(M334)
Shortly after Edward had breathed his last, a deputation from the City
waited upon the Prince of Wales at Kennington. John Philipot again acted
as spokesman, and after alluding to the loss which the country had
recently sustained, and recommending the City of London--the "king's
chamber"--to the prince's favour, begged him to assist in effecting a
reconciliation with Lancaster. This Richard promised to do, and a few days
later the deputation again waited on the young king--this time at Shene,
where preparations were being made for the late king's obsequies--and a
reconciliation took place, the king kissing each member of the deputation,
and promising to be their friend, and to look after the City's interests
as if they were his own.(617) Formal announcement of the reconciliation
was afterwards made at Westminster, and Peter de la Mare, long a prisoner
in Nottingham Castle, was set free, to the great joy of the citizens.(618)
(M335)
At the express wish of the citizens, Richard--the "Londoners' king," as the
nobles were in the habit of cynically styling the new sovereign, for the
reason that he had ascended the throne more by the assistance of the
_bourgeois_ Londoner than of the nobility(619)--took up his quarters at the
Tower, whence he proceeded in state to Westminster for his coronation.
Great preparations were made in the city to tender his progress through
the streets one of exceptional splendour. The claim of the mayor and
citizens to assist the chief butler at the banquet was discourteously
refused by Robert Belknap, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who bluntly
told them that they might be of service in washing up the pots and pans.
The citizens had their revenge, however. They set up an effigy of the man
at a conspicuous arch or tower in Cheapside, in which he appeared to the
whole of the procession as it passed on its way to Westminster, in the
ignominious attitude of vomiting wine.(620) This was enough; the Londoners
gained the day, and were allowed to perform their customary services at
the banquet, and the mayor got his gold cup.(621)
(M336)
Richard was only eleven years of age when raised to the throne. A council
was therefore appointed to govern in his name. Neither the Duke of
Lancaster nor any other of the king's uncles were elected councillors,
and, for a time, John of Gaunt retired into comparative privacy. The task
of the council was not easy. The French plundered the coast,(622) and the
Scots plundered the borders. Money was sorely needed. The City consented
to advance the sum of L5,000 upon the security of the customs of the Port
of London and of certain plate and jewels,(623) and when parliament met
(13 Oct., 1377) it made a liberal grant of two tenths and two fifteenths,
which was to be collected without delay, on the understanding that two
treasurers should be appointed to superintend the due application of the
money.(624) The two treasurers appointed for this purpose were two
citizens of note, namely, William Walworth and John Philipot, of whose
financial capability mention has already been made.
(M337)
Before parliament broke up it gave its assent to a new charter to the
City.(625) Foreigners (_i.e._ non-freemen) were again forbidden to traffic
in the city among themselves by retail, and the City's franchises were
confirmed and enlarged. So much importance was attached to this charter
that Brembre, the mayor, caused its main provisions to be published
throughout the city.(626)
(M338)
Lancaster soon became tired of playing a subordinate part in the
government of the kingdom. As a preliminary step to higher aims, he
contrived, after some little opposition, to obtain the removal of the
subsidy granted by the last parliament, out of the hands of Walworth and
Philipot into his own, although these men had given no cause for suspicion
of dishonourable conduct in the execution of their public trust.(627)
(M339)
The energetic John Philipot soon found other work to do. The English coast
had recently become infested with a band of pirates, who, having already
made a successful descent upon Scarborough, were now seeking fresh
adventures. Philipot fitted out a fleet at his own expense, and putting to
sea succeeded in capturing the ringleader,(628) a feat which rendered him
so popular as to excite the jealousy of the Duke of Lancaster and other
nobles. His fellow citizens showed their appreciation of his character by
electing him to succeed Brembre in the mayoralty in October (1378).(629)
(M340)
The citizens were, however, split up into factions, one party, with
Philipot and Brembre at his head, maintaining a stubborn opposition to
Lancaster, whilst another, under the leadership of Walworth and John de
Northampton, favoured the duke. These factions were continually plotting
and counter-plotting one against the other. At Gloucester, to which the
duke had brought the parliament in 1378, in the hope of escaping from the
interference of the "ribald" Londoners,(630) Brembre was arraigned on a
charge of having connived during his recent mayoralty at an attack made on
the house of the duke's younger brother, Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of
Buckingham, and although he succeeded in proving his innocence, the earl
and his party continued to use threats, and Brembre, in order to smooth
matters over, consented to be mulcted in 100 marks. When the matter was
reported to the Common Council at home (25 Nov.), that body not only
signified its approval of his conduct--"knowing for certain that it was for
no demerits of his own, but for the preservation of the liberties of the
city, and for the extreme love which he bore it, that he had undergone
such labours and expenses,"--but recouped him what he had disbursed.(631)
(M341)
In course of time the earl and his followers succeeded in persecuting
Brembre to a disgraceful death. At present they contented themselves with
damaging the trade of the city, so far as they could, by leaving the city
_en masse_ and withdrawing their custom. The result was so disastrous to
the citizens, more especially to the hostel keepers and victuallers, that
the civic authorities resolved to win the nobles back to the city by
wholesale bribery, and, as the city's "chamber" was empty, a subscription
list was set on foot to raise a fund for the purpose. Philipot, the mayor,
headed the list with L10, a sum just double that of any other subscriber.
Six others, among them being Brembre (the earl's particular enemy) and
Walworth, subscribed respectively L5; whilst the rest contributed sums
varying from L4 down to five marks, the last mentioned sum being
subscribed by Richard "Whytyngdon" of famous memory.(632)
(M342)
The grants made to the king by the parliament at Gloucester were soon
exhausted by the war, and recourse was had, as usual, to the City. In
February, 1379, the mayor and aldermen were sent for to Westminster. They
were told that the king's necessities demanded an immediate supply of
money, and that the Duke of Lancaster and the rest of the nobility had
consented to contribute. What would the City do? After a brief
consultation apart, the mayor and aldermen suggested that the usual course
should be followed and that they should be allowed to consult the general
body of the citizens in the Guildhall. Eventually the City consented to
advance another sum of L5,000 on the same security as before, but any tax
imposed by parliament at its next session was to be taken as a set
off.(633)
(M343)
At the session of parliament held in April and May (1379), the demand for
further supply became so urgent that a poll-tax was imposed on a graduated
scale according to a man's dignity, ranging from ten marks or L6 1_s._
4_d._ imposed on a duke, to a groat or four pence which the poorest
peasant was called upon to pay. The mayor of London, assessed as an earl,
was to pay L4; and the aldermen, assessed as barons, L2. The sum thus
furnished by the city amounted to less than L700,(634) and the whole
amount levied on the country did not exceed L22,000, a sum far short of
what had been anticipated.
(M344)
In the following year (1380) there was a recurrence to the old method of
raising money, but this proving still insufficient a poll-tax was again
resorted to. This time, the smallest sum exacted was not less than three
groats, and was payable on everyman, woman and unmarried child, above the
age of fifteen, throughout the country. The amount thus raised in the city
and liberties was just over L1000.(635) The tax was especially irritating
from its inquisitorial character, and led to serious consequences.
(M345)
The country was already suffering under a general discontent, when a
certain Wat Tyler in Kent struck down a collector of the poll-tax, who
attempted in an indecent manner to discover his daughter's age. This was
the signal for a revolt of the peasants from one end of England to the
other, not only against payment of this particular tax, but against taxes
and landlords generally. The men of Essex joined forces with those of Kent
on Blackheath, and thence marched on London. With the aid of sympathisers
within the City's gates, the effected an entrance on the night of the 12th
of June, and made free with the wine cellars of the wealthier class. The
next day, the rebels, more mad than drunk (_non tam ebrii quam dementes_),
stirred up the populace to make a raid upon the Duke of Lancaster's palace
of the Savoy. This they sacked and burnt to the ground. They next vented
their wrath upon the Temple, and afterwards upon the house of the Knight's
Hospitallers at Clerkenwell. In the meantime reinforcements were gathering
in Essex under the leadership of one known as "Jack Straw," and were
hurrying to London. At Mile End they were met (14 June) by the young king
himself, who set out from the Tower for that purpose, accompanied by a
retinue of knights and esquires on horseback, as well as by his mother in
a drawn vehicle. The rebels demanded the surrender of all traitors to the
king. To this Richard gave his assent, and having done so returned to the
city to take up his quarters at the Wardrobe, near Castle Baynard, whilst
the rebels, availing themselves of the king's word, hurried off to the
Tower. There they found Simon of Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, and he
and others were beheaded on Tower Hill. The rest of the day and the whole
of the next were given up to plunder and massacre, so that the narrow
streets were choked with corpses. Among those who perished at the hands of
the rebels was Richard Lyons, the deposed alderman. At length, on the
evening of Saturday, the 15th, when the king had ridden to Smithfield
accompanied by Walworth, the mayor, and a large retinue in order to
discuss matters with Wat Tyler (the Essex men had for the most part
returned home), an altercation happened to arise between Tyler and one of
the royal suite. Words were about to lead to blows when the mayor himself
interposed, and summarily executed the king's order to arrest Tyler by
bringing him to the ground by a fatal blow of his dagger. Deprived of
their leader the mob became furious, and demanded Walworth's head; the
mayor, however, contrived to slip back into the City, whence he quickly
returned with such a force that the rioters were surrounded and compelled
to submit. The king intervened to prevent further bloodshed, and knighted
on the field not only Walworth, but also Nicholas Brembre, John Philipot
and Robert Launde.(636) The same day a royal commission was issued to
enquire into the late riot and to bring the offenders to account.(637)
(M346)
Orders were given on the 20th June to each alderman to provide men-at-arms
and archers to guard in turns the city's gates, and to see that no armed
person entered the city, except those who declared on oath that they were
about to join the king's expedition against the rebels. In the meantime,
the aldermen were to make returns of all who kept hostels in their several
wards.(638) In a list, containing nearly 200 names of divers persons of
bad character, who had left the city by reason of the insurrection,(639)
there appear the names of two servants of Henry "Grenecobbe." The name is
far from common, and we shall not perhaps be far wrong in conjecturing
that the owner of it was a relation of William "Gryndecobbe," who led the
insurgents against the abbey of St. Albans and compelled the abbot to
surrender its charter.(640)
(M347)
"Jack Straw," on being brought before the mayor, was induced by promises
of masses for the good of his soul, to confess the nature of the
intentions of the rioters, which were to use the king's person as a
stalking horse for drawing people to their side, and eventually to kill
him and all in authority throughout the kingdom. The mendicant friars, who
were believed to be at the bottom of the insurrection,(641) were alone to
be spared. Wat Tyler was to be made king of Kent, whilst others were to be
placed in similar positions over the rest of the counties. The mayor
sentenced him to be beheaded. This done, his head was set up on London
Bridge, where Wat Tyler's already figured.(642)
(M348)
The discontent which had given rise to the peasants' revolt, had been
fanned by the attacks made by Wycliffe's "simple priests" upon the rich
and idle clergy. The revolt occasioned a bitter feeling among the landlord
class against Wycliffe and his followers, and after its suppression the
Lollards were made the object of much animadversion. Their preaching was
forbidden,(643) and Wycliffe was obliged to retire to his country
parsonage, where he continued to labour with his pen for the cause he had
so much at heart, until his death in 1384.
(M349)
The majority of the citizens favoured the doctrines of Wycliffe and his
followers and endeavoured to carry them out. The Duke of Lancaster had no
real sympathy with the Lollards; he only wished to make use of them for a
political purpose. It was otherwise with the Londoners, and with John de
Northampton, a supporter of the duke, who succeeded to the mayoralty soon
after the suppression of the revolt. Under Northampton--a man whom even his
enemies allowed to be of stern purpose, not truckling to those above him,
nor bending to his inferiors,(644)--many reforms were carried out,
ecclesiastical as well as civil.
The ecclesiastical courts having grossly failed in their duty, the
citizens themselves, fearful of God's vengeance if matters were allowed to
continue as they were, undertook the work of reform within the city's
walls. The fees of the city parsons were cut down. The fee for baptism was
not to exceed forty pence, whilst that for marriage was not as a general
rule to be more than half a mark. One farthing was all that could be
demanded for a mass for the dead, and the priest was bound to give change
for a half-penny when requested or forego his fee.(645) Steps were taken
at the same time to improve the morality of the city by ridding the
streets of lewd women and licentious men. On the occasion of a first
offence, culprits of either sex were subjected to the ignominy of having
their hair cropt for future identification, and then conducted with rough
music through the public thoroughfares, the men to the pillory and the
women to the "thewe." After a third conviction, they were made to abjure
the City altogether.(646) It was during Northampton's first year of the
mayoralty that the citizens succeeded in breaking down the monopoly of the
free fish-mongers. A number of "dossers" or baskets for carrying fish were
also seized because they were deficient in holding capacity, and on that
account were calculated to defraud the purchaser.(647) But, although a
mayor in those days exercised, no doubt, greater power in the municipal
government than now, we must be careful to avoid the common mistake of
attributing to the individuality of the mayor for the time being what was
really the action of the citizens as a body corporate.
(M350)
In October, 1382, Northampton was elected mayor for the second time, and
Philipot, his rival, either resigned or was deprived of his
aldermancy.(648) His re-election was at the king's express wish. On the
6th he wrote to the sheriffs, aldermen and commons of the city intimating
that, whilst anxious to leave the citizens free choice in the matter of
election of their mayor, he would be personally gratified if their choice
fell upon the outgoing mayor. At first Northampton declined re-election,
but he afterwards consented to serve another year on receiving a written
request from the king.(649) His hesitation was probably due to the
factious state of the city. Brembre and Philipot were not his only
enemies. Another alderman, Nicholas Exton, of Queenhithe Ward, had
recently been removed from his aldermancy for opprobrious words used to
Northampton during his first mayoralty. A petition had been laid before
the Court of Common Council in August, 1382, when Exton himself being
present, and seeing the turn affairs were taking, endeavoured to
anticipate the judgment of the court, by himself asking to be exonerated
from his office, declaring at the same time that he had offered a large
sum of money to be released at his election in the first instance. The
court wishing for further time to consider the matter adjourned. At its
next meeting a similar petition was again presented, but the court
hesitated to pronounce judgment in the absence of Exton, who was summoned
to appear at the next Common Council. When the court met again, it was
found that Exton had ignored the summons. Judgment was, therefore,
pronounced in his absence and he was deprived of his aldermancy.(650)
(M351)
At the close of Northampton's second mayoralty (Oct., 1383), his place was
taken by his rival, Nicholas Brembre,(651) and a general reversal of the
order of things took place. The free-fishmongers recovered their ancient
privileges,(652) and the judgment passed upon Exton as well as a similar
judgment passed upon another alderman, Adam Carlile, were reversed.(653)
(M352)
Soon after Brembre's election the king confirmed the City's liberties by
charter,(654) which had the assent of parliament. Two years previously the
citizens had besought the newly-married queen to use her interest with
Richard to that end.(655) Her good offices, as well as the fact that the
City had recently advanced to the king the sum of 4,000 marks, on the
security of the royal crown and other things,(656) may have been
instrumental in obtaining for the citizens this fresh confirmation of
their rights.
(M353)
In January (1384) Northampton was bound over to keep the peace in the sum
of L5,000;(657) but in the following month he was put under arrest
(together with his brother, known as Robert "Cumberton," and another), for
raising a disturbance in the City, and sent to Corfe Castle.(658) For
Northampton's arrest, as well as for the summary execution of a certain
John Constantyn, a cordwainer, who had been convicted of taking a leading
part in the disturbance, Brembre received a letter of indemnity from the
king.(659) The riot had one good effect. It roused public opinion against
monopolies and restriction of trade to such an extent, that Richard very
soon afterwards caused the city to be opened freely to all foreigners
_(i.e._, non-freemen) wishing to sell fish or other victuals.(660)
(M354)
In August (1384) the opinion of each individual member of the Common
Council was taken on oath, as to whether it would be to the advantage or
disadvantage of the city if Northampton were allowed to return; and it was
unanimously found that his return would breed dissension rather than peace
and unity.(661) Armed with this _plebiscite_ the mayor and a number of
citizens, whom the king had summoned by name, attended a council at
Reading for the purpose of determining the fate of Northampton. The
accused contented himself with objecting to sentence being passed against
him in the absence of his patron the Duke of Lancaster. This, however,
availed him nothing, and he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in
Tintagel Castle.(662) Another authority(663) states that the mayor brought
with him to the council a man named Thomas Husk or Usk (whose name, by the
way, does not appear in the list which the king forwarded to the mayor),
who made a number of charges against Northampton. The prisoner so far
forgot himself in the royal presence as to call Usk a liar, and to
challenge him to a duel. Matters were not improved by Northampton's appeal
for delay in passing sentence upon him in the absence of the Duke of
Lancaster. Richard flushed crimson with anger at the proposal, declaring
that he was ready to sit in judgment upon the duke no less than on
Northampton, and forthwith ordered the latter's execution, and the
confiscation of his goods. The sentence would have been earned out but for
the timely intercession of the queen, who flung herself at her husband's
feet and begged for the prisoner's life. The queen's prayer was granted,
and Northampton was condemned to perpetual imprisonment and remitted to
Corfe Castle. Thence, at the beginning of September, he was removed to the
Tower of London, where two of his partisans, John More, one of the
sheriffs, and Richard Northbury, recently arrested, were lodged.
(M355)
The Chief Justice, Tressilian, hesitated to take any steps against the
prisoners, one of whom had already been tried and sentenced, asserting
that the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the mayor. His scruples,
however, on this score were easily set aside, and on the 10th September,
each of the prisoners was sentenced to be drawn and hanged. No sooner was
sentence passed than the chancellor, Michael de la Pole, entered on the
scene, and proclaimed that the king's grace had been extended to the
prisoners, that there lives would be spared, but that they would be
imprisoned until further favour should be shown them. They were
accordingly sent off to various fortresses; Northampton to Tintagel Castle
in Cornwall, Northbury to Corfe Castle, and More to Nottingham; and all
this arose, says the Chronicler, from the rivalry of fishmongers.(664)
(M356)
When Brembre sought re-election to the mayoralty in October, 1384, he
found a formidable competitor in Nicholas Twyford, with whom he had not
always been on the best of terms. It was in 1378, when Twyford was sheriff
and Brembre was occupying the mayoralty chair for the first time, that
they fell out, the occasion being one of those trade disputes so frequent
in the City's annals. A number of goldsmiths and pepperers had come to
loggerheads in St. Paul's Churchyard during sermon time, and the mayor had
committed one of the ringleaders to the compter. The culprit, however,
happened to be, like Twyford, a goldsmith, and was one of his suite.
Twyford resented his man being sent to prison, and for his pains got
arrested himself.(665) It was felt that the election would be hotly
contested and might lead to disturbance. Besides the customary precept
issued by the mayor forbidding any to appear who were not specially
summoned,(666) the king took the precaution of sending John de Nevill, of
Roby, to the Guildhall to see that the election was properly conducted. In
spite of all precautions, however, a disturbance took place, and some of
the rioters were afterwards bound over to keep the peace.(667) It is said
that Brembre himself secreted a body of men in the neighbourhood of the
Guildhall, and that when he found the election going against him, he
signalled for them, and Twyford's supporters were compelled to flee for
safety, and that thus the election was won.(668) Nothing of this appears
in the City's Records, where Brembre's re-election is entered in the
manner of the day.(669)
(M357)
In 1385 Brembre was again elected mayor, and continued in office until
October, 1386, when he was succeeded by his friend and ally, Nicholas
Exton. This was the fourth and last time Brembre was mayor. In the
meantime, the Duke of Lancaster and his party had renewed their efforts to
effect the release of Northampton and of his fellow prisoners, More and
Northbury, on the understanding that they were not to come near the City,
and Brembre again took the opinion of the aldermen and commons severally
as to the probable effect of the release of the prisoners. This occurred
in March, 1386, when it was unanimously resolved that danger would result
to the city if Northampton was allowed to come within 100 miles of
it.(670) The resolution caused much annoyance to the duke, who
characterised it as unreasonable and outrageous, and led to some heated
correspondence.(671) It had, however, the desired effect of at least
postponing the release of the prisoners.(672)
(M358)
A few months after Exton had taken Brembre's place as mayor (Oct., 1386),
the new mayor raised a commotion by ordering a book called "Jubilee,"
which Northampton is supposed to have compiled--or caused to be compiled
for the better government of the City, to be publicly burnt in Guildhall
yard.(673) The cordwainers of London, staunch supporters of Northampton
(the leader of the riot which led to Northampton's arrest in 1384 was a
cordwainer), complained to parliament of Exton. The book, said they, "
comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good government of the
City," which Exton and all the aldermen had sworn to maintain for ever,
and now he and his accomplices had burnt it without consent of the
commons, to the annihilation of many good liberties, franchises, and
customs of the City.(674) The book had already been subjected to revision
in June, 1384, when Brembre was mayor;(675) it was now utterly destroyed.
(M359)
In 1387 efforts were again made to secure Northampton's release, and this
time with success. On the 17th April Exton reported to the Common Council
that Lord Zouche was actually engaged in canvassing the king for the
release of Northampton and his allies. The Council thereupon unanimously
resolved to send a letter to Lord Zouche, on behalf of the entire
commonalty of the City, praying him to desist from his suit, and assuring
him of their loyalty to the king even unto death.(676) It also resolved to
send a deputation on horseback to the king, who was at "Esthamstede," to
ask his favour for the City, and to beg of him not to annul the charters
which he had already given to the citizens, more especially as touching
the release of the prisoners in question.
(M360)
On the 4th May the Recorder, William Cheyne, reported to the Common
Council assembled in the upper chamber of the Guildhall the result of the
interview with the king. The deputation had been received most graciously,
and the mayor had been particularly successful in his speech, setting
forth the dangers that would inevitably ensue, both to the king and to the
city, if pardon were granted to Northampton and his friends. The king had
replied that he would take good precautions for himself before he granted
them their liberty;(677) and with this answer the citizens had to be
content. The answer was an evasive one, if it be true, as one authority
states, that on the 27th April--the day on which the mayor had informed the
citizens of the intervention of Lord Zouche--Northampton had received his
pardon and been restored to his property.(678) His friends remained still
unsatisfied, and plagued the king for more favourable terms to such a
degree that Richard ordered (7 Oct.) proclamation to be made in the city
against any further entreaties being made to him on the subject.(679)
(M361)
Two days before the order for this proclamation, the king was informed by
letter of the nature of a fresh oath of allegiance(680) that had been
taken by the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city. He was
furthermore exhorted to give credence to what Nicholas Brembre might
inform him as to the state and government of the city, since there was no
one better informed than Brembre on the subject.
(M362)
To this the king sent a gracious reply.(681) He had learnt with much
pleasure from Nicholas Brembre of the allegiance of the citizens, which he
trusted would continue, as he would soon have good reason for paying a
visit to the city in person. He had heard that the new sheriffs were good
and trusty men, and he expressed a hope that at the approaching election
of a mayor they would choose one of whom he could approve, otherwise he
would decline to receive the mayor-elect at his presentation. He not only
forbade any further entreaties to be made to him touching Northampton,
More and Northbury, but commissioned enquiry to be made as to their
property in the city. He was especially gratified to learn that, in
accordance with his request, they had appointed Thomas Usk (the chief
witness against Northampton) to the office of under-sheriff, and promised
that such appointment should not be drawn into precedent. The citizens
were not slow to take the hint about the election of a new mayor, and
Exton was continued in office.(682)
(M363)
Great discontent had arisen meanwhile in the country at the lavish
expenditure of the king, without any apparent result in victories abroad,
such as had been gained in the glorious days of his predecessor. A cry for
reform and retrenchment was raised, and found a champion in the person of
the Duke of Gloucester, the youngest of the king's uncles. At his
instigation, the parliament which assembled on the 1st October, 1386,
demanded the dismissal of the king's ministers, and read him a lesson on
constitutional government which ended in a threat of deposition unless the
king should mend his ways. Richard was at the time only twenty-one years
of age. In the impetuosity of his youth he is recorded as having
contemplated a dastardly attempt upon the life of his uncle, whom he had
grown to hate as the cause of all his difficulties. A plan was laid, which
is said to have received Brembre's approbation, for beguiling the duke
into the city by an invitation to supper, and then and there making away
with him, but the duke was forewarned. The chronicler who records
Brembre's complicity in this nefarious design against Gloucester's life
also relates that Exton, who was mayor, refused to have anything to do
with it.(683)
(M364) (M365) (M366)
Before the end of the session, parliament had appointed a commission, with
Gloucester at its head, to regulate the government of the country and the
king's household. This very naturally excited the wrath of the hot-headed
king, who immediately set to work to form a party in opposition to the
duke. In August of the next year (1387) he obtained a declaration from
five of the justices to the effect that the commission was illegal. On the
28th October he sent the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Suffolk into
the city to learn whether he could depend upon the support of the
citizens. The answer could not have been regarded as unfavourable, for, on
the 10th November, the king paid a personal visit to the city and was
received with great ceremony.(684) On the following day (11 Nov.) orders
were given to the aldermen of the City to assemble the men of their
several wards, to see that they were suitably armed according to their
rank and estate, and to make a return of the same in due course.(685)
(M367)
On the 14th Gloucester formally charged the king's five counsellors--the
Archbishop of York, the Duke of Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, Chief
Justice Tressilian and Nicholas Brembre, "the false London knight," with
treason.(686) The king retaliated by causing proclamation to be made to
the effect that he had taken these same individuals under his own
protection, and that no one should harm them save at his own peril. This
protection was extended also to the king's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester,
and the Earls of Arundel and Warwick, the impeaching parties.
(M368)
On the 28th the mayor and aldermen were summoned to proceed to Windsor
forthwith, to consult upon certain matters very weighty (_certeines
treschargeauntes matirs_).(687) The City's archives contain no record of
what took place at the interview, but it appears that the object of the
conference was to ascertain how many men-at-arms the city would be likely
to furnish the king at a crisis. The answer given by the mayor was not
encouraging; the citizens were merchants and craftsmen, and not soldiers,
save for the defence of the city itself; and the mayor straightway asked
the king's permission to resign his office.(688)
(M369) (M370)
Finding that he could not rely on any assistance from the Londoners--whom
Walsingham describes as fickle as a reed, siding at one time with the
lords and at another time with the king(689)--Richard was driven to
temporise. He had already promised that in the next parliament his
unfortunate advisers should be called to account, but long before
parliament met (3 Feb., 1388), four out of the five culprits had made good
their escape--at least for a time. Brembre alone was taken.(690) He had
anticipated the blow by making over all his property at home and abroad to
certain parties by deed, dated the 15th October, 1387, no doubt, upon a
secret trust.(691)
(M371)
Notwithstanding the evident coolness of the citizens towards him, Richard
determined to leave Windsor and spend Christmas at the Tower. He would be
safer there, and less subject to the dominating influence of the Duke of
Gloucester and the Earls of Arundel, Nottingham, Warwick and Derby, who
objected to his shaking off the fetters of the commission. As soon as his
intention was known, these five lords--who, from having been associated in
appealing against Richard's counsellors, were styled "appellant"--hastened
to London, and drawing up their forces outside the city's walls, demanded
admittance. After some little hesitation, the mayor determined to admit
them, defending his action to the king by declaring that they were his
true liege men and friends of the realm.(692)
(M372)
On the 18th January, 1388, the lords appeared at the Guildhall,
accompanied by the Archbishop, the Bishops of Ely, Hereford, Exeter, and
others. The Archbishop absolved the citizens of their oaths of allegiance,
whilst the Bishop of Ely, the lord treasurer, deprecated any remarks made
to the disparagement of the lords. The lords and the bishops had been
indicted on an iniquitous charge, and there were some among the citizens
who had been similarly indicted, but whether justly or unjustly he (the
bishop) could not say. That would be decided by parliament. In the
meantime they were ready to assist in settling the trade disputes in the
city, for it was absurd for one body of the citizens to attempt to
exterminate another. The citizens, however, showed no desire to accept the
proffered mediation.(693)
(M373)
When parliament met (3 Feb.), a formidable indictment of thirty-nine
charges was laid against the king's late advisers, of whom Brembre alone
appeared. On the 17th February, he was brought up by the constable of the
Tower, and was called on to answer off-hand the several charges of treason
alleged against him. He prayed for time to take counsel's advice. This
being refused, he claimed to support his cause by wager of battle, and
immediately the whole company of lords, knights, esquires, and commons,
flung down their gages so thick, we are told, that they "seemed like snow
on a winter's day."(694) But the lords declared that wager by battle did
not lie in such a case. When the trial was resumed on the following day,
so much opposition arose between the king, who spoke strongly in Brembre's
favour, and the lords, that it was decided to leave the question of the
prisoner's guilt or innocence to a commission of lords, who, to the
surprise and annoyance of the majority of the nobles, brought in a verdict
of not guilty. Brembre was not to be allowed thus to escape. The lords
sent for two representatives of the various crafts of the city to depose
as to Brembre's guilt; but even so, the lords failed to get any definite
verdict. At last they sent for the mayor, recorder, and some of the
aldermen (_seniores_) to learn what they had to say about the accused.
(M374)
One would have thought that with Nicholas Exton, his old friend and ally,
to speak up for him, Brembre's life would now at least be saved, even if
he were not altogether acquitted. It was not so, however. The mayor and
aldermen were asked as to their _opinion_ (not as to their knowledge),
whether Brembre was cognisant of certain matters, and they gave it as
their _opinion_ that Brembre was more likely to have been cognisant of
them than not. Turning then to the Recorder, the lords asked him how stood
the law in such a case? To which he replied, that a man who knew such
things as were laid to Brembre's charge, and knowing them failed to reveal
them, deserved death. On such evidence as this, Brembre was convicted on
the 20th February, and condemned to be executed.(695) He was drawn on a
hurdle through the city to Tyburn, showing himself very penitent and
earnestly desiring all persons to pray for him. At the last moment he
confessed that his conduct towards Northampton had been vile and wicked.
Whilst craving pardon of Northampton's son "he was suddenly turned off,
and the executioner cutting his throat, he died."(696)
(M375)
If we are to believe all that Walsingham records of Brembre, the character
and conduct of the city alderman and ex-mayor was bad indeed. Besides
conniving at the plot laid against Gloucester's life, which involved the
grossest breach of hospitality, he is recorded as having lain in wait with
an armed force at the Mews near Charing Cross, to intercept and massacre
the lords on their way to Westminster, to effect an arrangement with the
king, as well as having entertained the idea of cutting the throats of a
number of his fellow-citizens, and placing himself at the head of the
government of the city, the name of which he proposed changing to that of
"Little Troy."(697)
(M376)
Of Brembre's associates, Tressilian was captured during the trial, torn
from the Sanctuary at Westminster, and hanged on the 19th. Another to
share the same fate was Thomas Uske, who had been one of the chief
witnesses against Northampton. He was sentenced to death by parliament on
the 4th March, and died asseverating to the last that he had done
Northampton no injury, but that every word he had deposed against him the
year before was absolutely true.(698)
(M377)
The lords appellant, who were now complete masters of the situation,
insisted upon the proceedings of this "merciless" parliament, as its
opponents called it, being ratified by oath administered to prelates,
knights, and nobles of the realm, as well as to the mayor, aldermen, and
chief burgesses of every town. On the 4th June--the day parliament rose--a
writ was issued in Richard's name, enjoining the administration of this
oath to those aldermen and citizens of London who had not been present in
parliament when the oath was administered there.(699)
(M378)
In the meantime the continued jealousy existing among the city guilds--the
Mercers, Goldsmiths, Drapers, and others, objecting to Fishmongers and
Vintners taking any part in the government of the city on the ground that
they were victuallers, and as such forbidden by an ordinance passed when
Northampton was mayor to hold any municipal office(700)--had led parliament
(14 May) to proclaim free trade throughout the kingdom.(701) A party in
the city tried to get parliament to remove Exton from the mayoralty on the
ground of his having connived at the curtailment of the City's liberties
and franchises. The attempt, however, failed, and he remained in office
until succeeded by Nicholas Twyford (Oct., 1388).(702) Although Twyford
belonged to the party of Northampton as distinguished from that of Brembre
and Exton, his election raised little or no opposition, such as had been
anticipated. When he went out of office in October, 1389, however, party
strife in the city again showed itself. The majority of the citizens voted
William Venour, a grocer, into the mayoralty, but the choice was strongly
opposed by the Goldsmiths, the Mercers, and the Drapers, who ran another
candidate, one of their own body, Adam Bamme, a goldsmith.(703)
(M379)
Some months before the close of Twyford's mayoralty, Richard had succeeded
in gaining his independence (May, 1389), which he was induced by
Lancaster, on his return after a prolonged absence abroad, to exercise at
length in favour of Northampton, by permitting him once more to return to
London, although only as a stranger.(704) This was in July. In December,
letters patent granting him a free pardon were issued, containing no such
restriction.(705) His re-appearance in the streets of the city revived the
old party spirit, and Adam Bamme, who had succeeded Venour in the
mayoralty, found it expedient to forbid all discussion of the rights and
the wrongs of the several parties of Northampton and Brembre on pain of
imprisonment.(706) Four more years elapsed before Northampton was
re-instated in the freedom of the city.(707)
(M380)
For some years Richard governed not unwisely. In 1392, however, he
quarrelled with the city. Early in that year he called upon every
inhabitant, whose property for the last three years was worth L40 in land
or rent, to take upon himself the honour of knighthood. The sheriffs,
Henry Vanner and John Shadworth, made a return that all tenements and
rents in the city were held of the king _in capite_ as fee burgage at a
fee farm (_ad feodi firmam_); that by reason of the value of tenements
varying from time to time, and many of them requiring repair from damage
by fire and tempest, their true annual value could not be ascertained, and
that, therefore, it was impossible to make a return of those who possessed
L40 of land or rent as desired.(708)
(M381)
This answer was anything but agreeable to the king. But he had other cause
just now for being offended with the city. Being in want of money, he had
offered a valuable jewel to the citizens as security for a loan, and the
citizens had excused themselves on the plea that they were not so well off
as they used to be, since foreigners had been allowed to enjoy the same
privileges in the city as themselves. Having failed in this quarter, the
king had resorted to a Lombard, who soon was able to accommodate him; but
when the king learnt on enquiry that the money so obtained had been
advanced to the Lombard merchant by the very citizens who had refused to
lend it to the king himself, his anger knew no bounds,(709) and he
summoned John Hende, the mayor, the sheriffs, the aldermen, and
twenty-four of the chief citizens(710) of the City to attend him in June,
at Nottingham. They accordingly set out on their journey on the 19th June,
and arrived in Nottingham on the 23rd; the government of the city being
left in the meanwhile in the hands of William Staundon. On the 25th they
appeared before the lords of the council, when the chancellor rated them
roundly for paying so little attention to the king's writ--the writ
touching knighthood--and complained of the defective manner in which the
city was governed.(711)
(M382)
He thereupon dismissed the mayor from office, committing him to Windsor
Castle. The sheriffs were likewise dismissed, one being sent to Odyham
Castle, and the other to the Castle of Wallingford. The rest of the
citizens were ordered to return home.(712)
(M383)
At nine o'clock in the morning of the 1st July, Sir Edward Dalyngrigge
appeared in the Guildhall, and there, before an immense assembly of the
commons, read the king's commissions appointing him warden of the city and
the king's escheator. The deposed sheriffs were succeeded by Gilbert
Maghfeld, or Maunfeld, and Thomas Newton, who remained in office, by the
king's appointment,(713) until the end of the year, when they were
re-elected, the one by the warden and the other by the citizens.(714)
Dalyngrigge was soon afterwards succeeded in the office of warden by Sir
Baldwin de Radyngton.(715)
(M384)
By way of inflicting further punishment upon the citizens, Richard had
already removed the King's Bench and Exchequer from London to York;(716)
but the removal proved so much more prejudicial to the nation at large
than to the City of London that the courts were soon brought back.(717) He
would even have waged open war on them had he dared.(718) Instead of
proceeding to this extremity, he summoned the aldermen and 400 commoners
to Windsor(719) and fined the City L100,000. This was in July (1392). In
August the king notified his intention of passing through the city on his
way from Shene to Westminster. The citizens embraced the opportunity of
giving him a magnificent reception, which the king acknowledged in the
following month by restoring to them their liberties and setting free
their late mayor and sheriffs.(720) The fine of L100,000 recently imposed,
as well as other moneys which the king considered to be due to him from
the city, were also remitted.(721)
(M385)
Once more restored to their liberties, the citizens in the following year
(1393), with the assent of parliament, effected a reform in the internal
government of the city which the increasing population had rendered
necessary. The Ward of Farringdon Within and Without had increased so much
in wealth and population that it was deemed advisable to divide it into
two parts, each part having its own alderman. Accordingly, in the
following March (1394), Drew Barantyn was elected Alderman of Farringdon
Within, whilst John Fraunceys was elected for Farringdon Without. A more
important reform effected at the same time was the appointment of aldermen
for life instead of for a year only.(722)
(M386)
In the following year (1394) the queen--Anne of Bohemia--died. She had
always shown a friendly disposition towards the city, and it was mainly
owing to her intercession that Richard had restored its liberties.(723)
Her death removed one good influence about Richard, and marks a change of
policy or of character.(724) His second marriage in 1396 did not improve
matters. In that year the mayor, Adam Bamme, died in office, and instead
of allowing the citizens freely to elect a successor, he thrust upon them
Richard Whitington.(725) He arrested the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls
of Warwick and Arundel, and otherwise behaved so outrageously as to raise
doubts as to his sanity. He gave out that he was afraid to appear in
public for fear of the Londoners; but this was only a ruse for the purpose
of raising money.(726) Like Edward II, he borrowed money from anybody and
everybody, and often resorted to unconstitutional measures to fill his
purse. He made the nobles and his wealthier subjects sign blank cheques
for him to fill up at his pleasure.(727) These cheques, or "charters" as
they were called, were afterwards burnt by order of his successor on the
throne.
(M387)
A crisis was fast approaching. The Duke of Hereford, whom the king had
banished, and who, on the death of his father "time honoured Lancaster,"
succeeded to the title early in 1399, was prevailed upon to return to
England and strike a blow for the recovery of his inheritance which
Richard had seized. Richard, as if infatuated, took this inopportune
moment to sail to Ireland. Before setting out he made a last bid for the
favour of the citizens by again granting them permission to rule the fish
trade according to ancient custom.(728) It was too late; they had already
resolved to throw in their lot with Henry of Lancaster.
As soon as Henry had landed at Ravenspur (4th July) a special messenger
was despatched to the city with the news. The mayor was in bed, but he
hurriedly rose and took steps to proclaim Henry's arrival in England. "Let
us apparel ourselves and go and receive the Duke of Lancaster, since we
agreed to send for him," was the resolution of those to whom the mayor
conveyed the first tidings; and accordingly Drew Barentyn, who had
succeeded Whitington in October, 1398, and 500 other citizens, took horse
to meet the duke, whom they escorted to the city. The day that Henry
entered the city was kept as a holiday, "as though it had been the day for
the celebration of Easter."
(M388)
When Richard heard of Henry's landing he hurried back from Ireland. He was
met by the duke with a large force, which comprised 1,200 Londoners, fully
armed and horsed.(729) Finding resistance hopeless, the king made
submission, craving only that he might be protected from the Londoners,
who, he was convinced, bore him no good will. He was, in consequence,
secretly conveyed to the Tower under cover of night. Articles were drawn
up accusing him of misgovernment, and publicly read in the Guildhall. Four
of his advisers and supporters, whose names he gave up, hoping to gain
favour for himself thereby, were executed at a fishmonger's stall in
Cheapside. Sentence of deposition was passed against him, and Lancaster
proclaimed king in his stead under the title of King Henry IV.