(M98)

In the city there were occasional disturbances caused by the younger nobility—the young bloods of the city(141)—who infested the streets at night, broke into the houses of the rich and committed every kind of excess. In 1177 the brother of the Earl of Ferrers was waylaid and killed, and for some time the streets were unsafe at night. The chronicler records a singular outrage perpetrated three years before, by these sprigs of nobility. They forcibly entered the house of a wealthy citizen whose name has not come down to us, he is simply styled the pater-familias. Of his courage we are left in no doubt, for we are told that he slipt on a coat of mail, armed his house-hold, and awaited the attack. He had not long to wait. The leader of the band—one Andrew Bucquinte soon made his appearance, and was met by a pan of hot coals. Swords were drawn on both sides and pater-familias, whose coat of mail served him well, succeeded in cutting off the right hand of his assailant. Upon the cry of thieves being raised, the delinquents took to their heels, leaving their leader a prisoner. The next day, being brought before the king's justiciar, he informed against his companions. This cowardly action on the part of Bucquinte led to many of them being taken, and among them one who is described by the chronicler as the noblest and wealthiest of London citizens, but to whom the chronicler gives no other name than "John, the old man" (Johannes Senex). An offer was made to John to prove his innocence by what was known as the ordeal by water,(142) but the offer was declined, and he was eventually hanged. The whole story looks suspicious.

(M99)

Having settled the succession of the crown of England upon his eldest son, the king put his second son, Richard, into possession of the Duchy of Aquitaine, and provided for his third son, Geoffrey, by marriage with the heiress of Brittany. There was yet another son, John, who was too young to be provided for just now, and who being without any territory, assigned to him, acquired the name of Lackland. Both Richard and Geoffrey had taken the part of their brother Henry in 1173, and in 1177 the three brothers were again quarrelling with their father and with each other. After the deaths of Henry and Geoffrey, the quarrel was taken up by the surviving brothers, Richard and John.

In all these—more or less—petty wars with his sons, the king had always to deal with the ruler of France. At last, in 1189, the loss of Le Mans—his own birth-place—and the unexpected discovery that his youngest and best beloved son, John, had turned traitor towards him, left the king nothing to live for, and after a few days suffering he died, ill and worn out, at Chinon.

(M100)

Richard had scarcely succeeded to the throne, before he set out on a crusade, leaving the government of his country in the hands of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, as chancellor.(143) With him was associated in the government, Hugh de Puiset, or Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, but Longchamp soon got the supreme control of affairs into his own hands, and commenced to act in the most tyrannical fashion. He increased the security of the Tower of London, which had been committed to his charge, by surrounding it with a moat,(144) and having got himself nominated papal legate, made a progress through the country committing the greatest extortion.(145)

(M101) (M102)

Report of the Chancellor's conduct having reached the ears of Richard, he despatched the Archbishop of Rouen to England with a new commission, but the worthy prelate on arrival (April, 1191), was afraid to present the commission, preferring to let matters take their course.(146) Already a fierce rivalry had sprung up between the chancellor and John, the king's brother, who, for purposes of his own, had espoused the cause of the oppressed. Popular feeling at length became so strong, that Longchamp feared to meet John and the bishops, and, instead of going to Reading, where his attendance was required, he hastened to London. Arriving there (7 Oct.), he called the citizens together in the Guildhall, and prayed them to uphold the King against John, whom he denounced as aiming plainly at the Crown. The leading men in the city at the time were Richard Fitz-Reiner and Henry de Cornhill. These took opposite sides, the former favouring John, whilst the latter took the side of the chancellor.(147) John's party proving the stronger of the two, Longchamp thought it safest to seek refuge in the Tower.(148)

(M103)

As soon as John found that the chancellor had gone to London instead of Reading, he too hastened thither. On his arrival he was welcomed and hospitably entertained by Richard Fitz-Reiner who gave him to understand on what terms he might expect the support of the city.(149) As to terms, John was ready to accede to any that might be proposed.

(M104) (M105)

The next day (8 Oct.), a meeting of the barons of the realm, as well as of the citizens of London, was convened in St. Paul's Church, to consider the conduct of the chancellor, and it was thereupon decided that Longchamp should be deposed from office. The story, as told by different chroniclers,(150) varies in some particulars, but the main features are the same in all. The king's minister was set aside, John was recognised as the head of the kingdom, and new appointments made to judicial, fiscal, and military offices. The Archbishop of Rouen, who attended the council, seeing the turn affairs had taken, no longer hesitated to produce the letters under the king's sign manual appointing a new commission for the government of the kingdom.

(M106)

The same day that witnessed the fall of Longchamp was also a memorable one in the annals of the City of London; for immediately after judgment had been passed on the chancellor, John and the assembled barons granted to the citizens "their commune," swearing to preserve untouched the dignities of the city during the king's pleasure. The citizens on their part swore fealty to King Richard, and declared their readiness to accept John as successor to the throne in the event of his brother dying childless.(151)

(M107)

This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words their commune (communam suam) imply a commune of which they were de facto, if not de jure already in enjoyment. How long the commune may have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined; but that the term communio in connection with the city's organization was known half a century before, we have already seen;(152) and, according to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction between the words communio, communa and communia.(153) Bishop Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate communio as "commune," the latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of municipal government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or "franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization" in Stephen's reign, an idea which became fully developed in the succeeding reign.(154) He is also in favour of dating the foundation of the communa in London from this grant by John and the barons,(155) and in this view he is supported by Richard of Devizes, who distinctly states that the communia of London was instituted on that occasion, and that it was of such a character that neither King Richard nor Henry his father would have conceded it for a million marks of silver, and that a communia was in fact everything that was bad. It puffed up the people, it threatened the kingdom, and it emasculated the priesthood.(156)

(M108)

With the change from a shire organization to that of a French commune, whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon "port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"(157) occurred, down to the present day, the sheriff's position has always been one of secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor.

(M109)

The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal document is said to occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.(158) The popular opinion, however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a statement to be found in an early manuscript record still preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and known as the Liber de Antiquis Legibus.(159) The original portion of this manuscript purports to be a chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative to the year 1274.

After naming the sheriffs who were appointed at Michaelmas, A.D. 1188, "the first year of the reign of King Richard,"(160) it goes on to say that "in the same year Henry Fitz-Eylwin of Londenestane was made mayor of London, who was the first mayor of the city, and continued to be such mayor to the end of his life, that is to say, for nearly five and twenty years." That Henry Fitz-Eylwin was mayor in the first year of Richard's reign is stated no less than three times in the chronicle.(161)

(M110)

The compiler of the chronicle is supposed to have been Arnald or Arnulf Fitz-Thedmar,(162) an Alderman of London, although it is not known over which ward he presided. Particulars of his life are given in the volume itself, from which we gather that he was a grandson on the mother's side of Arnald de Grevingge(163) a citizen of Cologne; that his father's name was Thedmar, a native of Bremen; that he was born on the vigil of St. Lawrence [10 August] A.D. 1201, his mother being forewarned of the circumstances that would attend his birth in a manner familiar to biblical readers; that he was deprived of his aldermanry by the king, but was afterwards restored; that he became supporter of the king against Simon de Montfort and the barons, and that he was among those whom Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the leader of the democratic party and his followers, had "intended to slay" on the very day that news reached London of the battle of Evesham, which crushed the hopes of Montfort and his supporters. The date of his death cannot be precisely determined, but there can be but little doubt that it took place early in the third year of the reign of Edward the First, inasmuch as his will was proved and enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, held on Monday, the morrow of the Feast of St. Scolastica [10 Feb.] of that year (A.D. 1274-5).(164)

Setting aside the statement—namely that mention is made of a mayor of London, in a document of the reign of Henry II—as wanting corroboration, the first instance known at the present day of any such official being named in a formal document occurs in 1193 when the Mayor of London appears among those who were appointed treasurers of Richard's ransom.(165)

(M111)

Richard's first charter to the City (23 April, 1194)(166) granted a few weeks after his return from abroad makes no mention of a mayor, nor does the title occur in any royal charter affecting the City until the year 1202, when John attempted to suppress the guild of weavers "at the request of our mayor and citizens of London." A few years later when John was ready to do anything and everything to avoid signing the Great Charter which the barons were forcing on him, he made a bid for the favour of the citizens by granting them the right to elect annually a mayor, and thus their autonomy was rendered complete.

(M112)

When Richard recovered his liberty and returned to England he was heartily welcomed by all except his brother John. One of his first acts was to visit the City and return thanks for his safety at St. Paul's.(167) The City was on this occasion made to look its brightest, and the display of wealth astonished the foreigners in the King's suite, who had been led to believe that England had been brought to the lowest stage of poverty by payment of the King's ransom.(168)

(M113) (M114)

In order to wipe out the stain of his imprisonment, he thought fit to go through the ceremony of coronation for the second time. His first coronation had taken place at Westminster (3 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.(169)

The second coronation taking place at Winchester 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.(170)

(M115)

Richard was ever in want of money, and cared little by what means it was raised. He declared himself ready to sell London itself if a purchaser could be found.(171) The tax of Danegelt, from which the citizens of London had been specially exempted by charter of Henry I, and which had ceased to be exacted under Henry II, mainly through the interposition of Thomas of London, was practically revived under a new name. The charter already mentioned as having been granted to the citizens by Richard after his return from captivity was probably purchased, for one of the king's regular methods of raising money was a lavish distribution of charters to boroughs, not from any love he had for municipal government, but in order to put money in his purse. As soon as Richard had collected all the money he could raise in England, he again left the country, never to return.

(M116)

The pressure of taxation weighed heavily on the poor, and occasioned a rising in the city under the leadership of William Fitz-Osbert. The cry was that the rich were spared whilst the poor were called upon to pay everything.(172) Accounts of the commotion differ according as the writer favoured the autocratic or democratic side. One chronicler, for instance, finds fault with Fitz-Osbert's personal appearance, imputing his inordinate length of beard—he was known as "Longbeard"—to his desire for conspicuousness, and declares him to have been actuated by base motives.(173)

Others describe him as a wealthy citizen of the best family, and yet as one who ever upheld the cause of the poor against the king's extortions.(174) Whatever may have been the true character of the man and the real motive of his action, it is certain that he had a large following. When Hubert Walter, the justiciar, sent to arrest him, "Longbeard" took refuge in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow. Thither he was followed by the king's officers—described by a not impartial chronicler as men devoid of truth and piety and enemies of the poor.(175)—who with the aid of fire and faggot soon compelled him to surrender. On his way to the Tower, he was struck at and wounded by one whose father (it was said) he had formerly killed;(176) but this again may or may not be the whole truth. A few days later he and a number of his associates were hanged.(177)

(M117)

Two years before his death at Chaluz, Richard, with the view of aiding commerce, caused the wears in the Thames to be removed, and forbade his wardens of the Tower to demand any more the toll that had been accustomed. The writ to this effect was dated from the Island of Andely or Les Andelys on the Seine, the 14th July, 1197, in the neighbourhood of that fortress which Richard had erected, and of which he was so proud—the Chateau Gaillard or "Saucy Castle," as he jestingly called it. The reputation which the castle enjoyed for impregnability under Richard, was lost under his successor on the throne.

(M118)

Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city, and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor."(178) Just as in the constitution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the city—described by Lord Coke as epitome totius regni—the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of the common council.

(M119)

When, after thirteen years of misgovernment, during which John had enraged the barons and excited general discontent by endless impositions, matters were brought to a climax by his submission to the pope, it was in the city of London that the first steps were taken by his subjects to recover their lost liberty. On the 25th August, 1213, a meeting of the clergy and barons was held in the church of St. Paul; a memorable meeting, and one that has been described as "a true parliament of the realm, though no king presided in it."(179) Stephen Langton, whose appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury had so raised John's ire, took the lead and produced to the assembly a copy of the Charter of Liberties, granted by Henry I, when that king undertook to put an end to the tyranny of William Rufus. If the barons so pleased, it might (he said) serve as a precedent. The charter having been then and there deliberately read, the barons unanimously declared that for such liberties they were ready to fight, and, if necessary, to die.(180)

The clergy and people who had hitherto supported the king against the barons, having now engaged themselves to assist the barons against the tyranny of the king, John found himself with but one friend in the world, and that was the Pope. "Innocent's view of the situation was very simple," writes Dr. Gardiner, "John was to obey the Pope, and all John's subjects were to obey John." Within a few weeks of the council being held at St. Paul's, the same sacred edifice witnessed the formality of affixing a golden bulla to the deed—the detestable deed (carta detestabilis)—whereby John had in May last resigned the crown of England to the papal legate, and received it again as the Pope's feudatory.(181)

(M120)

In the following year (1214), whilst the king was abroad, the barons met again at Bury St. Edmunds, and solemnly swore that if John any longer delayed restoring the laws and liberties of Henry the First, they would make war upon him. It was arranged that after Christmas they should go in a body and demand their rights, and that in the meantime they should provide themselves with horses and arms, with the view of bringing force to bear, in case of refusal.(182) The citizens at the same time took the opportunity of strengthening their defences by digging a foss on the further side of the city wall.(183)

(M121)

Christmas came and a meeting between John and the barons took place in London at what was then known as the "New" Temple. The result, however, was unsatisfactory, and both parties prepared for an appeal to force, the barons choosing as their leader Robert Fitz-Walter, whom they dubbed "Marshal of the army of God and of Holy Church."(184)

(M122)

This Fitz-Walter was Baron of Dunmow in Essex, the owner of Baynard's Castle in the City of London, and lord of a soke, which embraced the whole of the parish known as St. Andrew Castle Baynard. He moreover enjoyed the dignity of castellain and chief bannerer or banneret of London. The rights and privileges attaching to his soke and to his official position in time of peace were considerable, to judge from a claim to them put forward by his grandson in the year 1303. Upon making his appearance in the Court of Husting at the Guildhall, it was the duty of the Mayor, or other official holding the court, to rise and meet him and place him by his side. Again, if any traitor were taken within his soke or jurisdiction, it was his right to sentence him to death, the manner of death being that the convicted person should be tied to a post in the Thames at the Wood Wharf, and remain there during two tides and two ebbs.(185)

In later years, however, upon an enquiry being held by the Justiciars of the Iter (a deg. 14 Edward II, A.D. 1321), the claimant was obliged to acknowledge that he had disposed of Baynard's Castle in the time of Edward I, but had especially reserved to himself all rights attaching to the castle and barony, although he very considerately declared his willingness to forego the right and title enjoyed by his ancestor of drowning traitors at Wood Wharf.(186)

(M123)

But it was in time of war that Fitz-Walter achieved for himself the greatest power and dignity. It then became the duty of the castellain to proceed to the great gate of St. Paul's attended by nineteen other knights, mounted and caparisoned, and having his banner, emblazoned with his arms, displayed before him. Immediately upon his arrival, the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, who awaited him, issued solemnly forth from the church, all arrayed in arms, the mayor bearing in his hand the city banner, the ground of which was bright vermilion or gules, with a figure of St. Paul, in gold, thereon, the head, feet, and hands of the saint being silver or argent, and in his right hand a sword.(187) The castellain, advancing to meet the mayor, informed him that he had come to do the service which the city had a right to demand at his hands, and thereupon the mayor placed the city's banner in his hands, and then, attending him back to the gate, presented him with a charger of the value of L20, its saddle emblazoned with the arms of Fitz-Walter, and its housing of cendal or silk, similarly enriched.

A sum of L20 was at the same time handed to Fitz-Walter's chamberlain to defray the day's expenses. Having mounted his charger, he bids the Mayor to choose a Marshal of the host of the City of London; and this being done, the communal or "mote-bell" is set ringing, and the whole party proceed to the Priory of Holy Trinity at Aldgate. There they dismount, and entering the Priory, concert measures together for the defence of the city. There is one other point worthy of remark, touching the office of chief banneret, and that is that on the occasion of any siege undertaken by the London forces, the castellain was to receive as his fee the niggardly sum of one hundred shillings for his trouble, and no more.

(M124)

It is not improbable that Fitz-Walter's election as leader of the remonstrant barons was in some measure due to his official position in the city. It is also probable, as Mr. Riley has pointed out, that the unopposed admission of the barons into the city, on the 24th May, 1215, may have been facilitated by Fitz-Walter's connexion, as castellain, with the Priory of Holy Trinity, situate in the vicinity.

But there were other reasons for selecting Fitz-Walter as their leader at this juncture. If the story be true, Fitz-Walter had good reason to be bitterly hostile to King John, for having caused his fair daughter Maude or Matilda to be poisoned, after having unsuccessfully made an attempt upon her chastity.(188) This is not the only crime of the kind laid to the charge of this monarch,(189) and there appears to be too much reason for believing most of the charges against him to be true. It is certain that Fitz-Walter was one of the first to entertain designs against John, and that he and Eustace de Vesci, on whose family the king is said to have put a similar affront, were forced to escape to France. The story how Fitz-Walter attracted John's notice by his prowess at a tournament in which he was engaged on the side of the French, and was restored to the King's favour and his own estates, is familiar to all.

(M125)

After a feeble attempt to capture Northampton, the barons, with Fitz-Walter at their head, accepted an invitation from the citizens of London to enter the city. They made their entry through Aldgate.(190)

The concession which John had recently made to the citizens, viz.:—the right of annually electing their own mayor(191)—had failed to secure their allegiance. The city became thenceforth the headquarters of the barons,(192) and the adhesion of the Londoners was followed by so great a defection from the King's party (including among others that of Henry de Cornhill), that he was left without any power of resistance.(193)

(M126)

The citizens met their reward for fidelity to the barons when John was brought to bay at Runnymede. In drafting the articles of the Great Charter the barons, mindful of their trusty allies, made provision for the preservation of the city's liberties, and the names of Fitz-Walter and of the mayor of the city appear among those who were specially appointed to see that the terms of the charter were strictly carried out.(194)

By way of further security for the fulfilment of the articles of the charter the barons demanded and obtained the custody of the City of London, including the Tower, and they reserved to themselves the right of making war upon the king if he failed to keep his word. For a year or more the barons remained in the city, having entered into a mutual compact with the inhabitants to make no terms with the king without the consent of both parties.(195)

(M127)

The right of resistance thus established was soon to be carried into execution. Before the year was out, John had broken faith, and was besieging Rochester with the aid of mercenaries. An attempt to raise the siege failed, owing to the timidity (not to say cowardice) of Fitz-Walter, who, like the rest of the barons, was inclined to be indolent so soon as the struggle with the king was thought to have ended.(196)

(M128)

The Pope supported his vassal king. For a second time during John's reign London was placed under an interdict. The first occasion was in 1208, when the whole of England was put under an interdict, and for six years the nation was deprived of all religious rites saving the sacraments of baptism and extreme unction.(197) It was then the object of Innocent to stir up resistance against John by inflicting sufferings on the people, now his purpose was to punish the people for having risen against John.

(M129) (M130)

The barons saw no other course open to them but to invite Louis the Dauphin to come and undertake the government of the kingdom in the place of John. On the 21st May, 1216, Louis landed at Sandwich and came to London, where he was welcomed by the barons. Both barons and citizens paid him homage, whilst he, on his part, swore to restore to them their rights, to maintain such laws of the realm as were good, and to abolish those (if any) that were bad.(198) Suspicion, however, had been aroused against Louis by the confession of a French nobleman who had come over in his train, and who had solemnly declared on his deathbed that his master had sworn when once on the throne of England to banish all John's enemies.(199) Just when matters seemed to be approaching a crisis and the barons were wavering in their allegiance, John died (19th October, 1216).



CHAPTER IV.



(M131)

Although London remained faithful to Louis after John's death, the barons began to desert him, one by one (quasi stillatim),(200) and to transfer their allegiance to John's eldest son, a boy of nine years of age, who had been crowned at Gloucester soon after his father's death, the disturbed state of the country not allowing of his coming to London for the ceremony.(201)

(M132)

After his defeat at Lincoln (20th May, 1217), by William the Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, one of Henry's guardians, Louis beat a hasty retreat to London and wrote to his father, the French king, to send him military assistance, for without it he could neither fight nor get out of the country.

(M133)

Among the prisoners taken at Lincoln were Robert Fitz-Walter, and a neighbour of his in the ward of Castle Baynard, Richard de Muntfichet, who, like Fitz-Walter, had also suffered banishment in 1213. The tower or castle of Muntfichet lay a little to the west of Baynard's Castle, and was made over in 1276 by Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor, and citizens of London to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of erecting a new house for the Dominican or Black Friars, in place of their old house in Holborn.(202) We hear little of Fitz-Walter after this, beyond the facts that he soon afterwards obtained his freedom, that he went on a crusade, and continued a loyal subject to Henry until his death in 1235. He is said to have been in the habit of wearing a precious stone suspended from his neck by way of a charm, which at his last moments he asked his wife to remove in order that he might die the easier.(203)

(M134)

A French fleet which had been despatched in answer to Louis was defeated off Dover by Hubert de Burgh, who had gallantly held that town for John, and continued to hold it now for Henry. London itself was invested by the Marshal, and threatened with starvation; but before matters came to extremes, Louis intimated his willingness to come to terms.(204)

(M135)

A meeting was held on the 11th of September (some say at Kingston,(205) others at Staines(206)), and a peace concluded.(207) Louis swore fealty to the Pope and the Roman Church, for which he was absolved from the ban of excommunication that had been passed on him, and surrendered all the castles and towns he had taken during the war. He, further, promised to use his influence to obtain the restoration to England of the possessions that had been lost beyond the sea.

(M136)

Henry, on his part, swore to preserve to the barons and the rest of the kingdom, all those liberties which they had succeeded in obtaining from John. Everything being thus amicably settled, Louis went to London, and, after borrowing a large sum of money from his former trusty supporters, betook himself back to his native country.(208) The general pardon which was granted by the young king extended to the Londoners, who became reconciled and received back their lands,(209) but did not extend to the clergy, who were left to the tender mercy of the papal legate.

(M137)

For some years to come there remained a party in the city who cherished the memory of Louis, and the cry of "Mountjoy!" the war-cry of the French king—was sufficient to cause a riot as late as 1222, when Constantine Fitz-Athulf or Olaf, an ex-sheriff of London, raised the cry at a tournament, in order to test the feeling of the populace towards Louis. Any serious results that might have arisen were promptly prevented by Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, who very quickly sought out the ringleader, and incontinently caused him and two of his followers to be hanged at the Elms in Smithfield. Whilst the halter was round his neck, Fitz-Athulf offered 15,000 marks of silver for his life. The offer was declined. He was not to be allowed another chance of stirring up sedition in the city.(210)

A more circumstantial account of this event is given us by another chronicler,(211) who relates that the wrestling match which took place on the festival of Saint James (25th July),—the same as that mentioned by Matthew Paris—was held at Queen Matilda's hospital in the suburbs,(212) and was a match between the citizens of London and those outside; that victory declared itself in favour of the Londoners, and that their opponents, and among them the steward of the Abbot of Westminster, thereupon left in high dudgeon. With thoughts of revenge in their hearts, the latter caused invitations to be issued for another match to be held at Westminster, on the following feast of Saint Peter ad Vincula (1st August).

It was at this second and later match that the trouble began. The steward was not content with collecting the most powerful athletes he could find, but caused them to seize weapons and to attack the defenceless citizens who had come to take part in the games. The Londoners hurried home, bleeding with wounds, and immediately took counsel as to what was best to be done. Serlo, the mercer, who had held the office of mayor of the city for the past five years, and was of a peaceable disposition, suggested referring the matter to the abbot; and it was then that Constantine, who had a large following, advocated an attack upon the houses of the abbot and of his steward. No sooner said than done, and many houses had already suffered before the justiciar appeared upon the scene with a large force. As to the seizure of Constantine and his subsequent execution, the chroniclers agree.

Constantine's fellow citizens were very indignant at the indecent haste with which the justiciar had caused his execution to be carried out, and did not fail to bring the matter up in judgment against him, when, some ten years later, Hubert de Burgh himself fell into disgrace.(213) The result was, that the justiciar took refuge in the Priory of Merton. When the citizens received the king's orders to follow him there, and to take him dead or alive, they obeyed with unconcealed joy. They allowed little time to elapse, but set out at once, 20,000 strong, ready to tear him limb from limb; but luckily they were stopped in time by another message from the king, and Hubert obtained a respite.(214)

(M138)

At the time of Constantine's execution, there was real danger to be anticipated from raising the cry in favour of any foreigner. The land was already swarming with foreigners, and in that very year (viz. 1222), the archbishop had been under the necessity of summoning a council of bishops and nobles to be held in London, owing to dissensions that had arisen between the Earl of Chester, William of Salisbury, the king's uncle, and Hubert de Burgh, and to a rumour that had got abroad, that foreigners were inciting the Earl of Chester to raise an insurrection.(215)

A few years later, the country was over-run by a brood of Italian usurers who battened on the inhabitants, reducing many to beggary. When attempts were made to rid the city of these pests, they sheltered themselves under the protection of the Pope.(216)

Throughout the reign of Henry III, there was one continuous struggle against foreign dominion, either secular or ecclesiastical. In this struggle, none took a more active part than the citizens of London, and "when [in 1247], the nobles, clergy, and people of England put forth their famous letter denouncing the wrongs which England suffered at the hands of the Roman bishop, it was with the seal of the city of London, as the centre of national life that the national protest was made."(217)

(M139)

Side by side with this struggle another was being carried on, a struggle for the liberty of the subject against the tyranny and rapacity of the king. More especially was this the case with the city. Henry was for ever invading the rights and liberties of the citizens. Thus in 1239, he insisted upon their admitting to the shrievalty one who had already been dismissed from that office for irregular conduct, and because they refused to forego their chartered right of election and to appoint the king's nominee, the city was deprived of a mayor for three months and more.(218)

(M140)

The substitution of a custos or warden appointed by the king for a mayor elected by the citizens, and of bailiffs for sheriffs,—a procedure known as "taking the city into the king's hands,"—was frequently resorted to both by Henry and his successors, and notably by Edward I, in whose reign the city was deprived of its mayor, and remained under government of a custos for thirteen consecutive years (1285-1298).(219)

Any pretext was sufficient for Henry's purpose. If the citizens harboured a foreigner without warrant, not only was the city taken into the king's hand, but the citizens were fined L1,000,(220) a sum equal to at least L20,000 at the present day. A widow brings an action for a third part of her late husband's goods in addition to her dower. The case goes against her in the Court of Husting, and is heard on appeal before the king's justiciar sitting at St. Martin's-le-Grand. The verdict is not set aside, but some flaw is discovered in the mode of procedure; the explanation of the citizens is deemed insufficient, and the mayor and sheriffs are forthwith deposed, to be reinstated only on the understanding that they will so far forego their chartered right—viz.: of not impleading nor being impleaded without the walls of their city—as to consent to attend the king's court at Westminster, where finally, and after considerable delay, they are acquitted.(221)

Take another instance. The king had shown an interest in the Abbey Church of Westminster, and had caused a new chapel to be built in 1220, he himself laying the first stone. Thirty years later, or thereabouts, he made certain concessions to the Abbot of Westminster—what they were we are not told—but it is certain that they, in some way or other, infringed the rights of the citizens of London in the County of Middlesex. The king promised to compensate them for the loss they would sustain; but failing to get their consent by fair promises, he resorted to his favourite measure of taking the city into his own hands. For fifteen years the dispute between the citizens and the Abbot as to their respective rights in the County of Middlesex was kept alive, and was at last determined by a verdict given by the barons of the exchequer, which completely justified(222) the attitude taken up by the citizens of London.

(M141)

In 1230 he extorted a large sum of money from the citizens at a time when he was meditating an expedition to the continent for the purpose of recovering lost possessions. The citizens, however, were not the only sufferers. The religious houses were heavily mulcted, as were also the Jews, who, whether they would or not, were made to give up one third of their chattels.(223) Again in 1244, the citizens of London and the Jews were made to open their purse-strings that the king might the better be able to pay his wine merchant, his wax chandler, and his tailor; but even then his creditors were not paid in full.(224)

Only once does it appear that the king's conscience pricked him for the extortions he was continually practising on the citizens. This was in 1250, when he called the citizens together at Westminster, and begged their forgiveness for all trespasses, extortions of goods and victuals under the name of "prises," and for forced loans or talliages. Seeing no other way out of it, the citizens acceded to his request.(225) As recently as the previous year (1249) he had exacted from them a sum of L2,000.(226)

(M142)

Henry had been crowned at Gloucester soon after his accession.(227) Nevertheless he was again crowned—this time in London in 1236, after his marriage with Eleanor of Provence. The city excelled itself in doing honour to the king and queen as they passed on their way to Westminster: but the joy of the citizens was damped by the king refusing to allow Andrew Bukerel the mayor to perform the customary service of assisting the chief butler at the coronation banquet. It was not a time for raising questions of etiquette, so the mayor pocketed the affront, preferring to settle the question of the city's rights at some more convenient time, rather than damp the general joy of the company by pressing his claim.(228)

(M143)

Yet, notwithstanding his manifestly unjust treatment of the citizens of London, and the cynical contempt with which he looked upon their ancient claim to the title of "barons," he usually went through the formality of taking leave of them at Paul's Cross or at Westminster, before crossing the sea to Gascony(229) and was not above making use of them when compelled to sell his plate and jewels to satisfy his debts. In 1252, he even went so far as to grant them a charter of liberties, but for this concession the citizens had to pay 500 marks.(230)

(M144)

It is scarcely to be wondered at if, when the crisis arrived, and king and barons found themselves in avowed hostility, the citizens of London joined the popular cause. By the month of June, 1258, the barons had gained their first victory over Henry. He was forced to accept the Provisions of Oxford, passed by the Mad Parliament,(231) as it came to be called in derision. The Tower of London was transferred to the custody of the barons, and they were for the future to appoint the justiciar. Towards the end of July, a deputation from the barons waited upon the mayor and citizens to learn if they approved of the agreement that had been made with the king.(232)

(M145)

The mayor, aldermen, and citizens, after a hasty consultation, gave their assent, but with the reservation "saving unto them all their liberties and customs," and the city's common seal was set to the so-called "charter" which the deputation had brought.

(M146)

It was not long before the city discovered that the barons were as little likely to respect its liberties as the king himself. Hugh Bigod, whom they had appointed justiciar gave offence by the way he exercised his office. In spite of all remonstrance he insisted upon sitting at the Guildhall to hear pleas, a jurisdiction which belonged exclusively to the sheriffs. He summoned the bakers of the city to appear before him, and those who were convicted of selling bread under weight he punished, in a way that was not in conformity with city usage.(233)

(M147)

In November of the following year (1259), Henry took occasion of his departure for the continent to make some popular concessions to the citizens. He appeared at a Folkmote, which was being held at Paul's Cross, and, before taking leave, he announced that in future the citizens should be allowed to plead their own cases (without employing legal aid) in all the courts of the city, excepting in pleas of the crown, pleas of land, and of wrongful distress. On the same day John Mansel who had been one of the king's justiciars in 1257, when the city was "taken into the king's hand," and Fitz-Thedmar had been indicted and deprived of his aldermanry for upholding the privileges of the citizens(234)—publicly acknowledged on the king's behalf the injustice of Fitz-Thedmar's indictment, and announced that Henry not only recalled him to favour, but commanded that he should be restored to his former position.(235)

(M148)

During the king's absence abroad, the barons' cause was materially strengthened by the support afforded Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, by the king's son. Upon hearing of the defection of his son, Henry hurried back to England. A consultation took place in the city as to the attitude which the citizens ought to take up, with the result that when Henry appeared (April, 1260), both he and the Earl of Gloucester were admitted into the city, whilst the Earl of Leicester and "Sir Edward," as the chronicler styles the king's son, had to find accommodation in the suburbs.(236)

Henry was now master of the situation. The city was his, and he determined that it should remain so. Strict watch was kept over the gates, which for the most part, were kept shut night and day in order to prevent surprise. Every inhabitant of the age of twelve years and upwards was called upon to take an oath of allegiance before the alderman of his ward, and those of maturer age were bound to provide themselves with arms. The king, who now ruled again in his own way, stirred the anger of the barons, by presuming to appoint Philip Basset, his chief justiciar, without first asking their assent; and the barons retaliated by removing the king's sheriffs, and appointing "wardens of the counties" in their stead.(237) In June 1261, Henry produced a Bull of Alexander IV, annulling the Provisions of Oxford, and freeing him from his oath.(238)

(M149)

For eighteen months the king reigned supreme. The barons could do nothing, and the Earl of Leicester, finding their cause hopeless, withdrew in August (1261) to France, and remained there until the spring of 1263, when he returned as the unquestioned head of the baronial party, to take up arms against the king. The citizens professed loyalty to Henry, who was residing in the Tower, and bound themselves by oath to acknowledge his son Edward as heir to the crown.(239) At Whitsuntide, the barons sent a letter to the king requiring him to observe the Provisions of Oxford, and shortly afterwards, addressed another letter to the citizens "desiring to be certified by them whether they would observe the said ordinances and statutes made to the honour of God in fealty to his lordship the king, and to his advantage of all the realm, or would, in preference, adhere to those who wished to infringe the same."(240)

(M150)

Before sending a reply, the citizens had an interview with the king in the Tower, to whom they showed the barons' letter. The result was, that Henry availed himself of their services to mediate between him and the barons. A deputation of citizens accordingly travelled to Dover, where an understanding was arrived at between the hostile parties. The citizens were prepared to support the barons, subject to their fealty to the king and saving their own liberties; whilst the king promised to dismiss his foreign supporters—the real cause of all the mischief. Hugh le Despenser, whom Henry had deposed, was again installed justiciar of all England in the Tower; and the king and his family left the city for Westminster, the day after the barons entered it. "Thus was a league made between the barons and the citizens with this reservation—'saving fealty to his lordship the king.'"(241)

(M151)

Whilst the commons of England were thus winning their way to liberty, the commons of the city were engaged in a similar struggle with the aristocratic element of the municipal government. The craft guilds cried out against the exclusiveness of the more wealthy and aristocratic trade guilds, the members of which monopolized the city's rule. They found an able champion of their cause in the person of Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the mayor for the time being (1261-1265). The mayor's action in the matter disgusted Fitz-Thedmar, the city alderman and chronicler, who complains that he "so pampered the city populace," that they styled themselves the "commons of the city," and had obtained the first voice in the city. The mayor would ask them their will as to whether this or that thing should be done; and if they answered "ya" "ya," it was done, without consulting the aldermen or chief citizens, whose very existence was ignored.(242) It is not surprising that, under a mayor so thoroughly in sympathy with the people, opportunity was taken by the citizens to rectify abuses from which they had so long suffered. Their trade had been prejudiced by the number of foreigners which the king had introduced into the city, and accordingly we read of an attack made on the houses of some French merchants. Rights of way which had been stopped up, were again opened, and where land had been illegally built upon, the buildings were abated.

The chronicler complains of the populace acting "like so many justices itinerant." It was in vain that the king addressed a letter to the mayor and citizens, setting forth that the dissensions between himself and the barons had been settled, and commanding his peace to be kept as well within the city as without.(243)

(M152)

The popular movement received every encouragement from the barons. Let those who were disaffected put their complaints into writing, and the barons would see that the matter was duly laid before the king, and that the city's liberties were not diminished. Fortified with such promises, the mayor set to work at once to organize the craft guilds. Ordinances were drawn up "abominations" Fitz-Thedmar calls them(244) for the amelioration of the members, and everything was done that could be done to better their condition.

(M153)

A few days before Henry and the barons had concluded a temporary peace, the citizens had been greatly excited by an action of the king's son. Henry was, as usual, in want of money, and had failed to raise a loan in the city. His son came to his assistance and seized the money and jewels lying at the Temple (29th June). The citizens were so exasperated at this high-handed proceeding on the part of the prince that they vented their spleen on the queen, and pelted her with mud and stones, calling her all kinds of opprobrious names, as she attempted to pass in her barge under London Bridge on her way from the Tower to Windsor. (13th July).(245)

Such conduct very naturally incensed the king and his son against the citizens. Henry was angry with them, moreover, for having admitted the barons contrary to his express orders.(246) It is not surprising, therefore, that when Fitz-Thomas presented himself before the Barons of the Exchequer to be admitted to the mayoralty for the third year in succession, they refused to admit him by the king's orders, Henry "being for many reasons greatly moved to anger against the city."(247)

(M154)

Before the end of the year (1263), both king and barons agreed to submit to the arbitration of the King of France. The award known as the Mise of Amien—from the place whence it was issue—which Louis made on the 23rd Jan., 1264, proved of so one-sided a character that the barons had no alternative but to reject it. However unjustifiable such repudiation on the part of the barons may have been from a moral point of view, it was a matter of necessity. Many of them, moreover, including those of the Cinque Ports, as well as the Londoners, and nearly all the middle class of England, had not been parties to the arbitration, and therefore, were not pledged to accept the award.(248)

(M155)

The citizens and the barons now entered into solemn covenant to stand by each other "saving however their fealty to the king." A constable and a marshal were appointed to command the city force, which was to stand prepared night and day to muster at the sound of the great bell of St. Paul's. The manor of Isleworth, belonging to Richard, King of the Romans, the king's brother, was laid waste, and Rochester besieged, but, disturbances again breaking out at home, Leicester had to hurry back to restore order and prevent the city being betrayed to the king's son.(249)

(M156)

In May the earl set out again with a force of Londoners(250) to meet the king, who was threatening the Cinque Ports. In the early morning of the 14th he came upon the royal army at Lewes. Prince Edward himself led the charge against the Londoners—he had not forgotten the insult they had recently offered to his mother—and succeeded in driving them off the field. They scarcely indeed awaited his onslaught, so unpractised in warfare had they become of recent years, but turned their backs and sped away towards London, followed in hot pursuit by Edward. When he returned he found that, owing to his absence, the day was lost, and that his father and brother had been made prisoners.(251) In spite of his own success, he also had to surrender.

(M157)

The barons returned to the city in triumph, bringing the king and Richard, king of the Romans, in their train. Edward had been placed in custody in Dover Castle, pending negotiations. Henry was lodged in the Bishop's Palace, whilst Richard was committed to the Tower. An agreement was drawn up which secured the safety of the king, and left all matters of dispute to be again referred to arbitration.(252) This treaty formed the basis of a new system of government, and led to the institution of Simon de Montfort's famous Parliament.

The short respite—for it proved to be no more—from civil war was welcomed by the Londoners. The city had been drained of a large part of its population in order to increase the Earl of Leicester's army, and business had been seriously disturbed. For the past year no Court of Husting had been held, and therefore no wills or testaments had received probate; whilst all pleas of land, except trespass, had to stand over until the country became more settled.(253)

(M158)

The parliament which Leicester summoned to meet on the 20th January, 1265, marked a new era in parliamentary representation. It was the first parliament in which the merchant and the trader were invited to take their seats beside the baron and bishop. Not only were the shires to send up two representatives, but each borough and town were to be similarly privileged.(254)

Terms of reconciliation between king and barons were arranged, and once more the mayor and aldermen did fealty to Henry in person in St. Paul's church. Fitz-Thomas, who for the fourth time was mayor, was determined to lose nothing of his character for independence; "My lord," said he, when taking the oath, so long as you are willing to be to us a good king and lord, we will be to you faithful and true."(255)

(M159)

Peace was not destined to last long. Dissensions quickly broke out between Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester, and Simon de Montfort, owing in a great measure to jealousy. Gloucester insisted that the Mise of Lewes and the Provisions of Oxford had not been properly observed, hinting unmistakably at the foreign birth and extraction of his rival. Endeavours were made to arrange matters by arbitration, but in vain; and by Whitsuntide the two earls were in open hostility. Gloucester was joined by Edward, who had succeeded by a ruse in escaping from Hereford, where he was detained in honourable captivity.(256)

(M160)

With their combined forces they fell on Earl Simon at Evesham and utterly defeated him (4 Aug.). Simon himself was killed, and his body barbarously mutilated.(257) The king, who was in the earl's camp, only saved himself by crying out in time "I am Henry of Winchester, your king." Whilst the battle was raging the city was visited with a terrible thunderstorm—an evil omen of the future.

If credit be given to every statement made by the city alderman and chronicler, Fitz-Thedmar, we must believe that the battle of Evesham took place just in time to prevent a wholesale massacre of the best and foremost men of the city, including the chronicler himself, which was being contrived by the mayor, the popular Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the no less popular Thomas de Piwelesdon or Puleston, and others.(258)

(M161)

The citizens of London were soon to experience the change that had taken place in the state of affairs. The day after Michaelmas, the mayor and citizens proceeded to Westminster to present the new sheriffs to the Barons of the Exchequer; but finding no one there, they returned home. The truth was that the king had resorted to his favourite measure of taking the city into his own hands for its adherence to the late Earl of Leicester; and for five years it so remained, being governed by a custos or warden appointed by the king, in the place of a mayor elected by the citizens.(259)

(M162)

There had been some talk of the king meditating an attack upon the city, and treating its inhabitants as avowed enemies.(260) The very threat of such a proceeding was sufficient to throw the city into the utmost state of confusion. Some there were "fools and evil-minded persons," as our chronicler describes them—who favoured resisting force by force; but the "most discreet men" of the city, and those who had joined the Earl under compulsion, would have none of it, preferring to solicit the king's favour through the mediation of men of the religious orders. Henry still remained unmoved, and the fear of the citizens increased to such an extent that it was finally resolved that the citizens as a body should make humble submission to the king; and that the same should be forwarded to him at Windsor under the common seal of the city. Whilst the deputation bearing this document was on its way it was met by Sir Roger de Leiburn, who turned it back on the ground that he himself was on his way to the city for the express purpose of arranging terms of submission.(261)

(M163)

That night Sir Roger lodged at the Tower, and the next morning he went to Barking Church, on the confines of the city,(262) where he was met by the mayor and a "countless multitude" of the citizens. The advice he had to give the citizens was that if they wished to be reconciled to the king, they would have to submit their lives and property unreservedly to his will. Letters patent were drawn up to that effect under the common seal, and taken by Sir Roger himself to Windsor. The citizens had not long to wait for an answer. The king's first demand was the removal of the posts and chains which had been set up in the streets as a means of defence. His next was that the mayor—his old antagonist Fitz-Thomas—and the principal men of the city should come in person to him at Windsor, under letters of safe conduct. Trusting to the royal word, the mayor and about forty of the more substantial men of the city proceeded to Windsor, there to await a conference with the king. To their great surprise, the whole of the party were made to pass the night in the Castle keep. They were practically treated as prisoners.

(M164)

Some regained their liberty, but of Fitz-Thomas nothing more is heard. 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." They would again have made him Mayor, if they could have had their own way. "We will have no one for mayor" (they cried) "save only Thomas Fitz-Thomas."(263)

(M165)

In the meantime the king had himself gone to London and confiscated the property of more than sixty of the citizens, driving them out of their house and home. Hugh Fitz-Otes, the Constable of the Tower, had been appointed warden of the city in the place of the imprisoned mayor; bailiffs had been substituted for sheriffs, and the citizens made to pay a fine of 20,000 marks. Then, and only then, did the king consent to grant their pardon.(264)

(M166)

Queen Eleanor, who had interceded for the Londoners,(265) was presented by the king with the custody of London Bridge, the issues and profits of which she was allowed to enjoy. She allowed the bridge, however, to fall into such decay, that she thought she could not do better than restore it to its rightful owners. This she accordingly did in 1271, but soon afterwards changed her mind, and again took the bridge into her charge.(266)

(M167)

At Easter, 1267, the Earl of Gloucester, who had constituted himself the avowed champion of those who had suffered forfeiture, and become "disinherited" for the part they had taken with the Earl of Leicester, sought admission to the city. The citizens hesitated to receive him within their gates, although according to some, he was armed with letters patent of the king addressed to the citizens on his behalf.(267) Under pretence of holding a conference with the papal legate at the Church of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, he gained admission for himself and followers: and there he remained, having made himself master of the city's gates.(268) Thereupon many citizens left the city, fearing the wrath of the king, and once more the city was in the hands of the populace. The leading citizens were placed under a guard; the aldermen and bailiffs were deposed to make way for the earl's own supporters, and, for better security, a covered way of timber was made from the city to the Tower.(269)

Whatever may have been the actual part played by the legate in admitting the disinherited into the city, he soon showed his dissatisfaction at the state of things within its walls, by leaving the Tower, to join the king at Ham, and placing the disinherited—"the enemies of the king"—under an interdict.(270)

(M168)

At length the king and the Earl of Gloucester came to terms (16 June). The earl was to have his property restored to him, and the city was to be forgiven all trespasses committed against the king since the time that the earl made his sojourn within its walls. The earl gave surety in 10,000 marks for keeping the peace, and the citizens paid the king of the Romans 1,000 marks for damages they had committed three years before in his manor of Isleworth.(271) Not a word about the imprisoned mayor, Fitz-Thomas!

(M169)

The king's letters patent granting forgiveness to the citizens for harbouring the Earl of Gloucester(272) were followed in the spring of the following year by another charter to the city.(273) But inasmuch as this charter did not restore the mayoralty, the citizens had little cause to be thankful and looked upon it as only an instalment of favours to come.

(M170)

Towards the end of this year or early in the next (1269), the city was committed by the king to his son Edward, who ruled it by deputy, Sir Hugh Fitz-Otes being again appointed Constable of the Tower, and warden of the city.(274) It was through the good offices of the prince, that the citizens eventually recovered the right to elect their mayor, so long withheld. "About the same time, that is to say, Pentecost, 1270," writes Fitz-Thedmar, "at the instance of Sir Edward, his lordship the king granted unto the citizens that they might have a mayor from among themselves in such form as they were wont to elect him."(275)

(M171)

He further allowed them to choose two sheriffs who should discharge the duties of sheriff, (qui tenerent vicecomitatem) of the City and Middlesex, as formerly; but instead of the yearly ferm of L300 in pure silver (sterlingorum blancorum), formerly paid for Middlesex, they were thenceforth to pay an annual rent of L400 in money counted (sterlingorum computatorum.)(276)

(M172)

The citizens lost no time in exercising their recovered rights. Their choice fell upon John Adrian for the mayoralty, whilst Philip le Taillour and Walter le Poter were elected sheriffs. After they had been severally admitted into office—the mayor before the king himself on Wednesday, the 16th July, and the sheriffs at the Exchequer two days later—the king restored the city's charters, and the citizens acknowledged the royal favour by a gift of 100 marks to the king, and 500 marks to Prince Edward, who had proved so good a friend to them, and who was about to set out for the Holy Land.(277)

(M173)

Adrian was succeeded in the mayoralty by Walter Hervy, who had already served as sheriff or bailiff on two occasions, once by royal appointment. He made himself so popular with the "commons" of the city during his year of office, that when October, 1272, came round and the aldermen and more "discreet" citizens were in favour of electing Philip le Taillour as his successor, the commons or "mob of the city"—as the chronicler prefers to style them—cried out, "Nay, nay, we will have no one for mayor but Walter Hervi."(278)

(M174)

The aldermen finding themselves in a minority, appealed to the king and council at Westminster. Hervy did the same, being accompanied to Westminster by a large number of supporters, who took the opportunity of the aldermen laying their case before the council to insist loudly, as they waited in the adjacent hall, upon their own right of election and their choice of Hervy. It was feared that the noise might disturb the king who was confined to his bed with what proved to be his last illness. All parties was therefore dismissed, injunction being laid upon Hervy not to appear again with such a following, but to come with only ten or a dozen supporters at the most.

(M175)

Hervy paid no heed to this warning, but continued to present himself at Westminster every day for a fortnight, accompanied by his supporters in full force, expecting an answer to be given by the council. At length the council resolved to submit the whole question to arbitration, the city in the meanwhile being placed in the custody of a warden. Before the arbitrators got to work, the king died (16 Nov.), and rather than the city should continue to be disturbed at such a crisis, the aldermen agreed to a compromise, and Hervy was allowed to be mayor for one year more.(279)



CHAPTER V.



(M176)

Although the aldermen had been prevailed upon to give their assent to Hervy's election to the mayoralty, his democratic tendencies made him an object of dislike, more especially to Fitz-Thomas. When, therefore, that chronicler records that throughout Hervy's year of office he did not allow any pleading in the Husting for Pleas of Land except very rarely, for the reason that the mayor himself was defendant in a suit brought against him by Isabella Bukerel,(280) we hesitate to place implicit belief in his statement.(281) We are inclined, moreover, to give less credit to anything that Fitz-Thedmar may say against the mayor when we bear in mind that the former had a personal grievance against the latter.(282)

(M177)

Hervy was a worthy successor to Fitz-Thomas, and, under his government, the craft guilds improved their position. Fresh ordinances for the regulation of various crafts were drawn up, and to these the mayor, on his own responsibility, attached the city seal.(283) When Hervy's year of office expired—these so-called "charters" were called in question as having been unauthorised by the aldermen of the city and as tending to favour the richer members of the guilds to the prejudice of the poorer. After a "wordy and most abusive dispute" carried on in the Guildhall between the ex-mayor and Gregory de Rokesley who acted as spokesman for the body of aldermen, Hervy left the hall and summoned the craft-guilds to meet him in Cheapside. There he told them that it was the wish of Henry le Galeys (or Waleys) the mayor and others to infringe their charters, but that if they could stand by him he would maintain those charters in all their integrity.

Fearing lest a riot might follow, the chancellor—Walter de Merton, through whose mediation Hervy had been at last accepted as mayor by the aldermen—ordered his arrest. This was on the 20th December, 1273. Hervy was, accordingly, attached but released on bail, and early in the following January (1274), his charters were duly examined in the Husting before all the people, and declared void. Thenceforth, every man was to enjoy the utmost freedom in following his calling, always provided that his work was good and lawful.(284)

(M178)

When the mayor removed certain butchers' and fishmongers' stalls from Cheapside, in order that the main thoroughfare of the city might present a creditable appearance to the king on his return from abroad, the owners of the stalls, who complained of being disturbed in their freeholds—"having given to the sheriff a great sum of money for the same"—found a champion in Hervy. Their cause was pleaded at the Guildhall, and such "a wordy strife" arose between Hervy and the mayor, that the session had to be broken up, and Hervy's conduct was reported to the king's council. The next day, upon the resumption of the session, a certain roll was produced and publicly read, in which "the presumptuous acts and injuries, of most notorious character" which Hervy was alleged to have committed during his mayoralty were set forth at length.

(M179) (M180)

The charges against him were eight in number, of which some at least appear to be in the last degree frivolous. He had on a certain occasion borne false witness; he had failed on another occasion to attend at Westminster upon a summons; he had failed to observe all the assizes made by the aldermen and had allowed ale to be sold in his ward for three halfpence a gallon; he had taken bribes for allowing corn and wine to be taken out of the city for sale, and he had misappropriated a sum of money which had been raised for a special purpose. Such was the general run of the charges brought against him, in addition to which were the charges of having permitted the guilds to make new statutes to their own advantage and to the loss of the city and all the realm, as already narrated, and of having procured "certain persons of the city, of Stebney, of Stratford, and of Hakeneye" to make an unjust complaint against the mayor, "who had warranty sufficient for what he had done, namely, the council of his lordship the king." This last charge had reference to the recent removal of tradesmen's stalls from Chepe. No defence appears to have been allowed Hervy. The charges were read, and he was then and there declared to be "judicially degraded from his aldermanry and for ever excluded from the council of the city"; a precept being at the same time issued for the immediate election of a successor, to be presented at the next court.(285)

(M181)

From this time forward nothing more is heard of Hervy. The same cloud envelopes his later history, that gathered round the last years of his predecessor and political tutor Thomas Fitz-Thomas. The misfortune of both of these men was that they lived before their age. Their works bore fruit long after they had departed. The trade or craft guilds, as distinguished from the more wealthy and influential mercantile guilds, eventually played an important part in the city. Under Edward II, no stranger could obtain the freedom of the city (without which, he could do little or nothing), unless he became a member of one of these guilds, or sought the suffrages of the commonalty of the city, before admission to the freedom in the Court of Husting.(286)

The normal and more expeditious way of obtaining the freedom was thus through a guild. If Hervy or Fitz-Thomas lived till the year 1319, when the Ordinances just cited received the king's sanction, he must have felt that the struggle he had made to raise the lesser guilds had not been in vain. The mercantile element in the city, which had formerly overcome the aristocratic element,(287) in its turn gave way to the numerical superiority and influence of the craft and manufacturing element. Hence it was that in 1376—when the number of trade or craft guilds in the city compared with the larger mercantile guilds was as forty to eight—the guilds succeeded in wresting for a while from the wards the right of electing members of the city's council.(288)

(M182)

In the meantime, King Edward I, arrived in London (18th August, 1274), where he was heartily welcomed by the citizens,(289) and was crowned the following day. He had expected to have returned much earlier, and had addressed a letter to the mayor, sheriffs, and commonalty of the City of London, eighteen months before, informing them of his purposed speedy return, and of his wishes that they should endeavour to preserve the peace of the realm.(290) He was, however, detained in France.

(M183)

Edward's right to succeed his father was never disputed. For the first time in the annals of England, a new king commences to reign immediately after the death of his predecessor. Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi! Within a week of his father's decease, a writ was issued, in which the hereditary right of succession was distinctly asserted as forming Edward's title to the crown.(291)

(M184)

Before setting sail for England, Edward despatched a letter (3rd April), "to his well-beloved, the mayor, barons, and reputable men of London," thanking them for the preparations he understood they were making for the ceremony of his coronation, and bidding them send a deputation of four of the more discreet of the citizens, to him at Paris, for the purpose of a special conference.(292)

(M185)

The difficulty which gave rise to this conference and to the signal mark of distinction bestowed upon the citizens of London, proved to be of a commercial character, and, as such, one upon which the opinions of the leading merchants of London would be of especial value. Ever since the year 1270, the commercial relationship between England and Flanders had been strained. The Countess of Flanders had thought fit to lay hands upon the wool and other merchandise belonging to English merchants found within her dominions, and to appropriate the same to her own use. Edward's predecessor on the throne had thereupon issued a writ to the mayor and sheriffs of London, forbidding in future the export of wool to any parts beyond sea whatsoever,(293) but this measure not having the desired effect, he shortly afterwards had recourse to reprisals.

On the 28th June, 1270, a writ had been issued to the same parties ordering them to seize the goods of all Flemings, Hainaulters, and other subjects of the Countess, for the purpose of satisfying the claims of English merchants; and all subjects of the Countess, except those workmen who had received express permission to come to England for the purpose of making cloth, and those who had taken to themselves English wives, and had obtained a domicile in this country, were to quit the realm by a certain date.(294) Those Flemings who neglected this injunction were to be seized and kept in custody until further orders, and the same measures were to be taken with those who harboured them. In the meantime, an inquisition was ordered to be made as to the amount and value of the goods seized by the Countess, and the English merchants were to lodge their respective claims for compensation.

(M186)

The interruption of trade between England—at that time the chief wool-exporting country in the world—and Flanders where the cloth-working industry especially flourished, caused much tribulation; and the King of France, the Duke of Brabant, and other foreign potentates, whose subjects began to feel the effect of this commercial disturbance, addressed letters to the King of England, requesting that their merchants might enter his realm and stay, and traffic there as formerly. They had never offended the King or his people; the Countess of Flanders was the sole offender, and she alone ought to be punished. The matter having received due consideration, the embargo on the export of wool was taken off with respect to all countries, except Flanders, with the proviso that no wool should be exported out of the kingdom without special license from the king.(295)

By the month of October, 1271, the inquisitors, who had been appointed to appraise the goods and chattels of Flemings in England, were able to report to parliament that their value amounted to L8,000 "together with the king's debt," whilst the value of merchandise belonging to English merchants and seized by the countess amounted to L7,000, besides chattels of other merchants. Parliament again sat in January of the new year to consider the claims of English merchants, when those whose goods had been taken in Flanders, "and the Londoners more especially," appeared in person. Each stated the amount of his loss and the amount of goods belonging to Flemings which he had in hand, and a balance was struck. An inquisition was, at the same time, taken in each of the city wards, as to the number of merchants who bought, sold, exchanged, or harboured the goods of persons belonging to the dominion of the Countess; and also as to who had taken wools out of England to the parts beyond the sea, contrary to the king's prohibition.(296) Many Flemings, still lurking in the city, were arrested, and only liberated on condition they abjured the realm so long as the dispute between England and Flanders should continue. Nearly six months elapsed before any further steps were taken by either party in the strife. The Countess then showed signs of giving way. Envoys from her arrived in England. She was willing to make satisfaction to all English merchants for the losses they had sustained, but this was to be subject to the condition that the king should bind himself to discharge certain alleged debts, which had been the cause of all the mischief from the outset, within a fixed time. In the event of the king failing to discharge these claims, the justice of which he never recognised, the Countess was to be allowed to distrain all persons coming into her country from England by their bodies and their goods, until satisfaction should be made for arrears. This haughty message only made matters worse. The king and his council became indignant, and contemptuously dismissed the envoys, commanding them to leave England within three days on peril of life and limb.(297)

(M187)

Time went on; Henry died, and before his son Edward arrived in England from the Holy Land to take up the reins of government, his chancellor, Walter de Merton, had caused a proclamation to be made throughout the city, forbidding any Fleming to enter the kingdom, under penalty of forfeiture of person and goods. The proclamation was more than ordinarily stringent, for it went on to say that if perchance any individual had received special permission from the late king to sojourn and to trade within the realm, such permission was no longer to hold good, but the foreigner was to pack up his merchandise, collect his debts, and leave the country by Christmas, 1273, at the latest.(298)

(M188)

The Countess had probably hoped that a change of monarch on the English throne would have favoured her cause. This proclamation was sufficient to show her the character of the king with whom she had in future to deal, and destroyed any hope she may have entertained in this direction. She therefore took the opportunity of Edward's passing through Paris to London, to open negotiations for the purpose of restoring peace between England and Flanders; and it was to assist the king in conducting these negotiations, that he had summoned a deputation of citizens of London to meet him at Paris.

(M189)

The choice of the citizens fell upon Henry le Waleys, their mayor for the time being, one who was known almost as well in France as in the city of London, if we may judge from the fact of his filling the office of Mayor of Bordeaux in the following year. With him were chosen Gregory de Rokesley who, besides being a large dealer in wool, was also a goldsmith and financier, and as such was shortly to be appointed master of the exchange throughout England;(299) John Horn, whose name bespeaks his Flemish origin,(300) and who may on that account have been appointed, as one who was intimate with both sides of the question under discussion; and Luke de Batencurt, also of foreign extraction, who was one of the Sheriffs of London this same year.

(M190)

These four accordingly set out to confer with the king at Paris, having previously seen to the appointment of wardens over the city, and of magistrates to determine complaints which might arise at the fair to be held at St. Botolph's, or Boston, in Lincolnshire, during their absence.(301) The deputation were absent a month. On the 19th July, Gregory de Rokesle and certain others whose names are not mentioned again set out in compliance with orders received from the king; the object of their journey being, as we are expressly told, to treat of peace between the king and the Countess of Flanders at Montreuil.(302) A month later Edward himself was in England.

(M191)

The king ruled the city, as indeed he ruled the rest of the kingdom, with a strong hand. Londoners had already experienced the force of his arm and his ability in the field, when he scattered them at Lewes; they were now to experience the benefit of his powers of organization in time of peace. Fitz-Thedmar's chronicle now fails us, but we have a new source of information in the letter books(303) of the Corporation.

(M192)

The first and the most pressing difficulty which presented itself to Edward, was the re-organization of finance. Without money the barons could not be kept within legitimate bounds. Having won their cause against the usurpations of the crown, they began to turn their arms upon each other, and it required Edward's strong hand not only to impose order upon his unruly nobles, but also, to bring Scotland and Wales into submission. The country was flooded with clipt coin. This was called in, and new money minted at the Tower, under the supervision of Gregory de Rokesley as Master of the Exchange.(304) Parliament made large grants to the king; and he further increased his resources by imposing knighthood upon all freeholders of estates worth L20 a year.(305) When the Welsh war was renewed in 1282, the city sent him 6,000 marks by the hands of Waleys and Rokesley.(306)

(M193)

In 1283 an extraordinary assembly—styled a parliament by some chroniclers—was summoned to meet at Shrewsbury to attend the trial of David, brother of Llewelyn, Prince of Wales. To this so-called parliament the city sent no less than six representatives, viz.: Henry le Waleys, the mayor, Gregory de Rokesley, Philip Cissor, or the tailor, Ralph Crepyn, Joce le Acatour, or merchant, and John de Gisors.(307) Their names are worthy of record, inasmuch as they are the first known representatives of the city in any assembly deserving the name of a parliament, the names of those attending Simon de Montfort's parliament not having been transmitted to us. David was convicted and barbarously executed, his head being afterwards carried to London, and set up on the Tower, where his brother's head, with a mock crown of ivy, had recently been placed.(308)

(M194)

Of Ralph Crepyn, one of the city's representatives at Shrewsbury, a tragic story is told. Meeting, one day, Laurence Duket, his rival in the affections of a woman known as "Alice atte Bowe," the two came to blows, and Crepyn was wounded. The affray took place in Cheapside, and Duket, fearing he had killed his man, sought sanctuary in Bow Church. Crepyn's friends, hearing of the matter, followed and having killed Duket, disposed of their victim's body in such a way as to suggest suicide. It so happened, however, that the sacrilegious murder had been witnessed by a boy who informed against the culprits and no less than sixteen persons were hanged for the part they had taken in it. Alice, herself, was condemned to be burnt alive as being the chief instigator of the murder; others, including Ralph Crepyn, were sent to the Tower, and only released on payment of heavy fines.(309) The church was placed under interdict, the doors and windows being filled with thorns until purification had been duly made. Duket's remains, which had been interred as those of a suicide, were afterwards taken up and received the rights of Christian burial in Bow Churchyard.

(M195)

The year 1285 was a memorable one both for London and the kingdom. It witnessed the passing of two important statutes. In the first place the statute De Donis legalised the principle of tying up real estate, so as to descend, in an exclusive perpetual line; in other words, it sanctioned entails, and its effect is still experienced at the present day in every ordinary settlement of land. In the next place the Assise of Arms of Henry II was improved so as to secure for the king a national support in the time of danger. In every hundred and franchise each man's armour was to be viewed twice a year; and defaults reported to the king "who would find a remedy." The gates of walled towns were to be closed from sun-set to sun-rise, and watch and ward were to be kept as strictly as in times past, "that is to wit, from the day of the Ascension until the day of S. Michael, in every city by six men at every gate; in every borough, twelve men; every town, six or four, according to the number of the inhabitants of the town, and they shall watch the town continually all night from the sun-setting unto the sun-rising."(310) Three years previous to the passing of this statute the mayor, alderman and chamberlain had made very similar provisions for the keeping of the City of London, the city's gates, and the river Thames.(311)