after referring to the negotiations between Longchamp and John, and
describing the hastening of the two parties to London on Monday, 7th
October, when Longchamp met the citizens in the Guildhall, writes: 'The
magnates of the city were divided--Richard Fitz-Reiner, the head of one
party, took the side of John. Henry of Cornhill was faithful to the
Chancellor. These two knights had been sheriffs at Richard's coronation,
and both represented the burgher aristocracy.' Longchamp betook himself
to the Tower, and a meeting was held at St. Paul's on Tuesday the 8th,
and the barons welcomed the Archbishop of Rouen as chief justiciar, and
saluted John as Regent. 'This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the
justiciar and the barons swore to maintain the _Communa_ of London; the
oath of fealty to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the
two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers, with
the express understanding that should the King die without issue they
would receive John as his successor.'[209]
Mr. Round writes: 'The excited citizens, who had poured out overnight,
with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed
together on the morning of the eventful 8th October at the well-known
sound of the great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul's
Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the "Commune" like a
French King or lord; and then London for the first time had a
municipality of her own.'[210] After this the influence of Longchamp at
once faded away. He stood a three days' blockade in the Tower, after
which he was forced to surrender, and was deposed from all secular
offices.
As to the results of this revolution Mr. Round writes: 'Of the character
of the "Commune" so granted, of its ultimate fate, and of the part it
played in the municipal development of London, nothing has been really
known. The only fact of importance ascertained from other sources has
been the appearance of a Mayor of London at or about the same time as
the grant of a "Commune." It cannot, indeed, be proved that, as has been
sometimes supposed, the two phenomena were synchronistic, for no mention
of the Mayor of London, after long research, is known to me earlier
than the spring of the year 1193. But there is, of course, the
strongest presumption that the grant of a "Commune" involved a Mayor,
and already, in 1194, we find a citizen accused of boasting that, "come
what may, the Londoner shall have no King but their Mayor.'"[211]
Mr. Round then states very clearly the divergent views of Bishop Stubbs,
Mr. Loftie and Mr. Coote on the question of the concession of the
Commune. The bishop held that it was difficult to decide with certainty
on the point, as no formal record of the confirmation of the Commune is
now preserved. Mr. Coote believed that a charter was granted in 1191,
which has been lost, and Mr. Loftie dates the mayoralty from 1189, and
deemed the Commune to have been of gradual growth, and to have been
practically recognised by the charter of Henry I.
In reply to Mr. Coote's view that in the case of London, which had
acquired all other things, the Commune expressed for its citizens the
mayoralty only, Mr. Round writes: 'We find, however, that on the
Continent the word "Commune" did not of necessity imply a Mayor, for
Beauvais and Compiègne, though constituted "Communes," appear to have
had no Mayors during most of the twelfth century. The Chroniclers,
therefore, had they only meant to speak of the privilege of electing a
Mayor, would not have all employed a word which did not connote it, but
would have said what they meant. Moreover, his theory rests on the
assumption common till now to all historians that the citizens had
continuously possessed from the beginning of the twelfth century the
privileges granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown in my
_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ that these privileges were not renewed by Henry
II. or Richard I., and this fact strikingly confirms the explicit words
of Richard of Devizes when he states that neither the one nor the other
would have allowed the Londoners to form a "Commune" even for a million
of marcs.'[212]
Of Mr. Loftie's argument that Glanville's words prove that London, if
not other towns as well, had already a Commune under Henry II., Mr.
Round remarks that it had been disposed of by Dr. Gross in his _Gild
Merchant_ (i. 102).[213]
We have now to refer specially to Mr. Round's remarkable discovery among
the manuscripts of the British Museum of the Oath of the Commune, which
proves for the first time that 'London in 1193 possessed a
fully-developed "Commune" of the continental pattern.'
This discovery not only gives us information which was unknown before,
but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of
the aldermen. From this we learn that the government of the city was at
that time in the hands of a Mayor and certain échevins (skivini).
Of the existence of these skivins in England no suspicion has previously
been expressed. Mr. Round, indeed, points out that Dr. Gross, in his
_Gild Merchant_, considers these governing officers as a purely
continental institution.
Twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document, preserved
in the same volume, that '_alii probi homines_' were associated with the
Mayor and échevins to form a body of twenty-four (that is twelve
skivini, and an equal number of councillors).
In these documents there is no mention of aldermen, and further
information is required as to when the Court of Aldermen first came into
existence. This point will be discussed later on in this chapter, when
the position of the alderman as a governor is considered.
Mr. Round holds that the Court of Skivini and '_alii probi homines_,'
of which at present we know nothing further than what is contained in
the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the Common Council. He prints
the oaths and compares the oath of the twenty-four with that of the
freemen in the present day.[214]
The striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new
privileges were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and
that the names of Mayor and échevins were French, thus excluding the
aldermen who represented the Saxon element. Still, as time went on, the
aldermen obtained their natural position in the government of London,
and the foreign name of échevin sank before them.
The intimate connection between Normandy and England made it certain
that Englishmen would seek inspiration from Normandy. Mr. Round has
devoted considerable attention to Monsieur Giry's valuable work, _Les
Etablissemens de Rouen_, and shows that there is conclusive proof of the
assertion that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of
Rouen. The _vingt-quatre_ of the latter city formed the administrative
body annually elected to act as the Mayor's Council. Mr. Round further
found that the oath of this 'twenty-four' bears a marked resemblance to
the oath of the London Commune discovered by him. 'The three salient
features in common are--(1) the oath to administer justice fairly; (2)
the special provisions against bribery; (3) the expulsion of any member
of the body convicted of receiving a bribe.[215]
Much attention has been given lately to the important question of
continental influence on English municipalities, and Miss Mary Bateson
has discovered that a considerable number of boroughs in England, Wales
and Ireland drew their customs from the little Norman town of
Breteuil.[216] These are Bideford, Burford, Chipping Sodbury, Hereford,
Lichfield, Ludlow, Nether Weare, Preston, Ruyton, Shrewsbury;
Llanvyllin, Rhuddlan, Welshport; Drogheda, Dungarvan, Kildare and
Rathmore. Besides these there are eight suspected cases and a number of
derived cases.[217]
Although the fact that the Council of twenty-four seemed to exclude the
already existing aldermen from the chief government of the city was
opposed to our previous views, Mr. Round has set himself to show that a
Mayor's Council of twenty-four (not aldermen) was not unusual, and he
draws especial attention to the case of Winchester. There the Mayor had
a Council of twenty-four, who continued to exist down to the year 1835.
This Council was elected by the city as a whole and not by the wards,
and Mr. Round believes that this was also the case in London. He then
quotes from Dean Kitchin's book on Winchester (_Historic Towns_) where
it is said: 'The aldermen, in later days, the civic aristocracy, were
originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city and
entrusted with the administration of it.... It was not till early in the
sixteenth century that they were interposed between the Mayor and the
twenty-four men.' We learn from Mrs. Green (_Town Life in the Fifteenth
Century_) that there was a Council of twenty-four at Colchester,
Ipswich, Leicester, Northampton, Norwich, Oxford, Wells, and Yarmouth.
When the city obtained the long-coveted privilege of the Commune and the
power of electing their own Mayor, one would naturally expect the
electors to choose the most distinguished citizen. We cannot however say
whether Henry Fitz-Ailwin was that. At all events, he seems to have
retained the esteem of the city, as he was continued in office until his
death in 1212.
[Illustration: 'LONDON STONE,' CANNON STREET.]
Mr. Round wrote the Life of Fitz-Ailwin in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_, but he was unable to discover much of the Mayor's history.
He presumes that he was the grandson of an unidentified Leofstan, but he
rejects the view that he was the grandson of Leofstan, Portreeve of
London before the Conquest. Leofstan was a common name among the Saxons,
and two or three of the same name have been confounded by historians.
Fitz-Ailwin is described as 'of London Stone,' because his dwelling--'a
very fair house'--stood on the north side of the Church of St. Swithin,
and over against the London Stone, which was situated on the south side
of Cannon [Candlewick] Street, but afterwards removed to the north side
of the street. The advowson of the church was appropriated to the
mansion. London Stone itself is one of the most valued relics of London,
and its history is lost in antiquity. We know that in the Middle Ages
it was esteemed to possess a special value as a representative stone
monument.
The seal of Fitz-Ailwin is attached to a deed preserved among the public
records. It represents a man on horseback with a hawk perched on his
wrist. There is an inscription round the circumference of the seal, but
it is so defaced as to be illegible.[218]
The city was given the right of electing the Mayor, but we do not know
for certain who it was who first exercised this right. Bishop Stubbs
says that two years after the death of Fitz-Ailwin, King John granted to
the 'barones' of the City of London the right of annually electing the
Mayor.[219]
[Illustration: SEAL OF FITZ-AILWIN, FIRST MAYOR OF LONDON.]
The roll of Mayors is one of considerable distinction, and those who
obtained this position were mostly men of great character and authority.
Some of them were on the side of popular freedom, while others were
active in the support of the prerogatives of the privileged classes.
Sometimes the King degraded the Mayor and appointed a custos or warden
in his place. As early as 1222, twenty years after the death of
Fitz-Ailwin, in the reign of Henry III., Hubert de Burgh, chief
justiciar, superseded the Mayor and appointed a custos in his place.
Again, in 1266, William Fitz-Richard was appointed by the King warden of
the city. In November of the same year Fitz-Richard was replaced by Alan
Souche, and John Adrian and Luke de Batincourt were elected by the
citizens bailiffs of London and Middlesex. 'The bailiffs and the whole
Commune (_Communa_) of the said city' are mentioned in 1267.[220] In
1268-1269 Hugh Fitz-Otho was custos, and then follow some stirring times
in London.
Sir Walter Hervey, the predecessor of the famous Sir Henry Waleys in the
Mayor's chair, was the popular leader against the proceedings of his
successor.
Sir Henry de Waleys, Le Waleis, Le Walleis, or Le Galeys (for in all
these forms does his name appear), was elected sheriff with his
distinguished contemporary Gregory de Rokesley in 1270. His first
mayoralty was in 1273, and in 1275 he was Mayor of Bordeaux.
He was a very active chief magistrate and a good administrator; he was
also high in the royal favour. He proceeded against bakers, butchers and
fishmongers, and ordered them to remove their stalls from West Cheap. He
also came in conflict with the Barons of the Cinque Ports. The King sent
a mandate to the justices in Eyre at the Tower commanding them not to
molest Waleys for his reforms.
In the year 1285 the city again lost its franchise. Gregory de Rokesley
was deposed from the mayoralty by Edward I. for refusing to render any
account of how the peace of the city was maintained, thus omitting to
show proper respect to the King's justices at the Tower. For the next
thirteen years London was governed by a warden appointed by the King, in
the person of Sir Ralph de Sandwich or John le Breton.[221] Sir Ralph
de Sandwich is described in Letter Book A as warden of the city, as well
as warden of Cordwainer Street.
In 1297, a few months before the King restored the mayoralty to the
citizens, John le Breton who had for many years acted as the King's
warden of the city in place of the Mayor, is recorded as having summoned
the aldermen and six representatives of each ward and in their presence
to have declared, _inter alia_, that the weighing machines for weighing
corn at the mills should be abolished, and that bakers convicted of
fraud should no longer be drawn on the hurdle, but suffer instead the
punishment of the pillory.
As soon as the citizens recovered their liberties and Le Breton ceased
to be warden, Le Waleys was again elected to the chair. The charter of
restitution of the city's liberties bears date 12th April, 26 Edw. I.
[1299], and it is preserved at the Guildhall.[222] The particulars of
the various stages of these proceedings are set out fully in the city's
records. The writ was sent to the late warden on the 5th April, and the
notification to the citizens took place on the 9th. Le Waleys was
elected and admitted by the King at Fulham on the 16th.[223]
The King issued a writ to the Barons of the Exchequer from York,
notifying the restitution of the city's liberties, on 28th May, and a
proclamation followed. The day after the Mayor was sworn he was
compelled by business of his own to proceed at once to Lincoln, and
during his absence his official duties were committed to William de
Betoyne and Geoffrey de Nortone.
It is very important to bear in mind that the Mayors of London, besides
holding a very onerous office, were men of great distinction. They held
rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers
of the country. They were mostly representatives of the landed interest,
as well as merchant princes, but sometimes, as already stated, the Mayor
sided with the populace in opposition to the views of his own compeers.
Bishop Stubbs describes the struggles between the magnates and the
Commons, and shows how Thomas Fitz-Thomas favoured the latter.
'In 1249, when the Mayor and aldermen met the judges at the Temple for a
conference on rights claimed by the Abbot of Westminster, the populace
interfered, declaring that they would not permit them to treat without
the participation of the whole "Communa."... In 1262 Thomas Fitz-Thomas,
the Mayor, encouraged the populace to claim the title of "Communa
civitatis," and to deprive the aldermen and magnates of their rightful
influence; by these means he obtained a re-election by the popular vote
in 1263, the voices of the aldermen being excluded: in 1264-1265 he
obtained a reappointment, but his power came to an end after the Battle
of Evesham.'[224]
To pass on to the fourteenth century, we learn that in 1326 Queen Isabel
sent a letter to the citizens permitting them to elect a Mayor, as in
the days before the Iter of 1321. They elected Richard de Betoyne, whom
the barons had that day appointed warden of the Tower conjointly with
John de Gisors.[225]
Sometimes the sovereign, when he went abroad, endowed the Mayor with
considerable powers for the preservation of peace. This was the case in
1340 when Andrew Aubrey, the Mayor, acted on the authority of Edward
III. A conflict had taken place in the streets of the city between the
skinners and the fishmongers, which the Mayor attempted to stop. John
Hansard, a fishmonger, brandishing a drawn sword, seized Aubrey by the
throat and offered to strike him, while John le Brewere wounded one of
the city serjeants. The delinquents were at once seized, carried to
Guildhall, arraigned, found guilty, condemned to death, and beheaded in
Cheap. When the King heard of this bold proceeding he immediately wrote
to the Mayor, warmly approving of his conduct, congratulating him on his
spirit, and adopting and ratifying the deed--'_Si vous en savons très
bon gree et votre fait acceptoms et le ratifioms_.'[226]
Sir William Walworth, the most famous of Mayors, died in 1385, after a
full and strenuous life. He is said to have suppressed usury in the
city, and we have seen how important a figure he was during Wat Tyler's
insurrection. He was a prominent member of the Fishmongers' Company, and
improved the old Church of St. Michael's, Crooked Lane (in which parish
he lived), adding the Fishmongers' aisle.[227]
The end of the fourteenth century was, perhaps, the most stirring period
in the history of the London municipality. There was a deadly feud
between the leaders, who were men of strong character, endued with
courage to carry out their views to the extreme. These feuds were no
matters of merely local interest, but the incidents were followed with
the greatest attention by the Court and the whole country.
The feuds arose from the increased power of the livery companies and the
antagonism between the victualling and clothing trades. This division
existed in most of the towns of the land, but the battle was fought out
with deadly effect in the City of London. Walworth, a fishmonger, was
the chief of the victualling party, but the two prominent leaders of the
two parties were Nicholas Brembre and John of Northampton.
Doubtless the victualling companies had obtained a preponderating
influence, and it is recorded that at one time sixteen of the aldermen
belonged to the Grocers' Company, of which Brembre was a member.[228]
When John of Northampton, a draper, was elected Mayor in 1381, in
succession to Walworth, he set himself to crush the victualling party.
The Act of Edward II. having been evaded, another was passed in 1382 (6
Richard II. cap. 9), by which it was ordained that 'no victualler shall
execute a judicial place in a city or town corporate.'[229] (_See_ p.
305.)
He forced Sir John Philipot, a public-spirited man and ex-Mayor, but a
friend of Walworth's and of the King's, to resign his aldermanry. On 7th
November 1382, John Filiol, a fishmonger, was brought before the Mayor
and aldermen on a charge of having 'said that John Norhamptone, the
Mayor, had falsely and maliciously deprived the fishmongers of their
bread.' For this offence Filiol was adjudged to be 'imprisoned at
Newgate, in a place then called "Bocardo," for one year then next
ensuing, unless he should deserve more extended favour in the meantime.'
On the 6th December John Filiol 'was liberated at the instance of his
friends, on the surety of William Naufretone and others.' When the
charge was made against Filiol, Richard Fiffyde was one of those
questioned on the subject, and he 'said that he and all the other
fishmongers of London were bound to put their hands beneath the very
feet of Nicholas Extone, for his good deeds and words in behalf of the
trade aforesaid.'[230]
John of Northampton was Mayor for two years, and had held the office of
sheriff in 1377 (M.P. for the city, 1378). He was head of John of
Gaunt's supporters and a prominent follower of Wyclif in London. He was
leader of the party which sought to gain the favour of the populace, and
he encouraged the citizens to set at naught the jurisdiction of their
bishop.
He would probably have been returned again in October 1383 as the
champion of cheap food if the King had not carried the election of
Brembre by force.
Brembre was the chief supporter of Richard II. in the city, and he was
the King's financial agent in 1381. He was first elected Mayor in 1377,
and at the Parliament of Gloucester in 1378 Thomas of Woodstock, the
King's uncle, demanded his impeachment as Mayor.
From 1379 to 1386 Brembre was one of the two collectors of customs for
the Port of London, with Chaucer for his controller. He was M.P. for
London in 1383.
When he succeeded Northampton, in 1383, he set himself to undo the evil
caused by the action of his predecessor. Northampton was arrested in
1384, when returning from a riotous demonstration at Whitefriars. He was
tried at Reading, before the Council over which the King presided. After
a brief imprisonment, the condemned man was brought up for a fresh
trial, before Chief-Justice Tresilian, in the Tower of London, and was
imprisoned in Tintagel Castle, Cornwall.
Brembre was also opposed to Nicholas Twyford, who would probably have
been elected Mayor but for the high-handed proceedings of Brembre.
Twyford's party was confident of victory, and shouted at the election
'Twyford, Twyford!'; but when the voting commenced the soldiers placed
by Brembre behind the arras in the Guildhall rushed out and drove
Twyford's followers from the building. Brembre's party were allowed to
remain, and they carried the election for their candidate.
It is worthy of note that during Brembre's mayoralty, in 1378, Nicholas
Twyford, one of the sheriffs, was brought up for contumacy towards the
Mayor, and punished for the same. There had been a conflict in Cheapside
between the goldsmiths and the pepperers (grocers), and John Worsele,
one of the sheriff's suite, was brought before the Mayor as a principal
mover in the strife. Twyford refused to do the Mayor's behests as to the
imprisonment of his follower after arrest.[231]
With the fall of the King, Brembre also fell, and there was a revolution
in the government of the city as well as in that of the country.
Northampton was released from Tintagel Castle, and restored to his
property; and Brembre was tried for his life, condemned to death, and
executed in the Tower in February 1388. The companies who petitioned for
Brembre's punishment were Mercers, Cordwainers, and eight others, all
opposed to the victualling trades.
In 1387 a proclamation was made in the city, by the King's command,
forbidding, on pain of death and forfeiture of goods, all true lieges of
London to speak evil of the King and Queen. The issuing of this
proclamation in the city formed one of the charges of high treason
against Brembre and his followers.
In this same year, 1387, a book of civic regulations called _Jubile_,
promulgated by John de Northampton and his party, was ordered to be
burnt. Mr. Riley refers to the petitions in Parliament for
1386-1387,[232] where we learn from the petition of the Cordwainers
against Nicholas Brembre and his adherents that in this book of _Le
Jubile_ 'were comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good
governance of the said city, and that Nicholas Extone, the Mayor, and
all the aldermen and good Commons of the city had sworn for ever to
maintain them, to the honour of God and the profit of the common people;
but that the said Nicholas Extone and his accomplices have burnt it
without consent of the good Commons of the city, to the annihilation of
many good liberties, franchises and customs of the city.'[233]
The feuds of those days continued to agitate the city for some years,
but at last the differences between the various trades cooled down
somewhat. In 1391, however, a proclamation was issued that 'no person
shall speak or give his opinion as to either Nicholas Brembre or John
Norhamptone' on pain of imprisonment for a year and a day. The preamble
is as follows: 'Whereas many dissensions, quarrels and false reports
have prevailed in the City of London as between trade and trade, person
and person, because of divers controversies lately moved between
Nicholas Brembre, knight, and John Norhamptone, of late Mayors of the
same city, who were men of great power and estate, and had many
friendships and friends within the same; to the great peril of the same
city, and maybe of all the realm.'[234]
The names of many other Mayors who have conferred distinction on their
office might be mentioned here, but the space at our disposal will not
allow of any statement of the claims to honour of these men who have
made their mark in the history of London.
It is a curious fact that we have no authority whatever for fixing a
date for the first use of the title 'Lord Mayor,' and there can be
little doubt that it was originally assumed without any positive right.
Dr. Sharpe thinks that possibly the expression 'domino maiore,' strictly
'Sir Mayor,' may account for the origin of the Lord Mayor's title.[235]
A claim has been set up for Thomas Legge, Mayor the second time in 1354,
that he was the first Lord Mayor, but there is positively no authority
whatever for this claim, although it is boldly stated that he was
created Lord Mayor by Edward III. in this year.
One point is worthy of special attention, although it does not throw any
actual light on the matter. Bishop Stubbs says that the Mayor of York
was known as Lord Mayor in 1389 [1389]. Richard II. had in that year
presented his own sword to the Mayor, who was thence-forward known as
the Lord Mayor; and in 1393 he had given the Lord Mayor a mace.[236]
If this were so, we can scarcely believe that the Londoners, who had
always been very tenacious of their pre-eminent position, would be
content to allow their chief magistrate to continue without a title
possessed by the Mayor of York. Still, there is not the slightest
evidence that the title of Lord Mayor was used in London at this early
period, and it is possible that Bishop Stubbs's statement is too
definite. There is no doubt that the title 'Lord Mayor' was used at an
early date in York, but the prefix 'Lord' was not always applied, and as
late as 1565 there is reference in the Chamberlain's account book 'to
Mr. John Bean, Mayor.'[237]
A correspondence of some interest was printed in _The Times_ in November
and December 1901 on this point; but although Legge's claim was
disproved, few if any positive facts were brought forward. The most
satisfactory letter was one from Mr. W. H. St. John Hope, of the Society
of Antiquaries, who, as the result of a search in the city books, gave
some definite information as to the use of the title. 'Down to about
1540 the chief magistrate was invariably styled Mayor.... There are,
however, instances as early as 1519 where he is referred to as "my lorde
mayr," but seemingly in the same way as we speak of "my lord bishop" or
"my lord the King," for the same entry that refers to him as "my lorde
mayr" nowe beyng, continues "as well as all other mayres his
successours." After 1540 the use of the term "Lord Mayor" becomes
general--_e.g._, 1542, "every lorde mayer's house"; 1545, "the lorde
mayers of the same cytie"; 1546, "the lorde mayor," &c.'
We have seen how important was the office of Mayor in mediæval times,
and how like a king the holder's dignity was upheld.
The Mayor has certain very remarkable privileges, which prove the high
esteem in which he was held by the sovereign. These privileges are of
considerable antiquity, and have not yet been traced to their source.
The four principal are:--
I. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.
II. The Mayor's position in the city, where he is second only to
the King.
III. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new
sovereign.
IV. His position of Butler at the Coronation banquets.
_I.--The closing of Temple Bar to the Sovereign._
The gates of Temple Bar were invariably closed by the city authorities
whenever the sovereign had occasion to enter the city. A herald sounded
a trumpet before the gate--another herald knocked--a parley ensued--the
gates were then thrown open and the Mayor for the time being presented
the sword of the city to the sovereign, who graciously returned it to
the Mayor. The earliest record of this custom is connected with Queen
Elizabeth's visit to St. Paul's to return thanks for the defeat of the
Spanish Armada, but evidently the custom must be one of great antiquity,
and probably in the case of the early kings it was carried out at one of
the city gates long before the bars of the liberties were thought of,
although no records have come down to us.
Stow's account of the proceedings in his _Annales_ is as follows: 'Over
the gate of the Temple bar were placed the waites of the cittie, and at
the same barre the Lord Maior and his brethren the aldermen in scarlet
received and welcomed her Majestie to her cittie and chamber, delivering
to her hands the scepter, which after certaine speeches had, her
Highnesse redelivered to the Maior, and hee againe taking his horse,
bare the same before her. The companies of the cittie in their liveries
stoode in their rayles of tymber, covered with blew cloth, all of them
saluting her highnesse, as shee proceeded along to Paules Church.'
_II.--The Mayor's position in the City._
None of the privileges connected with the Mayor's office has been so
jealously guarded as the one upon which is founded the claim to the
Mayor's supremacy in the City of London, where the sovereign only takes
precedence of him. In Riley's _Memorials_ there is an extract from
Letter Book I (1415) which refers to Henry V.'s speech on the
contemplated invasion of France and the seat of honour accorded to the
Mayor, in presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King's
brothers. When these notabilities met together diligent council was held
as to the order in which they ought to sit, and 'the Lords agreed
together among themselves to the effect that the Mayor, in consideration
of the reverence and honour due to our most excellent Lord the King, of
whom he is the representative in the city, should have his place, when
sitting, in the middle, and that the said Lords of Canterbury and
Winchester should be seated on his right hand, and John, Humphrey and
Edward on the left, upon seats arranged for them; these to make
declaration on behalf of our said Lord the King.'[238]
The actual right to pre-eminence was seldom challenged in the city, but
there were certain places which were supposed to be outside the Mayor's
jurisdiction, such as the Inns of Court, where misunderstandings were
frequently taking place. A very interesting instance is given in
Gregory's Chronicle, and it is well worth quoting here for the striking
light it throws upon the dignity of the office:--
'Thys yere [1465], abute mydsomyr, a[t] the ryalle feste of the
Sargentys of the Coyfe, the Mayre of London [Mathew Phylyppe] was
desyride to be at that feste. And at denyr time he come to the feste
with his offecers, agreyng and acordyng unto hys degre. For withyn
London he ys next unto the kyng in all maner thynge. And in tyme of
waschynge the Erle of Worseter was take before the mayre and sette downe
in the myddis of the hy tabelle. And the mayre seynge that hys place was
occupyd hylde hym contente, and went home agayne with-owt mete or drynke
or any thonke, but rewarde hym he dyd as hys dygnyte requyred of the
cytte. And toke with hym the substance of hys bretheryn the aldyrmen to
his place, and were sette and servyd also sone as any man couthe devyse,
bothe of sygnet and of othyr delycatys i-nowe, that alle the howse
mervelyd howe welle alle tynge was done in soo schorte a tyme, and
prayde alle men to be mery and gladde hit shulde be a-mendyd a-nothyr
tyme.
'Thenn the offesers of the feste, fulle evylle a-schamyd, informyd the
maysters of the feste of thys mysse-happe that ys be-falle. And they
consyderynge the grete dygnyte and costys and change that longgyd unto
the cytte, and anon sende unto the mayre a present of mete, brede,
wyne, and many dyvers sotelteys. But whenn they that come with the
presentys say [saw] alle the gyftys, and the sarvyse that was at the
borde, he was fulle sore a-schamyd that shulde doo the massage, for the
present was not better thenn the servyse of metys was byfore the mayre,
and thoroughe-owte the hyghe tabylle. But hys demenynge was soo that he
hadde love and thonke for hys massage, and a grette rewarde with-alle.
And thys the worschippe of the cytte was kepte, and not loste for hym. I
truste that nevyr hyt shalle, by the grace of God.'[239]
Another and a later difficulty with the lawyers is recorded by Pepys on
March 3, 1668-1669. In order to understand the cause of contention it is
necessary to bear in mind that within the city the Mayor's sword was
held up before him, but outside it was held down.
'Meeting Mr. Bellwood, did hear how my Lord Mayor [Sir William Turner]
being invited this day to dinner at the Reader's at the Temple, and
endeavouring to carry his sword up the students did pull it down, and
forced him to go and stay all the day in a private councillor's chamber,
until the Reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and
then my Lord Mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth, with his
sword up. This do make great heat among the students; and my Lord Mayor
did send to the King.'
On Sir William Turner's complaint, the King agreed to have the case
argued before him in council, but after hearing the evidence his Majesty
thought it best to suspend the declaration of his pleasure until the
right and privilege should be determined at law, and apparently the
question remains unsettled to the present day.
A note may here be made of the Mayor's position in the city as the chief
of the military forces within his jurisdiction, with the right of
forbidding the entry of troops without his sanction. 'The 3rd regiment
of foot, raised in 1665, known by the ancient title of the Old Buffs,
have the privilege of marching thro' London with drums beating, colours
flying, which the city disputes, not only with all other corps, but even
with the King's Guards going on duty to the Tower.'--Major R. Donkin,
_Military Collections_, New York, 1777, p. 134.
_III.--The Mayor's summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a
new Sovereign._
This is intimately connected with the claim of the city to a voice in
the election of the King, which found practical expression even before
the Conquest. There can be no doubt that in mediæval times the support
of London was eagerly sought for in cases of disputed succession. During
the nineteenth century it was the custom to belittle the Mayor and
Corporation, and Lord Macaulay in his history ignores the considerable
influence of the city in securing the succession of his hero William
III. to the throne.
At the Councils held on the accession of Queen Victoria and King Edward
VII. the respective Lords Mayor, although summoned, were not allowed to
remain to the meeting of the Council.
Little has been written upon this very important privilege of the Lord
Mayor, but its consideration opens up a very remarkable constitutional
question which requires very careful investigation. There ought to be
sufficient information available to settle the question.
On the accession of his present Majesty, the Lord Mayor (the late Mr.
Alderman Green, afterwards Sir Frank Green, Baronet) was invited to sign
the proclamation immediately after the Royal Family, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues' signatures
following his lordship's.
It is said that the great Duke of Wellington laid great stress upon the
attendance of the Lord Mayor, and it was supposed that as the death of
the sovereign cancelled the appointments of Court officials, the Lord
Mayor, who continued in office, was an official of considerable
importance on the occasion of the accession of a new sovereign. The
continuance of Court appointments is now settled by an Act of
Parliament.
_IV.--The Mayor s position at the Coronation Banquets._
The privilege of assisting the chief butler at the coronations of the
Kings of England accorded to the citizens of London appears to date back
before the appointment of a Mayor. Dr. Sharpe, referring to the double
coronation of Richard I., writes: 'His first coronation had taken place
at Westminster (3rd Sept. 1189), soon after his accession, and the
citizens of London had duly performed a service at the coronation
banquet--a service which even in those days was recognised as an
"ancient service"--namely, that of assisting the chief butler, for which
the Mayor was customarily presented with a gold cup and ewer. The
citizens of the rival city of Winchester performed on this occasion the
lesser service of attending to the viands. The second coronation taking
place at Winchester [17th April 1194] and not at Westminster, the
burgesses of the former city put in a claim to the more honourable
service over the heads of the citizens of London, and the latter only
succeeded in establishing their superior claim by a judicious bribe of
200 marks.'[240]
Andrew Bokerel, Mayor in the year 1236 (21 Henry III.), claimed to serve
as butler at the coronation of Eleanor, daughter of Raymond Berengar
IV., Count of Provence, Queen of Henry III., but his claim was set
aside on this occasion by the King's command.[241]
In the remarkable record of the Court of Claims held before the
coronation of Richard II. (over which John of Gaunt presided as High
Steward), _Close Roll_, I _Ric. II. mem. 45_. (Public Record Office),
the claim of the Mayor and citizens is fully set forth: The King 'willed
and decreed that the citizens of the said city should serve in the hall
of botelry helping the chief butler, while the King himself sat at table
on the day of his coronation, and when the same our lord the King, after
dinner, entered his chamber and asked for wine, the said Mayor should
serve our said lord the King with a bowl of gold, and afterwards should
receive that bowl with the ewer appertaining to the same bowl, as a gift
from the King.'[242]
At the coronation of Henry VI. (6th November 1429), William Estfield,
the recently elected Mayor, received the customary gold cup and ewer
used on the occasion, which he afterwards bequeathed to his
grandson.[243]
The latest instance of this jealously guarded privilege occurred at the
coronation of George IV., July 19, 1821.[244]
The claim to this honourable service in the cases of the coronations of
William IV and Queen Victoria was not made because no banquet took place
on these occasions.
In the case of the coronation of his present Majesty the claim was
excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims under the royal
proclamation. The terms of the judgment on a further claim is as
follows: 'The Court considers and adjudges that the Lord Mayor has by
usage a right, subject to His Majesty's pleasure, to attend the Abbey
during the coronation, and bear the crystal mace.'[245]
It will be seen that of these four special privileges two relate to the
Mayor's position in the city and two to his position outside the city.
The pageants connected with the election of the Mayor are of great
antiquity, but we have little information respecting the earlier ones.
It is a tradition that when the mayoralty was granted by the King, a
stipulation was made that the Mayor should be presented for approval
either to the King or his justiciar, and the processions then commenced.
In 1415 the Mayor proceeded to Westminster on horseback, but in 1453 Sir
John Norman, the Mayor, was infirm, and he introduced the custom of
making the progress from London to Westminster by barge. This continued
till the horseback procession was revived in 1657, much to the disgust
of the London watermen.
Even when the water procession was the regular practice, the procession
on horseback to the Guildhall and then to the waterside for embarkation
took place.
No Lord Mayor in a city procession used a coach before 1712, and then
only an ordinary one. The present State coach was built in 1757.
Sir John Shaa, Mayor in 1482, was the first to give the annual banquet
in the Guildhall. Previously, the feast had taken place either at
Grocers' Hall or some other convenient place. The practice of dining at
the Guildhall did not become general until 1501, when alterations were
made in the kitchen, and the requisite offices having been added the
series of annual banquets was commenced there.
There was no feeling of contempt of trade in the Middle Ages, and the
Merchant Princes of London were held in high esteem. The custom of
ridiculing the city and its rulers did not then exist, but it seems
probable that it first came into being in the reign of Elizabeth.
Richard Johnson's _Nine Worthies of London_ (1592) contains the praise
of the worthies, written by the author in a mock heroic style. Of the
nine four were Mayors, namely, Sir William Walworth, 1374, 1380; Sir
Henry Pitchard (Picard), 1356; Sir William Sevenoke, 1418; and Sir
William White, 1553.
Most of the Mayors of the Middle Ages were men of birth and position,
and it is difficult to understand how it was that the popular idea of a
poor boy coming up to London penniless, making his way here, and
eventually rising to be Mayor, first came into existence. The
elaboration of this idea in the chap-book life of Sir Richard
Whittington is entirely opposed to the facts of the case.
ALDERMEN
The consideration of the actual position of the alderman in the
government of London is one of great difficulty, and Mr. Round's
discovery of the Oath of the Commune in which aldermen are not mentioned
has made it difficult to conjecture when it was that they took their
natural place as the advisers of the Mayor.
The title 'alderman' is a survival of the Saxon period (as is also that
of 'sheriff'), but the duties of the holders of the office have
frequently been changed.
The word 'alderman' was a generic term as well as the distinctive title
of a special officer. King Alfred appointed an alderman over all London,
and the chief officer of the various guilds was originally known as an
alderman.
The various wards were each presided over by an alderman from an early
period, but, as already noted, we cannot fix the date when they were
united as a Court of Aldermen.
Bishop Stubbs writes: 'The governing body of London in the thirteenth
century was composed of the Mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and
two sheriffs. All these were elective officers.'[246]
The difficulty is, that although aldermen were undoubtedly elected as
the heads of wards they are not referred to as the colleagues of the
Mayor until the very end of this century.
In March 1298-1299 letters were sent from 'the Mayor and Commune of the
City of London' to the Echevins, Jurats and Commonalty of the town of
Burges' [Bruges]; 'to the Provost, Bailiffs and Commonalty of the town
of Caen'; and 'to the Provost, Echevins and Commonalty of the City of
Comerac' [Cambray?].[247]
Although the official form of 'The Mayor and Commune' was continued
until the end of the thirteenth century, and it was not until early in
the fourteenth century that the form 'Mayor, Aldermen and Common
Council' came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that
the aldermen and Common Council before that time were acting with the
Mayor as governors of the city.
As already quoted from Bishop Stubbs, that authority describes the
aldermen as assistants of the Mayor as early as 1249. At all events, in
the record of the election of aldermen in 1293, they are specially
described as elected for the government of the city.
In 1299 (27 Edw. I.) 'it was agreed by Henry le Galeys, Mayor, and the
aldermen, that Strago, the sweeper of litter in the ward of Chepe,
should be taken and imprisoned until, etc., because he, the said Strago,
had scandalized the aldermen by saying that they take the money of the
commonalty at the Guildhall under pretext of wardship of orphans and
then waste such money for their own profit.' In consequence of these
unfounded charges Strago was committed to the Tun.[248]
There are in Riley's _Memorials_ about this date several other
references to aldermen acting with the Mayor, thus, on the 14th
September 1301: 'Walter Swan appeared before Sir Elias Russel, Mayor of
London, and other aldermen then present';[249] and in December 1310
Roger de Eure having insulted and assaulted Richard de Gloucestre,
alderman, the two parties 'appeared in the Guildhall before Sir Richer
[de Refham] the Mayor, and the aldermen.'[250]
In 1311 (4 Edw. II.) the form of description of the governors was 'The
Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City.'[251] From this time the
general form was either this or 'The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty.' It
is necessary, however, to mention that a congregation of Mayor and
aldermen is referred to in Fitz-Ailwin's Assize of 1189.[252]
The title of 'echevin,' as applied to a governor of the city, is at
present only known to us as used in the Oath of the Commune, found by
Mr. Round, and it may therefore have had a very short existence. It is
possible that aldermen were elected on to the Mayor's Council under the
title of 'echevins.' This, however, is not the opinion of Mr. Round, who
is inclined to believe that the body of echevins became in course of
time the Court of Common Council.
The whole question is at present one of great difficulty, and I only
state the facts here without venturing to express any confident opinion
until more evidence is forthcoming.
We may be allowed to think that too great an importance has been
ascribed to the position of the early aldermen in connection with their
wards. It is generally affirmed that the aldermen were hereditary owners
of the various wards, on account of the fact that the wards were named
after them, an instance of which practice remains in Farringdon,
Bassishaw and Basingshall. There is no evidence of this proprietorship,
and it seems improbable on the face of it. Mr. Round believes that what
an alderman inherited can only have been the aldermanry of his ward,
like, he suggests, an hereditary sheriff.
Mr. Baddeley writes that 'early in 1276 we find mention made of "the
ward of Henry de Frowyk within the Gate" (_i.e._, Cripplegate), and ten
years later (_circ._ 1285) he figures in the earliest list of aldermen
extant in the city's records as alderman of the same ward.'[253]
At the election of aldermen in 1291 (19 Edw. I.) sixteen of the wards
were named after the aldermen and eight after places. The latter being
the wards of Chepe, Castle Baynard, Walebroke, Douegate, Bridge,
Portsoken, Vintry, and Bassieshawe.
At the election two years afterwards (1293) all the wards were named
with their proper names, and not after the aldermen.
The ward of Ludgate and Neugate presented Nicholas de Farndone, it being
styled in the previous list 'the ward of William de Farndone.' Many of
the same names are found in the two lists, but they represent different
individuals of the same family.
The preamble to the list of elections in 1293 is of considerable
interest: 'Be it remembered that on Tuesday before the Feast of St.
Botolph, 21 Edw. I., in the presence of Sir John le Bretun, Warden of
London, the whole commonalty of the city aforesaid was assembled, viz.,
from each ward the wealthier and wiser men, who each by their several
wards elected for themselves aldermen freely, of good will and of their
full consent, and the aldermen so elected, they presented to the warden
aforesaid in this form, that all and singular the things which the
aforesaid aldermen of their wisdom and discretion shall do and ordain
for the government of the city and the maintenance of the King's peace,
in conjunction with the warden and their superiors for the time being
shall be straitly observed, and shall be held ratified and confirmed
before other provisions touching the commonalty without any challenge or
opposition in the future; and each ward elected its aldermen, for whom
it would answer as to all his acts affecting the city, the Commune
(_Communam_) and its estate.'[254]
It will be seen from the above that the election of aldermen was only in
the hands of a few of the 'wealthier and wiser men' of the wards, but
later on the electors were freemen of the city, 'paying scot and bearing
lot.'
There was much difference of practice in the election of aldermen.
Various orders were issued from time to time, and some of them fell out
of use.
In 1377 it was ordered that aldermen should be elected annually, as
appears from the following entry in Letter Book H (f. 58):--
'51 Edw. III. Precept (_bille_) for the men of each ward to meet on
Saturday, the 7th March, and elect an alderman other than the sitting
alderman, and to have the name of the alderman so elected endorsed on
the Bill at the Guildhall on the Feast of St. Gregory next, at eight
o'clock at the latest, under penalty.'
This precept was elaborated in an Ordinance made on Friday, 6th March,
51 Edw. III., with the assent of the Mayor, aldermen and divers
representations of the livery companies.
It was ordered that 'aldermen removed for good and reasonable cause
shall not be open for re-election, but that those who go out of office
on St. Gregory's Day and have not misconducted themselves may be
re-elected after the interval of one year.'
In 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an alderman to be
re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year of office without
any interval (Letter Book H, f. 173).
In 1394 the Ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the
King, and aldermen were henceforward elected for life.
6th March, 17 Ric. II., 'and have also ordained for the honour and
greater increase of the good government of our said city, that they who
should be chosen aldermen of our same city should not be removed out of
their offices during their lives, unless for just, reasonable and
notable cause.'
Shortly after this an order of the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty was
issued which took away the right of the wards of directly electing
their aldermen. A ward was only allowed to nominate two persons, of whom
the Mayor and aldermen were to choose one. Five years later, that is in
1402, the number of names to be nominated was raised to four, and in
1420 this order was reaffirmed.[255]
Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen; thus the Common Seal of the
Corporation bears the inscription: _Sigillum Baronum Londoniarum_, and
we are told by John Carpenter in _Liber Albus_, 'it is a matter of
experience that even since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture
of aldermen, the ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was
observed; for in the church where the alderman was about to be buried a
person appeared upon a caparisoned horse, arrayed in the armour of the
deceased, bearing a banner in his hand, and carrying upon him his
shield, helmet and the rest of his arms, along with the banner, as is
still the usage at the sepulture of lords of baronial rank. But by
reason of the sudden and frequent changes of the aldermen, and the
repeated occurrence of pestilence, this ceremonial in London gradually
died out and disappeared.'[256]
When the poll tax of 1379 was imposed the Mayor was assessed as an earl
and the aldermen as barons.[257]
On August 12, 1417, a royal mandate (5 Hen. V.) was issued to the Mayor
enjoining that the aldermen shall reside within the city: 'We do
therefore will, and do command and charge you that you cause your
letters to be addressed unto each one of the said aldermen so absent
from our said city, charging them strictly thereby on our behalf that
they return unto our said city and do tarry and remain there, to support
you and to administer counsel and assistance in all that may touch the
preservation of the said peace and good governance of our said
city.'[258] This was an irksome regulation, and in the charter of Edward
IV. the aldermen were released from the obligation.
'It is well-known and manifest that those of the said city which are
elected aldermen have sustained great cost and pains for the time they
make their abode and residence in the same city, and for that cause
oftentimes do leave their possessions and places in the country that
therefore they and every of them may without fear of unquietness or
molestation peaceably abide and tarry in such their houses and
possessions, when they shall return thither for comfort and recreations
sake.'
It has sometimes been the fashion of the wits to gird at the aldermen
and other city magnates, but although some of the names on the list may
be of little account there are many which are written on the page of
history, and a large number of noble families owe their origin to famous
aldermen.
Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, Mayor in 1457, was great-grandfather to Anne
Boleyn, and therefore ancestor of Queen Elizabeth; Sir Thomas Canynge,
Mayor in 1456, was ancestor of George Canning, Earl Canning, and Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe; Sir William Loke, sheriff in 1548, the favourite
of Henry VIII., who had a key of the King's private chamber so that he
might come whenever he would, was the ancestor of John Locke, Lord
Chancellor King, and the Earl of Lovelace; John Cowper, alderman in
1551, was the ancestor of Lord Chancellor Cowper and the poet William
Cowper; Sir Edward Osborne was the ancestor of the Dukes of Leeds.
Among other distinguished men descended from aldermen may be mentioned
Bacon, Beckford, Byron, Cromwell, Howe, Marlborough, Newcastle,
Melbourne, Nelson, Palmerston, the two William Pitts, Raglan, Salisbury,
and the Walpoles.
SHERIFFS.
The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period
of our history, and these reeves were appointed by the King. When
William the Conqueror demanded entrance to London the joint governors
were the bishop and the portreeve. How long before the Conquest a
portreeve had been appointed and how long after his office was continued
we do not know. The sheriff to some extent took his place, but Henry I.
gave the city the right of appointing justiciars and sheriffs, and the
justiciar, according to Mr. Round, took precedence of the sheriff.
After the establishment of the Commune and the appointment of a Mayor
the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became
what they are styled in _Liber Albus_, 'the Eyes of the Mayor.' They
often in early times were called also bailiffs. When Middlesex was in
ferm to London the two sheriffs were equally Sheriffs of London and
Middlesex. There is one instance only in the city records of a Sheriff
of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was
in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and Walter le Blond are described as
Sheriffs of London, and Gerin as Sheriff of Middlesex.[259] This
anomaly has not been explained, but Dr. Sharpe remarks respecting a writ
of 1308: 'The King to the Sheriff of Middlesex, greeting,' that this was
'presumably addressed to and the return made by the Sheriffs of London
acting as Sheriff of Middlesex according to custom.'
It was ordained and agreed in 1383 (7 Ric. II.) 'that no person shall
from henceforth be Mayor in the said city if he have not first been
sheriff of the said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance
and bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty.'[260]
Mr. Baddeley has very clearly described the changes made at various
times in the election of sheriffs, and I therefore quote from his book:
'Until the commencement of the fourteenth century the sheriffs were
elected by the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city. In 1301 an
attempt was made to restrict the number of electors to twelve
representatives of each ward, but this, like other subsequent attempts,
proved unsuccessful. In 1347 is met with, for the first time, a new
method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the
Mayor and the other by the commonalty, and this prerogative of the Mayor
for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be
exercised with few, if any, exceptions down to 1638.'[261]
This is the mode of election which is described in the _Liber Albus_:
'In the first place, the Mayor shall choose, of his own free will, a
reputable man, free of the city, to be one of the sheriffs for the
ensuing year, for whom he is willing to answer as to one half of the
ferm of the city due to the King, if he who is so elected by the Mayor
shall prove not sufficient. But if the Mayor elect him by counsel and
with the assent of the aldermen they also ought to be answerable with
him. And those who are elected for the Common Council themselves, and
the others summoned by the Mayor for this purpose, as before declared,
shall choose another sheriff for the commonalty, for whom all the
commonalty is bound to be answerable as to the other half of the ferm so
due to the King, in case he shall prove not sufficient. And if any
controversy arise between the Commons as to the election, the matter is
to proceed and be discussed.'[262]
COMMON COUNCIL.
We do not know when the Court of Common Council was first formed, but,
as already stated, Mr. Round supposes it to have grown out of the body
of echevins brought into being on the granting of a Commune. It seems
probable that the two courts--that of aldermen and that of the Common
Council--were formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we
have at present no definite information on the subject. Now that special
attention is drawn to this matter, it is to be hoped that some facts
settling the question may be forthcoming. The number of members of the
Common Council varied greatly at different times, but the right to
determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward
III., 1341, which enables the city to amend customs and usages which
have become hard.
The preamble to an Act of Common Council, 8th May 1840 (3 Vict.), passed
to reduce the total number of Common Council, and to apportion more
equally the members to the different wards, contains the following
statement of its antiquity:--
'Whereas from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary, there hath existed, and still doth exist, within the City of
London, a Common Council, consisting of the Mayor and aldermen of the
said city, and certain citizens, being freemen of the said city,
annually elected to be of the same Council, and called the Commons of
the said city; and whereas, under and by virtue of the ancient charters,
ordinances, statutes and customs of the said city, the power of
appointing and regulating the number of citizens to be from time to time
elected of the same Common Council hath, from time whereof the memory of
man runneth not to the contrary, belonged, and still of right doth
belong, to the Mayor, aldermen and Commons of the said city.'[263]
The Common Council were chosen by the wards until 1351 (25 Edw. III.),
when certain Companies appointed the Common Council.[264]
In 1376 (50 Edw. III.) an Ordinance was made by the Mayor and aldermen,
with the assent of the whole Commons, to the effect that the companies
should select men with whom they were content, and none other should
come to the elections of Mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies
should not elect more than six, the lesser four, and the least two.[265]
Forty-seven companies nominated 156 members.
In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained
again by the companies in 1467.
ARMS OF LONDON.
The arms of the City of London are simple and of great interest,
consisting as they do of the Cross of St. George with the Sword of St.
Paul in the dexter quarter, but unfortunately an absurd popular blunder
has been prevalent that the sword was really the dagger with which Sir
William Walworth killed Wat Tyler.
The history of these arms is fully set forth in Jewitt and Hope's
_Corporation Plate_, and there illustrated with figures of the old
common seal of London, and the first and second mayoralty seals. The
facts as there set forth are shortly stated here.
The old common seal is a fine example of the early part of the
thirteenth century. Stow in his _Survey_ dates it in 1224, and Gregory
in his _Chronicle_ in 1227-1228. Mr. Hope says that the seal may well be
of a date _circa_ 1225, and that it certainly was in use in 1246. The
obverse of the seal represents a figure of St. Paul, with a sword in his
outstretched right hand, and a banner of England in his left hand. 'The
saint is represented as standing in the middle of the city over which
he keeps guard; the spire of the cathedral church rises in front of him,
and other steeples on each side.... In front of all is the city wall
with its ditch, with lofty central gateway and two lesser flanking
towers or bastions.' The legend is: SIGILLUM BARONUM LONDONIARUM.
The first mayoralty seal bears the seated figures of St. Thomas of
Canterbury and St. Paul with his sword. The legend is _Sigillum
Maioratus London._ and the date _circa_ 1280.
The second mayoralty seal, which was produced a century after the first
one, is of very special interest. It bears seated figures of St. Thomas
and St. Paul, and in base a shield of the city supported by two lions.
The legend is _Sigil: Maioratus: Civitatis: London_. The record of the
making of this seal in 1381 is found in Letter Book K, f. cxxxijb., and
Mr. Hope's remarks on the value of this piece of evidence must be quoted
entire: 'This seal is of special interest, not only from its being a
dated example, but because it proves beyond doubt the absurdity of the
silly notion that the object in the dexter chief of the city arms is the
sword or dagger wherewith Sir William Walworth slew Wat Tyler, instead
of being, as it undoubtedly is, the sword of St. Paul. Wat Tyler was
killed on June 15, 1381, whereas the new seal of the mayoralty had been
formally adopted on April 17, two months before. This seal is also one
of the earliest authorities for the city arms. Its silver matrix is
still preserved at the Mansion House, but in so worn a condition that
little else than the deepest parts can be traced. It is only now used
for mercantile documents going abroad.'[266]
To return to the common seal, it may be noticed here that the original
reverse had 'in base a view of the city somewhat resembling that on the
obverse, surmounted by a segmental arch. On the top of the arch, seated
on a throne or chair of state, is a figure of St. Thomas of Canterbury
with cross and pall.'
In accordance with the famous proclamation of Henry VIII. (Nov. 16,
1538) which enacted 'that Thomas Becket' should no longer 'be esteemed,
named, reputed nor called a sayncte, but Bysshop Becket, and that his
ymages and pictures through the hole realme shalle be putte downe,'
etc., it was enacted in 1539 that this reverse of the common seal should
be destroyed.
'The beautiful reverse of the common seal, after doing duty for over
three centuries, was therefore broken up, and presumably its silver used
to make a new matrix. This is of the same size as its predecessor, but,
in accordance with the resolution, it bears for device simply the city
arms, _argent a cross gules and in the dexter quarter the sword of St.
Paul_, with helm, mantling and crest, _a dragon's wing expanded argent
charged with a cross gules_. The legend is: _Londini. Defende. Tuos.
Deus. Optime. Cives._'[267]
In connection with the arms it may be noticed that the supporters which
are usually described as griffins are really dragons, in allusion to St.
George.
CHAPTER IX
_Officials of the City_
The chief of the officials of the City of London was for many years
after the Conquest the Castellan and Bannerer. When William the
Conqueror obtained possession of London he built a castle on the river
at each end of the city, to intimidate the Londoners. The Tower was at
the east end, and at the west end was what according to Dugdale was
called at first _The Castle_. This was placed under the charge of
Baynard, one of the Conqueror's followers, after whom it came to be
known as Baynard's Castle. The hereditary office of Castellan was held
by the family of Fitz-Walter, by virtue of their possession of Baynard's
Castle, the key of the city. The duties attached to this office are
among the most important and interesting in the story of mediæval
London, and it is to be presumed that Baynard held the various
privileges afterwards possessed by the family of Fitz-Walter, but no
notice of this is recorded.
Robert Fitz-Richard was the first baron by tenure. He is said to have
been the younger son of Richard Fitz-Gilbert, ancestor of the Earls of
Clare. He was steward to Henry I., from whom he obtained the barony of
Dunmow, and the honour of the soke of Baynard's Castle, both which had
been forfeited to the Crown in 1111 by reason of the felony of William,
Baron of Dunmow, son of Ralph Baynard, the Norman associate of William
the Conqueror, after whom the castle was named.
In connection with this soke Robert held the hereditary office of
Standard-Bearer of the city, the duties of which will be stated further
on. He died in 1134, and was succeeded by his son, Walter Fitz-Robert.
The latter's son was Robert Fitz-Walter, the most famous member of the
family, and the one who transmitted to his descendants the permanent
surname of Fitz-Walter.
This Fitz-Walter was styled 'Marshal of the Army of God and Holy
Church.' He was one of the twenty-five barons appointed to enforce the
observance of Magna Charta obtained from King John.
An 'agreement [dated 15-25 June 1215] between King John, of the one
part, and Robert Fitz-Walter, Marshal of the Army of God and of Holy
Church in England, six earls and six barons named, and other earls,
barons and freemen, of the other part,' is preserved in the Public
Record Office, and the following description of the document is given in
the _Catalogue of MSS., &c., in the Museum of the P.R.O._ (1902): 'The
earls, barons and others shall hold the City of London, saving the royal
revenues, and the Archbishop of Canterbury shall hold the Tower of
London, saving the liberties of the city, until the Feast of the
Assumption in the seventeenth year of the reign. In the meanwhile, oaths
shall be taken throughout England to twenty-five barons, as is contained
in the charter for the liberties and security of the realm, and all
things shall be done according to the said charter; otherwise the city
and the Tower shall be held as above, until all the said things shall be
done.' It is said in a note to this document that 'none of the thirteen
persons who are thus entered into an agreement with the King are
mentioned among those upon whose advice he granted the great charter.'
The third baron was himself in trade, and he owned wine ships. He
received special privileges from John, and the story of that King's
treatment of his daughter Matilda is supposed to be an unfounded tale.
In the year 1215 the insurgent barons entered the city at Aldgate,
largely owing to the assistance of Robert Fitz-Walter, whose position
was of a commanding character. He died in 1235.
Walter Fitz-Walter succeeded his father Robert, and died in 1257. He was
succeeded by his son Robert Fitz-Walter, the fifth baron.
It is of the latter's duties and privileges that we possess an account,
written by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald in the reign of Elizabeth,
extracts from which are given by Dugdale in his _Baronage of England_,
1675, i. 200:--
'In time of war [he] should serve the city in manner following, viz.: To
ride upon a light horse, with twenty men-at-arms on horseback, their
horses covered with cloth or harness, unto the great dore of St. Paul's
Church, with the banner of his arms carried before him; and being come
in that manner thither, the Mayor of London, together with the sheriffs
and aldermen, to issue armed out of the church unto the same dore on
foot, with a banner in his hand, having the figure of St. Paul depicted
with gold thereon, but the feet, hands and head of silver, holding a
silver sword in his hand.
'And as soon as he shall see the Mayor, sheriffs and aldermen come on
foot out of the church, carrying such a banner, he is to alight from his
horse, and salute him as his companion, saying, _Sir Mayor, I am obliged
to come hither to do my service, which I owe to this city_. To whom the
Mayor, sheriffs and aldermen are to answer, _We give to you, as our
banner-bearer for this city, this banner by inheritance of the city, to
bear and carry, to the honour and profit thereof to your power_.
'Whereupon the said Robert and his heirs shall receive it into their
hands, and the Mayor and sheriffs shall follow him to the dore, and
bring him an horse worth twenty pounds. Which horse shall be saddled
with a saddle of his arms, and covered with silk, depicted likewise with
the same arms; and they shall take twenty pounds sterling, and deliver
it to the chamberlain of the said Robert, for his expenses that day,'
etc.[268]
There was a vacant ground opposite the great west door of St. Paul's
where this interesting ceremony took place. The folkmoots were held in
the churchyard at the east end of the cathedral.
In 1275 (3 Edw. I.) Robert Fitz-Walter obtained licence from the Crown
to convey Baynard Castle and the Tower of Montfichet to the Archbishop
of Canterbury for the purpose of the foundation of the House and Church
of the Friars Preachers or Blackfriars.[269] In the following year
Edward I. confirmed the grant of two lanes adjacent to 'Castle Baynard
and the Tower of Montfytchet for the purpose of enlarging the aforesaid
place on condition that the said archbishop should provide the citizens
with a more convenient way as he had now done.'[270] In 1277-1278 an
alteration was made in the wall of the friary.[271]
When Sir Robert Fitz-Walter conveyed Baynard Castle to the Archbishop he
specially reserved all his rights and privileges in the following terms:
'Provided that by reason of this grant nothing should be extinguished to
him and his heirs which did belong to his barony, but that whatsoever
relating thereto as wel in rents, landing of vessells and other
liberties and priviledges in the City of London or elsewhere without
diminution, which to him the said Robert or to that barony had antiently
appertained, should be thenceforth reserved.'[272]
We know very little of this Tower of Montfichet, but it must have been
closely connected with Baynard Castle. There is a reference to it and
its owner in the _Chronique de la guerre entre les Anglois et les
Ecossois en 1173 et 1174 par Jordan Fantosme_ (Howlett's _Chronicles of
Stephen, Henry II. and Richard I._, iii. 339. Rolls Series):
"Gilbert de Munfichet has fortified his castle,
And says that the Clares are leagued with him."
As Mr. Round points out to me this reference to the Clares must relate
to the proprietors of Baynard's Castle, who, as previously noted, were
of the same family as the Clares. Walter Fitz-Robert is also referred to
in this metrical chronicle.
The Barons Fitz-Walter possessed many privileges in time of peace, which
are set out by Dugdale, among which was the right of punishing by
drowning at Woodwharf persons guilty of treason, but it was as constable
of Barnard Castle that they enjoyed these privileges as well as the
office of bannerer to the City of London. A beautiful seal inscribed
'Sigillum Roberti Filii Walteri' was found at Stamford, Lincolnshire, in
the reign of Charles II., and is the subject of a paper by John Charles
Brooke of the Heralds' College in _Archæologia_ (vol. v. pp. 211-215):
'In this seal we see [Fitz-Walter's] horse elegantly engraved and
covered with trappings of his arms, so exquisitely represented, that
they evidently appear to be of a much finer texture than those commonly
used, the muscles of the animal being seen under them, and as much as
engraving can represent drapery, appear to be silk, as described by
Glover; and what is remarkable his arms are carved on the rest behind
his saddle, which is a rare instance, and evidently alludes to that
which the Mayor was to present to him.'
On the seal are represented the arms of Fitz-Walter's second wife
Eleanor, daughter of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Ferrers and Derby. She
was married in 1298 and died in 1304, therefore the date of the seal is
fixed within six years. Mr. Brooke refers to another seal of Baron
Fitz-Walter which he used, 28 Edw. I. (Anno 1300), and in which the
dragon occurring in the former seal beneath the horse is used as a
supporter. Robert Fitz-Walter died in 1325, and in 1328 the wardship of
his son John was granted by the Mayor and aldermen to his widow
Johanna.[273]
[Illustration: SEAL OF ROBERT FITZ-WALTER.]
In 1347 Sir John Fitz-Walter still claimed to have franchise in the ward
of Castle Baynard, but the city entirely repudiated the claim as
'altogether repugnant to the liberties of the city.' He caused stocks to
be set up in the ward of Castle Baynard, and claimed to make deliverance
of men there imprisoned. In consequence of this action, a conference was
held by the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty, at which 'it was agreed that
the said Sir John Fitz-Walter has no franchise within the liberty of the
city aforesaid, nor is he in future to intermeddle with any plea in the
Guildhall of London, or with any matters touching the liberties of the
city.'[274]
The Recorder, the chief official of the city, is appointed for life. He
was formerly appointed by the city, but since the Local Government Act
of 1888 he is nominated by the city and approved by the Lord Chancellor.
His duties and his oath are recorded in the _Liber Albus_. In 1329
Gregory de Nortone, the then holder of the office, obtained an increase
of salary--100 shillings yearly, as also his robe of the same pattern as
the aldermen's robes.[275]
The Common Serjeant was formerly appointed by the city, but since 1888
by the Lord Chancellor. He is the recorder's principal assistant.
The next great official is the Town Clerk, who is appointed by the
Common Council and re-elected annually. John de Batequell, clerk of the
city, is referred to in Letter Book A,[276] and this is the first
recorded mention of the office afterwards known as the common clerk, and
later as town clerk. Next to the recorder the town clerk was the chief
officer in the local courts of law called the Hustings and the Mayor's
Court.
Among the distinguished men who have held the office two names stand
out, viz., John Carpenter and William Dunthorn.
Carpenter, town clerk in the reigns of Henry V. and Henry VI., was
elected in 1417. He was called also secretary of the city, a title not
applied to any other town clerk. He is best known as the compiler of the
_Liber Albus_, and as founder of the City of London school.
Dunthorn's (1462) name is associated with the _Liber Dunthorn_, which
contains transcripts from the _Liber Albus_, _Liber Custumarum_, Letter
Books, etc.
The Chamberlain or Comptroller of the King's Chamber is appointed by the
livery. He was originally a King's officer, and the office was probably
instituted soon after the Conquest. It is mentioned in documents of the
twelfth century. On June 28, 1232, the office of 'King's chamberlain of
London' was granted for life to Peter de Rivallis. His duties and
privileges as stated in the grant are very extensive and important. 'He
shall have for life the custody of the King's houses at Southampton, and
the King's prise of wine there,' 'custody of the King's Jewry, of the
mint of England,' and 'all other things pertaining to the office of
Chamberlain of London.' By another grant of the same year the said
Peter, Treasurer of Poitiers for life, was given the custody of the
ports and coasts of England, saving the port of Dover.[277] When the
office is mentioned in 1275 it was combined with the offices of Mayor
and coroner.
The functions of coroner were often exercised by the chamberlain and
sheriffs, and when the chamberlain was called away from the city by the
King he appointed a deputy coroner. The office was sometimes held by the
King's butler, to whom appertained the office of coroner.
William Trente, a wine merchant of Bergerac, was appointed King's butler
on the 25th November 1301 (30 Edw. I.)[278] He became also the King's
chamberlain of the city and coroner of London.[279]
Andrew Horn, a fishmonger by trade, who kept a shop in Bridge Street,
held the office of chamberlain for several years. He was the compiler of
_Liber Horn_, which contains charters, statutes, grants, etc. To him
also has been attributed the authorship of the law treatise of mediæval
times entitled the 'Mirror of Justice.'[280] He died in 1328.
Many attempts were made by the citizens to get the coronership into
their own hands, and at last Edward IV. sold the right to appoint a
coroner of their own, independent of the King's butler, for £7000.[281]
The Remembrancer or State Amanuensis is appointed by the Common Council.
The office was held from 1571 to 1584 by a distinguished man, Thomas
Norton, M.P., who was joint author with Thomas Sackville, Earl of
Dorset, of the tragedy of _Gorbaduc_. He left a manuscript on the
ancient duties of the Lord Mayor and Corporation, an account of which
was published by J. Payne Collier in _Archæologia_ (vol. xxxvi. p. 97).
The Common Hunt was an official mentioned in the _Liber Albus_, where we
learn that John Courtenay was appointed to the office in 1417.[282] The
office was abolished in the year 1807.
Of officers in immediate attendance on the Mayor may be mentioned the
sword-bearer and the sergeant-at-mace.
The first notice of the office of sword-bearer occurs in the _Liber
Albus_ (1419), and the first record in the minute books of the
appointment of a sword-bearer is in 4 Hen. VI., 1426. Mr. Hope remarks
that 'the absence of earlier notices is most probably due to the
[Illustration: THE CRYPT OF THE GUILDHALL.]
fact that the sword-bearer was appointed, according to the entry in the
_Liber Allus... as propres costages du Mair_, and not at the cost of the
city.'
The sword-bearer is remarkable on account of the distinctive
head-covering or 'cap of maintenance' which is appropriated to his
office.[283]
It is not known when the City of London first possessed a mace or maces,
but Mr. Hope refers to the _Liber Custumarum_ to prove that as early as
1252 there were sergeants who carried staves of some kind as emblems of
authority. 'We know this from the claim put forth on the occasion of the
_Iter_ of the pleas of the Crown held at the Tower in 1321, that the
Mayor and citizens of London should have their own porter and usher, and
their own sergeants with their staves. As it was shown that the same
claim had been successfully made in 1276-1277, and in 1252 it was
allowed' Mr. Hope quotes from Letter Book F a record of the appointment
of Robert Flambard as mace-bearer in 1338, and from this it is clear
that the office was not then a newly created one.'[284]
For the due carrying on of the business of the Corporation several new
offices have at various times been established, but the foregoing are
the officials who carried on the work of the city during the Middle
Ages. Much of interest might have been added of these men, but it is
only necessary here to refer to them generally as those to whom so much
of the history of London was due.
The chief business of the city has been carried on for many centuries in
the Guildhall, which is of unknown antiquity. It is almost certain that
the building was in existence on the same spot as early as the twelfth
century. It was rebuilt in 1411, and has been greatly altered at
different times since then. The most interesting portion of the old
building will be found in the extensive Gothic crypt which is shown in
the illustration on page 273. The open timber roof of the Hall was not
added until the alterations of 1866-1870 by the late Sir Horace Jones.
CHAPTER X
_Commerce and Trade_
The earliest trade recorded as carried on in the British Isles consisted
of the exchange of tin with the Gauls, and, perhaps, also with
Phoenician traders.
Under Roman rule the agricultural and mineral resources of Britain were
more fully developed. Julius Cæsar praised the Southdown mutton, and
Rome was supplied with oysters which came from Whitstable and Reculvers
(_Regulbium_), and were carried through the River Stour (forming the
western boundary of the Island of Thanet), and were exported from
Richborough (_Rutupiæ_). Corn was exported in large quantities, and
Londinium, the principal port for trading with Gaul, was the centre of
commerce.
There is no notice of commerce during the early Anglo-Saxon period, but
Bede, at the beginning of the eighth century, speaks of London as a
great market which traders frequented by land or sea. The letter of
protection for English pilgrims given to Offa of Mercia by Charlemagne
(A.D. 796), which refers to trade carried on by them, has been called
'the first English commercial treaty.' One remarkable fact is that this
commerce was mainly in the hands of foreigners. London in the early
times was mainly a city of foreigners. Hence the jealousy of the
natives, which grew in strength as time went on.
Commerce greatly increased during the reign of Edgar, so that Ethelred
his son deemed it time to draw up a code of laws to regulate the Customs
to be paid by the merchants of France and Flanders, as well as by the
Emperor's men, but the promulgation of the laws of Athelstane (A.D.
925-929), which ordained that a merchant who had made three sea voyages
should be of right a Thane, is a proof of the small number as well as of
the importance of such native traders.
We learn from the Colloquies of the Abbot Ælfric (eleventh century) that
most of the commodities imported into England were articles of luxury.
The port of Dowgate was granted to the City of Rouen as early as Edward
the Confessor's reign, and the right was afterwards confirmed.[285]
The Confessor also gave a portion of Waremanni-Acra within London, 'with
the wharf belonging to it, and with its market rights and places for
merchandise, its stalls and shops, its rents and dues and rights, its
toll and wharfage' to St. Peter's at Ghent, which grant was confirmed by
William I. 1081.[286]
After the Conquest, communication with Normandy naturally increased
greatly. Rouen was particularly favoured, and was granted a monopoly of
trade with Ireland and freedom of commerce in London. In the twelfth
century silver was imported in exchange for meat, fish and wool, which
were all sent to the manufacturing districts of the Low Countries. Corn
was sometimes exported, but not without a licence.
The House or Gild of the Merchants of Almaines otherwise called the
House of the Teutonics, was formed about the year 1169, though the
Germans, under the name of Easterlings, are known to have traded here,
during the Saxon period. The gild flourished in London as the Merchants
of the Steelyard till the time of Elizabeth, when their special
privileges were abolished by royal decree.
Hallam tells us that from the middle of the twelfth to the thirteenth
century the traders of England became more and more prosperous. The
towns on the southern coast exported tin and other metals in exchange
for the wines of France. Those on the eastern coast sent corn to Norway,
and the Cinque Ports bartered wool against the stuffs of Flanders.
The export, of wool and the import of cloth were prohibited in 1261, and
the prohibition was repeated in 1271. The cause of this prohibition may
be illustrated by reference to a particular import--woad, which seems to
show that a native woollen manufacture existed, although all the finer
cloth came from Flanders. The restrictions originally imposed upon the
woad merchants would not allow them a settlement in the city nor permit
them to store their woad, which they had to sell as best they could on
the wharf where it was landed. In 1237, however, the merchants of
Amiens, Corby and Nesle were allowed, by special arrangement, greater
freedom in the disposal of their woad and other wares. In the end the
woad merchants settled in Cannon Street (Candelwykstrete), the very
centre of the cloth trade in London, as Lydgate tells us in his _London
Lyckpenny_:--
'Then went I forth by London Stone,
Throughout all Canwyke Street;
Drapers mutch cloth me offered anone.'[287]
London was the seat of trade in Eastern luxuries, which became known
largely through the influence of the Crusades. Silks, fruits, spices and
Greek wines were brought here by the Italian fleets which, after 1317,
regularly visited England.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the importance of our
commerce is shown by the appearance of regulations for its promotion in
the Statute Book. The Statute of Merchants is dated 1283-1285, and the
_Carta Mercatoria_ 1303.
The trade with Bordeaux was very active, and largely carried on by
English ships from London, Bristol, Dover and Hull. Wool, herrings,
lead, copper and tin were taken out in these ships, also pilgrims as
passengers. The ships returned to England laden with wine, and corn when
the home production was short. In 1350 141 ships carried 13,429 tuns of
wine from Bordeaux to England. English merchants travelled largely, and
made their appearance at the great continental fairs.
As commerce increased the enemies of commerce also increased, and we
find therefore that the Thames and the open sea were infested by bands
of pirates. Soon after pirates had made a successful descent upon
Scarborough, John Philipot, a prominent Londoner, set himself to break
up the conspiracy. He fitted out a fleet at his own expense, and,
putting to sea, succeeded in capturing the ringleader, 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.[288]
How serious this danger really was may be seen from the fact that not
even the King was safe. When Henry IV., in order to escape the
pestilence raging in London, crossed from Queensborough, in Sheppey, to
Leigh, in Essex, on his way to Plashey--though convoyed by Lord Camoys
with certain ships of war--narrowly escaped capture by pirates. A vessel
containing part of his baggage and retinue, together with his
Vice-Chamberlain, fell into the hands of the enemy. This scandal
naturally created a great stir, and Lord Camoys was tried on a charge of
correspondence with the enemy. He was acquitted, but his innocence
appears to have been considered doubtful.
Pirates lurked in the Thames or blockaded the mouth of the river, and to
prevent them from landing within the area of the city the streets
leading to the river were defended by chains. Still further to defend
London from privateers, John Philipot offered to build at his own cost a
stone tower 60 king's feet in height, near Ratcliff, provided the
Corporation of London would levy sixpence in the pound on the rental of
the city and build a corresponding tower on the opposite side of the
river, so that an iron chain might be stretched from one tower to the
other to protect the shipping of the river from night attack. The danger
was so imminent that the Common Council agreed to the proposal, but, as
the alarm died away, this scheme of defence was laid aside.[289]
In 1370 'the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty were given to understand
that certain galleys, with a multitude of armed men therein, were lying
off the foreland of Tanet' [Thanet], and it was therefore ordered that
'every night watch shall be kept between the Tower of London and
Billingsgate, with 40 men-at-arms and 60 archers,' which watch the men
of the trades underwritten 'agreed to keep in succession each night, in
form as follows: On Tuesday, the drapers and the tailors; on Wednesday,
the mercers and the apothecaries; on Thursday, the fishmongers and the
butchers; on Friday, the pewterers and the vintners; on Saturday, the
goldsmiths and the saddlers; on Sunday, the ironmongers, the armourers
and the cutlers; on Monday, the tawers [curriers], the spurriers, the
bowyers and the girdlers.'[290]
These pirates gave a great deal of trouble up to a much later date, and
the wardenship of the Cinque Ports (then held by Cecil) was a busy post
when, as in May 1616, pirate vessels were captured between Broadstairs
and Margate.[291]
In connection with the trade and commerce of London, fairs and markets
held a very important position, but here it will only be possible to
make a passing allusion to them.
Bartholomew Fair, Smithfield, granted to the Prior of St. Bartholomew's
by Henry II., 1133, was for several centuries the great cloth fair of
England. Its memory is kept alive by the street which is still known as
Cloth Fair. After the dissolution of the monasteries the fair was
annually opened by the Mayor, attended by the aldermen. It long outlived
its use and reputation, and was not finally abolished until the
nineteenth century had run its course for some years.
In the City Letter Books there are references to other less important
fairs; thus a fair then only recently established in Soper Lane (now
Queen Street, Cheapside), and known as Nane (or Noon) Fair, was
abolished about 1307 owing to its being the resort of thieves and
cutpurses.[292]
There was also a fair called _la novele feyre_ which was held in the
parish of St. Nicholas Acons.[293]
[Illustration: CLOTH FAIR.]
Many fairs were held at different times in Southwark, Westminster, and
other places in the neighbourhood of London. How important the great
fairs of the Middle Ages were may be seen in one instance among others
by the fact that the citizens of London resorted in such numbers to St.
Botolph's Fair, annually held at Boston, county Lincoln, on St.
Botolph's Day (17th June), that all business in the Court of Husting
ceased, and the Court was closed for a week.[294]
In the fourth book of the _Liber Albus_ there is a list of letters and
other documents relating to markets and fairs, several of which relate
to St. Botolph's Fair.[295]
In Saxon times buying and selling could only be lawfully carried out
before the _reeve_ of Folkmote, a practice which necessitated a
gathering in towns at fixed times, from which custom grew up the
practice of each town having a market day. As a rule this was on a
Sunday, and the market-place was often situated in the churchyard, close
beneath the sheltering walls of the parish church.
By the Statute Wynton (13 Edw. I.) fairs and markets were forbidden to
be held in churchyards; and the Statute 27 Henry VI., cap. 5, was the
first enactment intended to enforce a due observance of Sunday. To avoid
the scandal of holding fairs and markets on Sundays and upon high feast
days it was decreed that 'Fairs and markets shall not be holden on
Sundays or on festivals,' with the exception of four Sundays in harvest.
There is no public right of holding fairs or markets, and the privilege
emanates from the prerogative of the Crown.
From the earliest times the streets of London were occupied by the
various trades who obtained the privilege of using them as
market-places. The market of West Cheap or Cheapside was the chief of
these public places, but almost all the trades had their appointed
stations in the different streets, and in many cases the trades were not
allowed to sell their wares in other places than those assigned to them.
In the time of Edward I. it was ordered 'that all manner of victuals
that are sold by persons in Chepe, upon Cornhulle, and elsewhere in the
city, such as bread, cheese, poultry, fruit, hides, and skins, onions
and garlic, and all other small victuals, for sale as well by denizens
as by strangers, shall stand midway between the kennels of the streets
as to be a nuisance to no one, under pain of forfeiture of the
article.'[296]
'The pavement in Chepe' was a recognised market-place for corn, probably
situated near the Church of St. Michael le Quern, at the west end of
Cheapside. Stocks Market, which stood on the site of the present Mansion
House, was founded in 1283, and the rents were appropriated to the
maintenance of London Bridge. In 1324 the wardens of the bridge made
complaint that certain fishmongers and butchers had of late abandoned
the market-house, had erected sheds in the King's highway and other
adjoining places, and sold their flesh and fish there, 'whereby the
rents aforesaid, which formed the greater part of the maintenance of the
said bridge, had become immensely reduced to the great peril and damage
of the bridge and of the city, and of all passing over such bridge.'
Staples were markets where only certain goods called staple goods were
allowed to be sold. The Company of Merchants of the Staple had a
monopoly of exporting the staple commodities of England, and certain
staple towns (which were constantly changed) were appointed as centres
of the trade. The chief export was wool, 'the sovereign treasure' of
England, wherewith she was said to keep the whole world warm. In 1328,
and again in 1334, all staples were abolished and trade was free
according to the great charter. Free trade did not last long, and the
staple was fixed at Bruges in 1344.
By the Ordinance of Staple 27 Edw. III. (1353) ten staple towns were
appointed in England, Wales and Ireland, Westminster and London together
being considered as one of the ten. The staple of Bruges was removed
from Bruges to Westminster by this Act.
In 1360 part of this Act was repealed. Calais[297] remained a staple
till it was temporarily suppressed in 1369 (Statute 43 Edw. III., cap.
1). By this Act the staple of wool was in future to be confined to the
following English ports: Newcastle, Hull, Boston, Yarmouth,
Queenborough, Westminster, Chichester, Winchester, Exeter, and Bristol.
The staple towns continued to be changed, and there were great
complaints made by the English in Tudor times that the staple was fixed
abroad. We read that 'the caryage out of wolle to the stapule ys a grete
hurte to the pepul of England, though hyt be profitabul both to the
prince and to the merchant also.'[298] The changes in the wool trade in
England during the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries caused
an industrial revolution, the effects of which are well marked in our
literature. The raw material was no longer exported, but in its place
the cloth made here was sent to countries which had formerly supplied us
with cloth in exchange for our wool. In consequence the number of
wealthy merchants increased. With this prosperity the country became
proud, and the lawgivers did all they could to foster the manufactures
of the country.[299] A Statute passed in 1463 (3 Edw. IV. cap. 4)
prohibited by enumeration the import of almost all wrought goods in
order that 'the English artificers may have employment.' A similar Act
was passed in the reign of Henry VIII., by which foreign books could
only be introduced in sheets, so that work should be provided for the
English bookbinders. The famous poem written by Adam de Molyneux,
Moleyns or Molins, Bishop of Chichester, and Keeper of the Privy Seal
(died 1450), which was entitled 'The Libel of English Policy' (1437),
contains a full account of commodities exchanged between the countries
of Western Europe. The full title of this important _Libellum_ shows its
object--'Here beginneth the prologe of the processe of the Libelle of
Englyshe Polycye exhorting alle Englande to kepe the see enviroun, and
namelye the narowe see, shewynge whate profete commeth thereof, and also
worshype and salvacioun to Englande and to alle Englyshe menne.'
The leading idea of the little book, as may be seen from the title, is
that which agitates the public mind at the present time, and shows how
important it is that England should keep the seas and protect the food
and clothing coming to this country.[300]
In connection with the commerce and trade of the country the official
weighing of goods was a matter of great importance. As far back as the
Saxon period standard weights and measures were preserved in the City
of London, and with these the weights and measures throughout the
kingdom had to conform. The King's great Beam or Tron was used for
weighing coarse goods by the hundredweight, and the small beam or
balance for silks, spiceries and goods sold by the pound weight.
The King's weigh-house in Fish Street Hill, London, and the Tron Church
in Edinburgh remind us of the old weighing machines of the country.
It was formerly the custom to allow a margin to buyers at the Tron.
According to the _Liber de Antiquis_, in 1305 the weigher allowed the
buyer a draft of four pounds in every hundredweight.
At the present day there is a survival of this custom in the tea trade
and some others, for the importer gives a precisely similar 'draft' to
the dealer, viz., one pound in every chest of tea of twenty-eight
pounds.[301]
Foreigners and strangers were not permitted, as a rule, to take up their
residence within the walls of London for a longer period than forty
days, and were subject to several restrictions as to trade. Exceptions
were, however, made from time to time with various foreign towns.
Natives of Denmark enjoyed the privilege of sojourning in London all the
year through: in addition to which they had a right to all the benefits
of 'the law of the City of London,' that is, they were entitled to the
right of resorting to fair or to market in any place throughout England.
Norwegians had the same right of sojourning in London all the year, but
did not enjoy 'the law of the city,' as they were prohibited from
leaving it for the purposes of traffic.[302]
In February 1303 the King, by the _Carta Mercatoria_, granted
exceptional privileges to foreign merchants, and these concessions
caused great indignation among his subjects at home. A tax was exacted
from these foreigners, and in 1309 the Friscobaldi were appointed by
the King to receive the 'new custom,' and two years later he ordered
their arrest for failing to render an account of the money received
under that head. Their detention, however, was of short duration.[303]
The Act was repealed in 1311, and again enacted in 1322, but with the
accession of Edward III. it was again repealed.
Foreign commerce is said to have been better governed than inland trade,
for the King had an arbitrary authority in the regulation of trading.
In dealing with the trade of London it is necessary to say something
about the origin of Gilds; but this is a most difficult question,
respecting which very different opinions are held by writers on the
subject.
It will be impossible to discuss these points at all fully in this
chapter, and therefore a few dates will be found sufficient for the
present purpose.
Mediæval gilds were voluntary associations established for mutual
assistance. It is quite easy to show the likeness between them and the
Roman Collegia, but to do this is futile, because few now believe in any
connection between the two institutions. Similar circumstances often
cause similar institutions to arise.
In the Middle Ages few men and women could stand alone, and combination
was a positive necessity for existence, and the people soon found that
union is strength.
The great authority on this subject is Mr. Toulmin Smith's work,
entitled _English Gilds_, which was edited by his daughter, Miss Toulmin
Smith, and published by the Early English Text Society in 1880.
Prefixed to this great work is Dr. Brentano's valuable Essay on the
History of Gilds, in which he writes: 'I write to declare here most
emphatically that I consider England the birthplace of gilds.'
Some writers have fixed upon the second half of the ninth century as the
date of the origin of gilds, but Miss Toulmin Smith points out that
among the laws of Ina (A.D. 688-725) are two touching the liability of
the brethren of a gild in the case of slaying a thief. Alfred (A.D.
871-879) still further recognised the brotherly gild spirit in his laws
as to manslaughter by a kinless man, and again where a man who has no
relatives is slain.[304]
Dr. Brentano writes: 'An already far-advanced development of the gilds
is shown by the _Judicia Civitatis Lundoniæ_, the Statutes of the London
gilds, which were reduced to writing in the time of King Athelstan. From
them the gilds in and about London appear to have united into _one_
gild, and to have framed common regulations for the better maintenance
of peace, for the suppression of violence--especially of theft and the
aggressions of the powerful families--as well as for carrying out
rigidly the ordinances enacted by the King for that purpose.'[305]
A large division of the old gilds were purely social, and there is no
trace of Merchant gilds before the Norman Conquest, while craft gilds
did not come into existence until early in the twelfth century.
Dr. Brentano writes: 'Though the merchant gilds consisted chiefly of
merchants, yet from the first craftsmen, as such, were not excluded from
them on principle, if only such craftsmen possessed the full citizenship
of the town, which citizenship--with its further development--depended
upon the possession of estates of a certain value situated within the
territory of the town. The strict separation which existed between the
merchants and the crafts probably arose only by degrees. Originally the
craftsmen, no doubt, traded in the raw materials which they worked
with.'[306]
Mr. Ashley is of opinion that Dr. Brentano exaggerated both the
independence and the economic importance of the trade gilds.[307]
He further writes: 'We do not know whether there had ever been a Gild
Merchant in London; however, in 1191, by the recognition of its Commune,
the citizens obtained complete municipal self-government, and,
consequently, the recognition of the same rights over trade and industry
as a Gild merchant would have exercised.'[308]
Dr. Gross, in his work on the Gild Merchant, says that he can find no
evidence of the existence of a merchant gild in London. Still there were
trade gilds which were aristocratic in origin, and governed by the great
merchants, who were the chief landowners of London.
Mr. C. G. Crump, however, has quite lately found direct mention of the
Gild Merchant of London in 1252 in a charter of that date (Charter Roll,
37 Hen. III. m. 20). While pointing out that this was apparently unknown
to Dr. Gross, as he decides against the existence of any such
institution, he adds: 'This charter, while it suggests a doubt on the
point, is not conclusive, because it is a very exceptional document.
There is no other charter of its kind during the whole reign of Henry
III., and a Chancery clerk endeavouring to draft a charter to convert a
Florentine merchant into a citizen of London might well have thought fit
to mention a gild merchant as a matter of common form even if none
actually existed.[309]
The year 1180 is an important one in the history of gilds, for then
these bodies were required to pay their fines or licences, in token and
recognition of their allegiance to the Crown. There were eighteen of
these, which were amerced as 'Adulterine' gilds--the Goldsmiths, the
Pepperers and the Butchers being among them. The document containing
this list is translated by Herbert in his work on the Companies,[310]
where it is suggested that the fining of these proves that the gilds
must have been numerous, because some of them only could have subjected
themselves to the penalty.
The Mercers claim an existence at a still earlier date (1172), and when
the Saddlers are mentioned immediately after the Conquest they are said
to possess 'ancient statutes.'
Gradually the influence of the craftsmen made itself felt, and the craft
gilds came into existence, but the aristocratic traders would not
recognise them.
The craftsmen found an enthusiastic patron in Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the
popular Mayor (1261-1265). His conduct disgusted Arnold Fitz-Thedmar,
the city alderman and chronicler, who complains that 'this Mayor, during
the time of his mayoralty, had so pampered the city populace, that
styling themselves the "Commons of the city," they had obtained the
first voice in the city. For the Mayor, in doing all that he had to do,
acted and determined through them, and would say to them: "Is it your
will that so it shall be?" and then if they answered "Ya, ya," so it was
done. And on the other hand, the aldermen or chief citizens were little
or not at all consulted on such matter, but were in fact just as though
they had not existed.'[311]
After the Battle of Evesham the city was taken into the King's hands
(1265-1270), and a very despotic and wicked action was perpetrated.
Fitz-Thomas and some other prominent citizens were summoned to Windsor,
and there were kept prisoners. Some of these regained their liberty,
but nothing more was heard of Fitz-Thomas, as Dr. Reginald Sharpe
writes: 'From the time that he entered Windsor Castle he disappears from
public view. That he was alive in May 1266, at least in the belief of
his fellow-citizens, is shown by their cry for the release of him and
his companions, "who are at Windleshores."'[312]
The craftsmen lost a valiant friend, but another was raised up in his
place. Walter Hervi, who was hated by the aldermen for his democratic
opinions, but loved by the Commons, was elected Mayor in 1272. Fresh
ordinances for the regulation of various crafts were drawn up, and to
these the Mayor, on his own responsibility, attached the city seal. When
his year of office expired these so-called charters were called in
question, and in 1274 they were examined in the Hustings before all the
people and declared void.[313]
The craft gilds were supposed to be defeated, but this was not really
so, for the merchants found that the struggle between the trade gilds
and craft gilds was an unequal one. They therefore with much worldly
wisdom joined the latter, and gradually gained an ascendency in them.
Mr. Ashley affirms that from the reign of Edward II. the gild system was
no longer merely tolerated, but it was fostered and extended.[314]
The years which followed the Peace of Bretigny, until war broke out
afresh in 1369, witnessed the reorganisation of many of the trade and
craft gilds.[315]
In 1376 the gilds wrested for a time from the wards the right of
electing members of the city's Council. The gilds continued to elect
until 1384, when the right of election was again transferred to the
wards.
The names of the representatives of the gilds forming the first Common
Council of the kind are placed on record in Letter Book H, ff. _46b_,
47.
The year 1388-1389 was an important one in the history of gilds. The
writs of 12 Ric. II. had important effects, and the returns form the
chief substance of Mr. Toulmin Smith's _English Gilds_. There were two
distinct writs: (_a_) the writ for returns from the social gilds; (_b_)
the writ for returns from craft gilds. Toulmin Smith printed the writs
with these side-notes: (_a_) 'The Sheriffs of London [and of every shire
in England] shall, by authority of the Parliament that lately met at
Cambridge, make proclamation calling on the master and wardens of all
the social gilds [all gilds and brotherhoods whatsoever] to send up
returns before the 2nd day of February A.D. 1388-9.
(_b_) 'The Sheriffs of London [and of every shire in England] shall, by
authority of the Parliament that lately met at Cambridge, make
proclamation calling on the masters, wardens and overlookers of all
gilds of crafts holding any charter or letters-patent to send up before
the second day of February 1388-9 copies of such charters and letters
upon penalty of forfeiture.'
The original writs were returned by the London sheriffs with this
endorsement: 'When and by whom proclamation was made in London and the
suburbs--Fleet Street in the suburbs; the Standard, in Westcheap; the
Ledenhall, Cornhill; St. Magnus Church, Bridge Street; St. Martin's
Church, Vintry; Southwark.'
In Mr. Toulmin Smith's book only three of the returns relate to London,
and these are not from craft gilds. They are the Gild of Garlekhith, the
Gild of St. Katherine, Aldersgate, and the Gild of SS. Fabian and
Sebastian, Aldersgate. It is not necessary to give extracts from these
returns, but we can obtain a good idea of the objects of these gilds
from Mr. Toulmin Smith's side-notes, which are as follows:--
_Garlekhith._--'The gild was begun in 1375 to nourish good fellowship.
All bretheren must be of good repute. Each shall pay 6s. 8d. on entry.
There shall be wardens, who shall gather in the payments and yield an
account thereof yearly. A livery suit shall be worn. The bretheren and
sisteren shall hold a yearly feast. Two shillings a year shall be paid
by each. Four meetings touching the gild's welfare shall be held in each
year. Free gifts by the bretheren. Ill-behaved bretheren shall be put
out of the gild. No livery-suit shall be sold within a year. On death of
any, all the rest shall join in the burial service and make offerings
under penalty. In case of quarrel, the matter shall be laid before the
wardens. Whoever disobeys their award shall be put out of the gild and
the other shall be helped. Weekly help to all seven-year bretheren in
old age and in sickness, and to those wrongfully imprisoned. Newcomers
shall swear to keep the ordinances. Every brother chosen warden must
serve or pay 40s.'
_St. Katherine._--'These are the ordinances of the gild: Oath on entry,
and a kiss of love, charity and peace. Weekly help in poverty, old age,
sickness, or loss by fire or water, etc. Payments by bretheren and
sisteren. Members of the gild shall go to church and afterwards choose
officers. Burials shall be attended. The gild shall bear charge of
burials. Any brother dying within ten miles round London shall have
worshipful burial. All costs thereof shall be made good by the gild.
Loans to gild-bretheren out of the gild stock on pledge or surety. Wax
lights to be found and used at times named. Further services after
death. Newcomers by assent only. Four men shall keep the goods of the
gild, and render an account yearly. Assent of all the gild to new
ordinances. The goods of the gild are a "vestement, a chalys and a
mass-book, pris of x marks."'
_SS. Fabian and Sebastian._--'Oath on entry, and a kiss of love, charity
and peace. Weekly help in poverty, old age, sickness, or loss by fire or
water, etc. The young to be helped to get work. Payments by bretheren
and sisteren. Four days of meeting in the year, when all must attend
under penalty. Burials shall be attended. The gild shall bear charge of
burials. Those dying within ten miles round London shall be fetched to
London for burial. Loans to gild-bretheren out of the gildstock on
pledge or surety. Wax lights to be found and used at times named.
Ill-behaved bretheren shall be put out of the gild. Entry of new
bretheren. Four men shall keep the goods of the gild and render an
account yearly. Assent of all the gild to new ordinances. Grant of a
house in Aldersgate worth £4, 13s. 4d. a year, less quit rent of 13s. a
year, the profits of which are applied in aid of the gild.'
These regulations with their general likeness and slight divergencies
help us to understand the gild life of the Middle Ages, which, it will
be seen, was essentially practical and helpful to the growth of good
feeling among those who were brought together in constant intercourse.
The rules of the gilds were often very strict, and men of evil life were
put out of the fraternity. Moreover, idlers and ne'er-do-weels were not
to expect to be relieved from the funds of the gild. From the ordinances
of the Gild of St. Anne in the Church of St. Lawrence Jewry, we learn
that 'if any man be of good state, and use hym to ly long in bed; and at
rising of his bed ne will not work but go to the tavern... and in this
manner falleth poor... and trust to be holpen by the fraternity: that
man shall never have good, ne help of companie, neither in his lyfe nor
at his dethe; but he shal be put off for evermore of the companie.'
Mr. Toulmin Smith's returns are taken from the originals in the Public
Record Office, and, as has already been noted, by some fatality there
are no records of the craft gilds.
The next great point in the history of gilds is connected with their
abolition by the Act of 1 Edw. VI. cap. 14 (1547), a most iniquitous
measure. Miss Toulmin Smith tells us how her father's indignation was
roused by his researches into the story of the fate of the gilds:--
'In a MS. note he remarks that for the abolition of monasteries [there
was] some colour, and after professed inquiries as to manners; moreover,
allowances [were] made to all ranks. But in case of gilds (much wider)
no pretence of inquiry or of mischief, and no allowance whatever. A case
of pure wholesale robbery and plunder, done by an unscrupulous faction
to satisfy their personal greed, under cover of law. No more gross case
of wanton plunder is to be found in the history of all Europe; no page
so black in English history.'[316]
Of course there is another side to the question, and Mr. Ashley, who
discusses very fully the consequences of the Act of Edward VI., thinks
that it has been unfairly condemned. He says that, so far as the
companies were concerned, the Bill did not propose to take from them
anything more than the revenues actually used for religious purposes;
and further, that the Statute neither 'abolished' nor 'dissolved' nor
'suppressed' nor 'destroyed' the companies, but left all their corporate
powers and rights intact, except so far as religious usages were
concerned.[317]
We must remember, however, that Mr. Toulmin Smith's indignation was
roused not so much by the forfeiture of certain trusts in the hands of
the livery companies as by the robbery of the small gilds all over the
country.
The early history of most of the city companies is rather disconnected,
and, owing to the loss and destruction of documents, the mode by which
the craft gilds were amalgamated with the livery companies is not very
easy to follow. Still, the likeness between the two institutions is so
marked, and their duties so similar, that there is no difficulty in
acknowledging the fusion. To take a single instance, it may be mentioned
that the original gild of Goldsmiths had exactly similar public duties
to perform that are now performed by the present Goldsmiths' Company.
This connection has usually been taken for granted, but it is necessary
to allude to the question here, because Mr. Loftie, a high authority on
the history of London, has strongly disputed this connection. In 1883
Mr. Loftie wrote: 'The identification of the adulterine guilds with the
later companies is scarcely possible'[318]; and again in 1887: 'The
Weavers' Company is not the only one which claims to represent directly
an ancient guild, but it is the only one whose claim has anything so
like a reasonable foundation.'[319] These are, however, only casual
remarks, but in his latest work he has elaborated his attack in the
following terms:--
'Popular errors are very difficult to deal with effectually. One of the
most persistent is that which confounds the city guilds with the city
companies. Here two widely different things are inextricably confused,
and that, too, not in mere catchpenny popular books, but in books
pretending to more or less authority. In the common run of London
histories, guild means company, and company means guild.... To begin
with, there are now no guilds in London. By an Act passed in 1557 all
religious guilds were abolished and all guildable property was
confiscated. But as there were no guilds not religious, and as the
property of guilds was held in trust to provide burials, masses, and
sometimes chantries for deceased members, the guilds and their land, and
their money and their priestly vestments, and their illuminated
manuscripts, all ceased to exist absolutely; and not only so, but it
became penal to revive them. A city company which calls itself a guild
renders itself liable to forfeiture--a penalty which would, of course,
be rather difficult to enforce.'[320]
There are two statements here which may be challenged--one that all
gilds were religious, and the other that all gilds were abolished by Act
of Parliament.
Certainly the gilds which were not instituted for purposes of trade
protection have often been styled religious, but Mr. Toulmin Smith
preferred to class them as social gilds, and I think wisely. As already
stated, their objects were entirely practical and social. Mr. Toulmin
Smith writes: 'The gilds were lay bodies, and existed for lay purposes,
and the better to enable those who belonged to them rightly and
understandingly to fulfil their neighbourly duties as freemen in a free
state.'
Religious duties were performed, but these were only incidental to the
life of the time, and consisted mostly of services connected with the
serious occasions in the life of laymen, which were general in the
periods that have been styled 'ages of faith.'
As to the second point, a reference to the Statute 1 Edw. VI. cap. 14,
will show us that the craft gilds are exempted from its operation. In
the _Statutes of the Realm_ one of the side-notes to the 'Act whereby
certain chantries, colleges, free chapells, and the possessions of the
same, be given to the King's Majesty,' runs as follows: 'All
brotherhoods or guilds and their possessions, except companies of trade
vested in the King.' The text is 'other then suche corporations,
guyldes, fraternities, companyes and felowshippes of misteryes or
craftes.'
I think we must allow that the terms of this Act strongly corroborate
the general belief that the old craft gilds and the later companies were
so closely connected as to be practically the same. Having dealt with
the general question of gilds, we can now pass on to consider the
influence of the different trades upon London life.
The origin of the companies seems to have been largely connected with
the result of a combination of the numerous sections of a particular
trade. Some trades were so important that they could stand alone; thus
the Goldsmiths' Gild became the Goldsmiths' Company; but most of the
other companies were formed by the union of more than one gild.
A marked feature of the old trades of London was the minute subdivisions
which took place among them: thus there were hatters, cappers, chapelers
(makers of caps), and hurers. The latter were makers of hures, or rough
hairy caps. The hurers and cappers were united to the hatters by charter
of Henry VII. in the sixteenth year of his reign, and again united in
the following year to the haberdashers by the King's licence under his
great seal.
The Company, subsequently known and chartered as the Clothworkers', was
first incorporated by letters-patent of Edw. IV. in 1482, as the
'Fraternity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Shearmen
of London.' The fullers were taken into union in 1528, thereby
constituting the Clothworkers' Company.
A convincing proof of the connection of the gilds with companies, and
the natural succession of the latter from the former, is seen in this
case of the Clothworkers' Company. It appears from a deed dated 15th
July 1456 that John Badby did remise, etc., unto John Hungerford and
others, citizens and sheremen of London, 'a tenement and mansion-house,
shops, cellars and other the appurtenances, lying in Minchin Lane, and
their heirs for ever.' This is the site of Clothworkers' Hall, the
Clothworkers' Company being the natural heirs of the Gild of
Shearmen.[321]
There is much interest connected with the occupation of the shearman,
who sheared the nap of wool. Woollen clothes in the Middle Ages were
expected to last a lifetime. When new the nap was very long, and as the
clothes became shabby it was customary to have them shorn, a process
which was repeated as long as the stuff would bear it. In the delightful
old ballad reprinted in Percy's _Reliques_, 'Take thy old cloak about
thee,' the old cloak that had been in wear for forty-four years was
likely to be a sorry clout at the end of that time, which would hold out
neither wind nor rain. Well might the husband resolve:--
'For once I'le new appareld bee,
To-morrow I'le to towne and spend,
For I'le have a new cloake about mee.'
But the wife's plea for thrift, and her statement--
'Itt's pride that putts this countrye downe,'
succeeds in the end, and the ballad ends,--
'As wee began wee now will leave,
And I'le take mine old cloake about mee.'
The aid of the shearman was not merely called in by the poor, for we
learn that the Countess of Leicester (Eleanor, third daughter of King
John, and wife of Simon de Montfort) in 1265 sent Hicque the tailor to
London to get her robes re-shorn.[322]
The date of the ballad was probably early, although the King alluded to
in the printed text is King Stephen, in that of the Scotch version
Robert, and in the Percy MS. a vague King Henry. The ballad must have
had a wide popularity, for Shakespeare alludes to it twice. Iago quotes
a whole stanza (_Othello_, act ii.), and Trinculo evidently alludes to
it when he says:--
'O King Stephano, O Peere: O worthy Stephano,
Looke what a wardrobe here is for thee.'
(_Tempest_, act iv. sc. i.).
The number of trades connected with clothing were singularly numerous.
Besides the shearman (or tondour) there were the feliper, pheliper or
fripperer, who dealt in second-hand clothes, and the furbur or furbisher
of old clothes.
Dr. Brentano points out that in all manufacturing countries, in England,
Flanders and Brabant, as well as in the Rhenish towns, the most ancient
gilds were those of the weavers; and Mr. Ashley writes that the first
craft gilds to come into notice were the weavers and fullers of woollen
cloth. No weaver or fuller might go outside the town to sell his own
cloth, and so interfere with the monopoly of the merchants; nor was he
allowed to sell his cloth to any save a merchant of the town.[323]
The London Gild of Weavers was recognised by Henry I., and the first
charter of incorporation was granted by Henry II. in 1184, when the seal
of Thomas à Becket was affixed to the document. The special privileges
given to this trade created a strong jealousy among the citizens, and
John was induced to suppress the gild.[324] As it had been accustomed to
pay the King eighteen marks per annum, he bargained that the citizens
should pay twenty marks so that he might not be out of pocket.