thought of the step by his party:

“On that very day,” he says, “was granted and instituted the Commune of the Londoners, and the magnates of the whole realm, even the Bishops of the province itself, were compelled to swear to it. London learned now for the first time, in obtaining the Commune, that the realm had no King, for neither Richard nor his father Henry would ever have allowed this to be done, even for a million marks of silver. How great those evils are which spring from a Commune may be understood from the common saying that it puffs up the people and it terrifies the King.”

Ralph de Diceto says more succinctly, “All the before-mentioned magnates [i.e. John, the archbishop, the bishops, earls, and barons] swore [that they would maintain] the Commune of London.” It is he who tells us what the others do not tell us, that this parliament was holden in the Chapter House of Saint Paul, London.

Giraldus Cambrensis says:—

“In crastino vero convocatis in unum civibus, communione, vel ut Latine minus vulgariter magis loquamur, commune seu communia eis concessa et communiter jurata.”

It is therefore abundantly plain that the citizens desired, and obtained from John, the concession of the Commune.

Another chronicler informs us that the Commune was granted to the whole body of citizens gathered together. This means that it was announced at a Folk Mote specially summoned at Paul’s Cross. I cannot but think that the importance of the concession called for the assemblage of the whole people. Mr. Round must be right in his picture. After the meeting in the Chapter House, the Great Bell of St. Paul’s was rung; the people flocked together; the bishop stood up at Paul’s Cross and told them the great news: that they had at last won their community; that for the first time they were one City; that they had for the first time their leader and their speaker.

The City got its Commune. The first Mayor, Henry FitzAylwin, or Henry of London Stone, was elected. Two years afterwards, he is spoken of as the Mayor of London. He held the office for five-and-twenty years: it was twenty-four years after his election that he was recognised by the King. John’s recognition, when he was no more than Earl of Mortain, heir to the Crown, was not official. As we have heard already, Richard never recognised either the Commune or the Mayor.

Mr. H. C. Coote, in a paper published by the London and Middlesex Archæological Society, argues that so great a change as that from the former to the later constitution demanded a Charter; that therefore this Charter must have been granted; and that it must have been lost. It is sufficient to note the fact that there is no such Charter. Considering the circumstances, it does not seem as if a Charter could have been granted. The Commune was conferred so long as it should please the King. It did not please the King, who never recognised the Commune. Therefore, one would infer there was no Charter.

In 1215 the citizens obtained from John their right to elect their own Mayor.

As for the meaning of the Commune, Stubbs says:—

“The establishment of the ‘Communa’ of the citizens of London which is recorded by the historians to have been specially confirmed by the Barons and Justiciar on the occasion of Longchamp’s deposition from the Justiciarship is a matter of some difficulty as the word ‘Communa’ is not found in English town-charters, and no formal record of the act of confirmation is now preserved. Interpreted, however, by foreign usage and by the later meaning of the word ‘Communitas’ it must be understood to signify a corporate identity of the municipality which it may have claimed before and which may even have been occasionally recognised but was now firmly established: a sort of consolidation into a single organised body of the variety of franchises, guilds, and other departments of local jurisdiction. It was probably connected with, and perhaps implied by, the nomination of a Mayor who now appears for the first time. It cannot, however, be defined with certainty.” (Stubbs’s Select Charters.)

Now Round[3] points out that the words “concessa est communæ Londinensium,” agree exactly with the granting of the French Communes. The same words were used for the Communes of Senlis, of Compiègne, of Abbeville, and of Poitiers. The Commune again, in France, did not necessarily imply the election of a Mayor. At Beauvais and Compiègne at first there was no Mayor.

Round next shows, which is very remarkable, that the long struggle of the citizens to hold the City and County at the firma of £300, which the Crown persistently strove to raise to £500 and more, was terminated in 1191, the year when the Commune was granted, by a return to the old sum of £300. This is a very important fact. Entries of the years 1192 and 1197 show that this yearly sum was maintained at the lower figure. Three points, therefore, are certain:—

1. A Commune was granted to London in 1191.

2. The Firma of City and County was simultaneously lowered from over £500 to the old sum of £300.

3. The Mayor of London first appears in 1193.

It is at this point that an almost contemporary document, discovered by Mr. Round, in the British Museum, which is nothing less than the oath of the Commune, throws a flood of light on the situation.

“Sacramentum commune tempore regis Ricardi quando detentus erat Alemaniam (sic).

Quod fidem portabunt domino regi Ricardo de vita sua et de membris et de terreno honore suo contra omnes homines et feminas qui vivere possunt aut mori et quod pacem suam servabunt et adjuvabunt servare, et quod communam tenebunt et obedientes erunt maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivin[is] ejusdem commune in fide regis et quod sequentur et tenebunt considerationem maioris et skivinorum et aliorum proborum hominum qui cum illis erunt salvo honore dei et sancte ecclesie et fide domini regis Ricardi et salvis per omnia libertatibus civitatis Lond[onie]. Et quod pro mercede nec pro parentela nec pro aliqua re omittent quin jus in omnibus rebus p[ro]sequentur et teneant pro posse suo et scientia et quod ipsi communiter in fide domini regis Ricardi sustinebunt bonum et malum et ad vitam et ad mortem. Et si quis presumeret pacem domini regis et regni perturbare ipsi consilio domine et domini Rothomagensis et aliorum justiciarum domini regis juvabunt fideles domini regis et illos qui pacem servare volunt pro posse suo et pro scientia sua salvis semper in omnibus libertatibus Lond[onie].” (Round, p. 235.)

Compare this oath with that of a freeman of the present day:—

“I solemnly declare that I will be good and true to our Sovereign Lord King Edward, that I will be obedient to the Mayor of this City, that I will maintain the franchises and customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless in that which in me is; that I will also keep the King’s peace in my own person, that I will know no gatherings nor conspiracies made against the King’s peace, but I will warn the Mayor thereof or hinder it to my power; and that all these points and articles I will well and truly keep according to the laws and customs of this City to my power.”

Again, to quote from Round:—

“For the first time we learn that the government of the City was then in the hands of a Mayor and échevins (skevini). Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English municipal institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental institution. But in this document the Mayor and échevins do not exhaust the governing body. Of Aldermen, indeed, we hear nothing; but we read of ‘alii probi homines’ as associated with the Mayor and échevins. For these we may turn to another document, fortunately preserved in this volume, which shows us a body of ‘twenty-four’ connected with the government of London some twelve years later (1205-6).

Sacramentum xxiiij^or factum anno regni regis Johannis vij^o.

Quod legaliter intendent ad consulendum secundum suam consuetudinem juri domini regis quod ad illos spectat in civitate Lond[onie] salva libertate civitatis et quod de nullo homine qui in placito sit ad civitatem spectante aliquod premium ad suam conscientiam reciperent. Et si aliquis illorum donum aut promissum dum in placitum fatiat illud nunquam recipient, neque aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis. Et quod illi nullum modum premii accipient, nec aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis, pro injuria allevanda vel pro jure sternendo. Et concessum est inter ipsos quod si aliquis inde attinctus vel convictus fuerit, libertatem civitatis et eorum societatem amittet.” (Round, pp. 237-238.)

“Of a body of twenty-four councillors, nothing has hitherto been known. To a body of twenty-five there is this one reference (Liber de Antiq. Leg. Camden Soc. p. 2):

Hoc anno fuerunt xxv electi de discretioribus civitatis, et jurati pro consulendo civitatem una cum Maiore.

The year is Mich. 1200-Mich. 1201; but the authority is not first-rate. Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much discussed. The latest exposition is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk to the City Corporation (London and the Kingdom, i. 72):

Soon after John’s accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of Aldermen as a deliberate 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. 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 a Common Council.’”

But they could not have been Aldermen of the wards, simply because the number do not agree.

To find out who they were, we must turn to the foreign evidence. At Rouen the advisers of the Mayor were a body of twenty-four annually elected.

This oath on election was as follows. It will be seen how closely it resembles that of the English Commune—

“(II). De centum vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor, assensu centum parium, qui singulis annis removebuntur: quorum duodecim eschevini vocabuntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti quatuor, in principio sui anni, jurabunt se servaturos jura sancte ecclesie et fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam quod et ipse recte judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam, etc.

LIV. Iterum, major et eschevini et pares, in principio sui eschevinatus, jurabunt eque judicare, nec pro inimicitia nec pro amicitia injuste judicabunt. Iterum, jurabunt se nullos denarios nec premia capturos, quod et eque judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam.

LV. Si aliquis juratorum possit comperi accepisse premium pro aliqua questione de qua aliquis trahatur in eschevinagio, domus ejus ... prosternatur, nec amplius ille qui super hoc deliraverit, nec ipse, nec heres ejus dominatum in communia habebit.

The three salient features in common are (1) the oath to administer justice fairly; (2) the special provisions against bribery; (3) the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe.

If we had only ‘the oath of the Commune,’ we might have remained in doubt as to the nature of the administrative body; but we can now assert, on continental analogy, that its twenty-four members comprised twelve ‘skevini’ and an equal number of councillors. We can also assert that it administered justice, even though this has been unsuspected, and may, indeed, at first arouse question.” (Round, p. 240.)

We conclude, therefore, from continental analogy, that the twenty-four of London comprised twelve “skevini” and an equal number of Councillors. What became of this Council?

Round is of opinion, in which most will agree, that this Council was the germ of the Common Council, and he points out that the oath of a member of the Common Council, like that of the ancient Council of twenty-four, still binds him—(1) not to be influenced by private favour; (2) not to leave the Council without the Mayor’s permission; (3) to keep the proceedings secret.

Now the oath of an Alderman (Liber Albus, Riley’s translation, p. 267) is quite different. It is the oath of a Magistrate and superintendent of a ward—

“You shall swear, that well and lawfully you shall serve our lord the King in the City of London, in the office of Alderman in the Ward of N, wherein you are chosen Alderman, and shall lawfully treat and inform the people of the same Ward of such things as unto them pertain to do, for keeping the City, and for maintaining the peace within the City; and that the laws, usages, and franchises of the said City you shall keep and maintain, within town and without, according to your wit and power. And that attentive you shall be to save and maintain the rights of orphans, according to the laws and usages of the said City. And that ready you shall be, and readily shall come, at the summons and warning of the Mayor and ministers of the said City, for the time being, to speed the Assizes, Pleas, and judgments of the Hustings, and other needs of the said City, if you be not hindered by the needs of our lord the King, or by other reasonable cause; and that good lawful counsel you shall give for such things as touch the common profit in the same City. And that you shall sell no manner of victuals by retail; that is to say, bread, ale, wine, fish, or flesh, by you, your apprentices, hired persons, servants, or by any other; nor profit shall you take of any such manner of victuals sold during your office. And that well and lawfully you shall (behave) yourself in the said office, and in other things touching the City.—So God you help, and the saints.”[4]

Again, for English evidence. The City of Winchester shows also the existence of a Council of twenty-four, which continued until 1835:

“Il iert en la vile mere eleu par commun assentement des vint et quatre jures et de la commune ... le quel mere soit remuable de an en an.... Derechef en la cite deinent estre vint et quatre jurez esluz des plus prudeshommes e des plus sages de la ville e leaument eider e conseiller le avandit mere a franchise sauver et sustener.” (Round, p. 242.)

“There shall be in the City a Mayor elected by common consent of the twenty-four ‘Jurats’ and the Commune.... The which Mayor is to be removeable from year to year. Further, in the City there must be twenty-four ‘Jurats’ elected from the most notable and the wisest of the City, both loyally to aid and to counsel the aforesaid Mayor to protect and to maintain the franchise.”

At Winchester the twenty-four retained their distinct position, and it was not till the sixteenth century that the Aldermen were interposed between the Mayor and the Council.

Thus did London get the recognition of its Commune—its community,—and with it the Mayor. There was certainly reason for the suspicion and hostility of the old-fashioned Conservatives towards the new constitution. Some of the citizens, we are told, in the first exuberant joy over their newly-acquired liberties thought that henceforth there would be no need of a King at all. They pictured to themselves a sovereign State like that of Genoa, Pisa, or Venice, in which the City should be independent and separate from the rest of the country. I dare say there were such dreamers. Three years later, in 1194, we hear of citizens who boasted that “come what may, the Londoners shall never have any King but their Mayor.” Fortunately, the Mayor himself observed wiser counsels.

And now we may ask what it was that the City got with its new form of government. The Mayor took over the whole control of trade, which had been in the hands of the mysterious Guild Merchant; but with this vast difference, that he was provided with powers to enforce his ordinances. He took over, in addition, the administration of justice, the maintenance of order in the City, the subjection of all the various Courts and Ward Motes under one Central Court, with its Magistrates, its Bailiffs, its Officers, and its Servants. London as a corporate body actually began in 1191. The Sheriffs lost a great part of their importance; the Aldermen became, but not immediately, Magistrates of the City and not of the Wards only; the citizens themselves began to elect their representatives to rule the City; the regulations of the various crafts passed under the licensing authority of a Judge and his Assessors, who enforced their commands by penalties. In a word, the Commune abolished the ancient treatment of the City as an aggregate of private properties, each of which had its own Lord of the Manor, or Alderman, and substituted one great City, presided over by a representative possessed of power and authority, and backed by the strong arm of the law.

KING JOHN SIGNING MAGNA CHARTA
After the painting by Ernest Normand in the Royal Exchange, London. By permission of the Artist.

The step, in fact, made the future development of London possible and natural. Wherever there is self-government there is the power of adjusting laws and customs to meet changed conditions. Where there is no self-government there is no such power. A long succession of the wisest and most benevolent Kings would never have done for London what London was thus enabled to do for herself, because, to use the familiar illustration, it is only the foot which knows where the shoe pinches.

We must not claim for the wisdom of our ancestors that London advanced at once, and by a single step, to the full recognition of the possibilities before her. I admit that there were many failures; we know that there were jealousies and animosities; that there were times when the Mayor was unable to cope with the difficulties of the situation—for example, when Edward the First suppressed the Mayoralty altogether, and for eleven years ruled the City strongly and wisely,—but we can claim for the City that there was continuous and steady advance in the direction of orderly and just administration, and that the unity of the City, thus recognised and conceded, became a most powerful factor in the extension and expansion of the City and its trade.

To return to the changes made possible. The chief officer of the City was called a Mayor, after French custom; the Mayor was not appointed by the King; he was elected by the citizens from their own body; his powers were at first indefinite and uncertain; thus, the first act of Edward the Third, a hundred years later, was to make the Mayor one of the Judges of Oyer and Terminer for the trials of criminals in Newgate; the citizens’ right of electing the Mayor was always grudgingly conceded and continually violated. I suppose, next, that the practice of electing the Aldermen, which came in gradually, was accelerated by the natural desire of the citizens to elect all their officers. Another cause was undoubtedly the fact that the manors, or wards, of the City did not continue in the hands of the original families. The holders parted with their property; perhaps they retained certain manorial rights, which were afterwards bought out. The wards in which this happened began to elect their Aldermen; by the year 1290 there were only four wards still named after the Lords of the Manor. And it seems reasonable that, as soon as the City had a recognised head and chief under the King, he would be considered first, so that the Bishop’s Aldermanry naturally fell into abeyance. Certainly we find no more Charters addressed to the Bishop. The first Mayor remained Mayor for twenty-five years; that is to say, for life. It is natural to suppose that he was at first put forward on occasion as the City’s spokesman, as well as its chief officer. It is not absolutely certain that the Mayor was first appointed in 1191, when John granted the “Commune.” In some French towns the Mayor, as we have seen, came after the Commune, but he is mentioned in 1193. In 1194 Richard’s Charter makes no mention of the Mayor; he existed, certainly, but he was not yet acknowledged. In 1215—May 8th—John conceded the citizens the privilege of electing their Mayor.

This concession to London was followed by the same concession to other cities and towns of England. The Commune or municipality of London became the model for all other municipalities granted to other towns. It is also the model for all municipalities created wherever our race settles itself, and wherever an English-speaking town is founded. This fact makes the history we have just considered of the most vital interest and importance to every citizen or burgess in whatever town is governed by Mayor, Aldermen, and the Court of Common Council.

I cannot do better than sum up these notes on the changes effected by the Commune with another quotation from Dean Stubbs:—

“The Communa of London, and of those other English towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb; it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment of municipal rather than mercantile privileges; like the French communa, it was united and sustained by the oaths of its members and of those whom it could compel to support it. The mayor and the jurati, the mayor and jurats, were the framework of the communa, as the aldermen and brethren constituted the guild, and the reeve and good-men the magistracy of the township. And the system which resulted from the combination of these elements, the history of which lies outside our present period and scope, testifies to their existence in a continued life of their own. London, and the municipal system generally, has in the mayor a relic of the communal idea, in the alderman the representative of the guild, and in the councillors of the wards, the successors to the rights of the most ancient township system. The jurati of the Commune, the brethren of the guild, the reeve of the ward, have either disappeared altogether, or taken forms in which they can scarcely be identified.”

We have spoken of the first Mayor of London, and what we know about him has been summed up by Round for the Dictionary of National Biography. We do not know his parentage. It has been conjectured that he was the grandson of Leofstan, Portreeve of London before the Conquest. But there were three or four Leofstans. It is suggested by Stubbs that he was descended from Ailwin Child, who founded or endowed Bermondsey Abbey in 1082. It is also suggested that he was an hereditary Baron of London. In the “Pipe Roll” of 1165, a Henry FitzAylwin, Fitz Leofstan, with Alan his brother, pay for succeeding to land in Essex or Hertfordshire. Now FitzAylwin the Mayor did hold land in Hertfordshire by tenure of serjeantry. The name appears in four documents as Henry Fitz Ailwin, or Æthelwine, before he was Mayor, and in many documents after he was Mayor. In the former name the latest date is 30th November 1191, and under the latter the first is April 1193. It would therefore seem as if the Mayoralty was not established at first on the concession of the grant. It may well be that it took time for the citizens to assume their full organisation. We may fairly assume that his office, if not his election, dates from the day of that concession.

FitzAylwin was one of the Treasurers for the King’s ransom in 1194. He was also called Henry of London Stone, because his house stood on the north side of Candlewick Street, near St. Swithin’s Church, over against London Stone. He presided over a meeting of citizens on 24th July 1212, and died a few weeks later. He left children from whom many persons can still trace descent. Among them, as the two living representatives of the first Mayor, are, I believe, Lady Beaumont and the Earl of Abingdon. Fifty years ago a learned antiquary, Stapleton, drew up a list of all the descendants of Henry FitzAylwin.

King Richard took no hostile proceedings against the Mayoralty. He never recognised it; but he never tried to abolish it, and as the enemies of the Commune observed that nothing disloyal to the King, nothing dangerous to the Church, was set up in the City, they learned to regard the institution without disfavour or suspicion, so that when the Mayoralty was at last recognised by King John, there was no longer any hostility, or even any misgiving. The old order had passed, giving way to the new. How necessary this new order was; how it fitted in with the old order, so that there was revolution without dislocation, is proved by its adoption in all our towns and cities, by its long continuance, and by its present vitality.

CHAPTER IV
THE WARDS

The large area included by the Roman Wall was parcelled out, after the Saxon occupation, into manors, socs, or estates, held by private persons. Some of them passed into the possession of the Church; some into possession of the City; some changed hands. That these manors included the most densely populated parts of the City, or Thames Street, and the streets north of that main artery, proves that the first allotment took place very early in the Saxon occupation, when the City was still deserted; this fact, indeed, affords another proof of that desertion, because we cannot believe that a populous quarter, covered with warehouses and merchants’ residences, should have been assigned to one man or to a dozen men. The value of the manor, comprising gardens lying among ruined foundations, shut off from the river and its fish by a high and thick stone wall, could have been no more than that of a manor lying beside the north wall, on which corn was growing and orchards were planted. Just as the Bedford Estate in London began with the fields of Bloomsbury; just as the Westminster Estate began with the marshes round Thorney Island, so the original manors of London, at first gardens and wastes, became built over or sold for building purposes. What, then, were manorial rights? Let us read the instructions of Archdeacon Hall on this point. He says:—

“Manorial property was a possession differing in many respects from what is now called landed estate. It was not a breadth of land, which the lord might cultivate or not as he pleased, suffer it to be inhabited, or reduce it to solitude and waste; but it was a dominion or empire, within which the lord was the superior over subjects of different ranks, his power over them not being absolute, but limited by law and custom. The lord of a manor, who had received by grant from the crown, saca and soca, tol and team, was not merely a proprietor, but a prince; and his courts were not only courts of law, but frequently of criminal justice. The demesne, the assised, and the waste lands were his; but the usufruct of the assised land belonged, on conditions, to the tenants, and the waste lands were not so entirely his, that he could exclude the tenants from the use of them. It was this double capacity, in which the lord stood, to his tenants, as the arbiter of their rights, as well as the owner of the land, which rendered it necessary to the due discharge of the duty of his station, that the lord of a manor should be such a person as Fleta describes: Truthful in his words, faithful in his actions, a lover of justice and of God, a hater of fraud and wrong, since it most concerns him not to act with violence, or according to his own will, but to follow advice, not being guided by some young hanger-on, some jester or flatterer, but by the opinion of persons learned in the law, men faithful and honest, and of much experience. Manors were petty royalties; the court and household of the lord resembling in some degree that of the King. In Fleta an account is given of the officers of the royal household, the Senescallus Hospitii Regis, who held his court in the palace; the Marescallus, the Camerarius, the Clericus panetarii; but in the latter part of the book, which treats of the management of manors, we find the lord of the manor attended by the Senescallus, who held his courts, by the Marescallus, who had the charge of his stud, and by the Coquus, who rendered an account of the daily expenditure to the Senescallus.”

ALDGATE HOUSE, BETHNAL GREEN
Drawn by Schnebbelie and engraved by Warren for Dr. Hughson’s Description of London.

Some of these manors belonged to the Bishop or to a Church or to a religious foundation, but the rights and the government and the management of all were alike. Again to quote Archdeacon Hall:—

“Manors, whether royal and baronial, or episcopal and ecclesiastical, were to their owners sources of wealth, derived from two distinct sources—the exercise of a legal jurisdiction and the rent of cultivation of land. The Ecclesiastical Manors differed in no respect from those which were in lay hands. They were the sources of income, not the field of spiritual labour. They contributed to the support of the Bishop or of the Chapter, and of the religious household of the Cathedral, by profits and revenues no way different from those derived by the Sovereign and the Lords from other Manors. It is remarkable that neither the Exchequer Domesday, nor the Domesday of St. Paul’s contains any evidence, that the Ecclesiastical Manors had any superior religious privileges, or were the centres from which religious knowledge was diffused to the neighbourhood. The Manors of the religious houses were in reality secular possessions; and their history, as shown in the Domesday of St. Paul’s, is valuable as illustrating the social, rather than the religious, condition of the time.”

It must be noted, however, that none of the City manors were royal; nor did any of their manors at any time belong to any noble great or small. The nobles had their town houses, many of them large and stately palaces covering a broad area, but they were never Lords of any London Manor. And the Church property in the City included, after a time, only the site of the various religious foundations and the house property which they happened to possess. The Ward of Portsoken, of which mention has already been made, is the only exception to this rule.

The manors, then, became the wards of the City.

The earliest list of the wards is contained in a document found among the archives of St. Paul’s, entitled: “The measurements of the land of St. Paul’s within the City of London.” The date is early in the twelfth century.

The list is not, unfortunately, complete; nor can all the wards be identified. But it is most valuable for what it does contain. A facsimile is published in J. E. Price’s Guildhall. Thus, the first ward is “Warda Episcopi,” the Bishop’s Ward, Cornhill. Then we have Warda Haco, i.e. of St. Nicholas of Acon, in Lombard Street; Warda Alwold (Cripplegate); Warda Fori—of the Market-place—Chepe; Warda Ralph, son of Algod; Warda Osbert Dringepinne; Warda Hugh, son of Ulgar; Warda Brocesgange; Warda Liured; Warda Reimund; Warda Herbert; Warda Edward, son of Wizel; Warda Sperling; Warda Brichmar the Moneyer; Warda Brichmar the Cottager; Warda Godwin, son of Esgar; Warda Alegate; Warda Rolf, son of Liviva; Warda Algar Manningestepsunne; Warda Edward Parole.[5]

There are twenty wards in all. It will be observed that they are all named after single persons except the Ward of the Market Place and the Ward of Alegate. These single persons were the proprietors, the barons, the owners of the land; the wards were the private manors into which the City was divided. (See Appendix I.)

It is impossible to say how many wards there were in the whole City. The owners were barons of right, a rank which afterwards descended to their successors, the elected Aldermen. The first governing body of London consisted of the owners of these estates, to whom were added the more important merchants. In the changes and chances of fortune, the estates changed hands; families died out and were replaced; we find, in the fourteenth century, for instance, that all the old families, whose names we know, had by that time disappeared, left the City, or become merged in the general population. But the manors themselves seem to have remained for the most part unbroken. It is difficult even at the present day to cut up a manor. The Lord of the Manor, called the Alderman, formed part of the ruling body by virtue of possession. In other words, the government of London, despite the survival of the Folk Mote, was a territorial aristocracy. In the Liber Albus (p. 30), Carpenter calls attention to the fact that although in his day—the beginning of the fifteenth century—the wards were known by their own names, they had formerly borne the names of their Aldermen. Thus, he says that the Ward of Candelwyk Street was formerly the Ward of Thomas Basyng; the Ward of Castle Baynard was the Ward of Simon Hadestok; Tower Ward was the Ward of Henry le Frowyk; Vintry Ward was the Ward of Henry le Covyntre; Farringdon Ward Without was the Ward of Anketill de Auvern. So also, as W. J. Loftie points out, the Ward of the Bridge was at one time that of John Horn; the Cordwainers’ Ward was that of Henry le Waleys; Langbourne Ward that of Nicolas de Winton; Aldgate that of John of Northampton; Walbrook of John Adrian; Broad Street of William Bukerel; Aldersgate of Wolman de Essex; Bread Street of William de Denham. Not one of these names can be found in the list just quoted.

By the time of Carpenter, the wards were clearly defined. Up to the reign of Edward the First their boundaries were unsettled.

The Ward Mote has been held from time immemorial, according to Stow. That is to say, whenever a manor became settled and populated, it was the interest of the Alderman to have a court of Assistants who could act as his Police, his Constables, his Detectives.

At what period the Aldermen ceased to be hereditary and were elected by the citizens, I know not. The election of Aldermen is not contemplated in the Charters of Henry the First, Henry the Second, Richard the First, or John. In the second Charter of Henry the Third, the Barons (i.e. Aldermen) of the City are appointed to elect the Mayor. In the Charter of Edward the Second it is provided that the Aldermen shall be “removable yearly and be removed on the day of St. Gregory (the 12th of March) and in the year following shall not be re-elected, but others shall be elected in their stead.” (Liber Albus.)

In the year 1354 the old order was restored, and the Aldermen remained in office for life.

The following is a list of the twenty-four wards into which London was divided before the end of the thirteenth century, with the names of the respective Aldermen:—

In this list we observe that Cheap Ward is still called Ward Fori; Langbourne Ward appears as Langeford; Broad Street Ward is Lodyngebery; Farringdon is Ludgate and Newgate Ward; Aldgate is Alegate. Forty years later there is found another list of wards in which the modern names appear with the exception of Alegate which is written Algate. The names of the wards are in four cases derived from the trades carried on in them: in four cases from the chief families in them: in the rest from buildings or monuments belonging to them. The names of the Aldermen show sixteen belonging to the old ruling families: seven belonging to new families or to trades, and one, the Prior of Holy Trinity, as an official Alderman.

The date of this list of wards and Aldermen is probably somewhere about 1290, nearly two hundred years after the first list. We have, then, the old City families still represented among the Aldermen. Were they elected? It is impossible to say how long the hereditary system was maintained, and when it was replaced by the elective system. The revolution was a peaceful and bloodless one, since there is no record of it. William Farringdon, who bought his ward, and his son Nicholas, were successive Aldermen of the ward for no less than eighty-two years.

The change of the names in the wards seems to have been carried out between the year 1272, when Riley’s Memorials begin, and 1314, when a list of wards appears with the names that belong to the street or quarter.

Thus we have[6]:—

From this list, it appears that between 1272 and 1283, of fourteen wards named in the Memorials, three only have the name of their street or quarter, the rest being all named after their Aldermen. But from 1283 to 1314 there are nineteen wards mentioned, and they are all named after their street or district. It is therefore safe to conclude that within these forty years the aldermanry had ceased to be proprietary or hereditary. We may connect this fact with the story of Walter Hervey’s election in 1272 (see [p. 52]), which proves that the oligarchy had already lost much of their power.

PARTS OF THE SOUTH AND WEST WALLS OF A CONVENT, 1293

To repeat. The City consisted originally of a certain number of manors or private estates: the proprietors of these estates were the so-called barons of the City: some of the estates remained in the hands of their proprietors for many generations: these proprietors constituted themselves, without any law other than immemorial custom, the ruling council of the City. The boundaries of the manors remained after the property had been cut up and divided among many proprietors. Perhaps the Aldermen remained with the representative of the old family. When, one by one, the original proprietors had disappeared, died out, or parted with their property, the ancient boundaries of the ward were retained, and the inhabitants elected a chief, whom they still called Alderman, in place of the hereditary Alderman. It was ordered, in the thirteenth century, that the Alderman, like the Mayor, should be elected every year, and should go out after serving his year of office. But, as the new method was found to make difficulties, after half a century they went back to the old plan of electing an Alderman for life, and so the custom has remained ever since. The Alderman of the ward represents the Lord of the Manor, and is its principal magistrate for life.

Attention has been directed to the “Warda Episcopi.” Was, then, the Bishop of London formerly an Alderman? He was. He took his seat among the Aldermen in right of the property of the Church. He did not, therefore, take part in the temporal government of the City as Bishop, but as Alderman. This right he delegated to a Provost. So, also, the Prior of the Holy Trinity was an Alderman, not as Prior, but as Lord of the Manor of Portsoken.

When the Bishop ceased to preside over a ward I know not. It is certain, however, that it was of incalculable advantage at that time for the City of London to be partly governed in its temporal affairs by one who was a great churchman, a great lord, a person often with the King, a scholar and a statesman, one who had nothing to gain by encroaching on the liberties of the people, and, therefore, one who might be trusted. In certain cases it is known that he acted not by his Provost, but personally. It was no doubt the Bishop who persuaded the citizens into admitting William into the City as King on conditions which involved no dishonour, but quite the contrary—namely, that nothing was to be changed, but that all the rights and liberties which the citizens had enjoyed under Edward the Confessor, or Alfred himself, should be continued.

It must be borne in mind that parish boundaries and ward boundaries are by no means the same. One instance there is where a parish and a ward are conterminous, it is that of St. Michael Bassishaw.

Maitland gives the list of the wards in 1393 with their rateable value at one fifteenth. Thus:—

“The Wards in the West of Wallbrook.

The Ward of Cheap, taxed in London at £72: 16s. and in the Exchequer accounted for £72.

The Ward of the Vintry, in London at £36 and in the Exchequer accounted for £35: 5s.

The Ward of Queenhithe, in London taxed at £20 and in the Exchequer accounted for £20.

The Ward of Baynard-Castle, taxed in London at £12 and in the Exchequer accounted for £12.

The Ward of Cordwainers-Street, in London at £72: 16s. and in the Exchequer accounted for £72.

The Ward of Bread-Street, taxed in London at £37 and in the Exchequer accounted for £36: 10s.

The Ward of Faringdon Without, in London taxed at £35 and in the Exchequer accounted for £34: 10s.

The Ward of Faringdon Within, in London taxed at £54 and in the Exchequer accounted for £53: 6: 8.

The Ward of Aldrychgate, taxed in London at £7 and in the Exchequer accounted for £7.

The Ward of Cripplegate, taxed in London at £40 and in the Exchequer accounted for £39: 10s.

The Ward of Cripplegate Without, in London taxed at £10 and in the Exchequer accounted for £10. N.B.—This was not a separate ward, but only a liberty, or part of the former, under one Alderman, as at present.

The Ward of Bassyngshawe, taxed in London at £7 and in the Exchequer accounted for £7.

The Ward of Coleman-Street, taxed in London at £19 and in the Exchequer accounted for £19.

The Wards on the east side of Wallbrook.

The Ward of Wallbrook, taxed in London at £40 and in the Exchequer accounted for £39.

The Ward of Dowgate, taxed in London at £36 and in the Exchequer accounted for £34: 10s.

The Ward of Brydge, taxed in London at £50 and in the Exchequer accounted for £49: 10s.

The Ward of Byllingsgate, taxed in London at £32 and in the Exchequer accounted for £31: 10s.

The Ward of the Tower, taxed in London at £46 and in the Exchequer accounted for £45: 10s.

The Ward of Portsoken, taxed in London at £9 and in the Exchequer accounted at £9.

The Ward of Aldgate, taxed in London at £6 and in the Exchequer accounted for £5.

The Ward of Lyme-Street, taxed in London at 40s. and in the Exchequer accounted for 40s.

The Ward of Byshopsgate, taxed in London at £22 and in the Exchequer accounted for £21 10s.

The Ward of Broad-Street, taxed in London at £27 and in the Exchequer accounted for £25.

The Ward of Cornhill, taxed in London at £16 and in the Exchequer accounted for £16.

The Ward of Langbourne, taxed in London at £21 and in the Exchequer accounted for £20: 10s.

The Ward of Candlewick-Street, taxed in London at £16 and in the Exchequer accounted for £16.”

(Maitland, vol. i. p. 181.)

Outside the wards and not belonging to them, or within their jurisdiction, were certain socs, liberties, or vacant spaces. Such were the Precinct of St. Paul’s, the Precincts of the Religious Houses, the Sanctuary of St. Martin’s le Grand, and the “Roomlands” or open spaces of West Chepe, East Chepe, Tower Hill, and other places which were afterwards absorbed into the wards.

The names of those who owned the manors, together with the names found in contemporary documents, sufficiently prove how the Norman kings kept their promise and left the London merchants in possession of their property and their land. For with a few exceptions they are all Saxon names. The first, Mayor, Henry of London Stone, was FitzAylwin: Basing, Batt, Rokesby, Durman, Pountney, Bukerel, Billing, Faringdon, Thetmar, Orgar, Leofwin, Brechmar, Alwold, Algod, Esgar, Algar, Liured are all Saxon. Becket, it is true, is a name from Caen in Normandy. Blunt is Blond; Anketill de Auverne proclaims his origin.

We remark also that lads from the country had already begun to seek their fortune in London. We find Henry de Covyntre, Wolmar de Essex, John de Northampton, and many others.

We are considering in this place the City only. But we cannot avoid connecting the land all round the City, especially the land of Middlesex, held in farm by the citizens, with the City itself.

The City was surrounded by a broad belt of manors. These were very largely held by the Bishop, the cathedral, and certain abbeys and religious houses: in addition to these proprietors there were also a few nobles and private persons. The Abbey of Westminster owned a great estate, including the Strand and the lands between the river and Oxford Street: the De Veres held the manor of Kensington, but passed it over to the Abbey of Abingdon. The Chapter of St. Paul’s possessed manors at Willesden, Brondesbury, Brownswood, Chamberlain Wood, Mapesbury, Marden, Harlesden, Twyford, St. Pancras, Rugmere (St. Giles’s), Tottenhall, Kentish Town, Islington, Newington, Holborn, Portpool (Gray’s Inn), Finsbury, Hoxton, Wincock, Barn, Mora, and Fald Street; “covering a belt of land extending from St. Pancras on the west to the episcopal Manor of Stepney on the east.”

This being the case, the question arises as to the advantages accruing to the City in obtaining the Farm of Middlesex at £300 a year. It is certain that they would not have welcomed the privilege so eagerly but for the advantages it offered. These advantages may be summed up by the simple fact that the King’s rights over Middlesex were farmed out to the City. To begin with, the shire could no longer remain, as Southwark continued to be, a refuge or safe asylum for criminals whom it was difficult to catch, and still more difficult, in the conflict of royal and manorial rights, to bring to justice: next, it was a great step, though not at first understood, to creating the unity of the City. Other advantages in the grant are set forth by Archdeacon Hall:—

“The Sheriffs of Middlesex—every London burgher, that is—henceforth found themselves in possession, so to speak, when disputes arose between king and people; there was also a certain income from the courts which may eventually have been greater than the rent; the military protection of the City was rendered more easy when its civil jurisdiction extended so far beyond the walls, and the right conceded to the citizens to hunt in the surrounding forests formed the outward symbol of the completeness of their rule—a symbol which signified more under a Norman king than at any time since. To recognise the customs and laws of the City itself; to allow the ancient assemblies, the husting and the folkmote; to sanction the election of magistrates by the still unincorporated burghers; all these things were of importance, but the grant of Middlesex was more than any of them.”

It has been said that these manors made the growth of the suburbs impossible. But not in all directions. There was no obstacle to the growth of the riverside suburb called the Strand; here a long line of stately houses displaced the fishermen from Blackfriars to Westminster stairs: there was no obstacle to the extension of London along the river to the east, yet it did not extend in that direction. How the Church, which was the principal owner of the suburban manors, affected the successive settlements is described by Archdeacon Hall:—

“The suburbs, as I have said, owe their present condition not so much to the City as to the Church. By the time Henry I. made his grant of the county to the City, the broad lands of Middlesex had, almost wholly, passed into the possession of the great ecclesiastical foundations. What St. Paul had left, St. Peter acquired; and St. Martin, St. Bartholomew, and a little later, Holy Trinity at Aldgate, were watching to pick up fragments that the others had overlooked. Therefore, we must ascribe the modern suburbs, with their curious anomalies of local government, the so-called ‘metropolitan area’ with its imaginary boundaries, its districts and precincts, its boards and its vestries, answering to the sokes and liberties, the sanctuaries and wards within the walls, more to the clergy than to the municipality. The City supplied the population to colonise the wastes and woods; but the Church supplied the houses for them to dwell in, marked out their streets, and controlled the direction of each fresh stream of emigrants. When the first settlers along Holborn, or in Norton, or by the White Chapel, went forth from the City gates, it might have been expected that the rulers who had sway within the walls, and to whom Middlesex now belonged, as much as it had belonged to Earl Leofwine in the good days of King Edward, would have guided their steps and continued to govern their actions. But, where the citizens formed ‘wards without’ the walls, it was only by the leave, or in spite of the prohibition, of the Church. The King, when he gave to London the jurisdiction he had exercised in Middlesex, could give no land with it. At the time of the Survey, the royal estates had passed already to the Church, and William hardly owned an acre in the county. The estates of the Norman nobles had nearly all gone into the same hands by the time of Henry’s accession; and an enumeration of the Middlesex manors which never, at any time, were held ‘in mortmain’ would not comprise half-a-dozen names. The citizens could not protect their public meeting-place, their parade-ground, their markets within the walls, from the grasp of the ‘dead hand’; much less could they protect the new colonies of citizens in Kensington or Chelsea, in Hackney or Tyburn, far out in the open country.”

CHAPTER V
THE FACTIONS OF THE CITY

The long struggle between the oligarchic and the popular party, which was carried on without cessation for at least two hundred years, was at its acutest and its worst in the thirteenth century. It must be noted here because it exercised great influence in the development of municipal institutions. To this point I will return after we have considered the leading features of the faction struggle complicated by the machinations of the King.

We must note, at the outset, that the various Charters conferring and confirming old and new rights did not lay down laws for the government of the City; nor was it contemplated that the City was to be governed by the craftsmen. By Saxon custom every man was a lord or a dependant upon a lord; yet there was a Folk Mote: by Norman rule every townsman was under an over-lord and every countryman was under the Lord of the Manor; yet the Folk Mote was continued. That the craftsmen of the town were to be the rulers of the town; that they were to have a voice, as we understand it, in the management of the City was considered by the “Barons” of the City, the Aldermen, the wealthy merchants and the notables as a thing to be resisted in every way possible. Yet, to repeat, there was the Folk Mote with the lingering memory of a time when the people were summoned and shouted their approval or their refusal.

Again, we have been accustomed for so long to consider London as one of the greatest and most important cities of the world that we fail to realise her position in the twelfth or thirteenth century, as compared with certain other cities of Western Europe, long since sunk into decay and insignificance.

At that time the cities of Bruges, Ghent, and Ypres, now so shrunken and so deserted, were, in point of population, at least twice as great as London, while their trade and wealth were very much greater, even in proportion, and the liberties enjoyed by their citizens were such as London did not dream of until fired by their example. The trade between the Port of London and these towns, especially Bruges, made the citizens acquainted with these liberties as well as this wealth. It is difficult not to connect the newly-born ambitions and aspirations of the craftsmen of London with the liberties acquired by those of the Flemish towns.

London was governed, as we have seen, by the owners of the land; they were presently joined by the richer merchants; but they remained few in number. And they ruled the City in their own interests. We have seen how valuable was the Charter of Henry the First, how it assisted the City to advance, how it enabled the merchants to conduct their trade with greater security and ease, how it gave the citizens the right of electing their own sheriffs and their own justiciar, who were to be appointed by the citizens. What this meant, I take it, was that the Aldermen nominated the sheriffs, and their election by the people took the form of an assent declared at a noisy and tumultuous Folk Mote. It certainly could not be, and was not, an election by the citizens as we understand it. That the governing body had the power of election was a concession of the highest importance to them. The privileges of freedom from toll, etc., were again of enormous value to the merchants, but only indirectly to the craftsmen; now craftsmen understand direct advantage only. In a word, the Charters did not interfere with the government of the City, which remained in the hands of the small company of Aldermen. The Charters were intended to advance the trade and the prosperity of the City, not to confer new liberties upon the working man. Yet the craftsman began to understand the possibilities open to him.

The struggle begins, so far as history knows of it, with the brief and stormy episode of William Longbeard, shortly before the granting of the Commune. His is the first articulate voice heard among the murmurs of popular discontent. Perhaps there were other Hampdens before him whose dust lies beneath our feet, and whose blood like his tinged the earth of Smithfield, but we do not know of them.

Towards the close of the twelfth century change was impending. Guilds there were. As yet, they were not, as a rule, trading, but religious societies. As we have seen, in 1186, Henry the Second fined as many as eighteen for having been incorporated without license. What can this indicate but that the regulation of trade was contemplated by these guilds as well as the charitable and religious objects for which such associations were at first founded?

Even more important than the regulations of trade is the great fact that by means of their guilds the people, who had hitherto been inarticulate and powerless, were now becoming able to speak and to listen and to act.

Their grievances seem to have been at first founded rather on suspicion than on proof. When the City was taxed, the assessors were the Aldermen; the craftsmen had to pay what they were ordered to pay; no one knew what the Aldermen themselves paid. They were therefore, very naturally, accused of shifting the whole burden of taxation from their own shoulders to those of the craftsmen. But a grievance of suspicion, among a rude and ignorant people, is as dangerous as a grievance founded on fact. Another grievance was the poll tax, in which the poor men paid as much as the rich men. And a standard grievance in every industrial city, and in every age, is the question of wages and hours.

Presently the Deliverer arose—who yet was to prove no Deliverer.

William, called FitzOsbert, and sometimes William Longbeard, was the grandson of a certain Osbert, one of the Aldermen who, in 1125, had given to the Priory of the Holy Trinity, with the King’s permission, the lands belonging to the Cnihten Guild.

He was, therefore, by birth one of the governing class, whose abuses he attacked. He was also, it would seem from the first episode in his life which has come down to us, of a nature easily moved and imaginative, and, like his grandfather, disposed to piety. Such a mind belongs to the man who instinctively hates injustice and oppression.

Most of the chroniclers who tell the story belong to the other side, and, therefore, charge him with everything that they dare: the crimes, however, are so vague, such as obscurity of origin, meanness of appearance, ingratitude to a brother, that they mean nothing and may be neglected. I prefer to take the evidence of the historian, Roger de Hoveden, who says as follows:—

“The rich men, sparing their own purses, wanted the poor to pay everything. But a certain lawyer, William FitzOsbert by name, or Long-beard, becoming sensible of this, being inflamed by zeal for justice and equity, became the champion of the poor, it being his wish that every person, both rich as well as poor, should give according to his property and means for all the necessities of the State; and, going across the sea to the King, he demanded his protection for himself and the people.” (Roger de Hoveden’s Annals, vol. ii.)

The facts are few as they have come down to us. But we can learn something about the man. He was, to begin with, a visionary; now it is out of visionaries that martyrs, confessors, and enthusiasts are made. I know that he was a visionary from a little story related of him. He was one of those who took the cross and the vow when King Richard went on his crusade, and sailed in the fleet which contained the London and the Dartmouth Crusaders whose intention was to fight the Infidels. This fact points in the direction of an emotional temperament easily moved to enthusiasm. The fleet was becalmed in the Bay of Biscay. Thereupon, William FitzOsbert, with one Geoffrey, a goldsmith, prayed to St. Thomas à Becket—the newly canonised saint—already considered as the natural protector of London. St. Thomas, to the eyes of faith, answered their prayers in person. He appeared to them. He bade them be of good cheer; he promised a favourable breeze in the morning, after which they should accomplish their vows and return in safety. It must have been a visionary who would actually see the saint and receive his message. In the morning the promised breeze sprang up; the ships proceeded on their course and put in at a Portuguese port. Here they learned that the King of Portugal was in dire straits, being besieged by the Moors with a vast army. The Crusaders resolved upon going to his assistance; among them marched William FitzOsbert, rejoicing in the promise made him by St. Thomas à Becket, that he should perform his vows and should return. In these days he would have said that St. Thomas had need of him in his native town.

The Moors being defeated, the London Crusaders thought they had done their duty in fighting the Infidel, and so returned home.

After this crusade, William made the discovery above described. Now he was not of obscure birth, because he belonged to one of the great City families; his grandfather had been an Alderman, probably his father as well; he was a scholar—one Chronicler calls him a lawyer; he was a man of eloquence; he could persuade and carry with him the rude craftsmen of London, whom he gathered together at Paul’s Cross in the name of the old Folk Mote. He found out irregularities of all kinds on the part of the governing class. When there was neither audit nor scrutiny, irregularities were inevitable. He imparted these discoveries to the King, who listened with attention, and doubtless communicated his views on the subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury, then justiciary. It may be understood, also, that his communications rendered him peculiarly hateful to his own class, the governing body, whom he had deserted. His nickname, Longbeard, denotes his desertion of that class, which affected Norman customs, and either wore no beard or a very small beard. He himself went back to the old Saxon custom, which seems to have been retained by the craftsmen, and grew a long beard.

He left, then, his own people; he was no longer one of the governing class; he joined the party of the craftsmen; to show his change of opinion and of plan, he grew a beard. And we find him a great orator, haranguing the people on their wrongs; calling them together at Paul’s Cross; followed by a crowd who waited on his words; going to the King with proofs of the evil-doing of the Aldermen; getting, at first, the ear of the King, until Richard was set against the reforms by reports against FitzOsbert, such as that he was continually exciting the populace to further discontent. The historians, as has been stated, differ as to William’s real character. Stow, copying some of the Chronicles, says that he was “poor in degree, evil-favoured in shape ... a counterfeit friend to the poor ... a man of evil life, a murderer ... who falsely accused his elder brother of treason....”

THE TOWER OF LONDON ABOUT 1480
From MS. Roy. 16.

Holinshed says that he was a “seditious person and of a busie nature.” Fabyan’s account is much more favourable. I subjoin his account of the whole episode:—

“And Wyllyam with ye longe berde shewyd to ye kynge the owtrage of the ryche men, whiche, as he sayd, sparyd theyr owne, and pylled the poore people. It is sayde that this Wyllyam was borne in London, and purchased that name by use of his berde. He was sharpe of wyt, and somedeale lettred, a bolde man of speche, and sadde of his contenance, and toke upon hym gretter dedys than he cowde weld: and some he usyd cruell, as apereth in appechynge of his owne brother of treason, ye whiche was a burges of London, and to hym had shewed great kyndenesse in his youthe. This Wyllyam styred and excyted ye common people to desyre and love fredam and lybertye, & blamed the excesse and owtrage of ryche men: by syche meanys, he drewe to hym many great companyes, and, with all his power, defendyd the poore mannys cause agayne the ryche, and accused dyuerse to ye kyng, shewinge that by theyr meanys, ye kyng loste many forfaytes and encheatis. For this, gentylmen and men of honoure, malygned agayne hym, but he had suche comforte of ye kyng, that he kept on his purpose. Then ye kyng beyng warned of the congregacions that this Wyllyam made, commaunded hym to cease of such doyngys, that the people myght exercyse theyr artis and occupacions; by reason whereof it was lefte for a whyle: but it was not longe or ye people followed hym, as they before hys tyme had done. Then he made unto them colacions or exortacions, & toke for his anteteme, ‘Haurietis aquas in gaudio de fontibus saluatoris,’ that is to meane, ye shall drawe, in joy, waters of ye wellys, of our savyour: and to this he added, ‘I am,’ sayd he, ‘ye savyoure of poore men; ye be poore and have assayed ye harde handis of ryche men; now drawe ye therefore holefull water of lore of my wellys, and that with joy, for ye tyme of youre vysytacyon is comyn. I shall,’ sayde he, ‘departe waters from waters. By waters I understande the people; then shall I departe the people which is good and meke, from the people that is wyckyd and prowde, and I shall dissevyr the good and the ylle, as the lyght is departyd from the derkenesse.’ When the bysshop was brought to ye archebisshop of Canterbury, he, by counceyll of the lordis of the spyritualtye, sent unto this Wyllyam, commaundynge hym to appere before the lordis of the kyngys counceyll to answere unto suche maters as there shulde be layed unto hym. At which day this Wyllyam appered, havynge with hym a multytude of people, in so moch that the lordys were of hym adrad, for ye which cause they remyttyd hym with pleasaunt wordys for that tyme, and commaundyd certeyn personys, in secrete maner, to espye when he were voyde of his company, and then to take hym, and to put hym in sure kepyng, the which, accordyng to that commaundment, at tyme convenyent, as they thought, sette upon hym and to have takyn hym; but he, with an axe, resysted them, and slew one of theym, and after fled to Saynt Mary Bowe Church, of Chepe, and tooke that for his savegarde, defendynge hym by strength, and not by ye suffragis of ye church: for to hym drewe, shortly, great multytude of people; but in short processe, by mean of the hedys and rulers of ye cytie, the people mynysshed, so that, in short tyme, he was left with fewe personys, and after, by fyre, compellyd to forsake the church, and so was taken, but not without shedying of blode. After which takyng, he was arreygned before ye jugys, and there, with ix. of his adherentis, cast and judged to dye, and was hanged, and they with hym the day folowynge. But yet the rumor ceased not; for the common people reysyed a great cryme upon the archbisshop of Cantorbury, and other, and sayd that, by theyr meanes, Wyllyam, which was an innocent of suche crymes as were objecte and pute agayne hym, and was a defendor of the pore people agayne extorcioners and wronge doers, was by them put wrongfully to deth: approuyng hym an holy man and martyr, by this tale folowyng: sayinge, that a man, beyng seke of the fevers, was curid by vertue of a cheyn which this Wyllyam was bounde with in tyme of his dures of enprysonement, which, by a preest of the allye of the sayd Wyllyam was openly declared & prechyd, wherby he brought the people in such an errour, that they gave credence to his wordys, and secretly, in the night, conveyed away ye jebet that he was hangyd upon and scrapyd awey that blode made there an holow place by fetchyng away of that erthe, and sayde that syke men and women were cured of dyverse sykenesses by vertue of that blode and erthe. By theyse meanes, and blowyng of fame, that place was the more vysyted by women and undyscrete persones, of ye which some watchyd there ye hoole nyght in prayer, so that the lenger this contynuyd, ye more disclaunder was anotyd to the justyces, and to suche as put hym to deth: notwithstandynge, in processe of tyme when his actys were publysshed, as ye sleigne of man with his owne hande, and uysyng of his concubyne within seynt Mary Church, in tyme of his there beynge, as he openlye confessyd in the owre of his deth, with other detestable crymes, somewhat keyld ye great flame of ye hasty pylgrymage; but not clerely tyll ye archebisshop of Canterbury accursed ye preest that brought up the firste fable, and also causyd that place to be watchyd, that suche idolatry shuld there no more be used.” (Fabyan’s Chronicles, p. 306.)

The mention of the woman is also made by Holinshed. He adds a single line which contains a world of love and pathos, the words, “who never left him fearing danger might betide him.” Fabyan’s words “not without shedding of blood” are by Holinshed shown to mean that one of his assailants thrust a knife into William’s body, so that he was carried to the Tower. One pictures the faithful, loving creature—was she his wife?—watching by the wounded man all night, giving him such solace in the agony of his wound as she could, and going out in the morning to see him die—or haply, to die with him. The manner of his death was that which was ordered for William Wallace, a hundred years later. William Longbeard and his friends were dragged by the heels to Smithfield and then hanged. The distance from the Tower to Smithfield is a mile and a quarter. It is a long way for the body of a man to be dragged: first the head and arms and back were bruised by the roughness of the road; then the clothes were torn to rags; when the sufferer arrived at the gibbet he was already senseless from the blows and buffets of his head against the stones and rough places in the road; when he was hoisted up on the gibbet, his body, stripped of the clothes, was bleeding and torn. Was that poor woman present? Perhaps they took her to Smithfield in a cart and burned her alive.

The case, as I said, is one of a Reformer before his time. One knows not all the reforms he desired and advocated. The example of his life, however, and the tradition of his teaching, remained. The Archbishop might curse the priest, or anybody there who defended him. But the fact remained that this man died a martyr for the cause of justice against oppression and despotic rule. Such a life is not wasted.

Then came the Commune with the struggle, begun by Longbeard, of the craftsmen against the governing class, caused by their resolve to obtain their share in the administration. It was in one sense fortunate for the City that the factions and the struggles which divided the City were continually complicated by the dissension of King and Barons. The issues were thus to a great extent obscured, and what might have been civil war in the City became part of the civil wars between the King and the Barons.

The reign of Henry the Third is filled with the King’s displeasure against the City as well as with the quarrels and dissensions which rent the City in twain. Let us run rapidly through the main incidents of the time, and then consider how the growth and development of the Commune were affected by those factions.

In the year 1221, or 1223, the tumult for which Constantine FitzArnult was hanged awakened the jealousy and suspicion of the young King, because it revealed the existence or the survival of a French party in the City. I cannot but think that this foolish rising was the first cause of that hatred towards his rich city which Henry entertained throughout his reign. The conspiracy, says Fabyan, was so “heinous and grievous to the King that he was mynded and purposed to throwe downe the wallys of the Citie.” However, for the time he was appeased, and presently issued his Charter of Confirmation to the City with the grant of a common seal.

In 1229 the Aldermen, with the consent of the people, agreed that a sheriff should not continue in office for more than one year, because charges had been brought against previous sheriffs of taking bribes from victuallers, and also of various extortions. On referring to the list we find that the continuance in office of the sheriffs had become of recent years a common practice, as the following list (Stow) shows:—

In 1240, the Aldermen were elected and changed yearly, “but,” says Stow, “that order lasted not long.” (See Appendices II. and III.)

In the same year, following Fabyan’s Chronology, the King began to side with the popular party, intending in this manner to break up the privileges of the City.

At this point it is necessary to seek more closely into the reasons of the weakness which made London an almost unresisting prey to the exactions of this insatiate and insatiable King. The City, which could lend Simon de Montfort a fully equipped army of 15,000 men, might surely at any moment close its gates, keep the mouth of the Thames clear, and defy the King. But for many years it offered no resistance at all. The reason will immediately appear. A change so slow and gradual that it only at this juncture became important was passing over the City of London and its institutions, or to put it more accurately, the institutions themselves remained unchanged, yet assumed new meanings. It was, as has been already advanced, the happiness of London that, except for a very brief episode, its over-lord was the King and none other. The reeve of the borough was the bailiff or steward of this lord. In the name of the lord he was the magistrate; he collected rents, tolls and dues; he called the burgesses to their mote; he took care that the rights of the lord were properly executed. These duties observed, the burgesses were left at liberty to govern themselves. Naturally, when the town became prosperous it began to buy out the privileges of the over-lord. Thus, the Charters of the City of London are the recognition by king after king, that a certain portion of the rights of the over-lord have been bought out or conceded. And the reign of such a king as Henry the Third is a continual disregard of these concessions or purchases, by the assertion over and over again of the rights and powers of the over-lord, never, however, going so far as to give the City to any other over-lord. Thus Henry, as we shall see, in spite of the Charters, held courts in the City by his own justiciar, and called the citizens to plead their own cases at Westminster.

These Charters, then, granted their liberties to the citizens. But who were the citizens? “Land was from the first the test of freedom, and the possession of land was what constituted the townsman.... In England the landless man who dwelled in a borough had no share in its corporate life: for purposes of government or property the town was simply an association of the landed proprietors within its bounds.” (Green’s History of the English People.)

These words explain the whole position. In the twelfth century the government of London was entirely in the hands of certain families who held the land. As we have seen, the wards were their own property, named after them: the heads of these families were hereditary Aldermen of the wards. The members of this corporation or association were themselves, for the most part, engaged in trade. They were the wholesale traders—mercers, drapers, merchant adventurers. They would not admit within their body the craftsmen, who began, however, to form guilds for themselves. And the efforts of the governing body were directed against the formation of the craft guilds which, they plainly saw, would lead to the destruction of their own power. In the reign of Henry the Third this struggle of the Prud hommes or the “wise men”—the men of the ruling class—against the craftsmen was at its fiercest. In the reign of John, they had secured the suppression of the comprehensive weavers’ guild. Slow and difficult is the process and many are the lessons which must be learned, great are the oppressions which must be endured, before men so far overcome their suspicion of each other as to unite for the common good. The Londoner—the man of the commonalty—of Henry the Third could unite for fighting purposes; he could trust his brother to stand by him shoulder to shoulder; what he could not do was to trust his brother-craftsman not to overreach him, or to undersell him. Do we not see the same thing to-day? We think we are better educated and wiser; and we are even now exhorting men to do exactly what these popular leaders of the thirteenth century exhorted them to do, namely—to combine. The commonalty, at first, were galled, not so much by having no share in the administration, for they had never looked for any, but by the suspicion that the real burden of taxation fell upon themselves instead of on the wealthy. The names of the Mayors of this reign sufficiently indicate the side on which the power lay from time to time. Thus Basing, Blunt, Bukerel, Frowyk, FitzWalter are names of the old families: Le Fullour and Grapefig are the names of craftsmen.

Early in the long reign of Henry the Third we find a certain Symon FitzMary, whose name perhaps indicates an origin so obscure that it was only derived from his mother, yet he was one of the Aldermen, one of the popular party, and—which is significant—in the service of the King. Henry, therefore, was playing off the popular against the aristocratic side. Symon was elected Sheriff in the year 1233, but in the first term of his shrievalty he was charged with “wasting the property that formed the issues of the Sheriffwick.” He was, therefore, set aside,—surely a very strong step,—and his clerks were ordered in his place to collect the money that formed the Firma. Six years later, in 1239, Symon presents himself at the election of sheriffs. He has letters from the King commanding the City to elect him. Here we have a deliberate attempt of the King to trample on the Charters. The City refused to obey, and repaired to Court in hopes of conciliating the King’s favour, but could not, “so that,” says FitzThedmar, “the City was without a Mayor for three months, when Gerard Bat, one of the aristocratic party, was elected.” At the next election he was again chosen. Then follows a very curious story. With him “certain of the citizens proceeded to Wodestok, for the purpose of presenting him; and his lordship the King declined to admit him [to the Mayoralty] there, or before he had come to London. And on the third day after, upon the King’s arrival there, he admitted him; and after the oath had been administered to him, that he would restore everything that had before been taken and received, and would not receive the forty pounds which the Mayors had previously been wont to receive from the City, the Mayor said, when taking his departure:—‘Alas! my Lord, out of all this I might have found a marriage portion to give my daughter.’ For this reason the King was moved to anger, and forthwith swore upon the altar of Saint Stephen, by Saint Edward, and by the oath which he that day took upon that altar, and said:—‘Thou shalt not be Mayor this year, and for a very little I would say, Never. Go, now.’ The said Gerard, hereupon, not caring to have the King’s ill-will, resigned the Mayoralty, and Reginald de Bunge was appointed Mayor of London.” (Riley’s edit. FitzThedmar’s Chronicles of Old London, p. 9.)

At the same time we find this oppressive King calling the citizens together at Paul’s Cross, and asking their leave to pass over-seas to Gascony!

On his return, the King took the City into his own hand for harbouring a certain Walter Bukerel without warrant, yet it was proved that Bukerel had been pardoned. He “took the City into his own hand,” i.e. he suspended all the Charters and Liberties; but he gave it to the Mayor, Ralph Aswy, for safe keeping. He then marched north to fight the Scots, but on his return he forbade the sheriffs to perform any of their functions. The City bought their pardon by paying a fine of £1000.

Again we find Symon FitzMary active at the election of the Sheriffs. It was in 1244. Now in 1229 the Aldermen had all taken oath that at no time would they allow the same man to be Sheriff for two consecutive years. Symon, therefore, understanding that it was proposed to re-elect Nicholas Bat, rose in his place and called him a perjurer. Reading between the lines, we understand that the self-denying ordinance of 1229 was a concession to the popular party, and the re-election of Bat in 1244 was due to the return to power of the other side. There was certainly a warm debate, and in the end Symon had to resign his Aldermanry, and Nicholas Bat was re-elected. The case, however, was taken before the King, who refused to admit Nicholas Bat.

To this time belongs a series of determined attacks upon the liberties of the City by the King. There was first the case of Margery Vyel; then the claims of the Abbot of Westminster; and thirdly, the Fair of Westminster. The Fair was granted to the Abbot of Westminster for fifteen days, to be held in Tothill Fields. During its continuance, trade of all kinds was to cease in London. Consider the intolerable nature of this enactment. The City bought off the latter regulation for the sum of £2000. As regards the claims of Westminster Abbey, they were complicated by questions of mediæval law and rights; for a long time they were advanced as a means of worrying the City. Thus, in 1249, the King appointed a “day of love” (i.e. reconciliation) between the City and the Abbot of Westminster. The meeting was held at the Temple. The Mayor, being accompanied by a “countless multitude,” met the Abbot, who had with him certain of the King’s Justices. But there was no conference; the whole of the people, with one consent, declared that they would have no conference, but would abide by their Charters. The case was taken before the King, but nothing seems to have been decided.

This brings us to the claim of Margery Vyel. It is related by Arnold FitzThedmar. Let us use his own words as far as possible.

“In the same year”—A.D. 1246—“on the Monday next after Hockeday [Hocking day was the second Tuesday after Easter] it was adjudged in the Guildhall that a woman who had been endowed with a certain and specified dower may not, nor ought to have of the chattels of her deceased husband beyond the certain and specified dower assigned to her, unless in accordance with the will of her husband. And this befel through Margery, the relict of John Vyel the elder, who, by numerous writs of his Lordship the King, demanded in the Hustings of London, the third part of the chattels belonging to her said husband.”

In the next year (A.D. 1247) “on the Monday after St. Peter Chains [St. Peter ad Vincula, August 1st] Henry de Ba, a Justiciar sent by his Lordship the King, came to St. Martin’s-le-Grand, where the record which had been given upon complaint of Margery Vyel was, to which judgment the said Margery had made complaint to his Lordship the King, and had found judges to prove that the same was false. Whereupon the Mayor and citizens meeting them, the record having been read through, and all the writs of his Lordship the King which the said Margery had obtained having been read and heard, the Justiciar said, ‘I do not say that this judgment is false, but the process thereof is faulty, as there is no mention made in this record of summons of the opponents of the said Margery, and seeing that John Vyel, her husband, made a will, it did not pertain to your Court to determine such a plea as this.’ To which the citizens made answer ‘There was no necessity to summons those who had possession of the property of the deceased for they were always ready, and preferred to stand trial at suit of the said Margery in our Court: and besides, we were fully able to entertain such plea by assent of the two parties, who did not at all claim or demand the Ecclesiastical Court and seeing that his Lordship the King by his writ commanded us to determine the same.’

At length after much altercation had taken place between the Justiciar and the citizens, the Justiciar said that they must show all this to the King and his Council and so they withdrew. Afterwards, however, and solely for this cause, the King took the city into his own hands and by his writ entrusted it to the custody of William de Haverille and Edward de Westminster, namely, on the vigil of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24th): whereupon the Mayor and citizens went to the King at Wudestok and showed him that they had done no wrong: but they could not regain his favour. Wherefore, upon their arrival at London, William de Haverille exacted an oath of the clerks and all the serjeants who belonged to the Shrievalty, that they would be obedient unto him, the Mayor and Sheriffs being removed from their bailiwicks. Afterwards, on the Sunday before the Nativity of St. Mary (Sept. 8th) the Mayor and Sheriffs, by leave of the King, received the City into their hands and a day was given them to make answer as to the aforesaid judgment before the King and his Barons, namely, the morrow of the Translation of St. Edward [June 9th] at Westminster, and on the morrow of St. Edward, the Mayor and citizens appeared at Westminster to make answers to the judgment before mentioned, that had been given against the aforesaid Margery Vyel and so on from day to day till the fourth day, upon which last day, the King requested them to permit the Abbot of Westminster to enjoy the franchises which the King had granted him in Middlesex in exchange for other liberties which the citizens might of right demand. To which the citizens made answer that they could do nothing in such a matter without the consent of the whole community. The King on learning this, as though moved to anger, made them appear before him and after much altercation had passed as to the said judgment (Henry de la Mare a kinsman of the before named Margery Vyel constantly making allegations against the citizens) counsel being at last held before the King between the Bishops and Barons, the Mayor and citizens were acquitted and took their departure.” (Riley’s edition, FitzThedmar’s Chronicles of Old London.)

It will be observed that the King broke the Charters, first by sending his own Justiciar into the City to hear an appeal; next, by making the Mayor and citizens go to Westminster to have a City case tried; and thirdly, by granting the Abbot of Westminster rights or privileges in the County of Middlesex which was held and farmed by the City.

The City, at the price of surrendering its liberties, won the case, evidently a case considered as of the very highest importance. The reward bestowed upon Symon FitzMary is related by FitzThedmar:

“It should be observed, that when Symon FitzMary, for his offence, had delivered his Aldermanry into the hands of the City, as above noticed, by assent of the whole community the Mayor returned him his Aldermanry, upon condition of his conceding that if at any future time he should again contravene the franchises of the City, the Mayor might, without plea or gainsaying, take back his Aldermanry, into the hands of the City, and wholly remove him therefrom. Wherefore, in this year, because the said Symon had manifestly sided with Margery Vyel in the complaint which she had made to his lordship the King as to the judgment given by the citizens—as to which, as is already written, she herself was cast—as also, for many other evil and detestable actions of which he had secretly been guilty against the City, the Mayor took his Aldermanry into his own hands, and wholly removed him therefrom; and the men of that Ward, receiving liberty to elect on the Monday before Mid-Lent chose Alexander le Ferrun, and that too in his absence; but he, afterwards appearing at the Hustings, was on the Monday following admitted Alderman.” (Chronicles of Old London, pp. 16-17.)

And so Symon vanishes. One would like to hear more of his political career. As regards his private history, his will, by which he founded the House of St. Mary of Bethlehem, survives, so that he is the originator of the Royal Bethlehem Hospital, which has served the City so well and so long. He may have been of humble origin, in which case he is an early example of the rise of a poor lad to wealth, an example that after his time became well-nigh impossible until the eighteenth century.

In 1257 occurred another of the many strange stories of this time. A sealed Roll was found in the King’s wardrobe at Windsor. No one knew who wrote it, or how it came there. The Roll contained “many articles against the Mayor, to the effect that the City had been aggrieved by him and his abettors beyond measure, as well as in respect of tallage and of other injuries that had been committed by them.” In other words, the Roll contained a statement, no doubt highly coloured, of the discontented. The King, pretending to be resolute that the poor should not be treated unjustly, sent John Maunsell, Justiciar, to London with orders to hold a Folk Mote and to inquire into the truth of the allegations, which was done. Then the Aldermen were ordered to convene their ward motes, and to cause the people in each ward to elect six-and-thirty deputies, the Aldermen being absent; and these six-and-thirty men were ordered to appear in the hall of the Bishop of London. They were there put on oath; but they refused to make oath, alleging that by the laws of the City they ought not to make oath except upon a question of life or limb, or where land was to be lost or gained. The next day, at the Guildhall, the deputies still refused to take oath. Whereupon the King sent word that all he desired was to learn the truth; that he was willing to leave their franchises unimpaired, and that he desired to ascertain how his faithful people had been aggrieved in tallages and by whom. Then John Maunsell spoke pleasantly to the people, asking if they were not content with the promise of the King. And they shouted, “Yea, Yea,” “in disparagement,” says the Chronicler, who belonged to the City Barons, “of their own franchises, which, in fact, these most wretched creatures had not been the persons to secure.”

John Maunsell then proceeded to seize the City for the King, and to depose the Mayor, Sheriffs, and City Chamberlain. There was a trial at Westminster before the King; there was another Folk Mote, at which the people were persuaded by the silver-tongued John Maunsell to shout for the destruction of their own liberties, of which they understood little indeed. The Chronicler, in indignation, calls them “sons of divers mothers, many of them born without the City, and many of servile condition.” At that time, one observes, they were very far from the possibility of a democracy.

The popular cause never fails, in any age, to attract to itself leaders from the other side. William FitzOsbert, whose rise and fall we have already chronicled, had attempted to do for the commonalty, in King Richard’s reign, what Thomas FitzThomas attempted with greater success seventy years later. He was Sheriff during the sealed Roll business; his brother, Sheriff Matthew Bukerel, was deposed, and was replaced by a person whose name has already been mentioned, William Grapefig. William FitzRichard, another of the popular party, was made Mayor. In 1261-62, and in 1262-63, Thomas FitzThomas was elected Mayor, certainly by the people, as the names of the Sheriffs for the year imply that they had the upper hand for the time. His first year of office was marked by the stout resistance which he made to the Constable of the Tower, who attempted to take “prisage” of ships in the river. Now, one of the most important privileges of the City was the command of the river, so that no duties or tolls should be levied on ships coming up or going down the river except by themselves. FitzThomas was elected for a second year of office. And now you shall hear, what in the thirteenth century was thought by a merchant of the old school, of a man who could encourage the combination of trades and crafts.

“Be it here remarked[9] that this Mayor, during the time of his Mayoralty, had so pampered the City populace that, styling themselves the ‘Commons of the City,’ they had obtained the first voice in the City. For the Mayor, in doing all that he had to do, ruled and determined through them, and would say to them, ‘Is it your will that so it shall be?’ and then if they answered, ‘Yea, Yea,’ so it was done. And, on the other hand, the Aldermen or chief citizens were little or not at all consulted in such matter; but were, in fact, just as though they had not existed. Through this that same populace became so elated and so inflated with pride that during the commotions in the realm, of which mention has been previously made, they formed themselves into covins and leagued themselves together by oath, by the hundred and by the thousand, under a sort of colour of keeping the peace, whereas they themselves were manifestly disturbers of the peace. For whereas the Barons were only fighting against those who wished to break the aforesaid statutes, and seized the property of each and that too by day, the other broke into the houses of the people and of other persons in the City who were not against the said statutes and by main force carried off the property found in such houses, besides doing many other unlawful acts as well. As to the Mayor, he censured these persons in but a lukewarm way.” (Chronicles of Old London, p. 59.)

Further, the barons, wishing above all things at this juncture to conciliate the citizens, desired that they would put in writing anything they might desire in augmentation of their liberties, and undertook, if the thing were reasonable, to bring it before the King and Council. Then this Mayor called upon the craftsmen and ordered them to make such provisions as should be to their own advantage. “Accordingly, after this, from day to day, individuals of every craft of themselves made new statutes and provisions, or rather such as may be called ‘abominations’—and that solely to their own advantage, and to the intolerable loss of all merchants coming to London and visiting the faire of England and the exceeding injury of all persons in the realm.”

This was the first trades union. Their rules were drawn up by the working men themselves. The memory of the old frith guilds had by this time perished, but there were fraternities, or religious associations, which would help them to some knowledge of the rules which they should lay down. Such as they were, the Chronicler tells us, they were not carried into effect.

In 1263-64 Thomas FitzThomas was again elected Mayor; but the King refused to receive him, being “for many reasons greatly moved to anger against the City.”

In the same year began the Barons’ War, in which the Londoners played a conspicuous, if not a noble, part. They reduced the castle of Rochester; they destroyed the palace at Isleworth, belonging to Richard, the King’s brother; they murdered five hundred Jews; they pillaged the property of the foreign merchants; and at the battle of Lewes they ran away.

Peace being made in the following year, Henry, now a prisoner, was made to hold a Court in St. Paul’s, where the Mayor, again Thomas FitzThomas, and the Aldermen swore fealty to him. A marginal note of the Chronicle completes the history of this oath. “Then those who were present might see a thing wondrous and unheard of in this age: for the most wretched Mayor, when taking the oath, dared to utter words so rash as these, saying unto his lordship the King in presence of the people, ‘My lord, so long as unto us you will be a good lord and King, we will be faithful and duteous unto you.’” The Mayor was four hundred years before his time.

After the defeat and death of Simon de Montfort at Evesham, there was great alarm in the City. Some proposed to close the gates and call together the adherents of the Barons’ cause; others proposed immediate submission. The latter course prevailed. Letters of submission were drawn up and sent to the King at Windsor. The messengers on the way met Sir Roger de Lilbourne, who told them that he was sent to declare the King’s pleasure to the citizens. The King’s pleasure was immediate and complete submission: the removal of all chains and posts in the streets as a mark of submission, and the despatch of the Mayor and principal men of the City to Windsor under letters of safe conduct. They went. FitzThomas, unluckily, was once more Mayor. The King disregarded the letters of safe conduct and clapped them into prison. All of them, except FitzThomas, were shortly afterwards released. Henry remembered the words by which FitzThomas had sworn a limited loyalty. FitzThomas never again appeared. He vanished. Perhaps the King ordered his execution; perhaps he caused him to languish for the rest of his life in prison. However that may be, FitzThomas was no more seen.

Henry came to London, his chief enemy in custody; he gave away sixty houses belonging to the principal citizens; he fined the City 20,000 marks. On the 6th of December of the same year (1265) John de la Linde, knight, and John Wallraven, clerk, were made seneschals, the Tower of London being delivered into their hands. On the same day there came to Westminster four-and-twenty citizens, who swore faithfully and safely to keep the City in the King’s behalf under their two seneschals.

The King gave, further, London Bridge, with its tolls, to Queen Eleanor, who allowed it to fall into decay. She then gave it back to the City.

FitzThedmar here remarks that some of the persons who had sided with the Earl of Gloucester took to flight, and there were among them some who, in the time of the late Mayor, FitzThomas, styled themselves the “Commons of the City.” On the election of a citizen “to attend to the duties of Sheriff of Middlesex and Warden of London,” the people clamoured for FitzThomas, who was probably by this time lying in his grave.

The citizens petitioned, but in vain, for the right of electing their Mayor and Sheriffs. In the following year, 1266, John Adrian and Luke de Battencurt were chosen Bailiffs instead of Sheriffs.

Out of the confusion and trouble of the time we can gather that the trade of London was brought to a standstill; that there were massacres of Jews; that there were riots in the streets, quarrels between trades, in one of which as many as 500 men went out armed and fought in the streets; that the trades continued to combine and to form companies, but without rule and supervision, so that they claimed work belonging to other trades, and caused ill-feeling; that there was no order kept in the wards, and no authority of the Aldermen. The Mayors, during the period following the Battle of Evesham, were appointed by the King. Fabyan says that there is uncertainty about this time, some being of opinion that there were no Mayors but only custodes. Fabyan also says that Thomas FitzThomas was released. He enters his name as Mayor for 1269-70. But his dates do not agree with those of Stow. In the latter year Prince Edward took the City into his own hands and appointed Hugh FitzOtho Constable of the Tower and Custos of the City. A few months of despotic and military rule smoothed the troubled waters of faction and restored order to the distracted City. The last years of King Henry’s reign were years of peace and rest. But he had done what he wished to do—he had deprived the proud City of its wealth, its liberty, and its rights.

The first phase of the contest between the oligarchy and the populace comes to an end. The former party is greatly broken up; the wards cease to be called by the names of their Aldermen.

In December 1269 an order was issued by the King that all those persons who, on the restoration of the City to him, had withdrawn, should be proclaimed publicly, and should be forbidden ever to return to the City under pain of life and limb. Their names were read out in the Guildhall and afterwards cried in the streets. There were fifty-seven of them; the list has been preserved by FitzThedmar. All, with a few exceptions, were craftsmen. Cofferer, Baker, Cook, Goldsmith, Ironworker, Fuller, Plumer, Broker, Butcher, Armourer, Chaloner, with a few mercers and others belonging to wholesale trades.

This act of justice accomplished, the citizens were once more granted the right of electing their Mayor and Sheriffs, but with the increase of the firma from £300 to £400.

They proceeded to exercise this right, apparently, with sadness and soberness, and with a compromise. The Mayor was John Adrian, of the aristocratic party; the Sheriffs were two craftsmen. The following year Walter Hervey, a man of the people, was Mayor, and two of the other side were Sheriffs.

The election of the Mayor of the following year is a most interesting and instructive story. Fabyan, we may observe, puts the election in the second year of Edward’s reign; Arnold FitzThedmar, one of the Aldermen concerned, and therefore an eye-witness, assigns it to the last days of King Henry and the earliest days of King Edward.

On the 28th of October, the Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude, the citizens met at the Guildhall for the election of the new Mayor. The Aldermen and the more “discreet” citizens—it is one of them who tells the tale—proposed the name of Philip le Tayllor. According to usage, their nominee ought to have been accepted; but the people in the body of the Hall refused to accept him, and cried out with a great tumult, “Nay, nay, we will have no one but Walter Hervey,” and against the will of the Aldermen—one pictures a good deal of hustling and pushing—they placed their own man in the seat of the Mayor.

It is not surprising that the same kind of accusations, which had formerly been brought against William Longbeard and Thomas FitzThomas, were now brought against Walter Hervey. He is said to have persuaded and promised the people that he would keep them free from all tallages, extortions, and tolls, and that they believed his word, and followed him by thousands, even in multitudes, without number. We remember that 50,000 are said to have followed Longbeard. The charge of gaining over the people by grand promises is very likely true; the demagogue has always resorted to the same methods of persuasion; in the end to the detriment or the ruin of the cause. One understands that the more popular leaders of London between 1190 and 1272 were men who desired, above all things, to render impossible the burden of unequal taxation, and to give the commons a voice in the management of their own affairs. This twofold aim is really one, because it was believed that the people, if they had the power, would exercise it wisely and justly. The leaders, however, did not realise that the average man understands by justice the shifting of his burden to the shoulders of some other man, and he is quite careless who that other man is.

Hervey, however, had the people with him.

The Aldermen, finding themselves thrust, in this rude way, out of power, repaired to Westminster to lay the matter before the King’s Council. They were followed by Hervey himself, accompanied by a vast multitude of his supporters. The case of the Aldermen was put with much ability: it was not the loss of their own power which they so much minded, as the chance that another civil war might be caused through the unruly pride of the populace.

“The Aldermen and their adherents, on coming before the King’s Council, as already written, showed unto them, with grievous complaints, how that this populace by force had violently and unjustly impeded their election, by those to whom the election of Mayor and Sheriffs in the City of right more particularly belongs than to any one else, and has always been wont to belong. They also duteously besought his lordship the King and his Council, that the King would be pleased to set his arm and his hand thereto, that so this populace, calling itself the ‘Commons of the City,’ and excluding the Aldermen and discreet men of the City, might not upraise itself against his peace and against the peace of his realm, as had happened in the time of the Earl of Leicester; namely, when Thomas Fitz-Thomas and Thomas de Pullesdon had so exalted the populace of the City above the Aldermen and discreet men of the City, that, when it was necessary so to do, they could not make such populace amenable to justice; through which, as a thing notorious to the whole world, a deadly war arose in England.” (Riley’s edit., FitzThedmar’s Chronicles of Old London, pp. 154-155.)

The people, without caring to answer these arguments, raised the cry: “We are the Commons. To us belongs the Election. We elect Walter Hervey.”

It was a time of great anxiety. The King was ill; he was now old—for that time, very old; the heir was in the Holy Land; it was most desirable that the peace should be maintained.

The Aldermen went on arguing. The same arguments were used before the passing of every successive Reform Act. The Aldermen pointed out that they were the heads, the people being only the inferior members, arms and legs; the Aldermen were also, by right of office, those who pronounced judgment in pleas moved within the City; they had a stake in the country; the populace, on the other hand, for the most part had neither lands nor houses, were of obscure and lowly origin, followed humble occupations, were rude and ignorant, and cared nothing about the City’s welfare. The people, however, kept up their bawling, which reached the ears of the King on his sickbed.

The Council, therefore, put the matter off. Hervey was told to go away and to return with no more than ten or a dozen followers. So for that day he went away.

On the morrow, after dinner, Hervey called all the people together, and, with them at his heels, went again to Westminster, and there, setting forth no reason, they kept up the same cry. The Aldermen were there before them. The Council told both parties that they must agree upon a Mayor, and that when they were agreed the King would admit him.

But they could not agree; there was no chance of an agreement. So, day after day, for a whole fortnight, viz. till the 11th of November, the people became more excited every day, and the Aldermen more dogged, and the same tumultuous scene was enacted in Westminster Hall.

As for Hervey, he affirmed—very likely he spoke the truth, for the situation was full of peril, and one could not forget the vanishing of FitzThomas—that he did not desire to be Mayor for his own sake, but solely for the love of God and from motives of charity; he was willing to endure that burden and that labour, that so he might support the poor of the City against the rich, who sought to oppress them in the matter of the tallages and expenditure of the City.

It speaks a great deal for the veracity of the historian that one who stood among the Aldermen and took part in the offices, seeing his authority and power suddenly taken from him, should have penned these words without casting a doubt upon the motives which actuated his enemy.

On the 11th of November the Council, who appear to have acted with strange weakness and irresolution, decided that as they could not agree, the King would take the City into his own hands and would appoint a Custos or Warden. Accordingly, Henry de Frowyk, one of the Aldermen (his Ward was afterwards called Cripplegate) was appointed Warden.

It was then agreed that each side should appoint five persons, and that this Committee of ten should elect the Mayor, both sides promising to abide by the decision.

The death of the King caused this agreement to be set aside. There was a fear lest the populace should take advantage of the confusion caused by the absence of the new King; FitzThedmar converts a vague anxiety into the discovery of a conspiracy against the property of the Aldermen. The Archbishop of York, with the Earl of Gloucester and other nobles, met the citizens at Guildhall, and, seeing the enormous number of Hervey’s followers, exhorted the Aldermen to elect him. They still refused; they would not, of their own free will, lay down their powers; they told Gloucester that the matter was referred to the Committee of ten.

The Earl, however, disregarding this arrangement, ordered a Folk Mote to be called for the next day at Paul’s Cross, met the Aldermen separately in the Chapter House, and begged them to yield and to suffer Hervey to be Mayor for one year, lest trouble should fall upon the City. They therefore gave way, and Hervey, after taking oath that he would not aggrieve or allow to be aggrieved, any who had been against his election, was presented to the people, amid their joyous acclamations, as their Mayor.

His year of office proved uneventful. FitzThedmar says that he took bribes from the bakers, so that they might make loaves under weight, but we need not believe this story; and that he would not allow any pleading, or very rarely any, in the Hustings of Pleas of Land. “The reason being that he himself was impleaded as to a certain tenement which Isabella Bukerel demanded of him by plea between them moved.” Arnold, we observe, still harbours resentment.

At the following election the Aldermen carried their own man, Henry Waleys, or le Waleys. He was one of the richest and most important merchants. He was again Mayor from 1280 to 1283. He had been Mayor of Bordeaux in 1275.

We have seen how, according to the Chronicler, the craftsmen made covins and combinations—in other words, trade unions, being exhorted thereto by Thomas FitzThomas. It appears that when Walter Hervey was Mayor he confirmed these combinations by Charters of his own granting regulation of trade for the common benefit. Now we have the first instance of a blackleg. One of the persons who had obtained, for his own benefit probably, such a Charter, came before the Mayor and citizens in the Guildhall with the complaint that a certain person of his trade was working in contravention of the statutes contained in the Charter, which he and his trade had obtained. From whom, he was asked, had they obtained that Charter? From Walter Hervey, when he was Mayor. “And here it is,” he said, producing a copy of the document. “It is true,” said Walter Hervey; “I granted that Charter by my authority as Mayor.” Then arose Gregory de Rokesley, Alderman, and one of the most “discreet” men in the city. “Such Charters,” he said, “have no force beyond the Mayoralty of the man who may grant them. Moreover, these Charters were only made for the benefit of the rich men in every craft, not for that of the poor: and they lead to the loss and undoing of the poor men as well as the loss of all other citizens and the realm.” Whereupon Walter Hervey sprang to his feet and there ensued a warm and personal discussion. Finally, Walter Hervey retired to St. Peter’s Church, Cornhill, where he convened the people and exhorted them to keep their Charters, which he would take care should be enforced; and the whole of that day and the next he went through the City haranguing the people, so that the Barons of the Exchequer and the King’s Council feared a popular tumult. Therefore they sent the Royal command to the City to take care lest, through the action of the said Walter Hervey and others, mischief should ensue. The City Magistrates interpreted this order to mean the arrest of Hervey. Which was done, but on the surety of twelve men he was released. This happened just before Christmas. After Christmas, the Mayor called a meeting in the Guildhall and ordered Hervey’s Charters to be brought to him. A fortnight later he caused them to be read, and explained that they would lead to the detriment and ruin of trade; that the Charters carried no weight and were worthless; that the men of every craft should resume their former liberty to follow their trade wherever and in whatever way they pleased; only that their work must be good and true. In other words, the Charters which Hervey had given them were intended to teach the people the necessity of order and discipline in order to gain their rights; and this Mayor led them gently back, under pretence of giving them liberty, to resume their old dependence. But they had not done yet with Walter Hervey. It remained to deprive him of his dignity as Alderman of Chepe. This was done full craftily. The greater part of the Ward of Chepe consisted of a market-place filled with sheds, selds, and shops. The sheds are explained by Stow to mean small, open shops, each with a “solar” or small upper chamber over them. One such “shed” remained till the other day close to Clare Market.[10] The selds were wooden warehouses with shops. The tradesmen of this market, the greatest and most important in the kingdom, were the special friends of Hervey, his constituents, who had made him Alderman. Whereupon, in order to get rid of Hervey, these people must also be got rid of. The King’s Coronation suggested an expedient. Although the traders, butchers, fishmongers, and those of other callings, had paid large sums of money for the rent or permission to set up their shops in the market, the Mayor sent word that in order to clean the place of all refuse, when the King should ride through Chepe, they must all go and sell their wares in other places. Then, in the words of the Chronicle—

“On the morrow of Holy Trinity, the Mayor and citizens coming into the Guildhall to plead the common pleas, there came certain fishmongers, and more especially those who had been removed from Chepe. To whom answer was made by the Mayor, that this had been done by the Council of his lordship the King, in order that there might be no refuse remaining in Chepe on his arrival there. Walter Hervi, however, to the utmost of his power, supported the complaints of the said fishmongers against the Mayor and Aldermen: by reason whereof a stormy strife arose, in presence of all the people, between the said Mayor and Walter aforesaid. Hereupon the Mayor, moved to anger, together with some of the more discreet of the City, went to the Council of his lordship the King at Westminster and showed him what had then taken place in Guildhall. Accordingly, on the morrow, when the Mayor and Aldermen had come to the Guildhall, to determine the pleas which had been begun on the preceding day, a certain roll was shown and read before the said Walter and all the people, in which were set forth many articles as to the presumptuous acts and injuries, of most notorious character, which the said Walter had committed while Mayor, against the Commons of the City and in contravention of his oath: whereupon the said Walter was judicially degraded from his aldermanry and he was excluded from the Council of his City. Command was also given to the men dwelling in that aldermanry to choose a fit and proper man to be Alderman of Chepe in his place and to present him at the next Court in the Guildhall, which was accordingly done.”

So vanishes the form of Walter Hervey. He takes off his Alderman’s gown; he steps down among the folk, a plain citizen, and I daresay that the craftsmen, next day, had forgotten all that he had tried to do for them. But the memory of those Charters survived.