Barnaby, “for we are now drawing very rapidly towards that time,
when we can give only mere facts, and descriptive scenes of history,
unsupported by any of those curious and unquestionable proofs which
these evidences furnish. Not but that there are, doubtless, yet many
scores of most interesting papers and Charters concerning this Bridge,
preserved in the Close Rolls, the ‘_Rotuli Chartarum_,’ the Patent
Rolls, and the vast body of the Records of this kingdom: but life is
too short, and the search would be too long, to discover them all;
though I would, for your sake, that I knew them better, and could
delight your ears with their recital.”
“God forbid! Mr. Postern,” ejaculated I, “that you should bestow
all your tediousness upon me! for truly, from that which you have
recited, I have some conception of what the whole must be; and I would
rather entreat you now to pass on to some of those same ‘facts, and
descriptive scenes of history,’ which you seem to undervalue so much,
because they do not drag a wearisome Patent Roll after them. Therefore
once more, Master Barnaby, I say, give me a tale.”
“Well,” returned he, “as we have now arrived at rather an eventful
period, perhaps you will begin to be more gratified; and here let me
remark that the gate of London Bridge being so advantageous, as well
as so immediate, an entrance into the very heart of the City, was
too often the favourite passage by which the rebels of ancient days
marched into the bowels of our hapless land. I have already given you
one instance of this, in speaking of the Baronial Wars of the days of
King Henry III.; and now, when we have arrived at the Year 1381, the
5th of Richard II., we find another melancholy instance of it in the
insurrection of Wat Tyler. Stow notices this but very slightly in his
‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 61; though in his ‘_Annals_,’ to which he
there refers, page 283, he gives a much more full account of their
proceedings on London Bridge, taken chiefly from the ‘_Chronicle_’ of
Thomas Walsingham, a native of Norfolk, and a Monk of St. Albans Abbey,
who lived in the time of Henry VI., and died in 1440; his history
commencing at the end of the reign of King Henry III. His principal
work, entitled ‘_Chronica Thomæ Walsingham, quondam Monachi Sancti
Albani_,’ will be found in William Camden’s ‘_Anglica, Normannica,
Hibernica, Cambrica, a Veteribus Scripta_,’ Frankfurt, 1603, Folio;
where, on page 249 you will find his account of it; but, however, we’ll
take the English one of old Stow, from the page which I have already
cited.
“‘On which day,’ says he, meaning Thursday, the Feast of Corpus
Christi,--or June the 13th,--‘also in the morning, the Commons of Kent
brake downe the stew-houses neare to London Bridge, at that time in
the hands of the frowes of Flanders, who had farmed them of the Mayor
of London. After which, they went to London Bridge, in hope to have
entred the Citty; but the Maior,’--the famous Sir William Walworth, you
remember,--‘comming thither before, fortified the place, caused the
Bridge to be drawne vp, and fastened a great chaine of yron a crosse,
to restraine their entry. Then the Commons of Surrey, who were risen
with other, cried to the Wardens of the Bridge to let it downe, whereby
they mought passe, or else they would destroy them all, whereby they
were constrained for feare to let it down, and give them entry, at
which time the religious present,’--perhaps he means the Brethren of
the Bridge,--‘were earnest in procession and prayer for peace.’
As this fragment of History brought to my recollection a point of
Heraldical enquiry, which I had long considered, I here interrupted my
visitor, in the following words.
“I cannot, Mr. Barnaby Postern, turn from the days of that most
notorious rebel, Wat Tyler, without briefly noticing the dispute
concerning the Armorial Ensigns of our goodly City, which claim to have
had an honourable augmentation arising from the gallantry of the Lord
Mayor of that period. If rhyme might pass for reason and argument,
we should then be assured of the origin of the City’s Dagger, from
the evidence afforded by those verses, which are inscribed beneath
Walworth’s effigy in the Fishmongers’ Hall, above us; and which run--
‘Brave Walworth, Knight, Lord Mayor, yet slew
Rebellious Tyler in his alarmes;
The King therefore did give in lieu
The dagger to the City’s Arms.
In the fourth Year of Richard II., Anno Domini, 1381.’
“This, however, can stand for nothing, and the arguments for, and
against, the popular reason for the introduction of the weapon, are
best learned from the ancient English Chronicles and Historians of
London. The principal Authors who assert that King Richard added
the Dagger to commemorate the loyal valour of Walworth, are Richard
Grafton, in his ‘_Chronicle at large, and meere History of the Affayres
of Englande, and Kinges of the same_,’ London, 1569, folio, page 340;
in the Margin: Raphael Holinshed, in his ‘_Chronicles of England,
Scotland, and Ireland_,’ London, 1586, volume ii., page 436: John
Speed, in his ‘_Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine_,’ London,
1611, folio, volume ii., page 596; and Sir Richard Baker, in his
‘_Chronicle of the Kings of England_,’ London, 1733, folio, page 140.
“Such are the assertors of this very common legend; and the evidence
against it, is given, firstly by old Stow, in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume
i., page 506, at that part of it where he is treating of Walworth’s
Monument, in the Church of St. Michael, Crooked Lane. He there states,
you know, that, in the fourth Year of King Richard II.,--1380,--it was
determined, in a Court of the Aldermen and Common Council of the City,
that the old seal of the Mayoralty of London should be destroyed, and
a new one, engraven with greater skill, then be provided. The device
upon the new seal consisted of the effigies of the Saints Peter and
Paul, with the Blessed Virgin above them, supported between two Angels,
under as many tabernacles. Beneath the feet of the Saints were the
Armorial Ensigns of the City, supported by two Lions, and two Serjeants
at Arms. Now, Stow’s deductions from this fact are, firstly, that as
the Mayor is not called by any title of Knighthood in this Seal, it
was made before he received that dignity, and, therefore, before his
gallant action in Smithfield, or, the augmentation could have been made
to the City Arms. Secondly, he argues, that the Arms were the same in
the old seal as in the new, and that, consequently, the weapon was
not the dagger of Walworth, but the sword of St. Paul; for when the
turbulent Robert Fitz-Walter was Banner-bearer to the City of London,
his standard was red, charged with the image of St. Paul in gold,
holding a sword, which, together with the head, hands, and feet of the
effigy, was silver. These particulars you will also find in Stow’s
‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 65; and such is the attempt of this worthy
historian to prove the weapon to have been the sword of St. Paul’s
Martyrdom, at _Aquæ Salviæ_, on the 29th of June, A. D. 66. Now, since
that holy Martyr is oftentimes called, by the more ancient writers,
‘the titularie patron of London,’ and since her chiefest metropolitan
fane was, so early as 610, dedicated to his ever-fragrant memory, there
is nothing impossible, or even unlikely, in all this: and that it
should have been so, certainly arises from the circumstance that ‘Paul
preached in the Islande of Britaine, which cannot be doubted; seeing
both Sophronius, Patriarche of Jerusalem, and Theodoret, an ancient
Doctor of the Chvrche, doe affirme and approve the same, saying that
Fishers, Publicans, and the Tent-maker,’--St. Paul, see Acts xviii.
3,--‘which brought the evangelical light unto all nations, revealed the
same unto the Britaines.’
“The only authority adduced by Stow for the support of his novel
hypothesis concerning the Dagger of London, is a Manuscript preserved
in the City Chamber, and called ‘_Liber Dunthorne_,’ from William
Dunthorne, the name of its author. It is, in form, a large folio
volume, written in a very fair, small, black law text, on vellum;
and its contents are ancient Civic Laws, commencing with the series
of the City Charters, in the first of which, granted by William I.,
the initial W contains an illumination of the effigy of St. Paul, as
already described. I will add only, that this venerable register is
bound in wood, covered with rough calf leather, and garnished with
brass bosses and clasps, now black with age; whilst on the cover, under
a plate of horn, surrounded by a metal frame, is a piece of parchment
bearing the name ‘_Dvnthorne_.’
“Notwithstanding, however, that the effigy of the most glorious Apostle
St. Paul might be advanced into the banner of London, I think it still
probable that the ancient Civic Armorial Ensigns were a White Shield
bearing a Red Cross, having the first quarter either uncharged, or
charged, as a distinction from the multitudes of places and persons
which adopted the same insignia. For you may observe, that the Cross
was anciently and commonly used by all Christians as their badge;
some Heralds deriving its introduction from the Emperor Constantine
the Great, and others from so holy a person as Joseph, the Son of
Joseph of Arimathea; who, being the first preacher of Christianity
in Britain, when dying, drew with his own blood a red cross on a
white banner, and promised victory to its followers, whilst they
continued in the Christian faith. There is also much mystical meaning
in this plain, yet noble ensign; for ‘the white shielde,’ says a very
ancient and interesting author, ‘betokeneth purenes of life, and the
crosse, the bludd that Christ shed for us, his especialle people of
Englande.’--‘King Arthur,’ too, says John Bossewell, in his very rare
and curious ‘_Workes of Armorie_,’ London, 1597, small 4to., Part 2.,
page 22 a, ‘that mightie Conquerour and worthie, had so great affection
and loue to this signe, that he left his Armes which he bare before,
and assumpted, or tooke to his Armes, as proper to his desire, a
Crosse siluer, in a field vert; and on the first quarter thereof, was
figured an Image of our Lady, with her Sonne in her armes. And bearing
that signe, he did many marueiles in Armes, as in his books of Acts
and valiant Conquests are remembred. Thus,’ adds he, ‘in olde time it
may be perceiued what Princes thought of the Crosse.’ Now, without
believing this origin to its utmost extent, we may nevertheless learn
thereby, of how great antiquity is the bearing of that most honourable
Ordinary; ‘whose godly observation,’ says John Guillim, in his
‘_Display of Heraldry_,’ best edition, by James Coats, London, 1724,
folio, page 51, ‘was in great use in the primitive Church; though, in
later times, it hath been dishonourably entertained by two kinds of
fantastics; the one, who so superstitiously doat on it that they adore
it like their God; the other, who so unchristianly detest it, that they
slander the most godly and ancient use thereof in our first initiating
unto Christ, as if it were some devilish idol. But the true soldiers of
such a captain, need not to be ashamed to bear his ensign.’
“There is also yet another historical reason given why the Red Cross of
St. George should be so often adopted in England; for it is related,
that when Robert, Duke of Normandy, the son of our King William I.,
was prosecuting his victories against the Turks, and laying siege to
the famous City of Antioch, A. D. 1098, it was almost relieved by a
considerable army of Saracens. In this difficulty there appeared the
beatific vision of St. Demetrius, St. Mercurius, and St. George, coming
down from the mountains of Syria; the latter being clothed entirely
in white, and bearing a Red Cross on his banner, and, at the head of
an innumerable reinforcement; which miraculous interference not only
reanimated the Christians, but also caused the infidels to fly, and the
Crusaders to possess themselves of the City. This legend is related
by Matthew Paris, a Monk of St. Albans, in the 13th century, in his
‘_Historia Major_,’ Paris, 1644, folio, page 29: and it consequently
made St. George to become exceedingly famous at that time; and to be
esteemed a patron, not of the English only, but of Christianity itself.
“So much, Mr. Barnaby, for the use of the Cross in our City Arms; and
as to the distinction borne in the first quarter, there are some who
hold the belief that the Roman letter L once occupied the place of the
sword. This story appears to have originated with a Mr. William Smith,
a Merchant of London, who was created Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of Arms,
on October the 22nd, 1597. As he had travelled much on the Continent,
and ‘was honest, of a quiet conversation, and well-languaged,’ the
Officers of the Heralds’ College solicited to have him joined to their
society; and it was from the reminiscences of his former travels,
that he was enabled to state the following particulars concerning the
original distinction attached to the City Arms, wherein he opposes
the hypothesis of Stow. ‘The Auncient Armes of the Cittie of London,
as they stand in (the uppermost North Window of) our Lady Church at
Andwerp, in which Church windowes stand the effigies of King Edward the
Third, and all his children; with most of the Armes of the Corporate
Townes of England at that tyme; and this standeth first, and hath an
ould Roman L in the first quarter, which John Stowe tooke in an ould
seale which he had seene, for a sword, afferminge thereby that it
was the Sworde of St. Paule, patron of the saide Cittie: whereby he
constantly affermed that they had aunciently soe borne it, and that
it was no reward giuen by King Richard the Second, as our Chronicles
reporte, for the seruice done in Smythfieeld against Watt Tyler y^e
Rebell, by William Wallworth, Maior of London, whoe slewe the sayd
Tyler with his dagger; in memory whereof, say they, the dagger was
added to the Cittie’s Armes.’ This passage you will find in two ancient
Manuscript copies of Heraldical Collections for London, in the Harleian
Library, No. 1464, page 1; and No. 1349, page 2 b; attended by sketches
of the ancient and modern bearings, drawn in pen and ink, technically
called _Tricks of Arms_. This same story, told in the very same words,
with two rude sketches of the Arms in the margin, is also to be found
in one of Philpott’s Manuscripts, in the Library at the Heralds’
College, marked P b. No. 22, page 10 a; where it is written on paper,
in an ancient running hand about the year 1602; and, what is extremely
singular, there does not appear to be any other entry of the City Arms
in the books of that Office.
“Notwithstanding, however, as Strype tells us, in his most interesting
‘_Life of John Stow_,’ prefixed to his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page
15, that the worthy old Citizen, and Master Rouge Dragon, were well
acquainted, and communicated their labours to each other, yet he says
also, that Stow would not be persuaded concerning the Dutch blazon of
the London Arms, but affirmed them to have been always the same. I
have but two other proofs to bring forward concerning these bearings;
and then I will no longer trespass upon your long-tried patience, but
return back with all speed to our _memorabilia_ of London Bridge.
“The first of these is, that in Mr. J. B. Nichols’s ‘_Brief Account
of the Guildhall of the City of London_,’ London, 1819, octavo, we
are told, at page 34, that in the Eastern Crypt of that building, the
groinings of the roof meet in bosses carved with Armorial Ensigns; some
being those of King Edward the Confessor, and others those of the City
of London. ‘It is worthy of remark,’ adds the Author of this volume,
in the same place, ‘that the Arms of London represented in the bosses
on the side aisles _have_ the dagger, while all those in the centre
aisle are _without_ it.’ I will make no other commentary upon this,
than, that part of the crypt is said to have been built antecedent
to the reign of King Richard II., or, probably, formed part of the
ancient Guildhall, erected, as some suppose, in 1189; the present
building being commenced, as Stow tells us in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume
i., page 558, in 1411, during the reign of Henry IV. The last evidence
which I have to cite on this subject, is a small, but rare tract in
the British Museum, entitled ‘_The Citie’s Advocate in this Case, or
Question of Honour and Armes; whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth
Gentry?_’ London, 1629, 4to. The Author of this volume is supposed to
have been that John Philipot, or Philpott, whom I before mentioned, who
was created Somerset Herald, on July the 8th, 1624, and who died on
the 25th of November, 1645. He engraves both the banner of St. Paul,
supported by an effigy of Robert Fitz-Walter, and the Arms as they
are now borne, for the Ensigns of London; and states that they were
‘a copy of that which an old imperfect larger volume at the Office of
Armes containeth.’ He cites this record in proof of Stow’s veracity
in explaining the weapon to signify the Sword of St. Paul; and adds
that his effigy as ‘titularie patron of London, aduanced itself into
the standard, and upon the shield were those well-known armories of
the crosse and weapon.’ It is, perhaps, almost unworthy of mention,
that Edward Hatton, in his ‘_New View of London_,’ London, 1708, 8vo.,
volume i., in the inscription to the frontispiece representing the
City Arms, blazons them ‘Argent, a Cross Gules: on y^e 1st quarter a
sword (by some falsly called y^t of St. Paul, by others y^e dagger of
Sr. Wm. Walworth; but I take it to represent y^t of Justice) of y^e
2nd:’ this idea, however, is without the slightest support either in
reason, history, research, or heraldry. Such is the chief evidence now
extant concerning our Civic Ensigns, which you will find very fully and
wittily considered, by a learned and facetious gentleman, an intimate
of mine, in a paper signed R. S., printed in a periodical of much
merit, entitled the ‘_New European Magazine_,’ volume iv., May, 1824,
pages 397-401.
“Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, as I concluded this discourse on our
Civic Heraldry, “I have spoken somewhat at length on this subject,
partly on account of its great interest, and partly because you ever
and anon remind me of the sentiment uttered by that talkative knave,
_Gratiano_, in the ‘_Merchant of Venice_;’ who says,--
‘Well! keep me company but two years more,
Thou shalt not know the sound of thine own tongue!’
But, as we have now gotten through our wanderings for the present, let
me recall to your mind that our Bridge history was brought down to the
period when----”
“To the time,” interrupted the Antiquary, “when the prompt courage and
prudence of the youthful Richard, after the death of the rebel Tyler,
the valour of the famous Henry Spencer, Bishop of Norwich, and the
united efforts of the King’s Armies and Councils, had succeeded in
putting an end to one of the most extensive and dangerous insurrections
ever known in England. During these turbulent times at home, the
King’s Ambassadors abroad had been vainly endeavouring to negociate
a marriage between their Sovereign, and a daughter of the Duke of
Milan. On the failure of which negociation, he demanded the hand of
Anne of Luxemburg, daughter of the Emperor Charles IV., and sister to
Wenceslaus, Emperor and King of Bohemia; with whom, on May the 2nd,
1381, his marriage was formally concluded at Nuremburg. I mention
this only to remind you, to whom the Pageants were presented which I
shall very speedily have to notice. Before, however, that we arrive
at any events so entertaining as these, I must mention some other
circumstances, and repeat to you another extract from a Patent Roll
concerning the appointment of a Gate-Keeper to London Bridge, recorded
in the eighth Year of King Richard II., A. D. 1385., Membrane the 22nd.
It is addressed, ‘For Walter Fesecock,’ and in English runs in the
following terms; the original Latin being printed in Hearne’s ‘_Liber
Niger_,’ volume i., page *486.
“‘The King to all to whom these presents shall come,--Greeting. Know
ye, that of our special grace, and for the good service of our beloved
Walter Fesecock, one of our Bargemen, we grant to the same Walter, for
as much as in us lieth, the Officer of Gate-keeper of the Bridge of
our City of London; he being near to us, and paying to us a price not
exceeding thirteen shillings and four pence by the year: that is to
say, he is to have the said office, with the profits belonging thereto,
for the term of his life; in the manner that John Chese, deceased,
had the office aforesaid, by the grant of our most dear Lord and
grandfather deceased. In testimony of which thing, Witness the King, at
Westminster, on the eighth day of April. By Writ of Privy Seal.’
“I am next, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, to speak of a famous action on
London Bridge, which most authors who have written the history of that
edifice, place five or six, and some even eight, years later, than
it really happened; which I cannot imagine to have arisen from any
other cause, than that of their carelessly following each other, or
else copying Stow, in his ‘_Survey_,’ page 61, without turning to the
original ancient Author, whom he cites in the margin of his ‘_Annals_,’
pages 312-313, as his authority for the fact. This memorable exhibition
was a solemn Justing between an English and a Scottish Knight, as a
display of the valour of their different countries; which was held on
St. George’s day, the 23d of April, 1390; and not, as Stow has most
unaccountably stated, in the works which I have quoted, either in 1395
or 1396. The authorities with which I shall support my argument, are
ancient, and some of them even contemporary; but we will first relate
the plain story from the elegant Latin of Hector Boethius, a Scottish
Historian, who was born at Dundee in 1470: the best edition of whose
‘_Scotorum Historiæ_’ is that printed at Paris in folio, 1575; where,
on page 335 b, the passage commencing ‘_Durante inter Anglos Scotosque
pace publica_,’ is, in English, to the following effect.
“‘During the general peace between the Scots and the English, many of
the English, who were of Knightly rank, and who excelled in military
arts and prowess, frequented Scotland, and there also came many Scots
into England; producing, on both parts, many honourable tournaments,
to which mutual challenges were published. Of these feats, the most
worthy of memory was accounted that victory on London Bridge, by David
Lindesay, Earl of Crawfurd. An Englishman, the Lord Wells, was then the
Ambassador of King Richard, in Scotland, and was attending at a solemn
banquet, where many persons, both Scots and English, were discoursing
upon courage and arms. ‘Away with this strife of words,’ said the
Englishman; ‘whoever would experience the valour of the English, let
his name be declared, and also a time and place be appointed, wherever
ye list, for a single passage of arms, and I am ready. I call on thee,’
said he to David, ‘who hast spent many words against me, and thou
shalt have to just with me rather than all the rest.’ ‘Yea, truly,’
said David, ‘and I will do it blithely, if thou canst bring the King
to consent to it.’ The King agreeing, the Englishman made choice of
the place, and, because it should be in another country, he selected
London Bridge: David named the time, the holy St. George’s day, because
he was the chief patron of soldiers. Thereupon the Lord Wells returned
to London, and David provided himself with arms, as well as he might.
As the day was approaching, he made a journey with thirty-two persons
in his train, immediately to London,’--this, however, is an error, for
there were but twenty-nine in all, as I shall presently shew,--‘coming
to King Richard, who received them with great honour.’