ST. MARTIN’S-LE-GRAND
This foundation, by reason of its antiquity and religious objects,
should have been venerable, but it became, by its claims, privileges,
and position, an institution hateful and detestable, long before the
Monastic Houses fell into disrepute. It had its origin certainly before
the Conquest, but how long before cannot be ascertained. Tradition
made Wythred, King of Kent, its founder in the seventh century. We
need not trouble ourselves with the reasons which make this tradition
impossible. Safe ground is touched about the year 1056, when St.
Martin’s was either founded, or endowed, by Ingelric and Girard
[Edward], two brothers, for a Dean and Secular Canons. In 1068 a
Charter was granted to the College by William:—
“I William, etc.... grant, and by my royal authority for ever
corroborate and confirm to God and the Church of the blessed Martin,
situate within the walls of London, which the aforesaid Ingelric and
Girard his brother, from their own revenues, and in atonement of their
faults, honourable built to the praise of God, and for the Canonical
Rule therein to be held and observed for ever. Now these are the names
of the lands, Estre in Essex, with the Berewic of Maissebery and
Norton, and Stanford, and Fobbinge, and Benedict, and Christehal, and
Tolesfunte, and Rowenhal, and Angre, together with their appendages,
the meadows, pastures, woods, mills, and all to them belonging; and
in Benefleot one hide, and in Hoddesdon one hide, also the church
of Mealdon with two hides of Land, and the tithes and all things to
it appertaining. Moreover also, on my own part, I give and grant to
the said Church, for the redemption of the souls of my father and
mother, all the land and moor without the postern, which is called
Cripelesgate on either side of the postern, to wit, from the Northern
angle of the City wall, where a rivulet of springs, near thereto
flowing, marks it out (_i.e._ the moor) from the wall, as far as the
running-water which enters the City. I grant to it besides all the
Churches and all the tithes, lands also and houses, which the faithful
in Christ have already given to it within and without London, or shall
in future bestow....
This Charter was renewed or confirmed by Henry the First and by Stephen.
Among the various historical points connected with St. Martin’s, the
following may be noted as the most important.
Henry the Second granted to the Canons a free court of all their men
and tenants: they were not to be impleaded out of it except before the
King and the Chief Justice.
The Saddlers’ Guild became connected with the Church of St. Martin’s—a
fact which shows that the college was not wholly regarded as a
sanctuary for criminals.
In 1235 Henry the Third upheld the Canons’ Court against the City.
The erection of St. Leonard’s Parish Church on the confines of the
Precinct in 1236 points to a restriction of St. Martin’s Church to the
College or sanctuary. But there are other instances, _e.g._ that of St.
Catherine Cree, in which a parish church was, for convenience, built
outside the Monastic Precinct.
The buildings of St. Martin’s were improved and rebuilt by its Dean,
William de Wykeham, about 1367.
Pope Innocent the Third exempted the Royal Chapels from Excommunication
or Interdict.
[Illustration: THE SANCTUARY OF ST. MARTIN’S-LE-GRAND
From Strype’s _Stow_, 1754 edition.]
Edward the First forbade Cardinals sent from Rome to receive
procuration from St. Martin’s.
In 14 Edw. II. the College, under a _Quo Warranto_ heard at the Tower,
relinquished any claim to receive toll within the City.
By Rich. II. St. Martin’s was exempted from tenths, fifteenths,
tallages, aids, and all contributions or quotas by the King.
St. Martin’s was by far the largest, the safest, and the best-protected
of all the English sanctuaries. The meaning and the development of the
theory of sanctuary have been considered already (p. 201). At first it
meant little more than a temporary asylum, where criminals could find
shelter while they sought for means to redeem their offence by paying
the penalty attached by Saxon Law. Every Monastic House, every church,
the King’s Palace, were all sanctuaries. But a sanctuary within the
walls of the City, which was not a place of temporary refuge, not a
place, such as a church, in which the fugitive could be starved into
surrender, but a place in which every kind of criminal might find an
asylum and safe retreat for life, a place which practically defied
the arm of the Law and the hand of Justice, was certain to become an
intolerable burden to a law-abiding city. And so St. Martin’s actually
did become. Again and again the City of London revolted in vain against
its powers; again and again cases were vainly laid in the courts
against the Dean and Chapter.
The Precinct is almost exactly occupied by the present Post Office and
Telegraph Offices of St. Martin’s-le-Grand.
About the year 1285 it was judged expedient to close a lane leading
from St. Vedast, Foster Lane, to St. Nicholas Shambles through the
Precinct of St. Martin’s because it had become the safe haunt for
thieves and rogues.
In 1381, during Wat Tyler’s rebellion, Roger Legat, “quest monger” or
collector, was torn from the High Altar of St. Martin’s and beheaded in
Cheapside.
In 1405 the citizens petitioned Henry the Fourth for the abolition
of St. Martin’s privileges as to sanctuary, on the ground that it
sheltered murderers, thieves, and fraudulent debtors. It was, however,
impossible to hope that Henry, who owed his crown largely to the
support of the Church, could do anything so contrary to ecclesiastical
privilege. It is perhaps astonishing that so simple a plan as the
removal of the College bodily to some place in the country, or, at
least, without the walls of the City, should not have been suggested.
In 1416 one Henry Kneve, who had taken sanctuary, fled for some reason,
leaving behind him a quantity of valuables which he had stolen. These
were seized by the Dean’s officers as waif. One would have thought that
they would have been restored to their owners.
We have seen (p. 205) the case of the year 1422, when the City fought
with all its powers, and by means of its most learned men.
In 1430 the Mayor and Sheriffs withdrew by force from sanctuary a
certain Canon. They were, however, compelled to restore him.
One Matthew Philip, Alderman of Aldersgate Ward, denied the right of
St. Martin’s Lane, which ran through the Precinct, to be privileged,
and demanded certain payments on account of taxes or tallage to be paid
there. On being refused, he levied by distress. He, too, had to give
way, and offered the Dean, by way of reconciliation, a supper.
It must not be supposed that sanctuary men lived in St. Martin’s for
nothing. On the contrary, the great cost of living within the Precinct
was a source of considerable profit to the Canons, and was doubtless
one of the reasons why the place was continued. Many of the refugees
took advantage of the immunities of the place to make counterfeit
goldsmiths’ work. Hence the phrase “false St. Martin’s beads.” It
is noteworthy, however, that in 1447 the Goldsmiths’ Company, by
permission of the Dean, although against the privileges of the place,
searched the Precinct, and took away all the counterfeit work they
could find, while the Dean consigned the offenders to the College
Prison.
St. Martin’s, during the Wars of the Roses, served as a refuge and an
asylum for many persons of consideration. William Oldehall, the Duke of
York’s Chamberlain, was one of them. Henry demanded his surrender, but
withdrew his order. Shortly after, Oldehall was charged with breaking
sanctuary in order to commit murder. The Alderman of Aldersgate broke
into St. Martin’s and carried him off, but, as in every other case, had
to bring him back with gifts of atonement to the Canons.
In 1455 the City was highly provoked by the lawlessness of the
sanctuary men. The Mayor and Aldermen, at the head of the citizens,
forced the sanctuary and took out the ringleaders. The Dean complained,
but it was the time of the outbreak of the Civil Wars, and his
complaint appears to have passed unheeded.
In the following year the sanctuary men joined the citizens in
attacking aliens. But, indeed, the fact proves nothing except the
readiness of the lawless to commit lawless actions.
In 1457 the following Articles were drawn up for the reformation of the
sanctuary, no doubt in deference to the complaints of the citizens:—
The Dean was to be sworn to keep the said Articles:
(1) Refugees to make known their reasons for taking sanctuary, and the
same to be registered in a book with the refugee’s name.
(2) Refugees to deliver up weapons or armour, except a pointless knife
for meat.
(3) A notorious thief entering the sanctuary must give good security
for the time he remains there and three months after; failing such
security, he is to be committed to ward, in the sanctuary, but may
depart from the sanctuary if he will.
(4) The outer gates and posterns of the sanctuary to be closed from 9
P.M. to 6 A.M., Allhallows to Candlemas, and the rest of the year from
9 P.M. to 4 A.M., or till the commencement of the first mass there.
Refugees for felony or treason to remain in sanctuary all night.
(5) Fugitives to be deprived of stolen goods they may bring into the
sanctuary, and the same to be restored if possible to the owners.
No one to buy such goods in the sanctuary, but if such purchase be
proved, the buyer to make satisfaction to the owner.
(6) Any sanctuary man leaving the sanctuary to commit crime, is to be
put to ward in the sanctuary, and if he wish to depart the sanctuary
he shall do so at a given hour in daytime.
(7) Persons guilty of certain offences, as lock-picking, forgers of
seals, evidences, workers of counterfeit gold and silver work not
to be suffered in the sanctuary. Persons suspected of such to be
committed to ward till they find sufficient security.
(8) Vicious persons not to be “suspected” in the sanctuary. If any be
there, they to be put to open ward in the daytime till shame cause
them to depart, or they amend their evil ways.
(9) That deceitful games be not played in the sanctuary.
(10) Barbers and artificers to keep Sundays as the citizens of London
do, if they break this ordinance they to be put in ward. They to use
their crafts according to the ordinances of the same City.
(11) Every person taking sanctuary to be sworn on a book, to obey
these ordinances.
Among others who took sanctuary in St. Martin’s during the Civil Wars
were the Countess of Oxford; Anne Neville, afterwards Richard’s Queen;
and Miles Forrest, one of the murderers of the young Princes in the
Tower. The tradition was that he “rotted away piecemeal”—probably
he was one of the late victims to leprosy, which was then rapidly
vanishing.
In 1498 Henry the Seventh endowed the Abbey of Westminster and his
Lady Chapel there with St. Martin’s-le-Grand, so that the Abbot became
the Dean of the College. A new seal was made. Also a new and a more
powerful defender of sanctuary was created. It was not until 1548, when
all chantries, free chapels, and brotherhoods were granted to the King,
that the College was dissolved and the church was demolished. Even then
the privileges of sanctuary survived, though under greatly modified
conditions.
The church, as appeared from the excavations in 1818, was more than 200
feet long. After it was pulled down, tenements called the New Rents
were erected on its site. On the place of the high altar was a wine
tavern.
During the reign of Elizabeth, most of the inhabitants were
foreigners—French, German, Dutch, and Scotch. By the freedom of the
Precinct they could trade without being free of the City: among them
were shoemakers, tailors, buttermakers, goldsmiths, purse-makers,
stationers, silk weavers, and silk throwsters. The number of the
foreigners of St. Martin’s in 1593 was 196.
In 1697 whatever privileges of sanctuary remained were abolished.
The Act of 1815, providing for the site of the new Post Office,
reserved to the inhabitants the right to trade without being freemen
of the City; the Court of St. Martin’s remained undisturbed; and
the inhabitants were entitled to vote at Parliamentary Elections as
Electors of Westminster.
There is an immense mass of material in connection with this ancient
House, but the above seems to embody the matters of importance. It
may be added that the College possessed considerable property outside
Aldersgate; that St. Botolph’s Church was united with St. Martin’s in
1399, and seems to have been farmed to the Priory of St. Bartholomew.
The French Protestant Church, now in Soho Square, was situated in St.
Martin’s from 1841 to 1877.
St. Martin’s was one of the churches where the Curfew Bell was rung
every night; the other churches, from time to time, being those of
St. Mary-le-Bow, St. Laurence, St. Giles Cripplegate, and All Hallows
Barking.
The common opinion of the citizens in the sixteenth century regarding
the sanctuary is set forth by Stow. He, it must be remembered, was able
to recollect the actual working of sanctuary, while St. Martin’s was
still a living and acting Foundation.
“This St. Martin’s appears to have been a Sanctuary for great
Disorders, and a shelter for the loosest sort of People: Rogues and
Ruffians, Thieves and Felons and Murderers. From hence used to rush
violent persons, Committers of Riots, Robberies, and Manslaughters:
Hither they brought in their preys and stolen goods, and concealed
them here, and shared or sold them to those that dwelt here. Here were
also harboured Picklocks, Counterfeiters of Keys and Seals, Forgers of
false Evidences, such as made counterfeit chains, beads, ouches plate,
Copper gilt for gold: nay, common strumpets and Bawds, Gamesters and
Players at Hazard and Dice, and other unlawful games. And lastly
profaners of Sundays, and other Festival days, exercising their crafts
thereon.
And again, to this licentiousness was this Sanctuary grown in these
times, that in Henry VII.’s reign, one coming hither for Sanctuary,
the Sheriffs took him thence by violence, and brought him away. But
observe what followed: The Abbot of Westminster (to whom this college
now belonged) in the year of Henry VII. exhibited a bill to the king
against these sheriffs for arresting and drawing out with force a
privileged person, out of the sanctuary of St. Martin’s belonging
to the said Abbey. Which matter was heard in the Court of the Star
Chamber, before the Lords and others of the King’s Counsel, and Hody
and Newton, chief Justices. Which Justices determined that by Law, the
Party ought to enjoy the privilege of sanctuary: and the Sheriffs were
grievously fined by particular named.” (Stow’s _Survey_, vol. i.)
After the Dissolution some of the liberties of the place, as we have
seen, remained. And the last condition of the precinct was almost worse
than the first.
“Because of the Liberty enjoyed by such as lived within these
bounds, many Foreigners, English and others, Tradesmen and Artificers,
planted themselves here. In 1585 a Survey was taken of all the
strangers, being French, German, Dutch and Scots, inhabiting here and
their occupations. Many of them were cordwainers, that is shoemakers
(which trade still continues there), Taylors (hence the tallymen who
sold shreds of Cloth; and Button makers, and Button-mold-makers, that
remained there even until the great Fire in my remembrance). Here
inhabited also Strangers, Goldsmiths, Purse-makers, Linen-drapers,
some Stationers, some Merchants, silk weavers. Here lived also two
silk twisters, who I suppose were the first silk throwers in London,
and brought the trade into England. And for remembrance sake, I shall
set down their names: the one was John James, born under the Dominion
of King Philip, and made Denizen the 19th of December, the 10th of the
Queen. The other was Anthony Emerick, born also under the obedience
of King Philip, and made Denizen the 1st of January an 17 regin
Elisabethæ. There were also upon that survey aforesaid, found to be of
householders (Denizens as well as others), their Wives, Children, and
Servants, one hundred and fifty in number. Which nevertheless was less
by half than was some years before: for in 1569 their number was 269.
There was a Constable and a Headborough for this liberty. But divers
things here wanted provided for: in respect whereof they that lived
out of the Liberty were in better condition. Sundry of the inhabitants
refused to watch and ward, when upon occasion they were required,
as good subjects and honest neighbours so to do. They refused to
contribute to such taxes and payments as were set upon them for Her
Majesty’s service, with the rest of their neighbours. Several visited
with the sickness would not obey the Orders appointed in that behalf:
that is, they would not keep their doors and windows shut, nor keep
themselves within their houses: but walked forth, and struck out the
red cross set upon their doors, and threatened mischief to any that
should come to set crosses there. And some repaired to the Court with
their Wares, a thing dangerous to the Queen and Nobility. There was
no prison in the said liberty to commit such as should be troublesome
and offensive, but the Gatehouse in Westminster: which was in another
Shire, and out of the Liberty. And so they that were thus committed,
commonly brought their actions against those that committed them, and
put them to great trouble.
Hence in the year 1593, the officers and inhabitants petitioned the
Lord Treasurer to grant them such good ordinances for the redress of
the said disorders, and sufficient authority for the execution of the
same, for the good government of the said liberty: and conversation
of the people in peace: as to his Lordship’s discreet wisdom should
be thought fit. And that they might have a prison and execution of
justice within the precinct of their liberty. And that he would
send his letters to the Constable and Headborough, to find out a
convenient place for such purpose: and to assess all the inhabitants
of the liberty to the charge thereof. The Lord Treasurer recommended
this matter to Serjeant Owen, and Mr. Lewis, Lawyers: who gave their
Judgments, that for all matters for the service of the Queen, the
inhabitants were compelled to perform the same. But for other matters,
they must make some Bye-Laws and Orders among themselves, to bind
themselves to performance.” (Maitland.)