Geoffrey, there is, in the Patent Rolls of the 37th of Henry
III.--1252,--Membrane the 4th, an entry entitled ‘A Protection for
the Brethren of London Bridge, concerning the charitable gifts
collected for the reparation of the said Bridge.’ This, like the
foregoing instrument, has not, as I can remember, ever been printed;
and, translated into English, it is as follows. ‘The King to the
Archbishops, &c. Greeting. Know ye that we engage for the protection
and defence of our Brethren of London Bridge, and their men, lands,
goods, rents, and all their possessions. And therefore we command,
that they, the Brethren, and their men, lands, goods, rents, and all
possessions, in their hands, ye should hold protected and defended.
Nor shall any bring upon them, or permit to be brought upon them, any
injury, molestation, damage, or grievance. And if it be that any thing
hath been forfeited by them, amendment shall be made without delay.
And we also desire of you, that when the aforesaid Brethren, or their
Messengers, shall come to you for your alms for their support, or for
that of the aforesaid Bridge, ye shall courteously receive them, and
cause them to be so received in all your Churches, Towns, and Courts;
and that ye will bestow upon them of your goods according to your
charity and the sight of our precept, the alms which they desire. So
that in reward thereof ye may be worthy of all the blessings of mercy,
and our special thanks shall be due unto you. In testimony of which
thing, &c. Witness the King at Portsmouth, the fifteenth day of July.’
“Really,” said I to Mr. Postern, as he concluded the last Charter,
“your memory, Mr. Barnaby, is little less than miraculous! Why, it must
be like a chain cable, to hold together the contents of all these musty
Patent Rolls, with their endless repetitions. I myself am called by my
intimates, ‘_Memory Barbican_,’ and I can recollect events and stories
indifferently well; but _you!_ you remind me of the Wandering Jew, who
has lived eighteen hundred years, and never forgot any thing in his
life!”
“Ah! my good Sir,” answered the Historian of London Bridge, “if my
memory were equal to your praise of it, it were, indeed, worth boasting
of; but in my broken narrative I can shew you but here and there an
isolated fact, whilst to the greater part of the story, we are obliged
to say with _Master Shallow_, ‘Barren! Barren! Beggars all! Beggars
all!’”
“Take a draught out of the fragment of Master Shallow’s fat friend
here,” returned I, pointing to the Sack Tankard, “and set out afresh,
my old kinsman; but pray let us have the spur on the other leg
now, and give us a little History to lighten our Law; with which
request,--Here’s my service to you!” Mr. Postern bowed as I drank, and
after having followed my example, thus continued.
“You must doubtless remember, my good Sir, that during those unhappy
Baronial wars which lasted nearly the whole of the extended reign of
Henry III. it was supposed that Queen Eleanor of Provence opposed the
Sovereign’s agreeing to the Barons’ demands; and that in revenge for
this, how very uncivilly the Citizens treated her at London Bridge.
Matthew of Westminster tells the story under the year 1263, in his
‘_Flores Historiarum_.’ London, 1570, folio, Part ii. page 315; and
he, as you will recollect, was a Benedictine Monk of Westminster,
who flourished, as Bishop Nicholson supposes in his ‘_Historical
Libraries_,’ page 66, about the year 1307, when his history ends. The
event to which I allude was, that as the Queen was going by water
to Windsor, just as her barge was preparing to shoot the Bridge,
the populace intercepted her progress, attacked her with vehement
exclamations and reproaches, and endeavoured to sink her vessel, and
deprive her of life by casting heavy stones and mud into her boat. Upon
this, she was compelled to return to the Tower, where the King had
garrisoned himself, as the City had declared for the Barons, whence
she was removed to the Bishop of London’s Palace, at St. Paul’s. It
was in the latter end of the same year, that Simon de Montfort, the
sturdy Earl of Leicester, and the Baronial leader, marched his forces
through the County of Surrey towards London, in the hope that his
friends, Thomas Fitz-Richard, then Lord Mayor, Thomas de Pynlesdon,
Matthew Bukerel, and Michael Tony, with whom was connected an immense
multitude of the common rabble, would open the Bridge Gates to him.
When the King, however, became acquainted with the Earl’s design, he
left the Tower, and encamped with his troops about Southwark, to oppose
his passage. As the Earl of Leicester relied more upon the assistance
of the Citizens, than on the valour of his own soldiers, he vigorously
attacked the King’s troops, expecting that the Londoners would favour
his entrance. Henry, however, had still several adherents in the City;
and, indeed, Thomas Wikes, in his ‘_Chronicon_,’ page 58, as it is
printed in volume ii. of Gale’s ‘_Scriptores_,’ already cited, tells
us that the Baronial party in London was composed of the meanest and
most worthless, whom the wisest and eldest endeavoured to controul.
During the fight, therefore, some of the Royalists, and especially one
John Gisors, a Norman, perceiving that the City was in motion to assist
De Montfort, locked up the Bridge Gates, and threw the keys into the
Thames. So prompt an action had nearly proved fatal to the Earl of
Leicester, who had approached the Bridge with only a few soldiers, lest
his designs should be discovered; but at length the Gates were broken
open, the Citizens rushed out in multitudes to his rescue; King Henry
was obliged to retreat, and De Montfort entered the City. By this event
we are informed that there certainly _did_ exist a Bridge Gate in the
year 1264; and the historians by whom the fact is related, are Matthew
of Westminster, whose ‘_Flowers of Histories_’ I have already quoted,
of which book, see page 317; and the ‘_Chronicon_’ of Thomas Wikes, a
Canon Regular of Osney, near Oxford, which concludes with the year 1304.
“It would seem almost certain that, at this period, the keeping of
London Bridge, with all its emoluments, was in the possession of
the Brethren of St. Thomas of the Bridge; and the idea is somewhat
supported by the Protection to which I referred you but a short time
since. There is, however, in the Patent Rolls preserved in the Tower
of London, of the 50th of Henry III.--1265,--Membrane the 43rd, the
following instrument.
“‘For the Hospital of St. Catherine, concerning the Custody of London
Bridge, with all the rents thereof for the space of five years.
‘The King to the Brethren and Chaplains ministring in the Chapel of
St. Thomas upon London Bridge, the other inhabitants upon the same
Bridge; and to all others to whom these letters shall come, Greeting:
Know ye, that we commit unto the Master and Brethren of the Hospital
of Saint Catherine near to our Tower of London, the Custody of the
aforesaid Bridge with all its appurtenances, as well the rents and
tenements thereof, as of others which belong to the aforesaid Bridge,
within and without the City: to have and to hold by the said Master and
Brethren for the space of five years. Yet so that out of the aforesaid
rents, tenements, and other goods of the aforesaid Bridge, the repair
and support of the Bridge is to be looked for, and to be done, from
henceforth from that place as it shall be able, and as it hath been
accustomed. And therefore we command you, that to the said Master and
Brethren, as well as to the keepers of the aforesaid Bridge, all things
belonging to that custody be applied, permitted, and paid, until the
term aforesaid. Witness the King at Westminster, on the sixteenth day
of November.’ The Latin of this writ you find printed in Hearne’s
‘_Liber Niger_,’ which I have before quoted, volume i. page *471; and
it affords us certain proof of the early existence of dwellings on
London Bridge.
“I will but remark in passing onwards, that Madox, in his ‘_History
of the Exchequer_,’ already cited, page 534, quotes a Roll to shew
that in the 52nd year of King Henry III.--1267,--Walter Harvey, and
William de Durham, Bailiffs of the City of London, accounted to the
Crown for the sum of £7. 0_s._ 2-1/2_d._ being the amount of the
Custom of Fish brought to London Bridge Street, and other Customs also
taken there. The term for which the Hospital of St. Catherine was to
enjoy the custody of London Bridge, wanted, however, more than a whole
twelvemonth of its completion, when a new Patent was issued by Henry
III. in 1269, the 54th year of his reign, granting it to his Queen
Eleanor of Provence. It is entitled, ‘The King gives to Eleanor, Queen
of England, the custody of London Bridge, with the liberties;’ and you
will find it the third article on the 4th Membrane, in the Patent Roll
for the above year: the Latin is printed by Hearne in the place which I
last cited, page *472, and the writ in English is as follows:”
“‘The King to all etcætera, Greeting. Seeing that some time since we
would have granted to our most dear Consort Eleanor, Queen of England,
the Custody of our Bridge at London, with the liberties and all other
things belonging to that Bridge, to have for a certain term: We,
therefore, do grant to the same Queen, out of our abundant grace and
will, the custody of the Bridge aforesaid, with the liberties and
all other things belonging to that Bridge, to be considered from the
Feast of All Saints,’--1st of November--‘about to arrive; and from the
same Feast of All Saints, until the full end of the six years next
approaching, and following. In testimony of which thing, etcætera,
Witness the King, at Woodstock, on the 10th day of September.’”
“And pray, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, in a drowsy kind of voice, for
I was almost tired at sitting so long silent, “did the Queen enjoy the
whole of her term, or was the custody of London Bridge again otherwise
disposed of?”
“You bring me, worthy Mr. Geoffrey,” answered he, “by your very
seasonable question, to speak of a matter in which the Citizens of
London obtained a great triumph on behalf of their Bridge. It is
somewhat singular, that Stow, at page 60 of his ‘_Survey_,’ volume
i. has very hastily, and, in my poor mind, very imperfectly, related
this matter; whilst Maitland, on page 48 of his ‘_History_,’ volume i.
has told it still less circumstantially. I shall therefore, my good
friend, take the freedom to put the proceedings between the Queen and
the Citizens in somewhat more particular a form, illustrating them by
the very records from whence we derive our information; for to these
let me say, that neither of the authors whom I have mentioned give you
any reference. Previously to commencing, however, I must entreat you
to bear with me, Mr. Barbican, if my proofs cited from the ancient
Rolls of the Kingdom be dull and formal; and to remember that they are
often the only _fragmenta_ we possess of past events. Tracing of local
history is like endeavouring to follow the course of a dried-up river:
a rude channel here and there presents itself; some mouldering ruin,
once the abutment of an ancient Bridge, or----”
“Mr. Postern,” said I, taking up the Tankard, and interrupting him,
“once more, here’s your health, and I wish you safe out of your
wilderness: keep to one thing at a time, man, leave your dried-up
river, and ‘turn again Barnaby,’ to the dispute between Queen Eleanor
of Provence, and the Citizens of London, concerning yonder Bridge.”
“In good time,” continued my visitor, “you have brought me back again.
And now, I would first request you to remember, that King Henry III.
died at London, on the 16th of November, 1272; Prince Edward his son
then being in the Crusade in Palestine; whence, however, he returned to
England in July, or August, 1274. Now, almost the whole of the reign of
Henry III. had been disturbed by the truculent Barons contending with
him for the final settlement of Magna Charta; and these Civil Wars had
very naturally produced numerous abuses with respect to the Estates of
England, such as the Nobility assuming almost regal rights, imposing
heavy tolls, and the officers of the Crown using divers exactions
under colour of the law. Such was the state of English affairs at the
return of King Edward I., and it was one of the first acts of his
reign--as the ‘_Annals of Waverley_’ tell us on page 235,--to enquire
into the state of the revenues, privileges, and lands of the Crown;
as well as to examine into the conduct of the sheriffs and officers,
who had at once defrauded the Sovereign and oppressed his subjects.
For this purpose, as the next circuit of the Justices Itinerant was
not expected for six years then to come,--as they generally travelled
it but once in seven,--the King issued his Letters Patent under the
Great Seal, dated from the Tower of London, on the 11th of October,
1274, appointing Commissioners for each County in England, to make
this important inquisition. They were instructed to summon Juries
to enquire on oath the answers to thirty-five Articles, examining
into the King’s rights, royalties, and prerogatives, and into the
extent of all frauds and abuses; the most full and ample instructions
being given them for their conduct. The returns and answers to these
enquiries constitute that interesting body of Records denominated the
‘_Hundred Rolls_,’ which are preserved in the Wakefield Tower, in the
Tower of London: though, before we make any references to these, let
me remark, that you will find their history, nature, and extent, fully
described in the ‘_Reports from the Select Committee, appointed to
enquire into the State of the Public Records_,’ 1801, folio, pages 54,
57-62; and ‘_Rotuli Hundredorum Tempore Henrici III. et Edwardi I.
in Turri Londinensi, et in Curiâ receptæ Scaccarii Westmonasteriensi,
asservati_.’ London, 1812-18, 2 volumes, folio. The original Patent
Commissions, and Articles of Enquiry, are also still preserved in the
Patent Rolls in the Tower, of the 2nd of Edward I., Membrane the 5th:
by which we are informed, that Bartholomew de Bryaunton, and James de
Saint Victoire, were appointed Inquisitors for the Counties of Kent,
Surrey, Sussex, and Middlesex, and for the City of London: and that
their enquiries for the latter place commenced in the 3rd year of King
Edward I., 1274-75. On the first Membrane of the Roll for London it
is stated, that twelve Jurors of Basinghall, or as it is often called
Bassishaw Ward, gave the following evidence concerning London Bridge,
for the original Latin of which see the ‘_Rotuli Hundredorum_,’ which I
have already quoted, volume i. page 403, column 1.
“‘When they enquired concerning the Rents of the Citizens and
Burgesses, &c.--They said that the custody of London Bridge, which is
wont to belong only to the City, is alienated by the Lady Queen, Mother
of Edward our King; and the Keepers of the said Bridge appointed by
the same Lady Queen, expend but little in the amending and sustaining
of the said Bridge. Whence danger may easily arise, very much to the
damage of the King and of the City.’ This is the second Inquisition
quoted by Stow, on page 60. On the third Membrane of this same Roll,
containing the inquisition made in the Ward of William de Hadestok,
or Tower Ward, the Jurors said that ‘the Lady Queen Eleanor, Mother
of our Lord the King, is now possessed of the Bridge of London, who
keeps it badly, and that it was belonging to the City of London:’ and
also that the custody had been alienated ‘from the Battle of Evesham,’
August the 4th, 1265, as I have already shewn you, until the time of
the inquisition. See page 405, column 1, of the ‘_Hundred Rolls_’
before cited.
“The Jurors of the Ward of Fori, or Fore-street, page 406, column 2 of
the same book, and Membrane 4 of the original Roll, ‘said that London
Bridge had been for a long time in the hands of the City and Citizens
of London, and that such had been always accustomed by general consent,
to be made keepers of the common Bridge of our Lord the King, and of
his City, and of all passers over it; and now,’ they continued, ‘the
aforesaid Bridge is in the hands of the Lady the Queen, and they know
not by what warrant. They said also, that the same Bridge is greatly
and perilously decayed through defect of keeping, which is to the great
peril of our Lord the King and his City, and all passing over it.’ The
evidence of the Jurors of the Ward of Walter le Poter, was to the same
effect: and you will find it on Membrane 5 of the Roll, and on page
408, column 2, of the printed copy. A similar reply was also returned
from the Ward of Peter Aunger, see Membrane 6, and page 410, column 1:
from Coleman Street Ward, Membrane 7, page 412, column 1: and from the
Ward of John de Blakethorne, Membrane 9, page 414, column 2; where,
however, it is added, that ‘the Bridge of London, which was formerly
in the custody of the whole Commonalty to be repaired and re-edified,
is now under that of Brother Stephen de Foleborn for the Queen Mother.’
“The verdict of the twelve Jurors of the Ward of John Horn, also
testifies the Queen’s possession of London Bridge, see Membrane 11,
and page 416, column 2: but from Queenhithe Ward, or that of Simon
de Hadestok, Membrane 13, and page 419, column 1, we learn that the
Jurors ‘said that the Lord King Henry took the Bridge of London into
his own hands, presently after the Battle of Evesham, and delivered
it into the hands of the Lady the Queen, Mother of the Lord the King,
who hath it now; and that to the great detriment of the Bridge, and
the prejudice of all the people; it is also now nearly in a falling
state, through defect of support.’ On Membrane 14, and page 420, column
1, the Jurors of the Ward of John de Northampton,--which is, by the
way, the first Inquisition, so vaguely referred to by Stow, at page
60 of his ‘_Survey_,’--depose to the same effect; as do those of the
Ward of Thomas de Basing, Membrane 15, and page 421, column 1; the
latter adding only, that when the Bridge was held by the City, it was
delivered to two honest Citizens to keep, saving the rents of their
custody. The only information we gain from the Jurors of the Ward of
Dowgate, Membrane 16, and page 422, column 2, is, that Brother Stephen,
Bishop of Waterford, was custodier for Queen Eleanor, whilst their
evidence on the Bridge dilapidations is quite as full as that of the
other Wards.
“Such were the chief answers to the inquisitions concerning London
Bridge, in the reign of King Edward I.; I say the chief, for there
are yet several others, which, for the most part, are but abridged
repetitions of those already cited. Indeed, they are recorded upon a
different Roll, which is kept in the Chapter House, at West-Minster;
and you may see their contents in the printed copies of the ‘_Hundred
Rolls_’ to which I have so often referred you, volume i. pages 425-432.”
“Well, Master Postern,” said I, when my narrator came to this breathing
place, “and how did King Edward and his Commissioners act upon this
evidence against Queen Eleanor of Provence? Were they not of the mind
of _Dogberry_ as it regarded the answers of the Citizens; ‘’Fore God!
they are both in a tale,’ seeing that nearly all of them swore alike?”
“I cannot, now,” answered Mr. Postern, “call to mind any historical
proof that the custody of London Bridge was immediately restored to
the Mayor and Citizens, though Maitland states, at page 48 of his
‘_History_,’ but without quoting any authority, that the Citizens
did not cease to prosecute their suit by _Quo Warranto_, until they
regained their ancient rights and privileges. Now the fact is, it is
by no means certain that there was any such suit ever commenced as
it concerned the Bridge; for the inquisition was first commanded by
the King, and the Citizens had only to answer concerning the ancient
possession and present state of their property, part of which they
stated had been alienated by the King to the Queen Mother, adding also,
‘_et nesciunt quo Warranto_,’ they knew not by what warrant, or right.
This, probably, was the phrase which led Maitland astray; added to
which, he cites at page 104 the _Quo Warranto_ Bag of the 3rd year of
Edward I. No. 4, in the Exchequer, containing the complaints of the
Citizens concerning levies unjustly made.
“It was, however, not the City of London only that presented and
complained of alterations in the Bridge customs; for in Messrs. Manning
and Bray’s ‘_History and Antiquities of Surrey_,’ London, 1804-14,
folio, volume iii. page 548, there is the following entry. ‘At an
Assize at Guildford, in Surrey, in the Octave of St. Michael,’--that is
to say within the eight days succeeding the 29th of September,--‘in the
7th of Edward I. 1278--79, before John de Reygate and other Justices
Itinerant. There came twelve for the Burgesses of Southwark. They
present that a certain part of London Bridge, about the great gate of
the Bridge, with the houses and buildings standing on that part, used
to belong to the Burgh of the King, of Southwark, where the King used
to have of rents of Assize,’--namely, fixed rents which could never be
increased,--‘yearly 11_s._ 4_d._; and of the customs of things there
sold, 16_s._ and one halfpenny, till fourteen years ago, in the time
of King Henry III., when the Mayor and City of London appropriated it
to the City:--the King to be consulted. Also they present that the
Keeper of London Bridge holds a messuage which formerly belonged to
Reginald de Colemille, who then held the same in Chief,’ immediately
from the King, ‘by the rent of one penny farthing: and that Milo le
Mareschall holds in Chief of the King two messuages which were formerly
the property of Godefride de Marberer, and Henry le Mareschall,
and pays yearly two pence halfpenny.’ The ‘_Assize Pleadings_,’ or
Rolls, containing these particulars, were written in consequence of
inquisitions into the damages and alienations of the King’s property,
during the reign of King Henry III., as I have already remarked with
regard to the Hundred Rolls: the original pleadings are preserved in
the Tower of London, and in the Court of the Receipt of the Exchequer,
in the Chapter House at Westminster. Such were the ancient rents of the
houses on London Bridge; to which I may add, that a Fruiterer’s Shop,
two yards and a half and one thumb in length, and three yards and two
thumbs in depth, was let on a lease from the Bridge-master, at a rental
of twelve pence.
“We well know, Mr. Barbican, that in the olden time, Bridges were
applied to many purposes which now seem altogether foreign to such
edifices. The celebrated Du Cange, you will recollect, in his
‘_Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis_,’ Paris,
1733-36, folio, volume ii. page 67, tells us, that Philip the Fair,
King of France, ordained in 1304, that the public Exchange, or
Bankers’ Money Table for Paris, should be held upon the Great Bridge
there, between the Church of St. Leufred and the Great Arch, as it
was anciently accustomed to be. You may remember, also, that Bridges
were once considered as Funeral Monuments, for Olaus Wormius, in his
‘_Monumentum Danicorum_,’ Hafnia, 1643, folio, page 523, when speaking
of the Island of Foesoe, observes, that there was erected a Bridge
at the costs of two or three persons, as well to preserve their own
names to posterity, as to commemorate that of Jotheimnt who converted
them to Christianity. He adds also, that the word _Bru_, which is
unquestionably the most ancient etymon of the term Bridge, signifies
that coronal of stone with which the large burial-places, or _tumuli_,
in fields, were encircled. With what great propriety then, did the
blessed Peter of Colechurch confide his fame to, and rest his most
excellent bones, in London Bridge!