(M214)
The new king's character, differing as it did so much from that of his
father, was not one to commend itself to the citizens of London. With them
he never became a favourite. The bold and determined character of Queen
Isabel, the very antipodes of her husband, was more to their liking, and
throughout the contests that ensued between them, the citizens steadily
supported her cause. At her first appearance, as a bride, in the city, the
streets were compared with the New Jerusalem, so rich were they in
appearance;(341) whilst at the coronation ceremony, which took place a
month later (25th February, 1308), she and her husband were escorted by
the mayor and aldermen in their most gorgeous robes, quartered with the
arms of England and France, and were served at the banquet as custom
commanded.(342)
(M215)
But even thus early in Edward of Carnarvon's reign the presence of
foreigners--to whom the king was even more addicted than his father--was
likely to prove a source of trouble; and it was necessary to make special
proclamations forbidding the carrying of arms on the day of the coronation
and enjoining respect for foreigners attending the ceremony.(343) The
king's foreign favourites proved his ruin, and contributed in no small
degree to the eventual defection of the city. They were for ever desiring
some favour of the citizens. At one time it was Piers de Gavestone who
wanted a post for his "valet";(344) at another it was Hugh le Despenser
who desired (and obtained) a lease of the Small Beam for a friend.(345)
The friend only held the Beam for little more than six months, and then,
at the urgent request of the queen herself, it was given to another.(346)
(M216)
The barons were especially irritated at being supplanted by the king's
favourites, and in 1308 succeeded in getting Edward to send Gaveston out
of England. In the following year, however, he was recalled, and the
barons became so exasperated that in 1310, when the king summoned an
assembly of bishops and barons, the latter appeared, contrary to orders,
in full military array. The king could not do otherwise than submit to
their dictation. Ordainers were appointed from among the barons for the
purpose of drawing up ordinances for the government of the kingdom. These
ordinances were promulgated in their complete form in 1311, when they
received the sanction of a parliament assembled at the House of the Black
Friars, in the month of August, and were afterwards publicly proclaimed in
St. Paul's Churchyard,(347) special precautions being taken at the time to
safeguard the gates of the city by night and day.(348) Gaveston was
condemned to banishment for life.
(M217)
In the meantime, whilst the Ordainers were engaged on their work, Edward
had put himself at the head of his army and marched against the Scots, who
were rapidly gaining ground under Bruce. He remained on the border until
July, 1311, trying every means to raise money. In March of that year the
city sent him one thousand marks, by the hands of Roger le Palmere and
William de Flete, the mayor, Richer de Refham, contributing no less than
one hundred pounds of the whole sum. The money was despatched on
horseback, tied up in baskets covered with matting and bound with cords,
and the cost of every particular is set out in the city's records.(349)
(M218)
Refham was a mayor of the popular type. He had already suffered
deprivation of his aldermanry for some reason or another, but was
reinstated in 13O2.(350) No sooner was he chosen mayor than he caused a
collection to be made of the ancient liberties and customs of the city,
from the books and rolls preserved in the city's Chamber, and having
assembled the aldermen and best men of the city, he caused them to be
publicly read. This having been done, he next proceeded to ask the
assembly if it was their will that these ancient customs and liberties,
which had so often been infringed by the removal of mayors and sheriffs,
should be for the future maintained. Their answer being given unanimously
in the affirmative, he at once took steps to obtain the king's writ of
confirmation, and caused them to be proclaimed throughout the city. He
made a perambulation of the city and abated all nuisances and
encroachments. He went further than this. For some time past the streets
had been rendered unsafe to pass after dark by bands of rioters who at
that day were known by the _sobriquet_ of "roreres." A few years later,
the same class went under the name of "riffleres." They were the
precursors of the "Muns," the "Tityre Tus," the "Hectors," and the
"Scourers,"--dynasties of tyrants, as Macaulay styles them, which
domineered over the streets of London, soon after the Restoration, and at
a later period were superseded by the "Nickers," the "Hawcubites," and the
still more dreaded "Mohawks," of Queen Anne's reign. By whatever name they
happened at the time to be known, their practice was the same,
viz.:--assault and robbery of peaceful citizens whose business or pleasure
carried them abroad after sundown.
During Refham's mayoralty, a raid was made on all common nightwalkers,
"bruisers" (_pugnatores_), common "roreres," _wagabunds_ and others, and
many were committed to prison, to the great relief of the more peaceably
disposed.(351)
His strictness and impartiality were such as to raise up enemies, and an
excuse was found for removing him not only from the office of mayor, but
once again from his aldermanry.(352) On this point, however, the city
archives are altogether silent, they only record the appointment of his
successor to the mayoralty chair at the usual time and in the usual
manner.
(M219)
In January, 1312, the king returned to the north, and as soon as he had
arrived at York ignored the ordinance touching Gaveston, and instead of
sending his favourite into exile, received him into favour and restored
his forfeited estates. Foreseeing the storm that he would have to meet
from the barons, the king wrote from Knaresborough (9th Jan.) to Refham's
successor, John de Gisors, enjoining him to put the city into a state of
defence, and not allow armed men to enter on any pretext whatever.(353) On
the 21st he wrote again, not only to the mayor, but to nineteen leading
men of the city, exhorting them to hold the city for him.(354) Other
letters followed in quick succession--on the 24th and 31st January and the
8th February--all couched in similar terms.(355) When, however, he saw how
hopeless his case was, Edward sent word to the mayor and sheriffs that the
barons might be admitted provided the city was still held for the king.
Accordingly the barons were admitted without bloodshed, and held
consultation at St. Paul's as to what was best to be done.(356) Gaveston's
days were numbered. On the 12th June he was forced to surrender
unconditionally to the Earl of Warwick, and that day week was beheaded
without the semblance of a trial.(357)
The influence he had exercised over the king had been remarkable from
their youth. The son of a Gascon knight, he had been brought up with
Edward as his foster brother and playfellow, and in course of time the
strong will of the favourite gained a complete mastery over the weaker
will of the prince. But his arrogant behaviour soon raised such a storm
among the nobles at Court that he was forced to leave England. When Edward
succeeded to the throne, one of his first acts was to recall Gaveston, to
whom he gave his own niece in marriage, after having bestowed upon him the
Earldom of Cornwall. The king seemed never tired of heaping wealth upon
his friend. Among other things, he bestowed upon his favourite (28th Aug.,
1309) the sum of 100 shillings payable out of the rent of L50 due from the
citizens of London for Oueenhithe, to be held by him, his wife, and the
heirs of their bodies.(358)
Both of them had friends and enemies in common. As Prince of Wales, Edward
had made an attempt to encroach upon some woods belonging to Walter
Langton, Bishop of Chester. This caused a breach between father and son,
and the prince was banished from Court for a whole half-year. Gaveston
also bore the same bishop a grudge, for it was owing in a great measure to
Langton's influence as treasurer to Edward I that he was in the first
instance forced into exile. When the prince succeeded his father, there
came a day of retribution for the bishop; his property was handed over to
Gaveston, and he himself carried prisoner from castle to castle by the now
all powerful favourite. A proclamation was also issued at the instance of
Gaveston, inviting complaints against the bishop.(359)
(M220)
Edward had purposed holding a parliament at Lincoln towards the end of
July, 1312, but the turn that affairs had taken induced him to change his
mind, and he summoned it to meet at Westminster.(360) It was important
that he should secure the city, if possible, in his favour. In this he was
successful; so that when the barons appeared to threaten London, having
arrived with a large force at Ware, they found the city's gates strongly
guarded.(361)
(M221)
In November (1312), the queen gave birth to a son, who afterwards ascended
the throne as Edward III. Isabel herself informed the citizens of the
auspicious event by letter sent by the hands of John de Falaise, her
"taillur."(362) The news had already reached the city, however, before the
queen's own messenger arrived, and he signified his disappointment at
being forestalled by declining to accept a sum of L10 and a silver cup of
32 ozs., which the city offered him by way of gratuity, as being
inadequate to his deserts. As nothing further is recorded of the matter,
it is probable that the offended tailor had reason to repent of his folly.
For more than a week the city was given up to merry-making, in honour of
the birth of an heir to the crown. The conduits ran with wine; a solemn
mass was sung at St. Paul's, and the mayor and aldermen rode in state to
Westminster, accompanied by members of the fraternities of drapers,
mercers, and vintners of London, in their respective liveries, to make
offering, returning to dine at the Guildhall, which was hung with tapestry
as befitted the occasion.
(M222)
After the death of Gaveston, his old enemy Walter Langton again found
favour and resumed his office as treasurer. The city had little reason to
be gratified at his return to power; for it was by his advice that the
king in December of this year (1312), issued orders for a talliage, which
the great towns, and especially London, objected to pay. Early in the
following January (1313), the mayor and aldermen were summoned to attend
the royal council, sitting at the house of the White Friars. The question
was there put to them--would they make fine for the talliage, or be
assessed by poll on their rents and chattels? Before making answer, the
mayor and aldermen desired to consult the commons of the city. An
adjournment accordingly took place for that purpose. When next the mayor
and aldermen appeared before the council, they resisted the talliage on
the following grounds:(363)--In the first place, because, although the king
might talliage cities and boroughs that were of his demesne, he could not,
as they understood, talliage the City of London, which enjoyed exemption
from such an imposition by charter. In the next place, there were prelates
and barons, besides citizens, who enjoyed rents and tenements in the city,
and their consent would first have to be obtained before the municipal
authorities could levy such a tax. Thirdly, the citizens held the city by
grant of former kings, at a fee ferm for all services payable into the
exchequer, and on that account ought not to be talliaged. Under these
circumstances the council was asked to delay the talliage until Parliament
should meet.
This request the king and council expressed themselves as ready to comply
with on condition that the city made an immediate advance of 2,000 marks.
The city refused, and the king's assessors appeared at the Guildhall, and
read their commission. They were on the point of commencing work, when the
city obtained a respite until the meeting of Parliament by a loan of
L1,000. More than eighteen months elapsed, and at last a Parliament was
summoned to meet at York (Sept. 1314); but the country was in such a
disturbed state, owing to the renewal of the war with Scotland, that the
talliage question was not discussed. Nevertheless the king's officers
appeared again in the city to make an assessment, and again they were
bought off by another loan of L400. The king took the money and broke his
word, and the record of pledges taken from citizens for "arrears of divers
talliages and not redeemed," is significant of the hardship inflicted by
this illegal exaction on a large number of inhabitants of the city.(364)
(M223)
Out of this sum of L400, nearly one-half (L178 3_s._ 4_d._), was allowed
the city for the purpose of furnishing the king with a contingent of 120
arbalesters, fully equipped for the defence of Berwick. Edward had been
defeated by the Scots at Bannockburn (24 June, 1314), and Berwick was
threatened. On the 21st November, Edward wrote from Northampton, asking
for 300 arbalesters if the city could provide so many; but the city could
do no more than furnish him with 120.(365) The fall of Berwick was only
postponed. In 1318 the great border fortress against Scotland was captured
by Bruce. Edward was forced soon afterwards to come to terms with the Earl
of Lancaster and the barons with whom he had so long been in avowed
antagonism, and a general pacification ensued, which received the sanction
of Parliament sitting at York in November.(366) On the 4th December, the
king sent home the foot soldiers which the city had furnished, with a
letter of thanks for the aid they had afforded him. They were immediately
paid off and disbanded.(367)
(M224)
It was not long before the king and Lancaster were preparing to join
forces for the recovery of Berwick. In the meantime, the Barons of the
Exchequer appeared at the Guildhall (25th February, 1319), and summoned
the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen to answer for certain trespasses. Several
holders of office, and among them Edmund le Lorimer, Gaoler of Newgate,
for whom Hugh le Despenser had solicited the Small Beam, were deposed: a
proceeding which gave rise to much bickering between mayor, aldermen and
commons. Disputes, moreover, had arisen in the city touching the election
and removal of the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, which
required some pressure from the Earl Marshal and other of the king's
ministers, sitting in the Chapter-house of St. Paul's, before peace could
be restored.(368)
(M225)
According to the writer of the French Chronicle, to which reference has
frequently been made,(369) the dissension in the city was mainly
attributable to John de Wengrave, the mayor. The citizens had lately been
busy drawing up certain "points" for a new charter. Wengrave, who was at
the time, or until quite recently, the city's Recorder, had contrived, in
1318, to force himself into the mayoralty having served as mayor the two
years preceding--"against the will of the commons." He had shown no little
opposition to the "points" of the proposed charter, possibly because one
of the points precluded the mayor, for the time being, from drawing or
hearing pleas, saving only "those pleas which, as mayor, he ought to hear,
according to the custom of the city."(370) If this received the king's
approval, Wengrave's occupation as Recorder, at least so long as he was
mayor, was gone. However this may be, the mayor's opposition was rendered
futile, and the articles were confirmed by the king's letters patent.(371)
Their main feature has already been alluded to; thenceforth the direct way
to the civic franchise was to be through membership of one of the civic
guilds. A foreigner or stranger, not a member of a guild, could only
obtain it by appealing to the full body of citizens before admission
through the Court of Husting. Conscious of their newly acquired
importance, the guilds began to array themselves in liveries, and "a good
time was about to begin."(372) Edward did not give his assent to these
articles without receiving a _quid pro quo_. The citizens were mulcted in
a sum of L1,000 before the king's seal was set to the letters patent.(373)
They did not mind this so much as they did the annoyance caused by the
king's justiciars eighteen months later.
(M226)
Early in 1321 commenced a memorable Iter at the Tower which lasted
twenty-four weeks and three days. No such Iter had been held before,
although the last Iter held in 1275 had been a remarkable one for the
courageous conduct of Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor. This was to surpass
every other session of Pleas of the Crown in its powers of inquisition,
and was destined to draw off many a would-be loyal citizen from the king's
side. Its professed object was to examine into unlawful "colligations,
confederations, and conventions by oaths," which were known (or supposed)
to have been formed in the city.(374) The following particulars of its
proceedings are gathered from an account preserved in the city's records
and supervised, if not compiled, by Andrew Horn, the city's Chamberlain,
an able lawyer who was employed as Counsel for the city during at least a
portion of the Iter.(375) The annoyance caused by this Iter, the general
stoppage of trade and commerce, the hindrance of municipal business, is
realised when we consider that for six months not only the mayor, sheriffs
and aldermen for the time being, but everyone who had filled any office in
the city since the holding of the last Iter--a period of nearly half a
century--as well as twelve representatives from each ward, were called upon
to be in constant attendance. All charters were to be produced, and
persons who had grievances of any kind were invited to appear. Great
commotion prevailed among the citizens upon receiving the king's writ, and
they at once addressed themselves to examining the procedure followed at
former Iters. It is probable, as Mr. Riley suggests, that for this purpose
they had resort to the "Ordinances of the Iter" already mentioned as set
out in the city's Liber Albus.(376) When the dreaded day arrived and the
justiciars had taken their seat at the Tower, the mayor and aldermen, who,
according to custom, as already seen in Rokesley's day, were assembled at
the church of All Hallows Barking, sent a deputation to welcome them, and
to make a formal request for a safe conduct to the citizens on entering
the Tower. This favour being granted, the king's commission was read.
(M227)
The opening of the Iter did not augur well for the city. Fault was found,
at the outset, by Geoffrey le Scrop, the king's sergeant-pleader, because
the sheriffs had not attended so promptly as they should have done. The
excuse that they had only acted according to custom in waiting for the
grant of a safe conduct was held unsatisfactory, and nothing would please
him but that the city should be at once taken into the king's hand.(377)
(M228)
Again, when the citizens claimed to record their liberties and customs by
word of mouth without being compelled to reduce them into writing, as the
justices had ordered, the only reply they got was that they did so at
their own peril.(378) Three days were consumed in preliminary discussion
of points of etiquette and questions of minor importance.
(M229)
On the fourth day the mayor and citizens put in their claim of liberties,
which they supported by various charters.(379) The justiciars desired
answers on three points, which were duly made,(380) and matters seemed to
be getting forward when there arrived orders from the king that the
justiciars should enquire as to the ancient right of the aldermen to
record their liberties orally in the king's courts. Having heard what the
citizens had to say on this point, the justiciars were instructed to
withhold their judgment; and this and other questions touching the
liberties of the city were to be postponed for future determination.(381)
(M230)
On the ninth day of the Iter, a long schedule, containing over 100
articles upon which the Crown desired information, was delivered to each
ward of the city.(382) Days and weeks were consumed in considering various
presentments, besides private suits and pleas of the Crown. Suits were
determined in the Great Hall of the Tower facing the Thames, whilst pleas
of the Crown were heard in the Lesser Hall, beneath the eastern tower. The
justiciars occasionally protracted their sittings till dusk, much to the
disgust of the citizens, whose business was necessarily at a stand-still,
and as yet no indictments had been made.(383) These were to come.
(M231)
On the thirty-fourth day of the Iter, John de Gisors was indicted for
having during his mayoralty (1311-1313), admitted a felon to the freedom
of the city, and fraudulently altered the date of his admission. The
question of criminality turned upon this date. Had the felony been
committed before or after admission? The accused declared in his defence
that admission to the freedom had taken place before the felony; a jury,
however, came to the opposite conclusion, and not only found that
admission had taken place after an indictment for the felony, but that the
mayor at the time was aware of the indictment. The judges therefore
ordered Gisors into custody. He was soon afterwards released on bail, but
not without paying a fine of 100 marks.(384)
(M232)
A similar indictment against his son Anketin, as having participated in
his father's offence, failed. Within a week of Gisors's indictment, the
mayor for the time being, Nicholas de Farndon, was deposed, and the city
placed in the hands of Sir Robert de Kendale, the king's
commissioner.(385)
(M233)
For nine weeks in succession the citizens had suffered from the
inconveniences of the Iter, when a brief adjournment over Easter took
place. In the meantime, an assay was held at the Guildhall of the new
weights and measures which Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, had, in his
capacity as the king's treasurer, caused to be issued throughout the
country. One result of the trial was that whilst the city's weight of
eight marks was discovered to be slightly deficient, the city's bushel was
found to be more true than the king's.
(M234)
After Easter the sittings of the justiciars were resumed. A great change,
however, had come over them during the recess. They no longer behaved
"like lions eager for their prey; on the contrary, they had become very
lambs."(386) The reason for this sudden change, we are told, was the
insurrection in Wales, under the Earl of Hereford, the king's
brother-in-law.
(M235)
The chief questions discussed before the justices were the right of the
weavers of London to hold their guild, and the right of the fishmongers of
Fish-wharf to sell their fish at their wharf by retail instead of on their
vessels or at the city markets. The claim of the fishmongers was opposed
by Andrew Horn, himself a fishmonger by trade, as well as an eminent
lawyer, who acted on this occasion as leading counsel for the City.
(M236)
When Whitsuntide was approaching, an indictment was brought by the city
wards against their old enemy John de Crombwelle, the Constable of the
Tower. He had already made himself obnoxious to the citizens by attempting
to enclose a portion of the city's lands;(387) and now he was accused of
seizing a small vessel laden with tiles, and converting the same to his
own use, and further, with taking bribes for allowing unauthorised
"kidels" to remain in the Thames. The judges, having heard what he had to
say in defence, postponed the further hearing until after Trinity Sunday
(14th June). In the meantime, the citizens had the gratification of seeing
the constable removed from office, for allowing the Tower to fall into
such a dilapidated state, that the rain came in upon the queen's bed,
while giving birth to a daughter, afterwards known as Joanna of the
Tower,(388) and destined to become the wife of David the Second, King of
Scotland.
(M237)
On the judges resuming their sittings after Trinity Sunday, they sat no
longer in the Great Hall or the Lesser Hall, "as well by reason of the
queen being in childbed there, as already mentioned, as of the fortifying
of the Tower, through fear of the Earl of Hereford and his accomplices,
who were in insurrection on every side." Temporary buildings had to be
found for them. A fortnight later there were signs of the Iter being
brought to an abrupt termination, the citizens having represented that
they could not possibly keep proper watch and ward owing to disturbances
consequent to the holding of the Iter;(389) and within a week, viz., on
4th July, it was actually closed.
(M238)
It was the bursting of the storm which had long been gathering against the
king's new favourites, the Despensers, father and son, that caused the
sudden termination of the Iter, and it was the fear lest he should lose
the support of the city against Lancaster and his allies that caused the
king quickly to restore to the citizens their Mayor. Hamo de Chigwell took
the place of the deposed Farndon.(390)
(M239)
Within a few hours of the closing of the Iter Chigwell and the aldermen
were summoned to Westminster to say whether they would be willing to
support the king and to preserve the city of London to his use in his
contest with the barons. Edward and his council received for answer that
the mayor and his brethren "were unwilling to refuse the safe keeping of
the city," but would keep it for the king and his heirs. They were
thereupon enjoined to prepare a scheme for its defence for submission to
the king's council, and this was accordingly done.(391)
(M240)
The city was, however, wavering in its support; Chigwell did his best to
hold the balance between king and baron, and to hold a middle course,
avoiding offence as far as was possible to one side and the other. After
the lapse of a few days, a letter came from the Earl of Hereford,
addressed to the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen and commonalty of the city,
asking for an interview. It was then decided, after due deliberation in
the Court of Husting, to ask Edward's advice on the matter before
returning an answer. At first the king was disinclined to allow the
interview, but when the lords approached nearer London, and resistance
would have been hopeless, he gave way, and a deputation was appointed to
meet the lords at the Earl of Lancaster's house in Holborn. To them the
earl explained the aim and object of himself and his confederates. They
were desirous of nothing so much as the good of the realm and the
overthrow of the Despensers, father and son, who led the king astray and
had caused the Iter to be held at the Tower in order to injure the city.
Having listened to the earl's statement, the recorder, on behalf of the
deputation, asked for a few days' delay in order to consult with the mayor
and commonalty. The matter was laid before an assembly which comprised
representatives from each ward (30th July), and again it was resolved to
ask the king's advice. At length a reply was sent to the lords to the
effect that the citizens would neither aid the Despensers nor oppose the
lords, but the city would in the meantime be strongly guarded for the
preservation of order. With this the lords were satisfied.(392)
(M241)
A fortnight later (14th August) the king, moved by the intercession of the
Earl of Pembroke, the bishops, and his queen, yielded to the lords, and an
agreement between them was reduced to writing and publicly read in
Westminster Hall.(393)
(M242)
Chigwell's conduct throughout met with so much favour from the citizens as
well as from the king that when the latter issued letters patent(394)
granting a free election of a mayor in October of this year, it was
decided to continue Chigwell in office without a fresh election.(395)
(M243)
Such popularity as the king had for a time achieved by his concession to
the demands of the lords, however unwillingly made, was enhanced by
another circumstance. An insult had been offered to the queen by Lady
Badlesmere, who had refused to admit her into her castle at Ledes, co.
Kent, when on her way to Canterbury. The queen was naturally indignant,
and the unexpected energy displayed by Edward in avenging the insult gave
fresh strength to his cause. With the assistance of a contingent sent by
the citizens of London, the king beseiged the castle, and, having taken
it, hanged the governor.(396) Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, the owner of
the castle, was afterwards taken and put to death at Canterbury.
(M244)
Elated with his success, the king forthwith proceeded to issue "a charter
of service"--_i.e._, a charter binding the citizens to serve him in future
wars--which he wished the good people of London to have sealed, "but the
people of the city would not accede to it for all that the king could
do."(397) In the place of this charter, however, he was induced to grant
the citizens one of a diametrically opposite nature, whereby it was
provided that the aids granted by the citizens upon this occasion should
not be prejudicial to the mayor and citizens, nor be looked upon as
establishing a precedent.(398)
(M245)
Having thus secured an acknowledgment of their rights, the citizens were
ready enough to waive them when occasion required. The battle of
Boroughbridge (16 March, 1322) was won for the king by the aid of
Londoners. We know, at least, that when he started from London at the
close of 1321 he was accompanied by five hundred men at arms from the
city, and one hundred and twenty more were sent after him on the 3rd
March.(399)
(M246)
The Londoners were by no means to be despised in the field. Froissart
describes them as being very dangerous when once their blood was up, and
slaughter on the battle field only gave them fresh courage.(400) A late
writer(401) who was pleased to describe the city's military force as "an
army of drapers' apprentices and journeymen tailors, with common
councilmen for captains and aldermen for colonels," gave it credit,
nevertheless, for natural courage, which, combined with befitting
equipment and martial discipline, rendered the force a valuable ally and a
formidable enemy.
(M247)
The Earl of Lancaster, who was made prisoner at Boroughbridge, and
afterwards executed before his own castle at Pomfret, had come to be a
great favourite with the Londoners, in whose eyes he appeared as the
champion of the oppressed against the strong. His memory was long
cherished in the city, and miracles were believed to have taken place--the
crooked made straight, the blind receiving sight and the deaf
hearing--before the tablet he had set up in St. Paul's commemorative of the
king's submission to the Ordinances. Edward ordered the removal of the
tablet, but it was again set up as soon as all power had passed from his
hands.(402)
(M248)
Edward, again a free ruler, lost no time in revoking these Ordinances. The
elder Despenser he raised to the earldom of Winchester.(403) This was in
May, 1322; a year later (April, 1323), he deposed Chigwell, who had again
been re-elected to the mayoralty in the previous October, and put in his
place Nicholas de Farndon,(404) thus reversing the order of things in
1321, when Farndon had been deposed and his place taken by Chigwell.
The deposed mayor, however, was ordered to keep close attendance on the
Court, as were also three other London citizens, viz.: Hamo Godchep,
Edmund Lambyn, and Roger le Palmere; and in the following November he
recovered his position,(405) and held it for the rest of Edward's reign.
(M249)
The king's triumph was destined to be short-lived. In August, 1323, Roger
Mortimer, a favourite of the queen, effected his escape from the Tower,
where he had lain prisoner since January, 1322. The divided feeling of the
citizens which had been more or less apparent since the year of the great
Iter, now began to assert itself. Mortimer's escape had taken place with
the connivance, if not active assistance, of a leading citizen, Richard de
Betoyne, and he took sanctuary on the property of another leading citizen,
John Gisors.(406) In November the citizens thought fit to close their
gates, to prevent surprise.(407)
(M250)
In the following year (1324), a quarrel broke out between two of the city
guilds, the weavers and the goldsmiths. Fights took place in the streets
and lives were lost.(408) How far, if at all, such a quarrel had any
political significance it is difficult to say, but it is not unlikely, at
a time when the guilds were winning their way to chartered rights, that
occasionally their members took sides in the political struggle that was
then being carried on.
(M251)
Edward, in the meanwhile, was threatened with war by France, unless he
consented to cross the sea and do homage to the French king for the
possessions he held in that country. This the Despensers dared not allow
him to do. A compromise was therefore effected. Queen Isabel, who was not
sorry for an opportunity of quitting the side of a husband who had seized
all her property, removed her household, and put her on board wages at
twenty shillings a day,(409) undertook, with the king's assent, to revisit
her home and to bring about a settlement. Accordingly, on the 9th
March,(410) 1324, she crossed over to France, where she was afterwards
joined by Mortimer and her son.
(M252)
Once on the continent, the queen threw off the mask, and immediately began
to concert measures against the king and the Despensers. By negotiating a
marriage for her son with the daughter of the Count of Hainault, she
contrived to raise supporters in England, whilst by her affected humility
and sorrow, displayed by wearing simple apparel as one that mourned for
her husband, she won the sympathy of all who beheld her.(411) The king, on
the other hand, publicly forbade any one holding correspondence with her,
caused provisions to be laid up in the Tower in case of emergency, and
prepared a fleet to prevent her landing.
(M253)
It was all in vain. The majority of the citizens had made up their mind to
give him no more support. On the 24th September, 1326, Isabel, in spite of
all precautions, effected a landing near Harwich; and Edward, as soon as
he was made aware of her arrival in England, took fright and left London
for the west. The queen, who was accompanied by her son and her "gentle
Mortimer," gave out that she came as an avenger of Earl Thomas, whose
memory was yet green in the minds of the citizens, and as the enemy of the
Despensers.(412) Adherents quickly came in from all sides, and with these
she leisurely (_quasi peregrinando_) followed up the king.(413)
In the meantime a letter had been despatched to the city in her name and
that of her son, desiring its assistance in destroying "the enemies of the
land." To this letter, we are told, no answer was sent "through fear of
the king." Another letter was therefore sent to the same effect, in which
Hugh Despenser was especially named as one to be destroyed, and an
immediate answer was requested.(414) This letter was affixed to the cross
in Cheapside and copies circulated through the city.
On the 15th October, the city broke out into open rebellion. The mayor and
other leading men had gone to the house of the Blackfriars to meet the
Bishops of London and Exeter. The mob, now fairly roused by the queen's
second letter, hurried thither and forced them to return to the Guildhall,
the timid Chigwell "crying mercy with clasped hands," and promising to
grant all they required. A proclamation was made shortly afterwards to the
effect that "the enemies to the king and the queen and their son" should
depart the city.(415)
(M254)
One unfortunate man, John le Marchall, suspected of being employed by Hugh
Despenser as a spy, was seized and incontinently beheaded in Cheapside.
The mob, having tasted blood, hastened to sack the house of Walter
Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, who as Edward's treasurer, had confiscated
the queen's property. It so happened, that the bishop himself, attended by
two esquires, was riding towards the city intending to have his midday
meal at his house in Old Dean's Lane (now Warwick Lane), before proceeding
to the Tower. Hearing cries of "Traitor!" he guessed that something was
wrong, and made for sanctuary in St. Paul's. He was caught, however, just
as he was about to enter the north door, dragged from his horse, carried
to Chepe, and there put to death in the same way as John le Marchall had
been executed a short hour before.(416)
The bishop's two attendant esquires also perished at the hands of the mob.
Their bodies were allowed to lie stark naked all that day in the middle of
Chepe. The head of the bishop was sent to the queen at Gloucester,(417)
but his corpse was reverently carried into St. Paul's after vespers by the
canons and vicars of the cathedral. It was not allowed, however, to remain
there long; for hearing that the bishop had died under sentence of
excommunication, the authorities caused it to be removed to the church of
St. Clement Danes, near which stood the bishop's new manor house of which
we are reminded at the present day by Exeter Hall. The parish church was
in the gift of the Bishop of Exeter for the time being, and John Mugg,
then rector, owed his preferment to Stapleton. He was, therefore, guilty
of gross ingratitude when he refused to take in the corpse of his patron,
or to allow it the rites of burial. Certain poor women had more
compassion; they at least cast a piece of old cloth over the corpse for
decency's sake and buried it out of sight, although without any attempt to
make a grave and "without any office of priest or clerk." Thus, it
remained till the following month of February, when it was disinterred and
taken to Exeter. The treatment of Bishop Stapleton caused other prelates
to look to themselves, and many of them, including the primate himself,
began to make overtures of submission to Queen Isabel.
After the Bishop's murder there was no pretence of government in the city.
The mob did exactly as they liked. They sacked the houses of Baldock, the
Chancellor, and carried off the treasure he had laid up in St. Paul's. The
property of the Earl of Arundel, recently executed at Hereford, which lay
in the Priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, shared the same fate. The banking
house of the Bardi, containing the wealth accumulated by the younger
Despenser, was sacked under cover of night. The Tower was entered, the
prisoners set free, and new officers appointed.(418) All this was done in
the face of a proclamation, calling upon the citizens to sink their
differences and to settle their disputes by lawful means.(419)
(M255) (M256)
When the Feast of St. Simon and Jude again came round, and Chigwell's term
of office expired by efflux of time, no election of a successor took
place, but on the 15th November, the Bishop of Winchester paid a visit to
the Guildhall, where, after receiving the freedom of the city, and
swearing "to live and die with them in the cause, and to maintain the
franchise," he presented a letter from the queen, permitting the citizens
freely to elect their mayor as in the days before the Iter of 1321, for
since that time no mayor had been elected, save only by the king's
favour.(420) They at once elected Richard de Betoyne, whom the queen had
that day appointed Warden of the Tower, conjointly with John de
Gisors.(421) Thus were these two aldermen recompensed for the assistance
they had rendered Mortimer in his escape from the Tower.
(M257)
On the 13th January, 1327--exactly one week before the king met his
wretched end in Berkeley Castle--Mortimer came to the Guildhall with a
large company including the Archbishop of Canterbury and several bishops,
and one and all made oath to maintain the cause of the queen and of her
son, and to preserve the liberties of the City of London. This was
solemnly done in the presence of the mayor, the chamberlain, Andrew Horn,
and a vast concourse of citizens. The Archbishop, who had offended many of
the citizens by annulling the decree of exile passed against the
Despensers in 1321, now sought their favour by the public offer of a gift
to the commonalty of 50 tuns of wine.(422)