(M661)
Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death
by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and
Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no
question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next
in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select
a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This
council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself
appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset.
At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle.
He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in
the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects
and received the honour of knighthood.(1266)
On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the
mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal(1267) in his
hand. The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The
conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar
had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and
cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the
conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet
Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the
"festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were
stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the
Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with
1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth
of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next
day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with
his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence,
after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the
customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its
cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.(1268)
(M662)
The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand.
Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but in
_dilettante_ fashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which
even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,(1269) had
been abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.(1270) The ruthless
destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of
his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order
(1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were
substituted for the original effigy of the saint.(1271) Henry himself only
coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was
to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the
city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the
doctrine and discipline of the Church.(1272)
Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament
of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in
August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of
five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was
nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the
masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it
were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a
spiritual man.(1273) Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of
London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of
irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the
sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of
punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street,
"disguised" as he was, with a paper on his head setting forth his offence.
He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed
to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found
sureties for good behaviour.(1274)
After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the
opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became
greater than ever.(1275) A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church
of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of
elevation.(1276) In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of
Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the
churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.(1277) On the 5th
May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before
the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the
misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already
had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.(1278)
In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a
charge made against a city curate that, about a month before, after
reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed
among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace
and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The
informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were
present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been
present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere
hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.(1279)
(M663)
The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a
fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which
this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means
of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the
street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the
court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and
caps violently pulled.(1280)
(M664)
The same statute--by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be
objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate,
ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be
thenceforth escheated to the Crown--dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation
of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies
who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these
heads. Three years after the passing of the Act the Corporation and the
companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective
properties to the amount of L939 2_s._ 5-1/2_d._ by payment to the Crown
of no less a sum than L18,744 11_s._ 2_d._(1281)
The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst
very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting
small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the
companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were
obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of
reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal
was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be
made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held
could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was
presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable
them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a
clear title.(1282)
(M665)
In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of
all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The
instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in
glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little
expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no
prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement" of the churches; and if
any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up
again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's
commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church
a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor
might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."(1283) These
instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly
considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the
result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and
quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and
to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest
parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the
removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut
the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what
images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had
offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken
down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these
points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the
council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any
further steps were taken.(1284)
The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout
the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The
churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls whitewashed, and
only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the
commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In
November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St.
John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of
the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special
intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded
to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish
church.(1285)
In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was
pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a
sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such
excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard
(April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at
the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention
has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required
material for building his new palace in the Strand,(1286) to enlarge which
he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the
Holy Innocents.(1287) The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new
order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir
Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit of the
interior of the cathedral, and said a _De profundis_ at the bishop's
tomb.(1288)
(M666)
Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of
vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St.
Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed
among the poor.(1289) They went further than this. They removed the fine
tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey
Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the
land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church
of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last
reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St.
Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be
established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ
Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more
convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the
antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same
time reduced the dimensions of the choir.(1290)
(M667)
At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the
mass.(1291) At the election of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day,
on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall
Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been
made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and
communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be
solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been
confiscated by Henry VIII)(1292) as theretofore, it further ordered that
the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests
there at the same mass.(1293) Orders were issued by the king's council
that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on
Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered
superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in
St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to
be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.(1294)
(M668)
The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and
contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally
incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the
other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal
authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to
"tune the pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the
Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having
the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically
answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had
previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop
of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.(1295) The same want of
uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their
congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke
opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the
devysyon."(1296)
(M669)
In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's
measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their
assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and
bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and
evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy
landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they
were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired
property.(1297) Insurrection broke out in various parts of the country.
Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was
raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was
taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at
once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and
for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was
ordered (_inter alia_) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should
requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to
caste downe thother."(1298) The city gates were constantly watched and the
walls mounted with artillery.(1299)
(M670)
In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of
July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St.
Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither
mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service
as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but
slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he
administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to
Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in
the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to
exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and
to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they
were threatened.(1300)
(M671)
Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through
the city to Westminster, accompanied by the Lord Protector and other
nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown
of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal
party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took
their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of
them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector
graciously bade him farewell.(1301)
(M672)
The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month
Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French
ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord
Protector open defiance at Whitehall.(1302) At midnight instructions were
sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not
denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had
been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The
western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the
abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious
movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and
more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of
enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the
leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself
sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure
before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At
length the rebels were met and defeated by a force under the command of
the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated
with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry
VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down
and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a
barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother
William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of
treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk.
Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his
brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham
Steeple.(1303)
(M673)
Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his
favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for
his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by
Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with
gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown
towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to
show their independence.
(M674)
On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to
the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the
earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the
council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and
conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of
the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous houses in four or five
different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the
commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with
the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting
the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded
the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person
and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke
than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the
sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with
God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or
perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to
see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that no _materiel_
of war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or
proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.(1304)
(M675)
Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote
the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him
forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the
king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the
following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens
were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against
conspiracy.(1305)
(M676)
Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been
summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against Somerset,
to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place,
Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when
the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick
came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York,
one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of
the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his
place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for
safe-guarding the city.(1306)
(M677)
As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of
his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young
king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither
with such force as he could muster.(1307)
(M678)
On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall--they felt
safer in London--and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and
another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.(1308) The Common Council
met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday
night.(1309) The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no
time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had
been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the
citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them
"to the uttermost of their wills and powers" in the maintenance and
defence of the king's person.(1310)
(M679)
On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to
meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that
it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old
religion.(1311) This the lords assured the meeting was far from their
minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws
and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as
formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for
this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor,
aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their
lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves
and goodes."(1312)
(M680) (M681)
On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where
they had dined the previous day.(1313) They had heard that Somerset had
seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands
upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his
adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others,
and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the
position of Protector.(1314) The Common Council, which met the same
day--"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the
recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"--agreed
to furnish with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well
harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and
preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the
contingent should be horsemen.(1315) By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.)
the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they
marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to
Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At
Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for
the time.(1316) There is no evidence to show that the force was ever
called upon to proceed to Windsor.
(M682) (M683)
The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength
to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves
against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich,
the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose
signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting
forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and
false and detestable procedynges."(1317) By the end of the week (12 Oct.)
the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor,
where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who
received them graciously and gave them hearty thanks. The following day
(Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday
(14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through
Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with
diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph
Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the
shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane,
with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower
certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a
number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."(1318)
At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful--a
little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and
render him a prisoner in the Tower--did it cross the mind of any of the
onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some
cartloads of books which were never returned?
(M684)
There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's
vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of
London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross
against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the
council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before
Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion
were William Latymer, the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney,
and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of
Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was
confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer
to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him
of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy
the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and
committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what
followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was
proclaymyd the protector a traytor."(1319)
(M685)
On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a
mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it
was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was
occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint.
After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and
his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his
colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set
forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long
cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter
before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."(1320)
(M686)
Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th
February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his
prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in
Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a
recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to
travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an
interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.(1321)
(M687)
With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall
of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter
of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would
favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He
chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's
release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea,
where he had been roughly used,(1322) and the cause of his deprivation
reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the
result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and
Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by
the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of
Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of
Westminster,(1323) which had been created in 1540, was united to London.
In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time
elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his
prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of
Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.(1324) As soon as the
ceremony was over he cast them off.
(M688)
For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its
franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three
manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and
the Great Liberty Manor.(1325) The first of these--and only the first--had
been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic
authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the
city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the
city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them
the town or vill of Southwark.(1326) This grant was afterwards confirmed
and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the
citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three
successive days in the month of September, together with a court of
pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair
appertaining.(1327) In course of time the City claimed the right of
holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in Southwark.
This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate.
A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the
hopes of arranging matters,(1328) but apparently without success.
(M689)
At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks
for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,(1329) and
eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of L647 2_s._ 1_d._ the
king conveyed by charter(1330) to the City of London divers messuages in
Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens
belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further
sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises
which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It
was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir
John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of L10 per
annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold
four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder
enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took
formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the
precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of
trumpet for all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs
and liberties of the same.(1331)
(M690)
It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be
incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the
inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the
citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact
that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the
borough,(1332) there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure
in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as
prevailed in the city;(1333) the inhabitants of the borough have never
taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir
John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the
Court of Aldermen,(1334) and was admitted and sworn before the same body
on the 28th May, 1850--that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances
just mentioned were drawn up.
The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the
Court of Aldermen until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council,
the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as
mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be
translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of
Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to
the election of an alderman.
The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common
Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom"
and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for
forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented
to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they
might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman,
but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might
be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was
referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common
Council(1335) to the effect that, considering that the borough of
Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of
Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the
borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer
known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be
complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a
course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the
same effect has quite recently been presented to the Court of Aldermen;
but it was equally unsuccessful.(1336)
(M691)
Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself
compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished
only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was
celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which
the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and
brought discredit upon the earl.(1337) One result of the conclusion of the
war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly
declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king
provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city,
and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after
them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers
to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict
with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a
letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).(1338)
(M692)
In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a
proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the
proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every
effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the
mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th
May, and soundly rated him--or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some
sore words"--for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th,
the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them
the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery
companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more
murmurings.(1339)
Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through
the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the
price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in
Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13
shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another
butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's
conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city--a class of
men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers--that they
made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the
debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.(1340) Yet, in
spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that
after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence
sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny,
and the halfpenny for a farthing.(1341) The price of every commodity rose
50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick could do
could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to
overcome economic laws by a mere _ipse dixit_, he caused a "contrary
proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every
viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."(1342)
(M693)
Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset
of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape
were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his
own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating
him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized
and again committed to the Tower.(1343) The new duke vaunted himself more
than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he
caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its
face.(1344) Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as
their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to
snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at
St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little
disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was
over, and then took them into custody.(1345)
(M694)
At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens
of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to
hear why the duke had been sent for the second time to the Tower, and to
receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the
Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the
Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the
substantiall men of the same."(1346) This was, of course, an exaggeration,
although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself
named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was
brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen
having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.(1347) He was
arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy
Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in
the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy
that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they
discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be
executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in
the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through
Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him'
all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they
were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."(1348)
According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow
as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted,
whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)
lamented his conviction.(1349) His execution took place on Tower Hill in
January of the next year (1552).
(M695)
In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in
making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better
known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and
in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were
surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the
parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common
Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of
levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the
maintenance of the poor of the hospital.(1350) The voluntary system,
however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a
brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the
mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing
to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.(1351) In
September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital--four
aldermen and eight commoners(1352)--and in the following December the
Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the
hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.(1353)
(M696)
In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the
hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose
patron saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the
Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for
the purchase of this hospital.(1354) They proceeded so favourably that by
the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were
conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was
transferred by another deed on the following day.(1355) The purchase-money
amounted to nearly L2,500.
(M697)
Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next
turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and
buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital
for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In
1552 Sir Richard Dobbs(1356) was mayor. He took an active part in the
charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his
conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison
shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:--"O
Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart
for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of
the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly
religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the
work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was
commenced, and in a few months the premises were sufficiently forward to
admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by
the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the
Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.(1357) Just as
the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the
church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the
celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of
his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and
buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity,
into Christ's Hospital.
(M698)
There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely,
those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a
deputation(1358) was appointed by the City to present a petition to the
king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to
the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The
deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year
(1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.(1359) The efforts of the
bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following
spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the
municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of
his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of the workhouse.(1360) The
City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St.
Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days
before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of
incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.(1361)