[Illustration: CHARTER OF WILLIAM I TO THE CITIZENS OF LONDON.]
CHARTER OF WILLIAM I TO THE CITIZENS OF LONDON.
[Illustration: CHARTER OF WILLIAM I GRANTING LANDS TO DEORMAN.]
CHARTER OF WILLIAM I GRANTING LANDS TO DEORMAN.
London and the Kingdom
A HISTORY--DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
By REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L.,
RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON;
EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
_PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY
COMMITTEE._
London
LONGMANS, GREEN & Co.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16TH STREET.
1894
LONDON:
PRINTED BY BLADES, EAST & BLADES,
23, ABCHURCH LANE, E.C.
PREFACE.
Of the numerous works that have been written on London, by which I mean
more especially the City of London, few have been devoted to an adequate,
if indeed any, consideration of its political importance in the history of
the Kingdom. The history of the City is so many-sided that writers have to
be content with the study of some particular phase or some special epoch.
Thus we have those who have concentrated their efforts to evolving out of
the remote past the municipal organization of the City. Their task has
been to unfold the origin and institution of the Mayoralty and Shrievalty
of London, the division of the City into wards with Aldermen at their
head, the development of the various trade and craft guilds, and the
respective powers and duties of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council,
and of the Livery of London assembled in their Common Hall. Others have
devoted themselves to the study of the ecclesiastical and monastic side of
the City's history--its Cathedral, its religious houses, and hundred and
more parish churches, which occupied so large an extent of the City's
area. The ecclesiastical importance of the City, however, is too often
ignored. "We are prone," writes Bishop Stubbs, "in examining into the
municipal and mercantile history of London, to forget that it was a very
great ecclesiastical centre." Others, again, have confined themselves to
depicting the every-day life of the City burgess, his social condition,
his commercial pursuits, his amusements; whilst others have been content
to perpetuate the memory of streets and houses long since lost to the eye,
and thus to keep alive an interest in scenes and places which otherwise
would be forgotten.
The political aspect of the City's history has rarely been touched by
writers, and yet its geographical position combined with the innate
courage and enterprise of its citizens served to give it no small
political power and no insignificant place in the history of the Kingdom.
This being the case, the Corporation resolved to fill the void, and in
view of the year 1889 being the 700th Anniversary of the Mayoralty of
London--according to popular tradition--instructed the Library Committee to
prepare a work showing "the pre-eminent position occupied by the City of
London and the important function it exercised in the shaping and making
of England."
It is in accordance with these instructions that this and succeeding
volumes have been compiled. As the title of the work has been taken from a
chapter in Mr. Loftie's book on London ("Historic Towns" series, chap.
ix), so its main features are delineated in that chapter. "It would be
interesting"--writes Mr. Loftie--"to go over all the recorded instances in
which the City of London interfered directly in the affairs of the
Kingdom. Such a survey would be the history of England as seen from the
windows of the Guildhall." No words could better describe the character of
the work now submitted to the public. It has been compiled mainly from the
City's own archives. The City has been allowed to tell its own story. If,
therefore, its pages should appear to be too much taken up with accounts
of loans advanced by the City to impecunious monarchs or with wearisome
repetition of calls for troops to be raised in the City for foreign
service, it is because the City's records of the day are chiefly if not
wholly concerned with these matters. If, on the other hand, an event which
may be rightly deemed of national importance be here omitted, it is
because the citizens were little affected thereby, and the City's records
are almost, if not altogether, silent on the subject.
The work does not affect to be a critical history so much as a _chronique
pour servir_, to which the historical student may have recourse in order
to learn what was the attitude taken up by the citizens of London at
important crises in the nation's history. He will there see how, in the
contest between Stephen and the Empress Matilda, the City of London held
as it were the balance; how it helped to overthrow the tyranny of
Longchamp, and to wrest from the reluctant John the Great Charter of our
liberties; how it was with men and money supplied by the City that Edward
III and Henry V were enabled to conquer France, and how in after years the
London trained bands raised the siege of Gloucester and turned the tide of
the Civil War in favour of Parliament. He will not fail to note the
significant fact that before Monk put into execution his plan for
restoring Charles II to the Crown, the taciturn general--little given to
opening his mind to anyone--deemed it advisable to take up his abode in the
City in order to first test the feelings of the inhabitants as to whether
the Restoration would be acceptable to them or not. He will see that the
citizens of London have at times been bold of speech even in the presence
of their sovereign when the cause of justice and the liberty of the
subject were at stake, and that they did not hesitate to suffer for their
opinions; that, "at many of the most critical periods of our history, the
influence of London and its Lord Mayors has turned the scale in favour of
those liberties of which we are so justly proud"; and that had the
entreaties of the City been listened to by the King and his ministers, the
American Colonies would never have been lost to England.
There are two Appendices to the work; one comprising copies from the
City's Records of letters, early proclamations and documents of special
interest to which reference is made in the text; the other consisting of a
more complete list of the City's representatives in Parliament from the
earliest times than has yet been printed, supplemented as it has been by
returns to writs recorded in the City's archives and (apparently) no where
else. The returns for the City in the Blue Books published in 1878 and
1879 are very imperfect.
R. R. S.
THE GUILDHALL, LONDON,
_April, 1894._
CONTENTS
PREFACE.
CHAPTER I.
THE PORT OF LONDON.
THE CITY NOT IN DEMESNE.
THE ROMAN OCCUPATION.
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON.
THE DANES IN LONDON.
ALFRED "RESTORES" LONDON.
THE FRITH-GILD OF THE CITY.
THE FIRST PAYMENT OF DANEGELT.
LONDON SUBMITS TO SWEYN.
CNUT EXPELLED BY ETHELRED.
THE LAWS OF ETHELRED.
THE "LITHSMEN" OF LONDON.
LONDON THE CAPITAL.
EARL GODWINE AND THE CITIZENS.
CHAPTER II.
THE NORMAN CONQUEROR.
LONDON SUBMITS TO WILLIAM.
WILLIAM'S CHARTER TO THE CITY.
THE "DOOMSDAY" BOOK.
THE ELECTION OF HENRY I.
HENRY'S CHARTER TO THE CITY.
THE SHERIFF-WICK OF MIDDLESEX.
LONDON'S ELECTION OF STEPHEN.
THE EMPRESS MATILDA.
LONDON AND THE SYNOD AT WINCHESTER.
THE EMPRESS MATILDA IN LONDON.
LONDON HOLDS THE BALANCE.
CHAPTER III.
FITZ-STEPHEN'S DESCRIPTION OF LONDON
CHARTER OF HENRY II TO THE CITY.
THE REVOLT OF THE BARONS
RICHARD I AND HIS CHANCELLOR.
THE CITY AND ITS "COMMUNE."
SUBSTITUTION OF MAYOR FOR PORT-REEVE.
CHRONICLE OF ARNALD FITZ-THEDMAR.
THE CITY'S CLAIM AT CORONATION BANQUETS.
INSURRECTION UNDER LONGBEARD.
THE GOLDEN BULL.
FITZ-WALTER THE CITY'S CASTELLAIN.
LONDON AND THE GREAT CHARTER.
DEATH OF KING JOHN.
CHAPTER IV.
THE TREATY OF LAMBETH.
TUMULT RAISED BY CONSTANTINE.
THE KINGDOM OVER-RUN BY FOREIGNERS.
TAKEN INTO THE KING'S HAND.
LONDON SUPPORTS THE BARONS.
THE CITY AT THE MERCY OF THE KING.
ORGANIZATION OF CRAFT GUILDS.
THE MISE OF AMIENS.
SIMON DE MONTFORT'S PARLIAMENT.
THE BATTLE OF EVESHAM AND ITS RESULTS.
THE FATE OF FITZ-THOMAS, MAYOR.
THE MAYORALTY RESTORED.
WALTER HERVY RE-ELECTED MAYOR.
CHAPTER V.
FITZ-THEDMAR'S PREJUDICE AGAINST HERVY.
CHARGES AGAINST WALTER HERVY.
THE RESULTS OF HERVY'S POLICY.
INTERRUPTION OF TRADE WITH FLANDERS.
FLEMINGS EXPELLED FROM ENGLAND.
ARRIVAL OF EDWARD I IN ENGLAND.
THE MURDER OF LAURENCE DUKET.
THE ITER AT THE TOWER.
THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS.
DEATH OF QUEEN ELEANOR.
THE KING IN DIFFICULTIES.
RISING OF THE SCOTS UNDER WALLACE.
DEATH OF EDWARD I.
CHAPTER VI.
THE ORDAINERS AND THEIR WORK.
RICHER DE REFHAM, MAYOR.
THE FALL OF GAVESTON.
THE CITIZENS RESIST A TALLIAGE.
DISSENSION IN THE CITY.
PROCEEDINGS AT THE ITER OF 1321.
CLAIMS PUT FORWARD BY THE CITY.
CONTINUATION OF THE ITER.
HAMO DE CHIGWELL, MAYOR.
MILITARY SERVICE OF LONDONERS.
ESCAPE OF MORTIMER FROM THE TOWER.
THE CITY LOST TO EDWARD II.
MURDER OF BISHOP STAPLETON.
DEATH OF THE KING.
CHAPTER VII.
THE CITY MARKET MONOPOLY.
THE CORONATION STONE.
JOHN DE GRANTHAM ELECTED MAYOR.
THE KING AND THE EARL OF LANCASTER.
TRIAL OF HAMO DE CHIGWELL.
LONDON MERCHANTS AND THE STAPLES.
A NEW TAX ON WOOL.
RICHARD DE BETOYNE, MAYOR OF THE STAPLE.
BETOYNE'S CONDUCT AT YORK APPROVED.
EXPIRATION OF TREATY OF NORTHAMPTON.
THE KING'S MONOPOLY OF WOOL.
THE CITY PREPARES TO DEFEND ITSELF.
THE BATTLE OF SLUYS.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE KING'S UNEXPECTED RETURN, 30 NOV., 1340.
THE CITY'S RIGHT TO VARY CUSTOMS.
EDWARD AGAIN SETS SAIL FOR FRANCE.
SURRENDER OF CALAIS.
THE BLACK DEATH.
THE BATTLE OF POITIERS.
THE PEACE OF BRETIGNY.
RENEWAL OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
ASSESSMENT ON CITY PARISHES.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOOD PARLIAMENT.
THE COMMON COUNCIL CHOSEN FROM THE GUILDS.
THE CITY AND THE DUKE OF LANCASTER.
THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN REMOVED.
CHAPTER IX.
RICHARD THE "LONDONERS' KING."
JOHN PHILIPOT.
A CITY LOAN OF L5,000.
THE POLL-TAX AND PEASANTS' REVOLT.
REFORMS UNDER JOHN DE NORTHAMPTON.
NICHOLAS EXTON, ALDERMAN, DEPOSED.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHN DE NORTHAMPTON.
NORTHAMPTON CONFINED IN TINTAGEL CASTLE.
THE BOOK CALLED "JUBILEE."
EFFORTS TO OBTAIN NORTHAMPTON'S RELEASE.
DISAFFECTION TOWARDS THE KING.
THE LORDS APPELLANT IN THE CITY.
RE-APPEARANCE OF NORTHAMPTON.
THE CITY REFUSES A LOAN TO RICHARD.
FARRINGDON WARD--WITHIN AND WITHOUT.
CHAPTER X.
DOUBTFUL REPORTS AS TO THE LATE KING'S DEATH.
THE STATUTE OF HERESY.
RICHARD WHITTINGTON, MAYOR.
THE MAYOR'S PRECEDENCE IN THE CITY.
BATTLE OF AGINCOURT.
MORE CITY LOANS.
HENRY'S CONQUEST OF NORMANDY.
THE TREATY OF TROVES.
DEATH OF KING HENRY V.
CHAPTER XI.
RIVAL CLAIMS OF BEDFORD AND GLOUCESTER.
RELIEF OF ORLEANS.
CORONATION OF HENRY VI.
THE KING'S RETURN FROM FRANCE.
CALAIS APPEALS TO LONDON.
THE PENANCE OF ELEANOR COBHAM.
CAPTURE AND DEATH OF CADE.
RIVALRY BETWEEN YORK ANS SOMERSET.
THE DUKE OF YORK NOMINATED PROTECTOR.
A GENERAL RECONCILIATION AT ST. PAUL'S.
COMMISSIONS OF ARRAY.
THE CITY AND THE YORKISTS.
THE DUKE OF YORK CLAIMS THE CROWN.
LONDON FORSAKEN BY HENRY.
CHAPTER XII.
CHARTERS OF EDWARD IV TO THE CITY.
RENEWAL OF THE CIVIL WAR.
HENRY VI RESTORED TO THE CROWN.
THE "BASTARD" FAUCONBERG.
RESTORATION OF EDWARD IV.
ACCESSION OF EDWARD V.
THE CITY AND THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.
CORONATION OF RICHARD III.
BOLD SPEECH OF THE CITIZENS.
VISIT OF HENRY VII TO THE CITY.
THE PERKIN WARBECK CONSPIRACY.
DEFEAT AND CAPTURE OF WARBECK.
THE MARRIAGE OF PRINCE ARTHUR.
THE CITY'S CONTROL OVER THE COMPANIES.
MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS MARY.
LAST DAYS OF HENRY VII.
CHAPTER XIII.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EMPSON AND DUDLEY.
CORONATION OF HENRY VIII.
SOLDIERS FURNISHED BY THE CITY.
EDUCATION IN THE CITY.
DEAN COLLET AND ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL.
PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS FOUNDED BY CITIZENS.
THE CITY BEFORE THE STAR CHAMBER.
EVIL--MAY-DAY.
THE CITY OBTAINS THE KING'S PARDON.
AN EPIDEMIC IN THE CITY.
RECEPTION OF CARDINAL CAMPEGGIO.
THE EMPEROR CHARLES VISITS THE CITY.
TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF BUCKINGHAM.
LIVERY COMPANIES TO SURRENDER THEIR PLATE.
PARLIAMENT THREATENED BY WOLSEY.
LONDON AND THE KINGDOM.
DIPLOMATIC INTRIGUE.
THE AMICABLE LOAN.
A TRUCE WITH FRANCE.
PAUL WYTHYPOL, MERCHANT-TAILOR.
THE FALL OF WOLSEY.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE CLERGY.
TITHES PAYABLE IN THE CITY.
THE CITY AND THE GREAT BEAM.
ANNE BOLEYN AND THE CITY.
THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE CHARTERHOUSE.
EXECUTION OF FISHER AND MORE.
THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE.
JANE SEYMOUR--ANNE OF CLEVES.
THE DISSOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS HOUSES.
RELIGIOUS HOUSES FOSTERED BY THE CITY.
INSTITUTION OF PARISH REGISTERS.
THE CITY AND THE DISSOLVED HOUSES.
PRECAUTIONS AGAINST INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
RENEWAL OF WAR WITH FRANCE.
A BENEVOLENCE RAISED IN THE CITY.
MORE LEVIES TO BE RAISED IN THE CITY.
ENFORCEMENT OF UNIFORMITY.
THE CITY AS GOVERNORS OF ROYAL HOSPITALS.
FUNERAL OF HENRY THE EIGHTH.
CHAPTER XV.
THE CORONATION OF EDWARD VI.
THE REFORMATION.
SUPERSTITIOUS USES.
SPOLIATION OF THE CHURCHES.
THE TUNING OF THE PULPITS.
CRANMER AT ST. PAUL'S.
KETS REBELLION.
THE CITY OPPOSED TO THE PROTECTOR.
THE PROTECTOR LODGED IN THE TOWER.
THE KING ENTERTAINED BY SHERIFF YORK.
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK.
THE WARD OF BRIDGE WITHOUT.
UNPOPULARITY OF WARWICK.
THE FALL OF SOMERSET.
THE CITY AND THE ROYAL HOSPITALS.
ALDERMAN DOBBS AND CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
CHAPTER XVI.
NORTHUMBERLAND'S CONSPIRACY, 1553.
MARY PROCLAIMED QUEEN IN THE CITY.
THE MASS RESTORED.
CORONATION OF QUEEN MARY.
WYATT'S REBELLION.
QUEEN MARY AT THE GUILDHALL.
SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION.
MEN AND MONEY DEMANDED OF THE CITY.
THE QUEEN'S MARRIAGE.
RECONCILIATION WITH THE POPE.
THE MARIAN PERSECUTION.
FOREIGNERS IN THE CITY.
DECLARATION OF WAR WITH FRANCE.
SOLDIERS FURNISHED BY THE CITY.
THE LOSS OF CALAIS.
DEATH OF MARY.
CHAPTER XVII.
CORONATION OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.
RESTORATION OF THE PRAYER BOOK.
THE WAR WITH FRANCE.
THE LOSS OF HAVRE OR NEWHAVEN.
THE RESTORATION OF ST. PAUL'S.
THE INCEPTION OF THE ROYAL EXCHANGE.
SIR THOMAS GRESHAM.
THE ROYAL EXCHANGE COMPLETED.
INSURANCE BUSINESS AT ROYAL EXCHANGE.
GRESHAM COLLEGE.
THE CITY FLOODED WIH POLITICAL REFUGEES.
THE FIRST PUBLIC LOTTERY.
SEIZURE OF SPANISH VESSELS.
THE DUKE OF ALVA'S ENVOY IN THE CITY.
MEASURES OF RETALIATION AGAINST SPAIN.
THE RISING IN THE NORTH.
THE BATTLE OF LEPANTO.
FURTHER CALLS FOR MONEY AND MEN.
COUNT CASIMIR ENTERTAINED BY GRESHAM.
CHAPTER XVIII.
PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.
JESUITS IN THE CITY.
SPECIAL PREACHERS FOR THE CITY.
PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.
THE FALL OF ANTWERP.
THE BABINGTON CONSPIRACY.
PREPARATIONS TO MEET THE ARMADA.
THE ADVENT OF THE ARMADA.
RICHARD TOMSON AND HIS EXPLOIT.
THANKSGIVING SERVICE AT ST. PAUL'S.
THE CAMP AT TILBURY.
THE CITY AND DISBANDED SOLDIERS.
THE CITY AND THE EARL OF ESSEX.
PRIVATEERING AGAINST SPAIN.
ALDERMAN SIR JOHN SPENCER.
THE CAPTURE OF CADIZ.
THE CITY REFUSES FURTHER SUPPLIES.
THE TYRONE REBELLION.
INSURRECTION OF EARL OF ESSEX.
MOUNTJOY IN IRELAND.
THE LAST DAYS OF ELIZABETH.
CHAPTER I.
(M1)
The wealth and importance of the City of London are due to a variety of
causes, of which its geographical position must certainly be esteemed not
the least. The value of such a noble river as the Thames was scarcely
over-estimated by the citizens when, as the story goes, they expressed to
King James their comparative indifference to his threatened removal of
himself, his court and parliament, from London, if only their river
remained to them. The mouth of the Thames is the most convenient port on
the westernmost boundary of the European seaboard, and ships would often
run in to replenish their tanks with the sweet water for which it was once
famous.(1)
After the fall of the Western Empire (A.D. 476), commercial enterprise
sprang up among the free towns of Italy. The carrying trade of the world's
merchandise became centred for a time in Venice, and that town led the way
in spreading the principles of commerce along the shores of the
Mediterranean, being closely followed by Genoa, Florence, and Pisa. The
tide, which then set westward, and continued its course beyond the Pillars
of Hercules, was met in later years by another stream of commerce from the
shores of the Baltic.(2) Small wonder, then, if the City of London was
quick to profit by the continuous stream of traffic passing and repassing
its very door, and vindicated its title to be called--as the Venerable Bede
had in very early days called it the Emporium of the World.(3)
But if London's prosperity were solely due to its geographical position,
we should look for the same unrivalled pre-eminence in commerce in towns
like Liverpool or Bristol, which possess similar local advantages; whilst,
if royal favour or court gaieties could make cities great, we should have
surely expected Winchester, Warwick, York, or Stafford to have outstripped
London in political and commercial greatness, for these were the
residences of the rulers of Mercia, Northumbria, and Wessex, and the
scenes of witena-gemots long before London could boast of similar favours.
Yet none of these equals London in extent, population, wealth, or
political importance.
(M2)
We must therefore look for other causes of London's pre-eminence, and
among these, we may reckon the fact that the City has never been subject
to any over-lord except the king. It never formed a portion of the king's
demesne (_dominium_), but has ever been held by its burgesses as tenants
_in capite_ by burgage (free socage) tenure. Other towns like Bristol,
Plymouth, Beverley, or Durham, were subject to over-lords, ecclesiastical
or lay, in the person of archbishop, bishop, abbot, baron or peer of the
realm, who kept in their own hands many of the privileges which in the
more favoured City of London were enjoyed by the municipal authorities.
In the early part of the twelfth century, the town of Leicester, for
instance, was divided into four parts, one of which was in the king's
demesne, whilst the rest were held by three distinct over-lords. In course
of time, the whole of the shares fell into the hands of Count Robert of
Meulan, who left the town in demesne to the Earls of Leicester and his
descendants; and to this day the borough bears on its shield the arms of
the Bellomonts.(4) The town of Birmingham is said, in like manner, to bear
the arms of the barons of that name; the town of Cardiff, those of the De
Clares; and Manchester, those of the Byrons. Instances might be
multiplied. But the arms of the City of London and of free boroughs, like
Winchester, Oxford, and Exeter, are referable to no over-lord, although
the borough of Southwark still bears traces in its heraldic shield of its
former ecclesiastical connection.
(M3)
The influence of an over-lord for good or evil, over those subject to his
authority, was immense. Take for instance, Sheffield, which was subject,
in the reign of Elizabeth, to the Earl of Shrewsbury. The cutlery trade,
even in those days, was the main-stay of the town, and yet the earl could
make and unmake the rules and ordinances which governed the Cutlers'
Company, and could claim one half of the fines imposed on its members.(5)
When, during the reign of Charles II, nearly every municipal borough in
the kingdom was forced to surrender its charter to the king, the citizens
of Durham surrendered theirs to the Bishop, who, to the intense horror of
a contemporary writer, reserved to himself and his successors in the See
the power of approving and confirming the mayor, aldermen, recorder, and
common council of that city.(6)
(M4)
The commercial greatness of London can be traced back to the time of the
Roman occupation of Britain. From being little more than a stockaded fort,
situate at a point on the river's bank which admitted of an easy passage
by ferry across to Southwark, London prospered under the protection
afforded to its traders by the presence of the Roman legions, but it never
in those days became the capital of the province. Although a flourishing
centre of commerce in the middle of the first century of the Christian
era, it was not deemed of sufficient importance by Suetonius, the Roman
general, to run the risk of defending against Boadicea,(7) and although
thought worthy of the title of Augusta--a name bestowed only on towns of
exceptional standing--the Romans did not hesitate to leave both town and
province to their fate as soon as danger threatened them nearer home.
(M5)
For military no less than for commercial purposes--and the Roman occupation
of Britain was mainly a military one--good roads were essential, and these
the Romans excelled in making. It is remarkable that in the Itinerary of
Antoninus Pius, London figures either as the starting point or as the
terminus to nearly one-half of the routes described in the portion
relating to Britain.(8) The name of one and only one of these Roman
highways survives in the city at the present day, and then only in its
Teutonic and not Roman form--the Watling or "Wathelinga" Street, the street
which led from Kent through the city of London to Chester and York, and
thence by two branches to Carlisle and the neighbourhood of Newcastle. The
Ermin Street, another Roman road with a Teutonic name, led from London to
Lincoln, with branches to Doncaster and York, but its name no longer
survives in the city.
(M6)
The same reasons that led the Romans to establish good roads throughout
the country led them also to erect a bridge across the river from London
to Southwark, and in later years to enclose the city with a wall. To the
building of the bridge, which probably took place in the early years of
the Roman occupation, London owed much of its youthful prosperity;
whenever any accident happened to the bridge the damage was always
promptly repaired. Not so with the walls of the city. They were allowed to
fall into decay until the prudence and military genius of the great Alfred
caused them to be repaired as a bulwark against the onslaughts of the
Danes.
(M7)
"Britain had been occupied by the Romans, but had not become Roman,"(9)
and the scanty and superficial civilization which the Britons had received
from the Roman occupation was obliterated by the calamities which followed
the northern invasions of the fifth and following centuries. A Christian
city, as Augusta had probably been, not a vestige of a Christian church of
the Roman period has come down to us.(10) It quickly lapsed into paganism.
Its very name disappears, and with it the names of its streets, its
traditions and its customs. Its inhabitants forgot the Latin tongue, and
the memories of 400 years were clean wiped out. There remains to us of the
present day nothing to remind us of London under the Roman empire, save a
fragment of a wall, a milestone, a few coins and statuettes, and some
articles of personal ornament or domestic use--little more in fact, than
what may be seen in the Museum attached to the Guildhall Library. The long
subjection to Roman rule had one disastrous effect. It enervated the
people and left them powerless to cope with those enemies who, as soon as
the iron hand of the Roman legions was removed, came forth from their
hiding places to harry the land.
(M8)
Thus it was that when the Picts and Scots again broke loose from their
northern fastnesses and threatened London as they had done before (A.D.
368), they once more appealed for aid to the Roman emperor, by whose
assistance the marauders had formerly been driven back. But times were
different in 446 to what they had been in 368. The Roman empire was itself
threatened with an invasion of the Goths, and the emperor had his hands
too full to allow him to lend a favourable ear to the "groans of the
Britons."(11)
(M9)
Compelled to seek assistance elsewhere, the Britons invited a tribe of
warriors, ever ready to let their services for hire, from the North Sea,
to lend them their aid. The foreigners came in answer to the invitation,
they saw, they conquered; and then they refused to leave an island the
fertility of which they appreciated no less than they despised the
slothfulness of its inhabitants.(12) They turned their weapons against
their employers, and utterly routed them at Crayford, driving them to take
refuge within the walls of London.
(M10)
"A.D. 457 (456). This year Hengist and AEsc [Eric or Ash] his son fought
against the Britons at a place called Creegan-Ford [Crayford] and there
slew four thousand men, and the Britons then forsook Kent, and in great
terror fled to London."(13) So runs the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and this is
the sole piece of information concerning London it vouchsafes us for one
hundred and fifty years following the departure of the Romans. The
information, scant as it is, serves to show that London had not quite
become a deserted city, nor had yet been devastated as others had been by
the enemy. Its walls still served to afford shelter to the terrified
refugees.
(M11)
When next we read of her, she is in the possession of the East Saxons. How
they came there is a matter for conjecture. It is possible that with the
whole of the surrounding counties in the hands of the enemy, the Londoners
were driven from their city to seek means of subsistence elsewhere, and
that when the East Saxons took possession of it, they found houses and
streets deserted. Little relishing a life within a town, they probably did
not make a long stay, and, on their departure, the former inhabitants
returned and the city slowly recovered its wonted appearance, as the
country around became more settled.
(M12)
Christianity in the country had revived, and London was now to receive its
first bishop. It is the year 604. "This year," writes the chronicler,
"Augustine hallowed two bishops, Mellitus and Justus; Mellitus he sent to
preach baptism to the East Saxons, whose king was called Seberht, son of
Ricula, the sister of Ethelbert whom Ethelbert had there set as king. And
Ethelbert gave to Mellitus a bishop's see at London." This passage is
remarkable for two reasons:--(1) as shewing us that London was at this time
situate in Essex, the kingdom of the East Saxons, and (2) that Seberht was
but a _roi faineant_, enjoying no real independence in spite of his
dignity as ruler of the East Saxons and nominal master of London, his
uncle Ethelbert, king of the Cantii, exercising a hegemony over "all the
nations of the English as far as the Humber." (14)
Hence it is that London is spoken of by some as being the _metropolis_ of
the East Saxons,(15) and by others as being the principal city of the
Cantii;(16) the fact being that, though locally situate in Essex, it was
deemed the political capital of that kingdom which for the time being
happened to be paramount.
(M13)
After the death of Seberht, the Londoners became dissatisfied with their
bishop and drove him out. Mellitus became in course of time Archbishop of
Canterbury, whilst the Londoners again relapsed into paganism.(17) Not
only was the erection of a cathedral in the city due to Ethelbert, but it
was also at his instigation, if not with his treasure, that Seberht, the
"wealthy sub-king of London," was, as is believed, induced to found the
Abbey of Westminster.(18)
(M14)
When the Saxon kingdoms became united under Egbert and he became _rex
totius Britanniae_ (A.D. 827), London began to take a more prominent place
among the cities of the kingdom, notwithstanding its having been three
times destroyed by fire between 674 and 801.(19) It became more often the
seat of the royal residence, and the scene of witena-gemots; nevertheless
it was not the seat of government, much less the capital. Then and for a
long time to come it had a formidable rival in Winchester, the chief town
of Egbert's own kingdom of Wessex. To Winchester that king proceeded in
triumph after completing the union of the Saxon kingdoms, and thither he
summoned his vassals to hear himself proclaimed their overlord. From
Winchester, Alfred, too, promulgated his new code of Wessex law--a part of
the famous _Domboc_, a copy of which is said to have been at one time
preserved among the archives of the City of London(20)--and the Easter
gemot, no matter where the other gemots of the year were held, was nearly
always held at Winchester. When it came to a question of trade regulation,
then London took precedence of Winchester. "Let one measure and one weight
pass, such as is observed at London and at Winchester,"(21) enacted King
Edgar, whose system of legislation was marked with so much success that
"Edgar's Law" was referred to by posterity as to the old constitution of
the realm.
(M15)
In the meantime, the country had been invaded by a fresh enemy, and the
same atrocities which the Briton had suffered at the hands of the Saxon,
the Saxon was made to suffer at the hands of the Dane. London suffered
with the rest of the kingdom. In 839 we read of a "great slaughter"
there;(22) in 851 the city was in the hands of the enemy, and continued to
remain at the mercy of the Danes, so much so, in fact, that in 872 we find
the Danish army taking up winter quarters within its walls, as in a city
that was their own.(23)
(M16)
It was now, when the clouds were darkest, that Alfred, brother of King
Ethelred, appeared on the scene, and after more than one signal success by
land and sea, concluded the treaty of Wedmore (A.D. 878)(24) by which a
vast tract of land bounded by an imaginary line drawn from the Thames
along the river Lea to Bedford, and thence along the Roman Watling Street
to the Welsh border, was ceded to the enemy under the name of _Danelagh_.
The treaty, although it curtailed the Kingdom of Wessex, and left London
itself at the mercy of the Danes, was followed by a period of comparative
tranquillity, which allowed Alfred time to make preparations for a fresh
struggle that was to wrest from the enemy the land they had won.
(M17)
The Danes, like the Angles and the Jutes before them, set little store by
fortifications and walled towns, preferring always to defend themselves by
combat in open field, and the Roman wall of the City was allowed to fall
still further into decay. In the eyes of Alfred on the other hand, London,
with its surrounding wall, was a place of the first importance, and one to
be acquired and kept at all hazards. At length he achieved the object of
his ambition and succeeded in driving out the Danes, (A.D. 883 or
884).(25)
(M18)
Whilst the enemy directed their attention to further conquests in France
and Belgium, Alfred bent his energies towards repairing the City walls and
building a citadel for his defence--"the germ of that tower which was to be
first the dwelling place of Kings, and then the scene of the martyrdom of
their victims."(26) To his foresight in this respect was it due that the
city of London was never again taken by open assault, but successfully
repelled all attacks whilst the surrounding country was often devastated.
Nor did Alfred confine his attention solely to strengthening the city
against attacks of enemies without or to making it more habitable. He also
laid the foundation of an internal Government analagous to that
established in the Shires. Under the year A.D. 886, the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle(27) records that "King AElfred restored London; and all the Anglo
race turned to him that were not in bondage of the Danish men; and he then
committed the burgh to "the keeping of the aldorman AEthelred." In course
of time the analogy between shire and city organization became more close.
Where the former had its Shiremote, the latter had its Folkmote, meeting
in St. Paul's Churchyard by summons of the great bell. The County Court
found its co-relative in the Husting Court of the City; the Hundred Court
in the City Wardmote.(28)
(M19)
For the next ten years Alfred busied himself founding a navy and
establishing order in different parts of the country, but in 896 he was
compelled to hasten to London from the west of England to assist in the
repulse of another attack of the Danes. Two years before (894) the Danes
had threatened London, having established a fortification at Beamfleate or
South Benfleet, in Essex, whence they harried the surrounding country. The
Londoners on that occasion joined that part of the army which Alfred had
left behind in an attack upon the fort, which they not only succeeded in
taking, but they "took all that there was within, as well money as women
and children, and brought all to London; and all the ships they either
broke in pieces or burned, or brought to London or to Rochester."(29) Nor
was this all: Hasting's wife and his two sons had been made prisoners, but
were chivalrously restored by Alfred.
(M20)
The Danes, however, were not to be daunted by defeat nor moved from their
purpose by the generous conduct of Alfred. In 896 they again appeared.
This time they erected a work on the sea, twenty miles above London.
Alfred made a reconnaissance and closed up the river so that they found it
impossible to bring out their ships.(30) They therefore abandoned their
vessels and escaped across country, and "the men of London" writes the
chronicler, "brought away the ships, and all those which they could not
bring off they broke up, and those that were _stalworth_ they brought into
London."(31)
(M21)
The principle of each man becoming responsible to the Government for the
good behaviour of the neighbour, involved in the system of frankpledge
which Alfred established throughout the whole of his kingdom, subject to
his rule, was carried a step further by the citizens of London at a later
date. Under Athelstan (A.D. 925-940) we find them banding together and
forming an association for mutual defence of life and property, and thus
assisting the executive in the maintenance of law and order. A complete
code of ordinances, regulating this "frith" or peace gild, as it was
called, drawn up by the bishops and reeves of the burgh, and confirmed by
the members on oath, is still preserved to us.(32)
(M22)
The enactments are chiefly directed against thieves, the measures to be
taken to bring them to justice, and the penalties to be imposed on them,
the formation of a common fund for the pursuit of thieves, and for making
good to members any loss they may have sustained. So far, the gild
undertook duties of a public character, such as are found incorporated
among other laws of the kingdom, but it had, incidentally, also its social
and religious side. When the ruling members met in their gild-hall,(33)
which they did once a month, "if they could and had leisure," they enjoyed
a refection with ale-drinking or "byt-filling."
(M23)
Some writers see in the "frith-gild" of Athelstan's day, nothing more than
a mere "friendly society," meeting together once a month, to drink their
beer and consult about matters of mutual insurance and other topics of
more or less social and religious character.(34) But there is evidence to
show that the tie which united members of a "frith-gild" was stronger and
more solemn than any which binds the members of a friendly society or
voluntary association. The punishment of one who was guilty of breaking
his "frith" was practically banishment or death. Such a one, in
Athelstan's time, was ordered to abjure the country, which probably meant
no more than that he was to leave his burgh or perhaps the shire in which
he dwelt, but if ever he returned, he might be treated as a thief taken
"hand-habbende" or one taken with stolen goods upon him, in other words,
"with the mainour."(35) A thief so taken might lawfully be killed by the
first man who met him, and the slayer was, according to the code of the
"frith-gild," "to be twelve pence the better for the deed."(36) Under
these circumstances, it is more reasonable to suppose, that the
"frith-gild" was not so much a voluntary association as one imposed upon
members of the community by some public authority.(37)
(M24)
The commercial supremacy of London, not only over Winchester but over
every other town in the kingdom, now becomes more distinct, for when
Athelstan appointed moneyers or minters throughout the country, he
assigned eight (the largest number of all) to London, whilst for
Winchester he appointed only six, other towns being provided with but one
or at most two.(38) The king, moreover, showed his predilection for London
by erecting a mansion house for himself within the city's walls.
The encouragement which Athelstan gave to commercial enterprise by
enacting, that any merchant who undertook successfully three voyages
across the high seas at his own cost (if not in his own vessel) should
rank as a thane,(39) must have affected the London burgess more than those
of any other town.
(M25)
Under Ethelred II, surnamed the "Unready" or "redeless" from his
indifference to the "rede" or council of his advisers, the city would
again have fallen into the hands of the Danes, but for the personal
courage displayed by its inhabitants and the protection which, by Alfred's
foresight, the walls were able to afford them. In 994, Olaf and Sweyn
sailed up the Thames with a large fleet and threatened to burn London.
Obstinate fighting took place, but the enemy, we are told, "sustained more
harm and evil than they ever deemed that any townsman could do to them,
for the Holy Mother of God, on that day, manifested her mercy to the
townsmen and delivered them from their foes."(40)
(M26)
Matters might not have been so bad had not the king already committed the
fatal error of attempting to secure peace by buying off the enemy. In 991,
he had, with the consent of his witan, raised the sum of L10,000 with
which he had bribed the Danish host. This was the origin of the tax known
as Danegelt, which in after years became one of the chief financial
resources of the Crown and continued almost uninterruptedly down to the
reign of Henry II. The effect of the bribe was naturally enough to induce
the enemy to make further depredations whenever in want of money; and
accordingly, a Danish fleet threatened London the very next year (992) and
again in 994. On this last occasion, the same wretched expedient was
resorted to, and the Danes were again bought off.
(M27)
Nor was cowardice the only charge of which Ethelred was guilty. To this
must be added treachery and murder. In the year 1002, when he married the
daughter of the Duke of Normandy, hoping thereby to win the Duke's
friendship and to close the harbours on the French coast against Sweyn,
Ethelred issued secret orders for a massacre of all Danes found in
England. In this massacre, which took place on the Festival of St. Brice
(13th Nov.), perished Gunhild, sister of Sweyn. Under these circumstances,
it can scarcely be wondered at, that thenceforth the Danish invasions
became more frequent, more systematic, and more extensive than ever.
For four years they continued their depredations "cruelly marking every
shire in Wessex with burning and with harrying." Then they were again
bought off with a sum of L36,000, and two years' respite (1007-8) was
gained.(41) It was a respite and no more. As soon as they had spent their
money, they came again, and in 1009 made several assaults on London--"They
often fought against the town of London, but to God be praise that it yet
stands sound, and they have ever fared ill."(42) Every year they struck
deeper into the heart of the country, and carried their plundering
expeditions from Wessex into Mercia and East Anglia.
(M28)
In 1011 Canterbury was taken and sacked, Alphage, the Archbishop, being
made prisoner, and carried away by the Danish fleet to Greenwich. Finding
it impossible to extort a ransom, they brutally murdered him (19th May,
1012), in one of their drunken moods, pelting him in their open court or
"husting" with bones and skulls of oxen.(43) The worthy prelate's corpse
was allowed to be removed to London where it was reverently interred in
St. Paul's. A few years later, Cnut caused it to be transferred with due
solemnity to the Archbishop's own metropolitan church of Canterbury.
(M29)
In the following year, Sweyn was so successful in reducing the
Northumbrians and the inhabitants of the five boroughs,(44) as well as the
towns of Winchester and Oxford, taking hostages from each as he went, that
he thought he might venture once more to attack London itself; hoping for
better success than had attended him on previous occasions. He was the
more anxious to capture London, because Ethelred himself was there, but he
again met with such determined resistance, and so many of his followers
were drowned in the Thames that for the fourth time he had to beat a
retreat.(45)
(M30)
Leaving London for a while, Sweyn proceeded to conquer that part of
England which still held out against him, and having accomplished his
purpose, was again preparing to attack the one city which had baffled all
his attempts to capture, when the Londoners themselves, finding further
opposition hopeless, offered their submission and left Ethelred to take
care of himself.(46) This he did by betaking himself to Normandy, where he
remained until Sweyn's death in the following year (3rd Feb., 1014).
(M31)
Upon this event taking place, the crews of the Danish fleet assumed the
right of disposing of the English crown, and elected Sweyn's son, Cnut, to
be king. The English, however, compelled as they had been by superior
strength to submit to the father, were in no mood to accept without a
struggle the sovereignty of his son. The whole of the Witan at once
declared in favour of sending for Ethelred, with the assurance "that no
lord was dearer than their natural lord," if only he would promise to
govern them more justly than before.(47) Ethelred sent word by Edmund his
son that "he would be to them a kind lord, and amend all the things which
they eschewed, and all the things should be forgiven which had been done
or said to him, on condition that they all, unanimously and without
treachery, would turn to him." Pledges were given and taken on either
side, and thenceforth a Danish king was to be looked upon as an
outlaw.(48)
(M32)
When Ethelred arrived in England, he was accompanied according to an
Icelandic Saga,(49) by King Olaf, of Norway, who assisted him in expelling
the Danes from Southwark, and gaining an entrance into the city. The
manner in which this was carried out, is thus described. A small knot of
Danes occupied a stronghold in the City, whilst others were in possession
of Southwark. Between the two lay London Bridge--a wooden bridge, "so broad
that two waggons could pass each other upon it"--fortified by barricades,
towers, and parapets, and manned by Danes. Ethelred was naturally very
anxious to get possession of the bridge, and a meeting of chiefs was
summoned to consult how it could be done. Olaf promised to lay his fleet
alongside the bridge if the English would do the same. This was agreed
upon. Having covered in the decks of the vessels with a wooden roof to
protect the crew and fighting men, Olaf succeeded in rowing light up to
the bridge and laying cables round its piers. This done, he caused his
ships to head down stream and the crews to row their hardest. The result
was that the piles were loosened and the bridge, heavily weighted by the
Danes who were fighting upon it, gave way. Many were thrown into the
river, whilst others made good their retreat to Southwark, which was soon
afterwards stormed and taken. This incident in connection with Ethelred's
return formed the subject of more than one Scandinavian poem, of which the
following may serve as a specimen:--
"London Bridge is broken down--
Gold is won and bright renown.
Shields resounding,
War-horns sounding,
Hildur shouting in the din!
Arrows singing,
Mail-coats ringing--
Odin makes our Olaf win!"
(M33)
For a short while after his return Ethelred displayed a spirit of
patriotism and courage beyond any he had hitherto shown. He succeeded in
surprising and defeating the Danes in that district of Lincolnshire known
as Lindsey, and drove Cnut to take refuge in his ships, and eventually to
sail away to Denmark.(50)
(M34)
It was not long before he again appeared; he was then, however, to meet in
the field Ethelred's son, Edmund, whose valour had gained for him the name
of Ironside. This spirited youth, forming a striking contrast to the weak
and pusillanimous character of his father, had collected a force to
withstand the enemy, but the men refused to fight unless Ethelred came
with them, and unless they had "the support of the citizens of
London."(51) A message was therefore sent to him at London to take the
field with such a force as he could gather. Father and son thereupon
joined forces; but the king was in ill-health, and it wanted but a whisper
of treachery to send him back to the security of London's walls. Thither,
too, marched Cnut, but before he arrived Ethelred had died (23rd April,
1016).(52) The late king was buried in St. Paul's.(53)
(M35)
The city of London had by this time attained a position higher than it had
ever reached before. "We cannot as yet call it the capital of the kingdom,
but its geographical position made one of the chief bulwarks of the land,
and in no part of the realm do we find the inhabitants outdoing the
patriotism and courage of its valiant citizens."(54) Under Edgar the
foreign trade with the city had increased to such an extent that Ethelred,
his son, deemed it time to draw up a code of laws to regulate the customs
to be paid by the merchants of France and Flanders as well as by the
"emperor's men," the fore-runners of those "easterling" merchants, who,
from their headquarters in the Steel-yard at Dowgate, subsequently became
known as merchants of the Steel-yard.(55)
Among the multitude of foreigners that in after-years thronged the streets
of the city bartering pepper and spices from the far east, gloves and
cloth, vinegar and wine, in exchange for the rural products of the
country, might be seen the now much hated but afterwards much favoured
Dane.(56) The Dane was again master of all England, except London, and
Ethelred's kingdom, before the close of his reign, was confined within the
narrow limits of the city's walls; "that true-hearted city was once more
the bulwark of England, the centre of every patriotic hope, the special
object of every hostile attack."(57)
(M36)
At Ethelred's death the Witan who were in London united with the
inhabitants of the city in choosing Edmund as his successor. This is the
first recorded instance of the Londoners having taken a direct part in the
election of a king. Cnut disputed Edmund's right to the crown, and
proceeded to attack the city. He sailed up the Thames with his fleet, but
being unable to pass the bridge, he dug a canal on the south side of the
river, whereby he was enabled to carry his ships above bridge, and so
invest the city along the whole length of the riverside. To complete the
investment, and so prevent any of the inhabitants escaping either by land
or water, he ditched the city round, so that none could pass in or
out.(58)
(M37)
This, as well as two other attempts made by Cnut within a few weeks of
each other to capture London by siege, were frustrated by the determined
opposition of the citizens.(59) "Almighty God saved it," as the chronicler
piously remarks.(60)
(M38)
Nor was Cnut more successful in the field, being worsted in no less than
five pitched battles against Edmund, until by the treachery of Edmund's
brother-in-law, Eadric, alderman of Mercia, he succeeded at last in
vanquishing the English army on the memorable field of Assandun.(61)
(M39)
After this Edmund reluctantly consented to a conference and a division of
the kingdom. The meeting took place at Olney, and there it was agreed that
Edmund should retain his crown, and rule over all England south of the
Thames, together with East Anglia, Essex and London, whilst Cnut should
enjoy the rest of the kingdom. "The citizens, beneath whose walls the
power of Cnut and his father had been so often shattered, now made peace
with the Danish host. As usual, money was paid to them, and they were
allowed to winter as friends within the unconquered city."(62)
(M40)
The partition of the kingdom between Edmund and Cnut had scarcely been
agreed upon before the former unexpectedly died (30th Nov., 1016) and Cnut
became master of London and king of all England. His rule was mild,
beneficent and just, recognising no distinction between Dane and
Englishman, and throughout his long reign of nearly twenty years the
citizens of London enjoyed that perfect peace so necessary for the
successful exercise of their commercial pursuits.
(M41)
At the election of Cnut's successor which took place at Oxford in 1035,
the Londoners again played an important part. This time, however, it was
not the "burhwaru or burgesses" of the City who attended the gemot which
had been summoned for the purpose of election, but "lithsmen" of London.
(M42)
As to who these "lithsmen" were, and how they came to represent the City
(if indeed they represented the City at all) on this important occasion
much controversy has arisen. To some they appear as nothing more than the
"nautic multitude" or "sea-faring men" of London.(63) On the other hand,
there are those who hold that they were merchants who had achieved thane
right under the provisions of Athelstan's day already mentioned;(64)
whilst there are still others who are inclined to look upon them as so
many commercial travellers who had made their way to Oxford by river in
the ordinary course of business, and who happened by good fortune to have
been in that city at the time of a great political crisis.(65) The truth
probably lies somewhere between these extremes. The "lithsmen" may not
themselves have been thanes, although they are recorded as having been at
Oxford with almost all the thanes north of the Thames;(66) but that they
were something more than mere watermen, such as we shall see joining with
the apprentices of London at important political crises, and that they
were acting more or less as representatives of the Londoners who had
already acquired a predominant voice in such matters, seems beyond doubt.
(M43)
During the next thirty years London took no prominent part in the affairs
of the country, content if only allowed to have leisure to mind its own
business. The desire for peace is the key-note to the action of the
citizens of London at every important crisis. Without peace, commerce
became paralyzed. Peace could be best secured by a strong government, and
such a government, whether in the person of a king or protector could
count upon their support. "For it they were ready to devote their money
and their lives, for commerce, the child of opportunity, brought wealth;
wealth power; and power led independence in its train." The quarrels of
the half-brothers, Harold and Harthacnut, the attempt by one or both of
the sons of Ethelred and Emma to recover their father's kingdom, and the
question of the innocence or guilt of Earl Godwine in connection with the
murder of one of them, affected the citizens of London only so far as such
disturbances were likely to impede the traffic of the Thames or to make it
dangerous for them to convey their merchandise along the highways of the
country.
(M44)
The payment of Danegelt at the accession of Harthacnut (A.D. 1040),(67)
probably touched the feelings, as it certainly did the pockets, of the
Londoners, more than any other event which happened during this period.
(M45)
Upon the sudden death of Harthacnut (A.D. 1042), who died in a fit "as he
stood at his drink,"(68) the choice of the whole nation fell on Edward,
his half-brother--"before the king buried were, all folk chose Edward to
king at London."(69) The share that the Londoners took in this particular
election is not so clear as in other cases. Nevertheless, the importance
of the citizens was daily growing, and by the time of the accession of
Edward the Confessor, the City was recognised as the capital of the
kingdom, the chief seat for the administration of the law, and the place
where the king usually resided.(70)
(M46)
In early Saxon times the witan had met in any town where the king happened
at the time to be; and although theoretically every freeman had a right to
attend its meetings, practically the citizens of the town wherein the
gemot happened at the time to be held, enjoyed an advantage over freemen
coming from a distance. Alfred ordained that the witan should meet in
London for purposes of legislation twice a year.(71) Athelstan, Edmund and
Edgar had held gemots in London, the last mentioned king holding a great
gemot (_mycel gemot_) in St. Paul's Church in 973.
(M47)
During the reign of Edward the Confessor, at least six meetings of the
witan took place in London; the more important of these being held in 1051
and the following year. By the gemot of 1051, which partook of the nature
of a court-martial, Earl Godwine was condemned to banishment; but before a
twelve-month had elapsed, he was welcomed back at a great assembly or
_mycel gemot_ held in the open air without the walls of London.(72) The
nation had become disatisfied owing to the king's increasing favour to
Norman strangers, but the earl desired to learn how stood the City of
London towards him, and for this purpose made a stay at Southwark. He was
soon satisfied on this point. "The townsfolk of the great city were not a
whit behind their brethren of Kent and Sussex in their zeal for the
national cause. The spirit which had beaten back Swend and Cnut, the
spirit which was in after times to make London ever the stronghold of
English freedom, the spirit which made its citizens foremost in the
patriot armies alike of the thirteenth and of the seventeenth centuries,
was now as warm in the hearts of those gallant burghers as in any earlier
or later age. With a voice all but unanimous, the citizens declared in
favour of the deliverer; a few votes only, the votes, it may be, of
strangers or of courtiers, were given against the emphatic resolution,
that what the earl would the city would."(73) Having secured the favour of
London his cause was secure. That the citizens heartily welcomed the earl,
going forth in a body to meet him on his arrival, we learn also from
another source;(74) although, one at least of the ancient chroniclers
strongly hints that the favour of the citizens had been obtained by bribes
and promises.(75) The earl's return was marked by decrees of outlawry
against the king's foreign favourites, whose malign influence he had
endeavoured formerly to counteract, and who had proved themselves strong
enough to procure the banishment of himself and family.
(M48)
The last gemot held under Edward was one specially summoned to meet at
Westminster at the close of the year 1065, for the purpose of witnessing
the dedication of the new abbey church which the king loved so well and to
which his remains were so shortly afterwards to be carried.
(M49)
He died at the opening of the year, and the same witan who had attended
his obsequies elected Harold, the late Earl Godwine's son, as his
successor. This election, however, was doomed to be overthrown by the
powerful sword of William the Norman.