(M131)
Although London remained faithful to Louis after John's death, the barons
began to desert him, one by one (_quasi stillatim_),(200) and to transfer
their allegiance to John's eldest son, a boy of nine years of age, who had
been crowned at Gloucester soon after his father's death, the disturbed
state of the country not allowing of his coming to London for the
ceremony.(201)
(M132)
After his defeat at Lincoln (20th May, 1217), by William the Marshal, Earl
of Pembroke, one of Henry's guardians, Louis beat a hasty retreat to
London and wrote to his father, the French king, to send him military
assistance, for without it he could neither fight nor get out of the
country.
(M133)
Among the prisoners taken at Lincoln were Robert Fitz-Walter, and a
neighbour of his in the ward of Castle Baynard, Richard de Muntfichet,
who, like Fitz-Walter, had also suffered banishment in 1213. The tower or
castle of Muntfichet lay a little to the west of Baynard's Castle, and was
made over in 1276 by Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor, and citizens of London
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of erecting a new house
for the Dominican or Black Friars, in place of their old house in
Holborn.(202) We hear little of Fitz-Walter after this, beyond the facts
that he soon afterwards obtained his freedom, that he went on a crusade,
and continued a loyal subject to Henry until his death in 1235. He is said
to have been in the habit of wearing a precious stone suspended from his
neck by way of a charm, which at his last moments he asked his wife to
remove in order that he might die the easier.(203)
(M134)
A French fleet which had been despatched in answer to Louis was defeated
off Dover by Hubert de Burgh, who had gallantly held that town for John,
and continued to hold it now for Henry. London itself was invested by the
Marshal, and threatened with starvation; but before matters came to
extremes, Louis intimated his willingness to come to terms.(204)
(M135)
A meeting was held on the 11th of September (some say at Kingston,(205)
others at Staines(206)), and a peace concluded.(207) Louis swore fealty to
the Pope and the Roman Church, for which he was absolved from the ban of
excommunication that had been passed on him, and surrendered all the
castles and towns he had taken during the war. He, further, promised to
use his influence to obtain the restoration to England of the possessions
that had been lost beyond the sea.
(M136)
Henry, on his part, swore to preserve to the barons and the rest of the
kingdom, all those liberties which they had succeeded in obtaining from
John. Everything being thus amicably settled, Louis went to London, and,
after borrowing a large sum of money from his former trusty supporters,
betook himself back to his native country.(208) The general pardon which
was granted by the young king extended to the Londoners, who became
reconciled and received back their lands,(209) but did not extend to the
clergy, who were left to the tender mercy of the papal legate.
(M137)
For some years to come there remained a party in the city who cherished
the memory of Louis, and the cry of "Mountjoy!" the war-cry of the French
king--was sufficient to cause a riot as late as 1222, when Constantine
Fitz-Athulf or Olaf, an ex-sheriff of London, raised the cry at a
tournament, in order to test the feeling of the populace towards Louis.
Any serious results that might have arisen were promptly prevented by
Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, who very quickly sought out the
ringleader, and incontinently caused him and two of his followers to be
hanged at the Elms in Smithfield. Whilst the halter was round his neck,
Fitz-Athulf offered 15,000 marks of silver for his life. The offer was
declined. He was not to be allowed another chance of stirring up sedition
in the city.(210)
A more circumstantial account of this event is given us by another
chronicler,(211) who relates that the wrestling match which took place on
the festival of Saint James (25th July),--the same as that mentioned by
Matthew Paris--was held at Queen Matilda's hospital in the suburbs,(212)
and was a match between the citizens of London and those outside; that
victory declared itself in favour of the Londoners, and that their
opponents, and among them the steward of the Abbot of Westminster,
thereupon left in high dudgeon. With thoughts of revenge in their hearts,
the latter caused invitations to be issued for another match to be held at
Westminster, on the following feast of Saint Peter ad Vincula (1st
August).
It was at this second and later match that the trouble began. The steward
was not content with collecting the most powerful athletes he could find,
but caused them to seize weapons and to attack the defenceless citizens
who had come to take part in the games. The Londoners hurried home,
bleeding with wounds, and immediately took counsel as to what was best to
be done. Serlo, the mercer, who had held the office of mayor of the city
for the past five years, and was of a peaceable disposition, suggested
referring the matter to the abbot; and it was then that Constantine, who
had a large following, advocated an attack upon the houses of the abbot
and of his steward. No sooner said than done, and many houses had already
suffered before the justiciar appeared upon the scene with a large force.
As to the seizure of Constantine and his subsequent execution, the
chroniclers agree.
Constantine's fellow citizens were very indignant at the indecent haste
with which the justiciar had caused his execution to be carried out, and
did not fail to bring the matter up in judgment against him, when, some
ten years later, Hubert de Burgh himself fell into disgrace.(213) The
result was, that the justiciar took refuge in the Priory of Merton. When
the citizens received the king's orders to follow him there, and to take
him dead or alive, they obeyed with unconcealed joy. They allowed little
time to elapse, but set out at once, 20,000 strong, ready to tear him limb
from limb; but luckily they were stopped in time by another message from
the king, and Hubert obtained a respite.(214)
(M138)
At the time of Constantine's execution, there was real danger to be
anticipated from raising the cry in favour of any foreigner. The land was
already swarming with foreigners, and in that very year (viz. 1222), the
archbishop had been under the necessity of summoning a council of bishops
and nobles to be held in London, owing to dissensions that had arisen
between the Earl of Chester, William of Salisbury, the king's uncle, and
Hubert de Burgh, and to a rumour that had got abroad, that foreigners were
inciting the Earl of Chester to raise an insurrection.(215)
A few years later, the country was over-run by a brood of Italian usurers
who battened on the inhabitants, reducing many to beggary. When attempts
were made to rid the city of these pests, they sheltered themselves under
the protection of the Pope.(216)
Throughout the reign of Henry III, there was one continuous struggle
against foreign dominion, either secular or ecclesiastical. In this
struggle, none took a more active part than the citizens of London, and
"when [in 1247], the nobles, clergy, and people of England put forth their
famous letter denouncing the wrongs which England suffered at the hands of
the Roman bishop, it was with the seal of the city of London, as the
centre of national life that the national protest was made."(217)
(M139)
Side by side with this struggle another was being carried on, a struggle
for the liberty of the subject against the tyranny and rapacity of the
king. More especially was this the case with the city. Henry was for ever
invading the rights and liberties of the citizens. Thus in 1239, he
insisted upon their admitting to the shrievalty one who had already been
dismissed from that office for irregular conduct, and because they refused
to forego their chartered right of election and to appoint the king's
nominee, the city was deprived of a mayor for three months and more.(218)
(M140)
The substitution of a _custos_ or warden appointed by the king for a mayor
elected by the citizens, and of bailiffs for sheriffs,--a procedure known
as "taking the city into the king's hands,"--was frequently resorted to
both by Henry and his successors, and notably by Edward I, in whose reign
the city was deprived of its mayor, and remained under government of a
_custos_ for thirteen consecutive years (1285-1298).(219)
Any pretext was sufficient for Henry's purpose. If the citizens harboured
a foreigner without warrant, not only was the city taken into the king's
hand, but the citizens were fined L1,000,(220) a sum equal to at least
L20,000 at the present day. A widow brings an action for a third part of
her late husband's goods in addition to her dower. The case goes against
her in the Court of Husting, and is heard on appeal before the king's
justiciar sitting at St. Martin's-le-Grand. The verdict is not set aside,
but some flaw is discovered in the mode of procedure; the explanation of
the citizens is deemed insufficient, and the mayor and sheriffs are
forthwith deposed, to be reinstated only on the understanding that they
will so far forego their chartered right--viz.: of not impleading nor being
impleaded without the walls of their city--as to consent to attend the
king's court at Westminster, where finally, and after considerable delay,
they are acquitted.(221)
Take another instance. The king had shown an interest in the Abbey Church
of Westminster, and had caused a new chapel to be built in 1220, he
himself laying the first stone. Thirty years later, or thereabouts, he
made certain concessions to the Abbot of Westminster--what they were we are
not told--but it is certain that they, in some way or other, infringed the
rights of the citizens of London in the County of Middlesex. The king
promised to compensate them for the loss they would sustain; but failing
to get their consent by fair promises, he resorted to his favourite
measure of taking the city into his own hands. For fifteen years the
dispute between the citizens and the Abbot as to their respective rights
in the County of Middlesex was kept alive, and was at last determined by a
verdict given by the barons of the exchequer, which completely
justified(222) the attitude taken up by the citizens of London.
(M141)
In 1230 he extorted a large sum of money from the citizens at a time when
he was meditating an expedition to the continent for the purpose of
recovering lost possessions. The citizens, however, were not the only
sufferers. The religious houses were heavily mulcted, as were also the
Jews, who, whether they would or not, were made to give up one third of
their chattels.(223) Again in 1244, the citizens of London and the Jews
were made to open their purse-strings that the king might the better be
able to pay his wine merchant, his wax chandler, and his tailor; but even
then his creditors were not paid in full.(224)
Only once does it appear that the king's conscience pricked him for the
extortions he was continually practising on the citizens. This was in
1250, when he called the citizens together at Westminster, and begged
their forgiveness for all trespasses, extortions of goods and victuals
under the name of "prises," and for forced loans or talliages. Seeing no
other way out of it, the citizens acceded to his request.(225) As recently
as the previous year (1249) he had exacted from them a sum of L2,000.(226)
(M142)
Henry had been crowned at Gloucester soon after his accession.(227)
Nevertheless he was again crowned--this time in London in 1236, after his
marriage with Eleanor of Provence. The city excelled itself in doing
honour to the king and queen as they passed on their way to Westminster:
but the joy of the citizens was damped by the king refusing to allow
Andrew Bukerel the mayor to perform the customary service of assisting the
chief butler at the coronation banquet. It was not a time for raising
questions of etiquette, so the mayor pocketed the affront, preferring to
settle the question of the city's rights at some more convenient time,
rather than damp the general joy of the company by pressing his
claim.(228)
(M143)
Yet, notwithstanding his manifestly unjust treatment of the citizens of
London, and the cynical contempt with which he looked upon their ancient
claim to the title of "barons," he usually went through the formality of
taking leave of them at Paul's Cross or at Westminster, before crossing
the sea to Gascony(229) and was not above making use of them when
compelled to sell his plate and jewels to satisfy his debts. In 1252, he
even went so far as to grant them a charter of liberties, but for this
concession the citizens had to pay 500 marks.(230)
(M144)
It is scarcely to be wondered at if, when the crisis arrived, and king and
barons found themselves in avowed hostility, the citizens of London joined
the popular cause. By the month of June, 1258, the barons had gained their
first victory over Henry. He was forced to accept the Provisions of
Oxford, passed by the Mad Parliament,(231) as it came to be called in
derision. The Tower of London was transferred to the custody of the
barons, and they were for the future to appoint the justiciar. Towards the
end of July, a deputation from the barons waited upon the mayor and
citizens to learn if they approved of the agreement that had been made
with the king.(232)
(M145)
The mayor, aldermen, and citizens, after a hasty consultation, gave their
assent, but with the reservation "saving unto them all their liberties and
customs," and the city's common seal was set to the so-called "charter"
which the deputation had brought.
(M146)
It was not long before the city discovered that the barons were as little
likely to respect its liberties as the king himself. Hugh Bigod, whom they
had appointed justiciar gave offence by the way he exercised his office.
In spite of all remonstrance he insisted upon sitting at the Guildhall to
hear pleas, a jurisdiction which belonged exclusively to the sheriffs. He
summoned the bakers of the city to appear before him, and those who were
convicted of selling bread under weight he punished, in a way that was not
in conformity with city usage.(233)
(M147)
In November of the following year (1259), Henry took occasion of his
departure for the continent to make some popular concessions to the
citizens. He appeared at a Folkmote, which was being held at Paul's Cross,
and, before taking leave, he announced that in future the citizens should
be allowed to plead their own cases (without employing legal aid) in all
the courts of the city, excepting in pleas of the crown, pleas of land,
and of wrongful distress. On the same day John Mansel who had been one of
the king's justiciars in 1257, when the city was "taken into the king's
hand," and Fitz-Thedmar had been indicted and deprived of his aldermanry
for upholding the privileges of the citizens(234)--publicly acknowledged on
the king's behalf the injustice of Fitz-Thedmar's indictment, and
announced that Henry not only recalled him to favour, but commanded that
he should be restored to his former position.(235)
(M148)
During the king's absence abroad, the barons' cause was materially
strengthened by the support afforded Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
by the king's son. Upon hearing of the defection of his son, Henry hurried
back to England. A consultation took place in the city as to the attitude
which the citizens ought to take up, with the result that when Henry
appeared (April, 1260), both he and the Earl of Gloucester were admitted
into the city, whilst the Earl of Leicester and "Sir Edward," as the
chronicler styles the king's son, had to find accommodation in the
suburbs.(236)
Henry was now master of the situation. The city was his, and he determined
that it should remain so. Strict watch was kept over the gates, which for
the most part, were kept shut night and day in order to prevent surprise.
Every inhabitant of the age of twelve years and upwards was called upon to
take an oath of allegiance before the alderman of his ward, and those of
maturer age were bound to provide themselves with arms. The king, who now
ruled again in his own way, stirred the anger of the barons, by presuming
to appoint Philip Basset, his chief justiciar, without first asking their
assent; and the barons retaliated by removing the king's sheriffs, and
appointing "wardens of the counties" in their stead.(237) In June 1261,
Henry produced a Bull of Alexander IV, annulling the Provisions of Oxford,
and freeing him from his oath.(238)
(M149)
For eighteen months the king reigned supreme. The barons could do nothing,
and the Earl of Leicester, finding their cause hopeless, withdrew in
August (1261) to France, and remained there until the spring of 1263, when
he returned as the unquestioned head of the baronial party, to take up
arms against the king. The citizens professed loyalty to Henry, who was
residing in the Tower, and bound themselves by oath to acknowledge his son
Edward as heir to the crown.(239) At Whitsuntide, the barons sent a letter
to the king requiring him to observe the Provisions of Oxford, and shortly
afterwards, addressed another letter to the citizens "desiring to be
certified by them whether they would observe the said ordinances and
statutes made to the honour of God in fealty to his lordship the king, and
to his advantage of all the realm, or would, in preference, adhere to
those who wished to infringe the same."(240)
(M150)
Before sending a reply, the citizens had an interview with the king in the
Tower, to whom they showed the barons' letter. The result was, that Henry
availed himself of their services to mediate between him and the barons. A
deputation of citizens accordingly travelled to Dover, where an
understanding was arrived at between the hostile parties. The citizens
were prepared to support the barons, subject to their fealty to the king
and saving their own liberties; whilst the king promised to dismiss his
foreign supporters--the real cause of all the mischief. Hugh le Despenser,
whom Henry had deposed, was again installed justiciar of all England in
the Tower; and the king and his family left the city for Westminster, the
day after the barons entered it. "Thus was a league made between the
barons and the citizens with this reservation--'saving fealty to his
lordship the king.'"(241)
(M151)
Whilst the commons of England were thus winning their way to liberty, the
commons of the city were engaged in a similar struggle with the
aristocratic element of the municipal government. The craft guilds cried
out against the exclusiveness of the more wealthy and aristocratic trade
guilds, the members of which monopolized the city's rule. They found an
able champion of their cause in the person of Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the
mayor for the time being (1261-1265). The mayor's action in the matter
disgusted Fitz-Thedmar, the city alderman and chronicler, who complains
that he "so pampered the city populace," that they styled themselves the
"commons of the city," and had obtained the first voice in the city. The
mayor would ask them their will as to whether this or that thing should be
done; and if they answered "ya" "ya," it was done, without consulting the
aldermen or chief citizens, whose very existence was ignored.(242) It is
not surprising that, under a mayor so thoroughly in sympathy with the
people, opportunity was taken by the citizens to rectify abuses from which
they had so long suffered. Their trade had been prejudiced by the number
of foreigners which the king had introduced into the city, and accordingly
we read of an attack made on the houses of some French merchants. Rights
of way which had been stopped up, were again opened, and where land had
been illegally built upon, the buildings were abated.
The chronicler complains of the populace acting "like so many justices
itinerant." It was in vain that the king addressed a letter to the mayor
and citizens, setting forth that the dissensions between himself and the
barons had been settled, and commanding his peace to be kept as well
within the city as without.(243)
(M152)
The popular movement received every encouragement from the barons. Let
those who were disaffected put their complaints into writing, and the
barons would see that the matter was duly laid before the king, and that
the city's liberties were not diminished. Fortified with such promises,
the mayor set to work at once to organize the craft guilds. Ordinances
were drawn up "abominations" Fitz-Thedmar calls them(244) for the
amelioration of the members, and everything was done that could be done to
better their condition.
(M153)
A few days before Henry and the barons had concluded a temporary peace,
the citizens had been greatly excited by an action of the king's son.
Henry was, as usual, in want of money, and had failed to raise a loan in
the city. His son came to his assistance and seized the money and jewels
lying at the Temple (29th June). The citizens were so exasperated at this
high-handed proceeding on the part of the prince that they vented their
spleen on the queen, and pelted her with mud and stones, calling her all
kinds of opprobrious names, as she attempted to pass in her barge under
London Bridge on her way from the Tower to Windsor. (13th July).(245)
Such conduct very naturally incensed the king and his son against the
citizens. Henry was angry with them, moreover, for having admitted the
barons contrary to his express orders.(246) It is not surprising,
therefore, that when Fitz-Thomas presented himself before the Barons of
the Exchequer to be admitted to the mayoralty for the third year in
succession, they refused to admit him by the king's orders, Henry "being
for many reasons greatly moved to anger against the city."(247)
(M154)
Before the end of the year (1263), both king and barons agreed to submit
to the arbitration of the King of France. The award known as the Mise of
Amien--from the place whence it was issue--which Louis made on the 23rd
Jan., 1264, proved of so one-sided a character that the barons had no
alternative but to reject it. However unjustifiable such repudiation on
the part of the barons may have been from a moral point of view, it was a
matter of necessity. Many of them, moreover, including those of the Cinque
Ports, as well as the Londoners, and nearly all the middle class of
England, had not been parties to the arbitration, and therefore, were not
pledged to accept the award.(248)
(M155)
The citizens and the barons now entered into solemn covenant to stand by
each other "saving however their fealty to the king." A constable and a
marshal were appointed to command the city force, which was to stand
prepared night and day to muster at the sound of the great bell of St.
Paul's. The manor of Isleworth, belonging to Richard, King of the Romans,
the king's brother, was laid waste, and Rochester besieged, but,
disturbances again breaking out at home, Leicester had to hurry back to
restore order and prevent the city being betrayed to the king's son.(249)
(M156)
In May the earl set out again with a force of Londoners(250) to meet the
king, who was threatening the Cinque Ports. In the early morning of the
14th he came upon the royal army at Lewes. Prince Edward himself led the
charge against the Londoners--he had not forgotten the insult they had
recently offered to his mother--and succeeded in driving them off the
field. They scarcely indeed awaited his onslaught, so unpractised in
warfare had they become of recent years, but turned their backs and sped
away towards London, followed in hot pursuit by Edward. When he returned
he found that, owing to his absence, the day was lost, and that his father
and brother had been made prisoners.(251) In spite of his own success, he
also had to surrender.
(M157)
The barons returned to the city in triumph, bringing the king and Richard,
king of the Romans, in their train. Edward had been placed in custody in
Dover Castle, pending negotiations. Henry was lodged in the Bishop's
Palace, whilst Richard was committed to the Tower. An agreement was drawn
up which secured the safety of the king, and left all matters of dispute
to be again referred to arbitration.(252) This treaty formed the basis of
a new system of government, and led to the institution of Simon de
Montfort's famous Parliament.
The short respite--for it proved to be no more--from civil war was welcomed
by the Londoners. The city had been drained of a large part of its
population in order to increase the Earl of Leicester's army, and business
had been seriously disturbed. For the past year no Court of Husting had
been held, and therefore no wills or testaments had received probate;
whilst all pleas of land, except trespass, had to stand over until the
country became more settled.(253)
(M158)
The parliament which Leicester summoned to meet on the 20th January, 1265,
marked a new era in parliamentary representation. It was the first
parliament in which the merchant and the trader were invited to take their
seats beside the baron and bishop. Not only were the shires to send up two
representatives, but each borough and town were to be similarly
privileged.(254)
Terms of reconciliation between king and barons were arranged, and once
more the mayor and aldermen did fealty to Henry in person in St. Paul's
church. Fitz-Thomas, who for the fourth time was mayor, was determined to
lose nothing of his character for independence; "My lord," said he, when
taking the oath, so long as you are willing to be to us a good king and
lord, we will be to you faithful and true."(255)
(M159)
Peace was not destined to last long. Dissensions quickly broke out between
Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester, and Simon de Montfort, owing in a great
measure to jealousy. Gloucester insisted that the Mise of Lewes and the
Provisions of Oxford had not been properly observed, hinting unmistakably
at the foreign birth and extraction of his rival. Endeavours were made to
arrange matters by arbitration, but in vain; and by Whitsuntide the two
earls were in open hostility. Gloucester was joined by Edward, who had
succeeded by a ruse in escaping from Hereford, where he was detained in
honourable captivity.(256)
(M160)
With their combined forces they fell on Earl Simon at Evesham and utterly
defeated him (4 Aug.). Simon himself was killed, and his body barbarously
mutilated.(257) The king, who was in the earl's camp, only saved himself
by crying out in time "I am Henry of Winchester, your king." Whilst the
battle was raging the city was visited with a terrible thunderstorm--an
evil omen of the future.
If credit be given to every statement made by the city alderman and
chronicler, Fitz-Thedmar, we must believe that the battle of Evesham took
place just in time to prevent a wholesale massacre of the best and
foremost men of the city, including the chronicler himself, which was
being contrived by the mayor, the popular Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the no less
popular Thomas de Piwelesdon or Puleston, and others.(258)
(M161)
The citizens of London were soon to experience the change that had taken
place in the state of affairs. The day after Michaelmas, the mayor and
citizens proceeded to Westminster to present the new sheriffs to the
Barons of the Exchequer; but finding no one there, they returned home. The
truth was that the king had resorted to his favourite measure of taking
the city into his own hands for its adherence to the late Earl of
Leicester; and for five years it so remained, being governed by a _custos_
or warden appointed by the king, in the place of a mayor elected by the
citizens.(259)
(M162)
There had been some talk of the king meditating an attack upon the city,
and treating its inhabitants as avowed enemies.(260) The very threat of
such a proceeding was sufficient to throw the city into the utmost state
of confusion. Some there were "fools and evil-minded persons," as our
chronicler describes them--who favoured resisting force by force; but the
"most discreet men" of the city, and those who had joined the Earl under
compulsion, would have none of it, preferring to solicit the king's favour
through the mediation of men of the religious orders. Henry still remained
unmoved, and the fear of the citizens increased to such an extent that it
was finally resolved that the citizens as a body should make humble
submission to the king; and that the same should be forwarded to him at
Windsor under the common seal of the city. Whilst the deputation bearing
this document was on its way it was met by Sir Roger de Leiburn, who
turned it back on the ground that he himself was on his way to the city
for the express purpose of arranging terms of submission.(261)
(M163)
That night Sir Roger lodged at the Tower, and the next morning he went to
Barking Church, on the confines of the city,(262) where he was met by the
mayor and a "countless multitude" of the citizens. The advice he had to
give the citizens was that if they wished to be reconciled to the king,
they would have to submit their lives and property unreservedly to his
will. Letters patent were drawn up to that effect under the common seal,
and taken by Sir Roger himself to Windsor. The citizens had not long to
wait for an answer. The king's first demand was the removal of the posts
and chains which had been set up in the streets as a means of defence. His
next was that the mayor--his old antagonist Fitz-Thomas--and the principal
men of the city should come in person to him at Windsor, under letters of
safe conduct. Trusting to the royal word, the mayor and about forty of the
more substantial men of the city proceeded to Windsor, there to await a
conference with the king. To their great surprise, the whole of the party
were made to pass the night in the Castle keep. They were practically
treated as prisoners.
(M164)
Some regained their liberty, but of Fitz-Thomas nothing more is heard.
From the time that he entered Windsor Castle, he disappears from public
view. That he was alive in May, 1266, at least in the belief of his
fellow-citizens, is shown by their cry for the release of him and his
companions "who are at Windleshores." They would again have made him
Mayor, if they could have had their own way. "We will have no one for
mayor" (they cried) "save only Thomas Fitz-Thomas."(263)
(M165)
In the meantime the king had himself gone to London and confiscated the
property of more than sixty of the citizens, driving them out of their
house and home. Hugh Fitz-Otes, the Constable of the Tower, had been
appointed warden of the city in the place of the imprisoned mayor;
bailiffs had been substituted for sheriffs, and the citizens made to pay a
fine of 20,000 marks. Then, and only then, did the king consent to grant
their pardon.(264)
(M166)
Queen Eleanor, who had interceded for the Londoners,(265) was presented by
the king with the custody of London Bridge, the issues and profits of
which she was allowed to enjoy. She allowed the bridge, however, to fall
into such decay, that she thought she could not do better than restore it
to its rightful owners. This she accordingly did in 1271, but soon
afterwards changed her mind, and again took the bridge into her
charge.(266)
(M167)
At Easter, 1267, the Earl of Gloucester, who had constituted himself the
avowed champion of those who had suffered forfeiture, and become
"disinherited" for the part they had taken with the Earl of Leicester,
sought admission to the city. The citizens hesitated to receive him within
their gates, although according to some, he was armed with letters patent
of the king addressed to the citizens on his behalf.(267) Under pretence
of holding a conference with the papal legate at the Church of Holy
Trinity, Aldgate, he gained admission for himself and followers: and there
he remained, having made himself master of the city's gates.(268)
Thereupon many citizens left the city, fearing the wrath of the king, and
once more the city was in the hands of the populace. The leading citizens
were placed under a guard; the aldermen and bailiffs were deposed to make
way for the earl's own supporters, and, for better security, a covered way
of timber was made from the city to the Tower.(269)
Whatever may have been the actual part played by the legate in admitting
the disinherited into the city, he soon showed his dissatisfaction at the
state of things within its walls, by leaving the Tower, to join the king
at Ham, and placing the disinherited--"the enemies of the king"--under an
interdict.(270)
(M168)
At length the king and the Earl of Gloucester came to terms (16 June). The
earl was to have his property restored to him, and the city was to be
forgiven all trespasses committed against the king since the time that the
earl made his sojourn within its walls. The earl gave surety in 10,000
marks for keeping the peace, and the citizens paid the king of the Romans
1,000 marks for damages they had committed three years before in his manor
of Isleworth.(271) Not a word about the imprisoned mayor, Fitz-Thomas!
(M169)
The king's letters patent granting forgiveness to the citizens for
harbouring the Earl of Gloucester(272) were followed in the spring of the
following year by another charter to the city.(273) But inasmuch as this
charter did not restore the mayoralty, the citizens had little cause to be
thankful and looked upon it as only an instalment of favours to come.
(M170)
Towards the end of this year or early in the next (1269), the city was
committed by the king to his son Edward, who ruled it by deputy, Sir Hugh
Fitz-Otes being again appointed Constable of the Tower, and warden of the
city.(274) It was through the good offices of the prince, that the
citizens eventually recovered the right to elect their mayor, so long
withheld. "About the same time, that is to say, Pentecost, 1270," writes
Fitz-Thedmar, "at the instance of Sir Edward, his lordship the king
granted unto the citizens that they might have a mayor from among
themselves in such form as they were wont to elect him."(275)
(M171)
He further allowed them to choose two sheriffs who should discharge the
duties of sheriff, (_qui tenerent vicecomitatem_) of the City and
Middlesex, as formerly; but instead of the yearly ferm of L300 in pure
silver (_sterlingorum blancorum_), formerly paid for Middlesex, they were
thenceforth to pay an annual rent of L400 in money counted (_sterlingorum
computatorum_.)(276)
(M172)
The citizens lost no time in exercising their recovered rights. Their
choice fell upon John Adrian for the mayoralty, whilst Philip le Taillour
and Walter le Poter were elected sheriffs. After they had been severally
admitted into office--the mayor before the king himself on Wednesday, the
16th July, and the sheriffs at the Exchequer two days later--the king
restored the city's charters, and the citizens acknowledged the royal
favour by a gift of 100 marks to the king, and 500 marks to Prince Edward,
who had proved so good a friend to them, and who was about to set out for
the Holy Land.(277)
(M173)
Adrian was succeeded in the mayoralty by Walter Hervy, who had already
served as sheriff or bailiff on two occasions, once by royal appointment.
He made himself so popular with the "commons" of the city during his year
of office, that when October, 1272, came round and the aldermen and more
"discreet" citizens were in favour of electing Philip le Taillour as his
successor, the commons or "mob of the city"--as the chronicler prefers to
style them--cried out, "Nay, nay, we will have no one for mayor but Walter
Hervi."(278)
(M174)
The aldermen finding themselves in a minority, appealed to the king and
council at Westminster. Hervy did the same, being accompanied to
Westminster by a large number of supporters, who took the opportunity of
the aldermen laying their case before the council to insist loudly, as
they waited in the adjacent hall, upon their own right of election and
their choice of Hervy. It was feared that the noise might disturb the king
who was confined to his bed with what proved to be his last illness. All
parties was therefore dismissed, injunction being laid upon Hervy not to
appear again with such a following, but to come with only ten or a dozen
supporters at the most.
(M175)
Hervy paid no heed to this warning, but continued to present himself at
Westminster every day for a fortnight, accompanied by his supporters in
full force, expecting an answer to be given by the council. At length the
council resolved to submit the whole question to arbitration, the city in
the meanwhile being placed in the custody of a warden. Before the
arbitrators got to work, the king died (16 Nov.), and rather than the city
should continue to be disturbed at such a crisis, the aldermen agreed to a
compromise, and Hervy was allowed to be mayor for one year more.(279)