(M93)
Both London and Winchester had been laid in ashes during Stephen's reign,
the former by a conflagration--which took place in 1136, again destroying
St. Paul's and extending from London Bridge to the church of St. Clement
Danes--the latter by the burning missiles used in the conflict between
Stephen and the empress in 1141. Winchester never recovered her position,
and London was left without a rival. Fitz-Stephen, who wrote an account of
the city as it stood in the reign of Henry II, describes it as holding its
head higher than all others; its fame was wider known; its wealth and
merchandise extended further than any other; it was the capital of the
kingdom (_regni Anglorum sedes_).(135)
(M94)
It was through the mediation of an intimate friend and fellow citizen of
Fitz-Stephen that Archbishop Theobald had invited Henry of Anjou over from
France in 1153. Thomas of London, better known as Thomas Becket, although
of foreign descent, was born in the heart of the city, having first seen
the light in the house of Gilbert, his father, some time Portreeve of
London, situate in Cheapside on a site now occupied by the hall and chapel
of the Mercers' Chapel. Having been ordained a deacon of the Church, he
became in course of time clerk or chaplain to the archbishop. Vigorous and
active as he was, Thomas soon made his influence felt, and it was owing to
his suggestion (so it is said(136)) that the bishops had declined to be a
party to the coronation of Eustace during Stephen's lifetime.
On the accession of Henry, Thomas passed from the service of the
archbishop, then advanced in years, to the service of the young king. He
was raised to the dignity of chancellor, and became one of the king's most
trusted advisers. By their united efforts order was once again restored
throughout the kingdom. The great barons, who had established themselves
in castles erected without royal licence, were brought into subjection to
the crown and compelled to pull down their walls. Upon the death of the
archbishop, Thomas was appointed to the vacant See (1162). From that day
forward the friendship between king and archbishop began to wane. Henry
found that all his attempts to establish order in his kingdom were
thwarted by exemptions claimed by the archbishop on behalf of the clergy.
He found that allegiance to the Crown was divided with allegiance to the
Pope, and this state of things was likely to continue so long as the
archbishop lived. Becket's end is familiar to us all. His memory was long
cherished by the citizens of London, who made many a pilgrimage to the
scene of his martyrdom and left many an offering on his tomb in the
cathedral of Canterbury. It is hard to say for which of the two, the
father or the son, the citizens entertained the greater reverence. For
many years after his death it was the custom for the Mayor of the City for
the time being, upon entering into office, to meet the aldermen at the
church of St. Thomas of Acon--a church which had been erected and endowed
in honour of the murdered archbishop by his sister Agnes, wife of Thomas
Fitz-Theobald of Helles(137)--and thence to proceed to the tomb of Gilbert
Becket, the father, in St. Paul's churchyard, there to say a _De
profundis_; after which both mayor and aldermen returned to the church of
St. Thomas, and, each having made an offering of two pence, returned to
his own home.(138) St. Thomas's Hospital, in Southwark, was originally
dedicated to the murdered archbishop, but after its dissolution and
subsequent restoration as one of the Royal Hospitals, its patron saint was
no longer Thomas the Martyr, but Thomas the Apostle.
(M95)
Whilst the king and his chancellor were busy settling the kingdom,
establishing a uniform administration of justice and system of revenue,
and not only renewing but extending the form of government which had been
instituted by Henry I, the citizens of London, availing themselves of the
security afforded by a strong government, redoubled their energy in
following commercial pursuits and succeeded in raising the city, as
Fitz-Stephen has told us, to a pitch of prosperity far exceeding that of
any other city in the world.
They obtained a charter from Henry,(139) although of a more limited
character than that granted to them by his grandfather. The later charter,
for instance, although in the main lines following the older charter,
makes no mention of Middlesex being let to ferm nor of any appointment of
sheriff or justiciar being vested in the citizens. It appears as if Henry
was determined to bring the citizens no less than the barons of the realm
within more direct and immediate subservience to the crown. The concession
made by the king's grandfather had been ignored by Stephen and the empress
Matilda, each of whom in turn had granted the shrievalty of London and
Middlesex to the Earl of Essex. For a time the appointment of sheriffs was
lost to the citizens. Throughout the reigns of Henry II and his successor
they were appointed by the crown. Richard's charter to the citizens makes
no mention of the sheriffwick, nor is it mentioned in the first charter
granted by John. When it was restored to the citizens (A.D. 1199), by
John's second charter, the office of sheriff of London had lost much of
its importance owing to the introduction of the communal system of
municipal government under a mayor.
(M96)
In the meantime the sheriffs of the counties, who had by reason of Henry's
administrative reforms, risen to be officers of greater importance and
wider jurisdiction, and who had taken advantage of their positions to
oppress the people during the king's prolonged absence abroad, were also
made to feel the power of the crown. A blow struck at the sheriffs was
calculated to weaken the nobility and the larger landowners--the class from
which it had been the custom hitherto to select these officers. Henry saw
the advantage to be gained, and on his return to England in 1170 deposed
most of the sheriffs and ordered a strict enquiry to be made, as to the
extortions they had committed in his absence. Their places were filled for
the most part by men of lower rank, and therefore likely to be more
submissive. Some, however, were reinstated and became more cruel and
extortionate than ever.(140)
(M97)
The last fifteen years of Henry's life were full of domestic trouble. He
had always found it an easier matter to rule his kingdom than his
household. His sons were for ever thwarting his will and quarrelling with
each other. It was his desire to secure the succession to the crown for
his eldest son Henry, and to this end he had caused him to be crowned by
the Archbishop of York (14th June, 1170), who was thereupon declared
excommunicated by his brother of Canterbury. The son began to clamour for
his inheritance whilst his father still lived, and appealed in 1173 to the
French king, whose daughter he had married, to assist him in his unholy
enterprise. Whilst Henry was engaged in defending his crown against his
own son on the continent, the great barons of England rose in
insurrection, and the king was obliged to hasten home, where he arrived in
July, 1174. The rebellion was quickly put down, and the strife between
king and nobles for a time ceased.
(M98)
In the city there were occasional disturbances caused by the younger
nobility--the young bloods of the city(141)--who infested the streets at
night, broke into the houses of the rich and committed every kind of
excess. In 1177 the brother of the Earl of Ferrers was waylaid and killed,
and for some time the streets were unsafe at night. The chronicler records
a singular outrage perpetrated three years before, by these sprigs of
nobility. They forcibly entered the house of a wealthy citizen whose name
has not come down to us, he is simply styled the _pater-familias_. Of his
courage we are left in no doubt, for we are told that he slipt on a coat
of mail, armed his house-hold, and awaited the attack. He had not long to
wait. The leader of the band--one Andrew Bucquinte soon made his
appearance, and was met by a pan of hot coals. Swords were drawn on both
sides and _pater-familias_, whose coat of mail served him well, succeeded
in cutting off the right hand of his assailant. Upon the cry of thieves
being raised, the delinquents took to their heels, leaving their leader a
prisoner. The next day, being brought before the king's justiciar, he
informed against his companions. This cowardly action on the part of
Bucquinte led to many of them being taken, and among them one who is
described by the chronicler as the noblest and wealthiest of London
citizens, but to whom the chronicler gives no other name than "John, the
old man" (_Johannes Senex_). An offer was made to John to prove his
innocence by what was known as the ordeal by water,(142) but the offer was
declined, and he was eventually hanged. The whole story looks suspicious.
(M99)
Having settled the succession of the crown of England upon his eldest son,
the king put his second son, Richard, into possession of the Duchy of
Aquitaine, and provided for his third son, Geoffrey, by marriage with the
heiress of Brittany. There was yet another son, John, who was too young to
be provided for just now, and who being without any territory, assigned to
him, acquired the name of Lackland. Both Richard and Geoffrey had taken
the part of their brother Henry in 1173, and in 1177 the three brothers
were again quarrelling with their father and with each other. After the
deaths of Henry and Geoffrey, the quarrel was taken up by the surviving
brothers, Richard and John.
In all these--more or less--petty wars with his sons, the king had always to
deal with the ruler of France. At last, in 1189, the loss of Le Mans--his
own birth-place--and the unexpected discovery that his youngest and best
beloved son, John, had turned traitor towards him, left the king nothing
to live for, and after a few days suffering he died, ill and worn out, at
Chinon.
(M100)
Richard had scarcely succeeded to the throne, before he set out on a
crusade, leaving the government of his country in the hands of William
Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, as chancellor.(143) With him was associated in
the government, Hugh de Puiset, or Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, but Longchamp
soon got the supreme control of affairs into his own hands, and commenced
to act in the most tyrannical fashion. He increased the security of the
Tower of London, which had been committed to his charge, by surrounding it
with a moat,(144) and having got himself nominated papal legate, made a
progress through the country committing the greatest extortion.(145)
(M101) (M102)
Report of the Chancellor's conduct having reached the ears of Richard, he
despatched the Archbishop of Rouen to England with a new commission, but
the worthy prelate on arrival (April, 1191), was afraid to present the
commission, preferring to let matters take their course.(146) Already a
fierce rivalry had sprung up between the chancellor and John, the king's
brother, who, for purposes of his own, had espoused the cause of the
oppressed. Popular feeling at length became so strong, that Longchamp
feared to meet John and the bishops, and, instead of going to Reading,
where his attendance was required, he hastened to London. Arriving there
(7 Oct.), he called the citizens together in the Guildhall, and prayed
them to uphold the King against John, whom he denounced as aiming plainly
at the Crown. The leading men in the city at the time were Richard
Fitz-Reiner and Henry de Cornhill. These took opposite sides, the former
favouring John, whilst the latter took the side of the chancellor.(147)
John's party proving the stronger of the two, Longchamp thought it safest
to seek refuge in the Tower.(148)
(M103)
As soon as John found that the chancellor had gone to London instead of
Reading, he too hastened thither. On his arrival he was welcomed and
hospitably entertained by Richard Fitz-Reiner who gave him to understand
on what terms he might expect the support of the city.(149) As to terms,
John was ready to accede to any that might be proposed.
(M104) (M105)
The next day (8 Oct.), a meeting of the barons of the realm, as well as of
the citizens of London, was convened in St. Paul's Church, to consider the
conduct of the chancellor, and it was thereupon decided that Longchamp
should be deposed from office. The story, as told by different
chroniclers,(150) varies in some particulars, but the main features are
the same in all. The king's minister was set aside, John was recognised as
the head of the kingdom, and new appointments made to judicial, fiscal,
and military offices. The Archbishop of Rouen, who attended the council,
seeing the turn affairs had taken, no longer hesitated to produce the
letters under the king's sign manual appointing a new commission for the
government of the kingdom.
(M106)
The same day that witnessed the fall of Longchamp was also a memorable one
in the annals of the City of London; for immediately after judgment had
been passed on the chancellor, John and the assembled barons granted to
the citizens "their commune," swearing to preserve untouched the dignities
of the city during the king's pleasure. The citizens on their part swore
fealty to King Richard, and declared their readiness to accept John as
successor to the throne in the event of his brother dying childless.(151)
(M107)
This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body
corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words
_their_ commune (_communam suam_) imply a commune of which they were _de
facto_, if not _de jure_ already in enjoyment. How long the commune may
have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined;
but that the term _communio_ in connection with the city's organization
was known half a century before, we have already seen;(152) and, according
to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction
between the words _communio_, _communa_ and _communia_.(153) Bishop
Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate _communio_ as "commune," the
latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of municipal
government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or
"franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests
that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic
organization" in Stephen's reign, an idea which became fully developed in
the succeeding reign.(154) He is also in favour of dating the foundation
of the _communa_ in London from this grant by John and the barons,(155)
and in this view he is supported by Richard of Devizes, who distinctly
states that the _communia_ of London was instituted on that occasion, and
that it was of such a character that neither King Richard nor Henry his
father would have conceded it for a million marks of silver, and that a
_communia_ was in fact everything that was bad. It puffed up the people,
it threatened the kingdom, and it emasculated the priesthood.(156)
(M108)
With the change from a shire organization to that of a French _commune_,
whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in
the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon
"port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all
probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in
a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"(157) occurred,
down to the present day, the sheriff's position has always been one of
secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor.
(M109)
The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal document is said to
occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.(158) The popular opinion,
however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City
of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this
belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a
statement to be found in an early manuscript record still preserved among
the archives of the Corporation, and known as the _Liber de Antiquis
Legibus_.(159) The original portion of this manuscript purports to be a
chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly
the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative
to the year 1274.
After naming the sheriffs who were appointed at Michaelmas, A.D. 1188,
"the first year of the reign of King Richard,"(160) it goes on to say that
"in the same year Henry Fitz-Eylwin of Londenestane was made mayor of
London, who was the first mayor of the city, and continued to be such
mayor to the end of his life, that is to say, for nearly five and twenty
years." That Henry Fitz-Eylwin was mayor in the first year of Richard's
reign is stated no less than three times in the chronicle.(161)
(M110)
The compiler of the chronicle is supposed to have been Arnald or Arnulf
Fitz-Thedmar,(162) an Alderman of London, although it is not known over
which ward he presided. Particulars of his life are given in the volume
itself, from which we gather that he was a grandson on the mother's side
of Arnald de Grevingge(163) a citizen of Cologne; that his father's name
was Thedmar, a native of Bremen; that he was born on the vigil of St.
Lawrence [10 August] A.D. 1201, his mother being forewarned of the
circumstances that would attend his birth in a manner familiar to biblical
readers; that he was deprived of his aldermanry by the king, but was
afterwards restored; that he became supporter of the king against Simon de
Montfort and the barons, and that he was among those whom Thomas
Fitz-Thomas, the leader of the democratic party and his followers, had
"intended to slay" on the very day that news reached London of the battle
of Evesham, which crushed the hopes of Montfort and his supporters. The
date of his death cannot be precisely determined, but there can be but
little doubt that it took place early in the third year of the reign of
Edward the First, inasmuch as his will was proved and enrolled in the
Court of Husting, London, held on Monday, the morrow of the Feast of St.
Scolastica [10 Feb.] of that year (A.D. 1274-5).(164)
Setting aside the statement--namely that mention is made of a mayor of
London, in a document of the reign of Henry II--as wanting corroboration,
the first instance known at the present day of any such official being
named in a formal document occurs in 1193 when the Mayor of London appears
among those who were appointed treasurers of Richard's ransom.(165)
(M111)
Richard's first charter to the City (23 April, 1194)(166) granted a few
weeks after his return from abroad makes no mention of a mayor, nor does
the title occur in any royal charter affecting the City until the year
1202, when John attempted to suppress the guild of weavers "at the request
of our mayor and citizens of London." A few years later when John was
ready to do anything and everything to avoid signing the Great Charter
which the barons were forcing on him, he made a bid for the favour of the
citizens by granting them the right to elect annually a mayor, and thus
their autonomy was rendered complete.
(M112)
When Richard recovered his liberty and returned to England he was heartily
welcomed by all except his brother John. One of his first acts was to
visit the City and return thanks for his safety at St. Paul's.(167) The
City was on this occasion made to look its brightest, and the display of
wealth astonished the foreigners in the King's suite, who had been led to
believe that England had been brought to the lowest stage of poverty by
payment of the King's ransom.(168)
(M113) (M114)
In order to wipe out the stain of his imprisonment, he thought fit to go
through the ceremony of coronation for the second time. His first
coronation had taken place at Westminster (3 Sept., 1189,) soon after his
accession, and the citizens of London had duly performed a service at the
coronation banquet--a service which even in those days was recognised as an
"ancient service"--namely, that of assisting the chief butler, for which
the mayor was customarily presented with a gold cup and ewer. The citizens
of the rival city of Winchester performed on this occasion the lesser
service of attending to the viands.(169)
The second coronation taking place at Winchester and not at Westminster,
the burgesses of the former city put in a claim to the more honourable
service over the heads of the citizens of London, and the latter only
succeeded in establishing their superior claim by a judicious bribe of 200
marks.(170)
(M115)
Richard was ever in want of money, and cared little by what means it was
raised. He declared himself ready to sell London itself if a purchaser
could be found.(171) The tax of Danegelt, from which the citizens of
London had been specially exempted by charter of Henry I, and which had
ceased to be exacted under Henry II, mainly through the interposition of
Thomas of London, was practically revived under a new name. The charter
already mentioned as having been granted to the citizens by Richard after
his return from captivity was probably purchased, for one of the king's
regular methods of raising money was a lavish distribution of charters to
boroughs, not from any love he had for municipal government, but in order
to put money in his purse. As soon as Richard had collected all the money
he could raise in England, he again left the country, never to return.
(M116)
The pressure of taxation weighed heavily on the poor, and occasioned a
rising in the city under the leadership of William Fitz-Osbert. The cry
was that the rich were spared whilst the poor were called upon to pay
everything.(172) Accounts of the commotion differ according as the writer
favoured the autocratic or democratic side. One chronicler, for instance,
finds fault with Fitz-Osbert's personal appearance, imputing his
inordinate length of beard--he was known as "Longbeard"--to his desire for
conspicuousness, and declares him to have been actuated by base
motives.(173)
Others describe him as a wealthy citizen of the best family, and yet as
one who ever upheld the cause of the poor against the king's
extortions.(174) Whatever may have been the true character of the man and
the real motive of his action, it is certain that he had a large
following. When Hubert Walter, the justiciar, sent to arrest him,
"Longbeard" took refuge in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow. Thither he was
followed by the king's officers--described by a not impartial chronicler as
men devoid of truth and piety and enemies of the poor.(175)--who with the
aid of fire and faggot soon compelled him to surrender. On his way to the
Tower, he was struck at and wounded by one whose father (it was said) he
had formerly killed;(176) but this again may or may not be the whole
truth. A few days later he and a number of his associates were
hanged.(177)
(M117)
Two years before his death at Chaluz, Richard, with the view of aiding
commerce, caused the wears in the Thames to be removed, and forbade his
wardens of the Tower to demand any more the toll that had been accustomed.
The writ to this effect was dated from the Island of Andely or Les Andelys
on the Seine, the 14th July, 1197, in the neighbourhood of that fortress
which Richard had erected, and of which he was so proud--the Chateau
Gaillard or "Saucy Castle," as he jestingly called it. The reputation
which the castle enjoyed for impregnability under Richard, was lost under
his successor on the throne.
(M118)
Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention
of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes
Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more
discreet men of the city, and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city,
together with the mayor."(178) Just as in the constitution of the realm,
the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of
Commons, so in the city--described by Lord Coke as _epitome totius
regni_--the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of the
common council.
(M119)
When, after thirteen years of misgovernment, during which John had enraged
the barons and excited general discontent by endless impositions, matters
were brought to a climax by his submission to the pope, it was in the city
of London that the first steps were taken by his subjects to recover their
lost liberty. On the 25th August, 1213, a meeting of the clergy and barons
was held in the church of St. Paul; a memorable meeting, and one that has
been described as "a true parliament of the realm, though no king presided
in it."(179) Stephen Langton, whose appointment as Archbishop of
Canterbury had so raised John's ire, took the lead and produced to the
assembly a copy of the Charter of Liberties, granted by Henry I, when that
king undertook to put an end to the tyranny of William Rufus. If the
barons so pleased, it might (he said) serve as a precedent. The charter
having been then and there deliberately read, the barons unanimously
declared that for such liberties they were ready to fight, and, if
necessary, to die.(180)
The clergy and people who had hitherto supported the king against the
barons, having now engaged themselves to assist the barons against the
tyranny of the king, John found himself with but one friend in the world,
and that was the Pope. "Innocent's view of the situation was very simple,"
writes Dr. Gardiner, "John was to obey the Pope, and all John's subjects
were to obey John." Within a few weeks of the council being held at St.
Paul's, the same sacred edifice witnessed the formality of affixing a
golden _bulla_ to the deed--the detestable deed (_carta
detestabilis_)--whereby John had in May last resigned the crown of England
to the papal legate, and received it again as the Pope's feudatory.(181)
(M120)
In the following year (1214), whilst the king was abroad, the barons met
again at Bury St. Edmunds, and solemnly swore that if John any longer
delayed restoring the laws and liberties of Henry the First, they would
make war upon him. It was arranged that after Christmas they should go in
a body and demand their rights, and that in the meantime they should
provide themselves with horses and arms, with the view of bringing force
to bear, in case of refusal.(182) The citizens at the same time took the
opportunity of strengthening their defences by digging a foss on the
further side of the city wall.(183)
(M121)
Christmas came and a meeting between John and the barons took place in
London at what was then known as the "New" Temple. The result, however,
was unsatisfactory, and both parties prepared for an appeal to force, the
barons choosing as their leader Robert Fitz-Walter, whom they dubbed
"Marshal of the army of God and of Holy Church."(184)
(M122)
This Fitz-Walter was Baron of Dunmow in Essex, the owner of Baynard's
Castle in the City of London, and lord of a soke, which embraced the whole
of the parish known as St. Andrew Castle Baynard. He moreover enjoyed the
dignity of castellain and chief bannerer or banneret of London. The rights
and privileges attaching to his soke and to his official position in time
of peace were considerable, to judge from a claim to them put forward by
his grandson in the year 1303. Upon making his appearance in the Court of
Husting at the Guildhall, it was the duty of the Mayor, or other official
holding the court, to rise and meet him and place him by his side. Again,
if any traitor were taken within his soke or jurisdiction, it was his
right to sentence him to death, the manner of death being that the
convicted person should be tied to a post in the Thames at the Wood Wharf,
and remain there during two tides and two ebbs.(185)
In later years, however, upon an enquiry being held by the Justiciars of
the Iter (a deg. 14 Edward II, A.D. 1321), the claimant was obliged to
acknowledge that he had disposed of Baynard's Castle in the time of Edward
I, but had especially reserved to himself all rights attaching to the
castle and barony, although he very considerately declared his willingness
to forego the right and title enjoyed by his ancestor of drowning traitors
at Wood Wharf.(186)
(M123)
But it was in time of war that Fitz-Walter achieved for himself the
greatest power and dignity. It then became the duty of the castellain to
proceed to the great gate of St. Paul's attended by nineteen other
knights, mounted and caparisoned, and having his banner, emblazoned with
his arms, displayed before him. Immediately upon his arrival, the mayor,
aldermen, and sheriffs, who awaited him, issued solemnly forth from the
church, all arrayed in arms, the mayor bearing in his hand the city
banner, the ground of which was bright vermilion or gules, with a figure
of St. Paul, in gold, thereon, the head, feet, and hands of the saint
being silver or argent, and in his right hand a sword.(187) The
castellain, advancing to meet the mayor, informed him that he had come to
do the service which the city had a right to demand at his hands, and
thereupon the mayor placed the city's banner in his hands, and then,
attending him back to the gate, presented him with a charger of the value
of L20, its saddle emblazoned with the arms of Fitz-Walter, and its
housing of cendal or silk, similarly enriched.
A sum of L20 was at the same time handed to Fitz-Walter's chamberlain to
defray the day's expenses. Having mounted his charger, he bids the Mayor
to choose a Marshal of the host of the City of London; and this being
done, the communal or "mote-bell" is set ringing, and the whole party
proceed to the Priory of Holy Trinity at Aldgate. There they dismount, and
entering the Priory, concert measures together for the defence of the
city. There is one other point worthy of remark, touching the office of
chief banneret, and that is that on the occasion of any siege undertaken
by the London forces, the castellain was to receive as his fee the
niggardly sum of one hundred shillings for his trouble, and no more.
(M124)
It is not improbable that Fitz-Walter's election as leader of the
remonstrant barons was in some measure due to his official position in the
city. It is also probable, as Mr. Riley has pointed out, that the
unopposed admission of the barons into the city, on the 24th May, 1215,
may have been facilitated by Fitz-Walter's connexion, as castellain, with
the Priory of Holy Trinity, situate in the vicinity.
But there were other reasons for selecting Fitz-Walter as their leader at
this juncture. If the story be true, Fitz-Walter had good reason to be
bitterly hostile to King John, for having caused his fair daughter Maude
or Matilda to be poisoned, after having unsuccessfully made an attempt
upon her chastity.(188) This is not the only crime of the kind laid to the
charge of this monarch,(189) and there appears to be too much reason for
believing most of the charges against him to be true. It is certain that
Fitz-Walter was one of the first to entertain designs against John, and
that he and Eustace de Vesci, on whose family the king is said to have put
a similar affront, were forced to escape to France. The story how
Fitz-Walter attracted John's notice by his prowess at a tournament in
which he was engaged on the side of the French, and was restored to the
King's favour and his own estates, is familiar to all.
(M125)
After a feeble attempt to capture Northampton, the barons, with
Fitz-Walter at their head, accepted an invitation from the citizens of
London to enter the city. They made their entry through Aldgate.(190)
The concession which John had recently made to the citizens, viz.:--the
right of annually electing their own mayor(191)--had failed to secure their
allegiance. The city became thenceforth the headquarters of the
barons,(192) and the adhesion of the Londoners was followed by so great a
defection from the King's party (including among others that of Henry de
Cornhill), that he was left without any power of resistance.(193)
(M126)
The citizens met their reward for fidelity to the barons when John was
brought to bay at Runnymede. In drafting the articles of the Great Charter
the barons, mindful of their trusty allies, made provision for the
preservation of the city's liberties, and the names of Fitz-Walter and of
the mayor of the city appear among those who were specially appointed to
see that the terms of the charter were strictly carried out.(194)
By way of further security for the fulfilment of the articles of the
charter the barons demanded and obtained the custody of the City of
London, including the Tower, and they reserved to themselves the right of
making war upon the king if he failed to keep his word. For a year or more
the barons remained in the city, having entered into a mutual compact with
the inhabitants to make no terms with the king without the consent of both
parties.(195)
(M127)
The right of resistance thus established was soon to be carried into
execution. Before the year was out, John had broken faith, and was
besieging Rochester with the aid of mercenaries. An attempt to raise the
siege failed, owing to the timidity (not to say cowardice) of Fitz-Walter,
who, like the rest of the barons, was inclined to be indolent so soon as
the struggle with the king was thought to have ended.(196)
(M128)
The Pope supported his vassal king. For a second time during John's reign
London was placed under an interdict. The first occasion was in 1208, when
the whole of England was put under an interdict, and for six years the
nation was deprived of all religious rites saving the sacraments of
baptism and extreme unction.(197) It was then the object of Innocent to
stir up resistance against John by inflicting sufferings on the people,
now his purpose was to punish the people for having risen against John.
(M129) (M130)
The barons saw no other course open to them but to invite Louis the
Dauphin to come and undertake the government of the kingdom in the place
of John. On the 21st May, 1216, Louis landed at Sandwich and came to
London, where he was welcomed by the barons. Both barons and citizens paid
him homage, whilst he, on his part, swore to restore to them their rights,
to maintain such laws of the realm as were good, and to abolish those (if
any) that were bad.(198) Suspicion, however, had been aroused against
Louis by the confession of a French nobleman who had come over in his
train, and who had solemnly declared on his deathbed that his master had
sworn when once on the throne of England to banish all John's
enemies.(199) Just when matters seemed to be approaching a crisis and the
barons were wavering in their allegiance, John died (19th October, 1216).