IT was necessary to conclude the last chapter by a reference to the insuperable difficulties presented by much of the history of Roman London. These difficulties are doubled when we approach the subject of Saxon London. We have to attempt the construction of a continued narrative from the most meagre facts. The Romans left Britain in . [1] The East Saxons are in London in . Of the intervening years, eventful as they were to the country at large, we have no records relating to London, except that after the fatal battle of Crayford, in , the fugitives of took refuge within her walls.

All that can be done, therefore, by the historian is to place in chronological order the notices found in the most nearly contemporary documents-for of really contemporary documents there are none-and to mention such topographical facts as may seem to bear on the question of the first conquest of London by the Saxons.

From the year , then, when Ammianus Marcellinus tells us of the expedition of Theodosius, to the year , we have no mention of London. In the interval the Saxons were pouring over the land. We know that the great and terrible events which were to make Britain

It is easy to talk lightly, but this is one of the most awful episodes in our history. What the hapless Britons must have suffered from their conquerors cannot be realised or described. That a great nation should have been so completely effaced, and in so short a time, is in itself a marvel. But that the conquest of and , and above all, of the great walled city of London, should have taken place without any historical notice whatever, is even more extraordinary. "No territory," remarks a great foreign historian, "ever passed so obscurely into

When we next meet with London, she is the chief town of a Saxon kingdom. The invaders of Britain, as enumerated by the chronicler, were Old Saxons, Angles and Jutes. From the Old Saxons came, he says, the men of and and . This is the first time we hear of , namely in . Under the year , we have an account of the conquest of the Channel coast by the tribe afterwards known as the South Saxons. Under we have the beginnings of . But of the East Saxons, the conquerors of London, we have no history. How their progress was crowned by the possession of the most important position in England, we do not know. We find them in full possession.[3]  It is in . " This year," says the Chronicle, " Augustine hallowed two bishops, Mellitus and Justus. He sent Mellitus to preach baptism to the East Saxons, whose king was called Seberht, son of Ricula, the sister of Ethelbert, whom Ethelbert had there set as king. And Ethelbert gave to Mellitus a bishop's see at London, and to Justus he gave Rochester."

From this short passage we learn that in spite of the strength of London, the men of were stronger than the East Saxons. The king of appointed Seberht. Had the wall been broken down ? This is very probable. It was no defence a few years later against the Dants, and had to be rebuilt by Alfred. The men made no attempt to resist Egbert in London in . In fact, there is negative evidence enough to make it a very strong presumption that London, while it was occupied

We may incidentally gather a few other inferences from the occupation. The Britons left in London must have been very few. With the single and doubtful exception of Dow-gate-the first syllable of which may be Celtic, none of the local names survived. The Saxons re-named everything. The great streets became, what ever they may have been before, Watling Street and Cornhill, and the Ermyn Street. The market-places became East and West Cheap. The western and eastern ports became Lud-gate and Billings-gate. In England many rivers retain Celtic names, like the itself. But in London we have the Hole-bourne, the Fleet, the , the Lea. [5]  When we examine the direction of the Roman remains, the facing, for example, of a villa, as shown by its pavement, we do not find it coincide with the direction of the modern streets. The great northern road entered the Roman wall considerably to the east of the mediæval . The Watling Street led to a gate which was by no means on the exact site of . In short, there are evidences, rather negative, it is true, than positive, to show that the East Saxons found London desolate, with broken walls,[6]  and a scanty population, if any; that they entered on possession with no great feeling of exultation, after no great military feat deserving mention in their Chronicle; and that they retained it only just so long as the more powerful neighbouring

The written history of London at this period is the history of the Church. It is to be feared that the Londoners did not take kindly to the change of religion. To their independent minds it must have seemed a sign of servitude. Ethelbert had seen Gospel light in a woman's eyes, and were they to give up their gods, and

Of London itself, at this time, Beda tells us something. It was, he says, the " metropolis" of the East Saxons, who were divided from by the river . The word " metropolis" has of late years been so often applied to London that it is interesting to note its first use. Beda, no doubt, in this instance, refers to the ecclesiastical position of the place, with its bishop and its church; but in this connection his words have a larger meaning, and leave no doubt on the mind that Seberht, in his official capacity as king of , had his headquarters in London; just as Mellitus, in his official capacity as bishop of London, had the regions peopled by the East Saxons for his diocese.

Seberht reigned more than twelve years after his conversion before he " departed to the heavenly kingdom," as Beda quaintly says. After his death the mission of Mellitus failed. Without his support, and that of Ethelbert, for both were now dead, the bishop found his teaching vain. The son of Ethelbert had outraged the laws of the church of Canterbury. His cousins, the three

Beda is not slow to add the appropriate moral, and in so doing gives us a valuable little historical note. The kings, he says, did not long continue unpunished in their heathenish worship; for, marching to battle against the men of , they were all slain with their army.

Unfortunately, it is impossible not to suspect that here Beda has constructed history on the principle of " after, therefore, because," since the Chronicle, which says nothing about the sons of Seberht, tells us only that, in , Ethelbert, king of , and Laurence, archbishop of Canterbury, died, and that Mellitus, "who formerly had been bishop of London, succeeded to the archbishopric. Then," it continues, "the men of London, where Mellitus had formerly been, became heathens again." This ambiguous passage, taken literally, says, therefore, that Mellitus had ceased to be bishop in London before he became archbishop; but that the relapse of the East Saxons did not take place till after he became archbishop. Though this is the literal meaning of the words, I think it would be straining them not to allow for a certain awkwardness of construction which would leave it possible that Beda's account, and that of the Chronicle, are mainly in accordance.

This battle wit the men of is, after all, the important part of the story. The West Saxons apparently did not possess themselves of London. [7] Eventually -but not for two hundred years- was to be paramount in London ; but here we only find the succession of kings unbroken, and the notices of their chief city more and more unfrequent. We have seen them subject to and subdued by , and when we next hear of London, it is fifty years later, and they are then subject to Northumbria. Oswy, king of Northumbria, converted-we know not by what means,-Sigebert, king of . It does not appear quite clearly that this Sigebert had possession of London, for when Cedd, the brother of St. Chad, came at his request to preach to the heathen of , he took up his headquarters several miles further down the river-at Tilbury. Here, in any case, he soon gathered a congregation, and eventually succeeded in converting the whole population. In Cedd was consecrated at Lindisfarne, by Finan and two other bishops, as bishop of London. [8]  Of the ten years of his episcopate, we only know that when they closed London was no longer in the power of Northumbria, but in that of Mercia, since Beda tells us of Wina, a West Saxon bishop, that, being expelled from Winchester, he took refuge in Mercia, and, on the death of Cedd, purchased with money from king Wulfhere the bishopric of London.

Under such unfavourable circumstances was London Christianised. It is not surprising to find, a little later, that one of the kings of -for there were usually two, reigning as colleagues,-and all his people seceded,

The other king of at this time was Sebbi, who was neither brother nor uncle, but probably cousin, of Sighere. Sebbi's name is interesting to the Londoner. A charter, [11]  witnessed by him, by his cousin the second king, and by the saintly Erkenwald, bishop of London, is still extant[12]  in the British Museum. It relates to the grant of some land by one of the royal family, Othilred namely, to Barking Abbey. Sebbi signs himself " Ego Sebbi, Rex East Sax." Under his cross is that of his colleague Sighere, who is simply described as "Rex." This is the earliest East Saxon document of the kind now extant.

We thus see Christianity finally established in London. The scandal which Wina may have caused by an irregular or simoniacal election was speedily forgotten under the great Erkenwald. The Church took root; and already

There is no church of St. Erkenwald ;[15]  but two saints, of whom one may have been his contemporary, as the other certainly was, are among the earliest dedications in London. I pass by the St. Matthews, St. Peters, and St. Michaels, of which there are so many, and the St. Maries, of which in the city alone there are a round dozen at least, because, except in a few cases, it is impossible to fasten any date to the name. But if we look down a list of London parishes, the names of St. Ethelburga and St. Osyth will catch the eye. Both, according to saintly legend, were daughters of kings, and both, we may

Among the open spaces within the wall when the Saxons came was the West Cheap, a market-place of which I shall have more to say. In a network of narrow lanes on the south side of this place, and on the west bank of the , formerly stood the church of St. Osyth. In later times, the saint was only remembered by the name of the street; for, the church having been " restored" by Benedict Shorne, a fishmonger, of the reign of ., it became known by his name. Later still, by a grotesque corruption, St. Benedict's was called St. Bennet Sherehog in "Size Lane." It was burnt in the Great Fire, and never rebuilt.

To this period, also, belongs another great name. St. Botolph is commemorated by four churches, which call for notice. He was the special saint of East Anglia. To him in particular every wayfarer going north from would commend himself. He died in

St. Osyth,[16]  if we may believe the legend, was mother of Offa, a royal youth of "most lovely age and beauty," of whose history Beda has left us some particulars. He deserted "wife, lands, kindred and country," and going to Rome in the company of his overlord, Coinred, king of Mercia, he became a monk. That he had actually reigned as king, a point omitted by Beda, is proved by the existence of charters granted or signed by him,[17]  but so little was he remembered even a few years after his time, that early copies of these documents describe him as king of Mercia. He evidently left no children, as Beda does not mention them,

After this time there is no further connection to be traced between London and the kings of . By insensible degrees, the kings of Mercia, who perceived the importance of the place, held it and kept it; and in a charter of Ethelbald, whose reign was prolonged from , we have special mention of the port and shipping, being, in fact, the first notice of London in any contemporary document now extant. It is in the British Museum. [18]  Ethelbald grants to the bishop of Rochester leave for a ship, whether of his own or of another, to pass without tax into the port of London-(in portu Lundoniæ)-and speaks of the tax on shipping as his royal right, and that of his predecessors. This grant was made in . A little later the same king, in a charter written in Anglo - Saxon, makes mention of " Lundentune's hythe," another allusion to the importance of the port.[19]  The great Offa of Mercia may have recovered it in 775,[20]  but among the multitude of his charters he has left no mention of London, [21] though later tradition says he had a palace there. When we come to Coenulf, his successor, however, we have one phrase of the highest value. Coenulf speaks of a Witan, or national council, held in

London may be said after this time to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of Mercia declined, and that of arose, London went to the conqueror. In , Egbert receives the submission of , and in he is in London, and in a Witan is held there, at which he presides.

Such are the scanty notes from which the history of London during the so-called Heptarchy, must be compiled. The Witan of met to deliberate on a question which, in its further developments, became one of the highest importance to the city.

Already, while the newly acquired power of was still in its infancy, a cloud of terrible disaster hung over the land. Nothing, as the event proved, could have been more fortunate for the dynasty of Egbert than the necessity which now arose that England should be under the rule of one strong hand. The Saxon's hour of retribution had come. What his heathen forefathers had inflicted on the Britons, the Danes were about to inflict on him; but the English were made of sterner stuff than the Welsh, and in time the struggle, having united England and welded her into a single kingdom with identical interests and aims, came to an end.

London had to bear the brunt of the attack at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her. Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.

To Alfred, with his military experience and political sagacity, the possession of London was a necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict is the story of his life. His first great success was the capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task of all his later years. He probably found the Roman defences useless. The repairs effected by the Danes must have been of a very temporary character, and did not include any systematic restoration of the wall. Alfred knew the value of fortifications against savages, and his first care was to renew what was left of the Roman work. To his age we may probably attribute the building of two new gates, if not three. Cripplegate was never anything but a kind of enlarged postern, and did not open on any important road, though it was nearest to an outwork known as the Barbican. was of more importance, as being nearer the Watling Street, while communicating eastward with the Ermyn Street at . [23]  does not appear to have yet existed, although a small entrance close to the may have survived from Roman times. But we really know very little of the extent and details of Alfred's work. What we do know is that he

Alfred appointed to the government of his new stronghold, Ethelred, the Alderman, his son-in-law. Whether "the Lady of the Mercians" was with her husband in London, we know not. But he signalised his government by a brilliant feat of arms, one worthy of Alfred himself. The Danes, within a few years of their retirement from London, had assembled again in great strength at the mouth of the . Ascending as far as " Beamfleote," now South Benfleet, in , where a considerable tidal estuary or lagoon existed, stretching far up among the woods to the foot of the Laindon hills,[24]  they formed a kind of fortified harbour from which they were able to plunder the country and to stop the traffic of the river. The Londoners under Ethelred sallied out, defeated them, and drove them back on their stronghold, which was besieged and taken, together with the wife and sons of Hastings, the Danish leader. But the Danes were only spurred to greater exertions; and assembling at once with fresh reinforcements after their defeat at Benfleet, they determined to attack London itself. Taking a large flotilla of galleys up the Lea to a stronghold in the forest about Ware, or possibly Hertford, they prepared to spend the winter in recruiting, with a view to the final capture of the city in the spring. But Alfred came himself upon the scene at this precarious moment, and by one of those combinations of strategy and daring so characteristic of him, he contrived to divert the waters of the Lea into three channels; [25]  so that the Danish ships were left high and dry inland, and the Danes themselves

This story is perhaps too circumstantial to bear the stamp of truth, yet it is old enough to show that operations of considerable magnitude in the war were carried on near London, when the Londoners performed " prodigies of valour," according to the boasts of their descendants. They certainly figure in the warlike annals of the time. There were Londoners with Athelstan at Brunanburgh; and when all England was overrun and wasted with fire and sword, they, at least, kept their own city intact. The surrounding counties, , , , , even Hampshire and its royal city, were entirely in the hands of the enemy, while London held out. At the same time she increased in wealth. Security such as she could offer naturally attracted property, and we find Athelstan, when he established his mints, assigning eight coiners to London and seven to Canterbury ; [26] from which we may infer that these were the two centres of commercial life. At a later date, there are many references to this good time of old; and the number of foreigners in London when the Conqueror came shows that the concourse of merchants still existed in spite of the Danes. During the century and a half which elapsed between the death of Alfred and the peaceful time of King Edward, London Wick, and London Hithe, and London Street were crowded whenever was open. Mercantile transactions were carried on under difficulties, no doubt, when merchant adventurers had to run the gauntlet of the Danish pirates if they travelled by river, and of Danish brigands if they travelled by land. Yet the merchants prospered, and as early as the

The weak Ethelred, of whose kingdom London and Canterbury seem at one time to have been the only remnants, did nothing for London but take refuge within her walls ; and it is rather to the credit of the citizens than of the king that we must put the victorious expedition of . The treason and desertion of Aelfric, the bravery of Thorod, the presence of two bishops on board the ships, and many other circumstantial particulars, are narrated by the chroniclers; all that is certain being, that the river traffic was opened for the merchants, and that a flank attack on the returning Londoners was signally defeated. The paltry spirit of the king, who on the one hand taxed his people for the disgraceful payment of Danegeld, and on the other encouraged

London luxuries, however, or London fogs did not agree with Sweyn, who died suddenly at Gainsborough, after one winter in his new capital, and then the weary contest began again. The miserable Ethelred returned and reigned till , when he died in peace at a good old age, and was buried in St. Paul's. His grave must have been among ruins or within newly rising walls, for the old church, the church of Cedd and Sebbi, if not of Mellitus and Seberht, had been burnt a few years before. The most tangible relic of the Danish occupation was found, not long ago, close to the site.[29]  It bears the only Runic inscription yet identified in London: "Kina caused this stone to be laid over

The election and coronation of Edmund Ironside took place in London, and soon afterwards commenced the most memorable, because the last, regular siege of London. Canute disputed Edmund's right, and the king, notwithstanding his tried bravery, showed a want of military caution in leaving the protection of the city walls. Alfred had set store by them; they had been a kingdom to Ethelred; and when Edmund went into his cause was lost. Canute's siege affords one incident of remarkable interest. His canal[30]  round has been vaunted as the crowning feat of Danish strategy, while its failure has covered the Londoners with glory. In truth, however, neither was the canal a very wonderful work, nor was its success very likely. In my opening chapter I endeavoured to describe the original aspect of the country south of . Since the time of the Romans, no doubt, the muddy archipelago had become less moist, and was now only submerged at very high tides; while banks and drains

At last London was his, but peaceably,[32]  and he held it and treated it peaceably. We may as safely reject the story that London presented her new king with 11,000£.,:[33]  as that 83,000£. was raised in all England; but we need not refuse to believe that the citizens paid heavily for

We find many traces of the Danes of this period in London. Olaf came over as Thor and Woden had come before. We disguise his name in Tooley Street, at the southern end of ; but there are or were churches of St. Olave in Hart Street, and in the Old Jewry, in the city, while St. Magnus, in Street, looks across the river at his compatriot. Of St. Clement Danes and St. Bride's it is not so easy to judge. The first, when it was founded, stood far out in the green fields of the Strand, on a hillock almost surrounded by water; and the legend of a special Danish settlement may or may not be true. The objection to it that it was unlikely such a formidable colony should be placed halfway between London and is easily disposed of when we remember that there was no road through it, either east or west, at the time, and that access to the church must have been from the north. The road from London to ran through Holborn. St. Bride's cannot be attributed to the time of Canute. The ground on which it stands was then under water.[34] 

Under the orderly government of Canute some beginnings of municipal organisation show themselves. Money lies at the root of civic institutions. When Dane-geld had to be assessed, when, under a sudden demand, resistance was to be offered, when walls had to be built and ships fitted out, it is clear some power existed which could conduct or control the citizens. That it had a purely mercantile origin, and may, therefore, have included many foreigners, may be inferred from the first mention of a body representative of the wishes of London

This witan chose Harold, who died three years later; and a similar assembly invited Queen Emma and her son Harthacnut, or Hardecnut as he is called in his charters, to come over from Bruges. Hardecnut, who stood in the unusual position of having two half-brothers -one on the father's and one on the mother's side,-and who succeeded one of them, and was succeeded by the other, chiefly signalised his reign by digging up the body of Harold, and throwing it into the river. It was found by fishermen-so runs the story,-and, being handed over to the Danish colony, was re-buried in St. Clement's. Hardecnut speedily drank himself to death, and Edward, called the Confessor, stepped into his place.

Edward's history connects him rather with than with London. In , however, a council sat in London, at which, while nine ships were sent out to protect the Channel, no fewer than five were retained for the defence of the port of London. In the rebellion, or "pronunciamento " of Godwin, London figures to some extent, since the earl held for a time, and

We have some further notices of the beginnings of municipal institutions in this reign. Edward directs his writ [36] to London, to William, the bishop, and to Swetman, the portreeve, and another time to Leofstan and Ælsi, the portreeves. A little later Esgar [37] t the " staller," or marshal, and Ulph, are the chief officers of the city. At a much later date, in the reign, namely, of ., we hear of Leofstan again. He is mentioned as head of the old Knighten Guild, which was turned into the priory of Holy Trinity. Two sons of his also figured in connection with guilds. One, Robert, pays, in , 16£. into the exchequer for the guild of weavers; and in the reign of . the other, Witso, gives half a mark of gold for his father's office. Unfortunately we do not know what office is intended. [38] One thing is certain, London was not included in any earldom.

Esgar, or Ansgar, the Staller, was at Hastings, and was wounded, but was able to retreat with his men upon London. "His wound was so severe that he could neither walk nor ride, but was carried about the city in a litter." [39]  Edgar Atheling was chosen as king, but was never crowned. Esgar must soon have seen the hopelessness of the struggle. came to the bank and burnt , then marched away to the west, crossed the at Wallingford, and marched north-east to . He betrayed no symptoms of hurry. The city was gradually but surely being surrounded. A story has been told of a secret embassy from Esgar to

[1] Green, 'Making of England,' p. 24.

[2] Lappenberg, i. III.

[3] Turner says the settlement occurred about 530, basing the date evidently on Matthew of Westminster, who names 527.

[4] A " Sigred Dux," who witnessed a charter in 810 is supposed to be identical with Sigered, king of Essex, who was present at a Witan "in the royal city of London," in 811. A Sired is recorded to have built a church at Aldgate before 1100.

[5] The Lea may bear a Celtic name analogous to the modern French eau.

[6] "Good reasons may be given for the belief that even London itself for a while lay desolate and uninhabited."-Guest, ' Arch. Journ.,' xix. 217.

[7] What they did with their victory may be found in Mr. Green's Making of England.'

[8] Stubbs, 'Episcopal Succession,' p. 2.

[9] Green, ' Making of England,' p. 386.

[10] See Life of St. Osyth, in Mr. Baring Gould's 'Lives of the Saints.' 1 am sorry to say it will not square with any possible arrangement of known facts.

[11] Codex Dipl.,' vol. i., No. 35.

[12] Cott. MSS. Aug. 2, 29.

[13] Erkenwald is spoken of by Ine, king of the West Saxons, as "my bishop." London had therefore passed from Mercia to Wessex before 693.

[14] This is tradition, but tradition of a kind which it would be absurd to reject, yet it may be called after St. Botolph.

[15] It was not till our own day that another Erkenwald or Archibald held the see of London.

[16] Her festival is 7th October, and she is described as "Queen and Martyr." Stow passes the church over in a single line, in which he confounds this saint with her namesake " the virgin."

[17] In the introduction to the 'Codex Diplomaticus,' p. xxv., Mr. Kemble detailed the arguments which enabled him to replace Offa in the list of East Saxon kings. He prints a copy of a charter in which Offa is confounded with his great namesake of Mercia. In it some land is given to the church at Worcester. Offa of Essex was probably little more than a superior kind of nobleman at the Mercian court.

[18] Cott. MSS. Chart. xvii. i. 'Cod. Dipl.,' No. 78. This manuscript should be exhibited in a table case with the others of public interest. There is in Kemble a charter of Erkenwald (No. 38) which is a copy or a forgery: in it there is a mention of land " supra vico Lundoniæ." The copy is very ancient.

[19] Kemble, No. 95. Mr. Kemble printed several other charters, all more or less doubtful, in which London is mentioned before the close of the eighth century, e. g. Nos. 97, 98, 106, and 159.

[20] Green, 418. As to Offa's palace, said to have been in Wood Street on the site of St. Alban's Church, see Maitland, ii. 1051.

[21] Except in No. 159, which is of more than doubtful authenticity.

[22] They first took London in 839, and next in 851 or 852. In 852 the battle of Aclea (probably Oakley, on the Stone Street in Surrey) was fought, after which the Danes were quieted for a time.

[23] It is not mentioned in the list of gates as late as 1356. (Riley, 'Memorials,' p. 291.)

[24] It is impossible not to connect the almost certainly Celtic name Laindon, with the similar name of a very similarly situated hill, London.

[25] This story rests on very insecure foundations.

[26] At Canterbury the seven comprised two for the " bishop " and one for the abbot. We have no particulars as to London.

[27] See 'English Gilds,' by Toulmin Smith, and the ' History and Development of Gilds,' by Lujo Brentano; also Stubbs's ' Constitutional History,' vol. i.passim. For the whole text containing the rules of the frith-gild, see appendix to Kemble's ' Saxons in England,' ii. 521.

[28] Said to have been 48,000£.

[29] In digging the foundation of Mr. Cook's great warehouse on the south side of St. Paul's Churchyard. I am inclined to mention the inscription here, as it evidently belongs to an early stage of the Danish conquest -perhaps to the earliest in the reign of Alfred.

[30] Many writers have been at the pains of tracing Canute's canal. The whole subject is discussed by Maitland, Allen, Harrison, and others. I have gone carefully over the ground, and I have also endeavoured to read the various theories impartially. The result only, without further references, will be found in the text.

[31] Canute seems, for some reason, to have also made a ditch round the north side of the city.-Florence of Worcester, ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 173.

[32] A.D. 1017.

[33] Equal to about a quarter of a million in modern money.

[34] Both St. Bride's and St. Clement's, as well as St. Dunstan's, were at first only chapels or district churches to Westminster. See chapter xvii.

[35] A. S. Chron., 1036. Lithan is to navigate. Norton (pp. 23, 24) goes into some elaborate arguments on this passage, to show that the merchants were thanes rather than mere burgesses. There is really no proof either way. The word may mean sailors and may mean merchants, or rather "commercial travellers." In the East to this day, a foreign traveller is called Khawaga, that is, literally, bagman. That any one should travel for pleasure was till lately incredible, and we still pray for travellers as for those afflicted.

[36] 'Cod. Diplo.,' Nos. 856, 857, 861.

[37] There is little or no difficulty in the identification of Esgar and Ansgar. +

[38] See Stubbs, 'Const. Hist.,' i. 406.

[39] Freeman, 'Norman Conquest,' iii. 545.

[40] The Londoners' special place in the constitution of England is described more or less clearly by all historians, but perhaps the most comprehensive summary is that of Mr. Freeman ('Norm. Conq.,' v. 411):- " Edward the Fourth and Richard the Third were called to the crown no less than Stephen, by the voice of the citizens of London. And in the assembly which called on William of Orange to take on himself the provisional government of the kingdom, along with the Lords and the members of the former parliaments, the citizens of London had their place as of old."