THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF IRONMONGERS.
Although existing records do not give us all the information we
should like to have about the ancient history of the Guilds, we have,
nevertheless, been able to show that by their joining in the election of
the City officials in the year 1351, and choosing four of their members
(John Deynes and Richard de Eure, wardens, and Henry de Ware and William
Fromond), “the wisest and most sufficient” in the Guild, to treat with
the Mayor and Sheriffs upon the “serious business” of the City, that
the Ironmongers were duly recognised thus early as a firmly-established
brotherhood.
The “market,” or special place of business of the fraternity, was, as
we have said, in the neighbourhood of the City Guildhall, and hence
the existing name of Ironmonger Lane, which is a thoroughfare out of
Cheapside, on the north side, and the next turning to the Old Jewry
westward, between which streets to this day stands a church, known as St.
Olave’s (about to be removed), the predecessors of which—St. Martin’s,
Ironmonger’s Lane, and St. Olave—contained the remains of several eminent
ironmongers, including William Dikeman, “Feroner,” one of the sheriffs,
1367; Robert Havelocke, 1390; Thomas Michell, 1527; Richard Chamberlain,
1562. At what date the craft left this neighbourhood is unknown. We know
they possessed the Ironmongers’ Hall, more east, near Billiter Street,
in the middle of the fifteenth century, about which district the members
individually may have carried on business; Strype, however, stating that
when they removed from their old market they took up a position in Thames
Street, wherein to this day, as is well known, the iron wharves and
warehouses are numerous and extensive.
The precedency question in the olden time was a momentous one for the
City Guilds, and led to many conflicts between the members of certain
companies, which will be mentioned when speaking of “the Livery” and
“apprentices” hereafter. It is worthy of note here to remark that in the
year 1376(7), the fiftieth of Edward III., forty-eight Guilds elected 148
of their members as the Common Council, when the Ironmongers, standing
the thirty-fifth in the list, elected four of their number. We imagine
that no actual precedency was here followed, for in subsequent lists the
“great” companies contained first thirteen names, and eventually twelve,
in which the Ironmongers stood eighth, eleventh, and, finally, tenth, a
position assigned them not so much for their wealth, but probably for
their respectability, or, as old Stow says, “the worthiness of the men,”
and the power they possessed.
[Illustration: ANCIENT SILVER-GILT SALT-CELLAR. (See page 21.)
A FIFTEENTH-CENTURY MAPLE-WOOD MAZER-BOWL. (See page 47.)]
Again, from these great companies the Lord Mayor was always chosen. The
first Mayor was Henry Fitzalwyn, “Draper,” near the London Stone, which
is an ancient City relic still existing (but not on its original site)
in Cannon Street, not many yards from the office of THE IRONMONGER, in
which this history is first published exactly 700 years afterwards,
for Fitzalwyn was first chosen in 1189, and continued to hold office
twenty-four successive years. As we have said, the Lord Mayor was always
“one of the Twelve”; but in 1742 Sir Robert Wilmot, “Cooper,” declining
to be “translated” to the Clothworkers (as was the custom when the Mayor
elect was of a minor company), and there being no law to compel him, he
was consequently the first Mayor not of the great companies; and it is a
curious fact that Wilmot’s predecessor in office was an ironmonger, and
to this day the Coopers and the Ironmongers are associated in the Irish
estate.
After a lapse of 500 years it will be interesting to many, and to those
who object to oath-taking in particular, if we give in its original form
the wording of the Ironmongers’ Warden’s oath required to be taken before
admission in the fiftieth year of Edward III. Its quaint phraseology must
be our excuse for the transcript:—“Yᵉ shall swere that yᵉ shall wele
and treuly ov’see the Craft of Iremongers’ wherof yᵉ be chosen Wardeyn
for the yeere. And all the goode reules and ordynces of the same craft
that been approved here be the Court, and noon other, yᵉ shal kepe and
doo to be kept. And all the defautes that yᵉ fynde in the same Craft
ydon to the Chambleyn of yᵉ Citee for the tyme beyng, yᵉ shal wele and
treuly P’sente. Sparyng noo man for favor ne grevyng noo p’sone for hate.
Extorcion ne wrong under colour of your office yᵉ shall non doo, nethir
to noo thing thot shalbe ayenst the State, peas, and profite of oure
Sovereyn Lord the Kyng or to the Citee yᵉ shall not consente, but for the
tyme that yᵉ shalbe in office in all things thot shalbe longyng unto the
same craft after the lawes and ffranchises of the seide Citee welle and
laufully yᵉ shal have you. So helpe you God and all Seyntes.”
In 1397, one of the years of “Dick Whittington” as Lord Mayor, a curious
case came before the Court of Aldermen for decision. William Sevenoake,
a native of Sevenoaks, in Kent, and who, subsequent to the date we
mention, was Sheriff and Mayor of London, and founder of the schools and
almshouses at Sevenoaks, prayed the Court to be enrolled on the Grocers’
Company, notwithstanding in his apprenticeship his master Hugh de Boys
was called an ironmonger. The Grocers having proved the facts, William
was accordingly entered as a grocer, and 40_s._ paid for the privilege.
Before their incorporation, the Ironmongers were represented by three
Mayors of London, viz., Sir Richard Marlow, 1409-10, and again, 1417-18,
and by Sir John Hatherley, 1442-43, and yet, after their incorporation,
and not until the year 1566-67 did another ironmonger fill the “chair,”
although several sheriffs represented the Guild both before and after
their charter was granted.
Herbert, the Guildhall librarian of half a century ago, speaking of the
compulsory enrolment of the Companies’ charters, “regretted exceedingly
that so little could be found about the ancient state of the City Guilds
among the State papers and records preserved by the nation.” If the
zealous literary citizen had only known then what we know to-day he
would not only have regretted, but denounced in the strongest terms (as
we do now), the gross mismanagement of the State Paper Office in the past
and the red-tapeism of the present time, the former losing to us for ever
most valuable records, the latter placing every obstacle possible in the
way of the documents now remaining being conveniently used by historians,
the publication of the contents thereof greatly helping towards their
future preservation. In our searches at the Public Record Office for the
purpose of this history, we have experienced this inconvenience, and
we certainly consider it should not exist in a Government institution
supported by the public. When we find the authorities at the British
Museum, and the Guildhall, and other repositories open to us, and giving
every facility with their records, which, after all, embrace priceless
treasures and quite as worthy of safe custody, the restrictions placed
upon literary research by the Master of the Rolls and the Record Office
officials is really worthy a Royal Commission of inquiry.
When Henry VII. entered the City in 1485 the Guilds supplied 435 members
to meet the King, and of these ten were Ironmongers. In the year 1504
there was a subscription of the sixty-one Companies, amounting to
313_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._, towards the erection of the kitchen and offices at
Guildhall, and 5_l._ was the sum the Ironmongers gave. It must be borne
in mind that in those days a small sum went a long way.
We now arrive at an interesting period of the Company’s history.
Eight years previous to obtaining their charter of incorporation the
Ironmongers obtained a grant of arms. Both charter and grant have been
repeatedly exhibited and described, and beautiful facsimiles of the
two documents will be found in Mr. G. R. French’s “Catalogue of the
Ironmongers’ Exhibition of Antiquities,” in 1861, a most sumptuously
printed and privately circulated work, and now very scarce.
By warrant dated September 1, the thirty-fourth of Henry VI. (1455),
“Lancastre, Kyng of Armes,” and the College of Arms granted “Unto the
honurable Crafte and felasship of the ffraunchised men of Iremongers of
the Citie of London a token of armes, that is to sey: Silver a cheveron
of Gowles sitte betwene three gaddes of stele of asure, on the cheueron
three swevells of golde: with two lizardes of theire owne kynde encoupled
with gowlys, on the helmet.”
The two lizards on the helmet, it must be borne in mind, represent the
crest. “The Crafte” and their successors were to hold and enjoy these
arms “for evermore,” and the privilege of using a tabard upon all state
occasions. Clarenceux, King at Arms, inspected the original grant in
1530-31, and signed its confirmation, and in 1560 William Hervy, another
Clarenceux, curiously enough upon inspecting the same document, found the
patent “to be without good authoryte,” and therefore, either to ease his
conscience or that of the College, or for the more likely reason to be
mentioned presently, confirms once again the same grant of “armes, helme,
and crest” to “the Corporacon, Company, and Comynalty, and to their
successors for evermore,” to use the same “in shylde banners, standardes,
and otherwyse,” and “without impedyment or interuption of any person or
persons,” for the confirmation of which privilege, already enjoyed for
one hundred years, the Ironmongers’ books, Mr. Nicholl tells us, show
that “Mayster Clarensys” received thirty-seven shillings, and “his svant
for bringing them hom” twelve pence for his own use.
Notwithstanding the official granting and confirmation, another
gentleman from the college, this time the Richmond Herald, inspected
the same document, and he too did the Company the honour in 1634 of
again “confirming” the same grants, so that it is impossible to deny to
the Ironmongers the right and privilege of bearing arms; and one fact
is certain, if ever a Corporation or Brotherhood possessed appropriate
armorials suggestive of their trade it is this Guild, which cannot be
said of the armorial shields of many other City Companies.
Now, we have gone into this matter of the granting of the arms and the
three confirmations beyond the usually allotted space in histories for
the simple reason that one of the most extraordinary circumstances in
connection with heraldic grants has yet to be explained. The Ironmongers’
Company, although possessing a grant which has been thrice confirmed
by the College, and in which the two lizards appear as a crest,
never received from either of the Heralds who were good enough for a
consideration to inspect and confirm an authority which each ought to
have given, to use “supporters” to the armorial shield, or, if the
Company had no right to use them, to inquire the reason why, &c., when
such were assumed.
The Company adopting the supporters, two lizards, as in the crest,
Edmondson, another Herald, in 1780 actually stated in his Heraldic work
that they were given the Company in one of the confirmations! In 1812
the question again came before Garter, King of Arms, when the Collegians
were good enough to say that the Ironmongers might have a “confirmation”
of the supporters upon paying the modest fee of 73_l._ It is needless to
say that the Company declined to pay this (in our opinion) extortionate
demand, and so to this day (as it has exercised from a period long before
this century dawned) the Ironmongers bear their supporters, as only true
citizens should.
It may be interesting to note here that in many armorial shields of
private families there are similarities to that of the Ironmongers’,
except that, in place of the chevron between three gads of steel, there
are a chevron between three billets of wood, and it is particularly
interesting to call attention to the fact that such a coat is to be found
in a seal dated 1359, and still more curious that in the deed on which
this seal appears three ironmongers are mentioned: John Deynes, William
Dikeman, and Henry de Ware. This was nearly a century previous to the
Company receiving a grant of arms.
The lizards, now used by the Ironmongers as crest and supporters, were
also used when naming their manor in Ireland in the reign of James I.,
now known as the “Manor of Lizard,” and about which we shall speak
hereafter. Mr. Herbert, fifty years ago, remarks:—“What are in the arms
termed ‘lizards,’ we may rather imagine were intended to represent
salamanders—a creature supposed, like iron, to live unhurt in fire.”
Pennant says:—“The frolicsome agility of lizards enlivens the dried banks
in hot climates, and the great affection which some of them show to
mankind should further engage our regard and attention.” Another writer
quaintly suggests that the dear little animal not only loves iron, but
likes it hot, eating it with a relish, and digests it with ease. See also
the head-piece to Herbert’s “History.”
Under the armorials is the Company’s motto, and that is, appropriately,
“God is our strength.” It is not known when this was assumed, but
the date is modern, for anciently—at all events, in the seventeenth
century—the Ironmongers’ motto was “Assher Dure,” which a well-known
antiquary translates as “steel endures,” and will be found in the
heraldic volume of Companies’ arms in the British Museum.
A most important step was now taken, which in the history of the Guild
at once entitled it to the style of “worshipful.” In 1463 it obtained a
charter of incorporation. Written in Latin, it is not a lengthy document,
but is interesting, and prettily illuminated in gold and colours, with
the royal arms within the initial letter “E” of Edwardus, and another
shield of the Company’s arms in the margin beneath. Pendant is a fine
specimen of the royal seal of England, circular in size, in green wax,
dated Westminster, March 20, the third year of Edward IV., then 1462,
but, since the alteration of the calendar, now 1463. The King grants: “To
our well-beloved and faithful liegemen all the freemen of the mystery and
art of Iremongers of our City of London and suburbs thereof” the rights
and privileges to be a body corporate for evermore, to have a master and
two wardens (who are named as Richard Flemming, alderman; and Nicholas
Marchall and Robert Toke) and a commonalty, with perpetual succession,
under the name of “the master and keepers or wardens and commonalty of
the mystery or art of Ironmongers of London,” to have a common seal, make
ordinances, to purchase and hold lands and tenements to the value of 10
marks yearly.
The day upon which the Guild received their incorporation charter they,
doubtless, celebrated with all the ceremonials and festivities which we,
400 years afterwards, indulge in to-day, and they recorded in their books
a resolution: “That they shalle holde and kepe the said feste for their
principall fesst, evermore.”
Ironmongers’ Hall in Fenchurch Street will be described in another
chapter, but we may as well state that the site of the present building
was granted in the year 1457 by the executors of Alice Stivard, the widow
of Sir John Stivard, Knight, to the nineteen “citizen and ironmongers”
mentioned (among whom were the three named in the charter), and that
in the Company’s books occurs the entry, “Bought by the for wreten
ffelowshipp and paid fore, and also posesson taken the XX daie of Octobr
the XXXVI yer of King Henry the VI.”
Now, what do our reforming friends in 1889 say to this? There is nothing
said about trusts here. It is as much the Company’s freehold and belongs
to them, the “root and branch” descendants, as ever the commonest article
that may be purchased (and paid for, mark ye!) by any citizen and
working-man to-day. So, in simply quoting the purchase here, we do so to
put all reformers on their guard not to be so ready to make hay (by their
seizure) before the sun shines on assumed or presumed rights.
But we will go a little further. The Company did not buy without legal
aid, for the books show “lernyd counsaile at the purchas makyng” received
not only 26_s._ 8_d._ for their advice and labours, but there was paid
“at taverns dyvers tymes” for refreshments to the same gentlemen the
large sum of 3_s._ 6_d._
Having purchased a house and garden, and regularly gone into
housekeeping, the Ironmongers began their furnishing in humble style.
Among the first articles purchased were the following:—
x stoles iij_s._ iiij_d._
i fire forke }
i pʳ tongs } xj_s._ vij_d._
i pʳ andyrons }
i rake }
vij candlestickes iij_s._ iiij_d._
i table and }
ij tressels } iiij_s._ vj_d._
i caudron in a furneys in the kechen vij_d._
i pʳ bed bords in the chamber xx_d._
i water tankard xxij_d._
i cheste in the boterye, bounded wᵗʰ yron ij_s._
And the same accounts tell us that “the alderman and the bedill at
ye possessyon takyng” received 2_s._ 6_d._ “For brede and ale at our
possession takyn” 22_d._ was spent, while “barge hyre at twoo tymes” cost
14_s._, but there is no evidence what for, or where to the barges were so
employed.
It must not be said that the Worshipful Company of Ironmongers commenced
incorporated existence extravagantly. And we shall be able to show in
our next chapter that, as they began so they continued, careful in the
management of their charity trusts, and frugal in all matters pertaining
to their government.
[Illustration: A SIXTEENTH-CENTURY COCOA-NUT CUP OR HANAP.]