A History of London, Vol. I
Loftie, W. J.
1883
CHAPTER V. THE STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY.
CHAPTER V. THE STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY.
WE now arrive at one of the most interesting epochs in the history of our city, and yet we have to acknowledge that the authorities are so contradictory, so vague, or so prejudiced that it is difficult if not impossible to obtain an adequate view of the events which characterised it. London in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was a city in which the old Teutonic spirit of freedom had never been subdued. In outward seeming at least, it preserved that freedom by obtaining charters to define what before required no definition. The burghers only asked for a recognition of already existing rights. That recognition they obtained easily enough by paying for it; and we have now to see how far they were able to make their freedom a reality as well as a name. The struggle was of a twofold character. Among the whole body of citizens there were always some to whom the oppressions of the Court were not so irksome as the rising of the people. They were often the most influential from wealth or position, or both. They preferred the king's favour to that of the commons. In their eyes the assertors of popular freedom were rebels and demagogues; yet it is through those eyes that we have to look if we would watch the struggle and note the result. The popular party had no chronicler; and the chief record [1] which has | |
122 | come down to us is the work of a fierce partisan, one who hated and feared the populace, as he contemptuously terms them, and who does not scruple to accuse his opponents of conspiracy, sedition, and cowardice, though by doing so he discredits the whole city. If Arnald FitzThedmar had been more impartial we should lose much which now we know; as it is, his very violence occasionally throws a light on the opposite side, which otherwise we should miss. |
The accession of Richard was the signal for a change in the title of the chief magistrate of London. Henry FitzAylwin or FitzEylwin became the first mayor, and so continued during five-and-twenty eventful years. The first was marked by a massacre of the Jews, but as it took place at the time of the king's coronation, and in consequence of a supposed evil intent on the part of the Jews, who crowded to to witness the festivities, it is probable that FitzAylwin had not yet assumed the reins of the civic government. [2] For the king was crowned on Sunday, 3rd September, , the massacre took place on the 4th, the new sheriffs, Henry of Cornhill and Richard FitzReyner, were admitted to office on Michaelmas Day, the 29th, and unless, as is possible, the new mayor first acted on behalf of his fellowcitizens, as chief butler at the coronation feast, he did not actually come into office till the 9th November.[3] | |
123 | |
"When history drops her drums and trumpets and learns to tell the story of Englishmen, it will find the significance of Richard, not in his crusades or in his weary wars along the Norman border, but in his lavish recognition of municipal life." [4] With regard to London, however, his only known recognition at this period is a precept addressed to Henry of Cornhill, one of the sheriffs, demanding various articles for the accoutrement of his army and himself. He probably sold lands, houses, and privileges to individual citizens; but although he declared his readiness to sell the city itself could he but find a purchaser, we do not find any record of charters or other similar grants, till after his return from captivity. The armour was provided, no doubt, and Richard set forth for Palestine, while his chancellor, Longchamp, bishop of Ely, took up his residence at the Tower. He immediately began to give offence to the citizens by an active prosecution of the works of defence,[5] for which purpose he encroached on the city boundaries to the westward to form the approaches, and took in a piece of ground to the north, which belonged of right to the newly founded Priory of and its Alderman-Prior. At the south-eastern corner of the precinct stood a mill which belonged to the hospital of St. Katherine, and near it a garden, which, as it closely adjoined the royal apartments, had been let to the king at six marks a year. Longchamp required and took the land to round his corner according to the design which no doubt he and Richard, a master of fortification, had arranged. The so-called Iron Gate stands on the site. These acts, trifling in themselves, but cumulative, caused great annoyance, which was not allayed when Longchamp | |
124 | seized his rival in the regency, Bishop Pudsey, and imprisoned him; nor when he insulted Geoffrey, archbishop of, a popular favourite, the son of Fair Rosamond, and half brother to Richard himself. , supported by public opinion and a large army, summoned Longchamp to Loddon, near Reading, to justify his behaviour. The bishop avoided the trap laid for him and retired, through London, and in spite of the obstruction of the citizens, to the Tower. |
's conduct of affairs at this crisis must have given the citizens that false idea of his character, for which they were destined afterwards to pay so dearly. Attended by a crowd of nobles and prelates, he came to the Chapter House of St. Paul's and held a council there, and then, having caused the great burghmote bell to be rung in the churchyard, assembled the people on their old meeting ground-a proceeding in itself calculated to bespeak their favour. A letter from the king, dated at Messina, where Richard was already feasting and fighting and love-making, according to his wont, was then read amid the rapturous applause of the assembly. It defined the limited powers of the justiciar, and the citizens by acclamation declared Longchamp's condemnation and deposition. A deputation of the highest rank was sent to the Tower to apprise him of the popular decree, and on hearing it he fell insensible on the floor. In the morning , attended by citizens and barons and bishops, led the people out to East Smithfield near the Tower, and thence summoned Longchamp to surrender. He immediately came to terms, and was allowed to cross the river to Bermondsey, whence he escaped over the sea. | |
We find Longchamp back in London in . Among the popular leaders of the day was one of whom the | |
125 | modern historian would gladly know more. William FitzOsbert, a man " poor in degree, evil favoured in shape," and remarkable equally for the long beard which gave him his nickname, and for his eloquence in persuading the people to resist unjust assessments, was summoned by his brother for having said he would be avenged on king and chancellor for an unjust demand made upon him. "I would lay out," he avowed, " forty marks to buy a chain on which I might hang them both, in recompense for the money the chancellor took from me in the Tower." |
It is evident that Longbeard had been specially oppressed, but the result of this trial is unknown, and probably the return of the king in that year put a stop to the prosecution. Richard was warmly welcomed by the citizens, who almost immediately took out and no doubt paid handsomely for a renewal of the charter of . [6] Longbeard and his friends had to pay for privileges which only benefited the wealthier classes. The city's share of the sum required for the king's ransom had to be raised, and there were great expenses connected with his second coronation and with the prosecution of the mayor's claim to act as chief butler at the feast in opposition to the city of Winchester. For the chief butlership Longbeard cared nothing, but he did care, and roused those about him to care, for an unjust system, which threw the burden of payment on the people. Once more we hear the great bell sounded and see the folkmote assembling with anxious faces and clouded brows. But Longbeard was powerless against wealthy aldermen, and officials fresh from basking in the royal smiles. A riot broke out, and several | |
126 | citizens were slain. Longbeard was summoned before the new justiciar, Hubert FitzWalter, archbishop of Canterbury, who, however, seeing the number and apparent determination of his supporters, dismissed him with a mild admonition. |
FitzOsbert's prosecutors were not satisfied with this, and took measures to have him arrested. He broke from his guards, and took refuge in Bow Church, in the middle of the market-place, and there, having, it was said, laid up a store of provisions, and fortified the steeple "with munition and victual," he prepared to stand siege and refused to come forth. | |
Passion Sunday was at hand, and the archbishop, who was present in person, was anxious to conclude the matter. On the refusal of Longbeard and his companions to surrender, faggots were laid to the door and fired, and after enduring the heat and smoke as long as they could, they were obliged to sally forth, half-suffocated and blinded. Even so, some bloodshed occurred before they were secured and lodged in the Tower, and Longbeard was badly wounded by a burgher's son, whose father he had killed. On Wednesday in Passion Week, notwithstanding the sacredness of the season, FitzOsbert and his friends were cruelly dragged by the heels through the city and hanged with every sign of disgrace at the Elms beside Smithfield. | |
We have these facts for the most part from witnesses bitterly hostile to the popular cause, yet it is impossible to mistake their significance. The people laboured under a double disadvantage. The great men of the city, like the great men of one of the Italian republics of the same period, desired freedom for themselves and nominally for their city; but they were not unwilling to appropriate to themselves alone the privileges purchased | |
127 | with the people's money. When the king's hand was heavy on the citizens all suffered; when it was light the great men only were relieved. The civic rebellion of the next century is a struggle, not against the king only, but against an oligarchy. The martyrdom of William of the Longbeard was lamented, if we may believe the chroniclers, by no fewer than 52,000 adherents, miracles were wrought at the place of execution, the gibbet itself was carried away piecemeal, and the sacredness of the season when he was put to death only added to the fervency of the devotees, who "pared away the earth that was be-bled with his blood, and kept the same as holy reliques to heal sick men." |
The second charter of Richard is dated a year before his death at Chalons. It relates to the "conservancy of the "; and though the city had from time immemorial claimed the privilege and duty of keeping open the navigable part of the stream, a definition of its rights in the matter was made the subject of a special grant, and, no doubt, charged for accordingly. The grievance chiefly to be remedied was the multiplication of wears or weirs, by which the course of the stream was obstructed; and the city had leave to remove and prohibit such impediments in the way of open traffic both on the and the Medway. The New Wear, near Rochester, has probably given its name to " The Nore," which is still the eastern boundary of the city jurisdiction. | |
was hardly seated on the throne before we find a significant entry in the meagre annals of the day. Five and twenty of the more discreet men, we read, were sworn, together with the mayor, to take counsel on behalf of the city. The events indicated by such a sentence, or by another, under the year , are sufficiently well known. " In this year there were Pleas of the Crown | |
128 | at the Tower of London." Meanwhile no fewer than five charters were granted; and it is evident, from the wholly unimportant character of some of them, that they were merely excuses for the receipt of heavy payments. The interdict did not affect London in so severe a manner as other parts of England. There were, no doubt, many private chapels, many conventual churches, to which citizens desirous of hearing mass, and willing to pay for the privilege, could resort. |
During all these years the rivalry between the wealthier burghers and the ordinary craftsmen of the city continued to rage. The "prudhommes" were arrayed at every election, at every hustings, against the lesser folk. The wards, as we shall have occasion to notice more distinctly a little further on, were in the hands originally of the landowners, and the alderman was still very much in the position of a "lord of the manor." His office was at first always, and still usually, hereditary. These " barons " of the city, as they were often called, formed among themselves an oligarchy, [7] and ruled the merchant guild, an association which had control of the civic government, the revenues, and the trade regulations. Against this tyranny the commons struggled in vain. When craft guilds were formed to protect certain trades, they were bitterly opposed, and in some cases actually suppressed. The tradesmen's difficulty lay in the fact that, unless all of the same handicraft joined, their labour was but vain. To insure this co-operation, recourse was had to the crown, and charters of incorporation were obtained. Even so, the opposition of a small, but influential | |
129 | party, contrived to keep the craft guilds at bay, and the reign of , much as was accomplished for the vindication of national liberty, left the petty tyrants of the city untouched. |
True, these very tyrants were themselves among the magnates of the realm who extorted the Charter in . Geoffrey FitzPiers, the first champion of the cause of national freedom, has often been claimed as a citizen himself, and a descendant of such a city worthy as Godfrey or Gosfrith the portreeve. At the first great meeting of the barons, Geoffrey brought the charter of . before them, and Stephen Langton expounded its full significance. This meeting was held at St. Paul's. Geoffrey died soon after in his residence at the Tower, only surviving Henry FitzAylwyn, the first mayor, a single year; but archbishop Langton now headed the barons, and on May 12, London threw open her gates to their forces, led by Robert FitzWalter, the standardbearer of the city. At Runnymead London was well represented, and her liberties secured to her by a special clause of the Great Charter. | |
The temper of the city was fully aroused by these events. For the first time men began to understand what is now meant by the word individual liberty. The commons were not satisfied that their new mayor, FitzAlan, or the general of their forces, FitzWalter, or the Basings and Blunds and Bukerels and other aldermen of wealth should alone enjoy the privileges obtained at so much cost. Efforts were made from time to time to obtain recognition of the popular party. The name of Serlo le Mercer, mayor in the year of Magna Charta, is significant. It denotes the election of a member of a craft, one who had, indeed, no aristocratic or other surname, and who was only known by his occupation. | |
130 | |
Meanwhile the meddling of the pope once more made union necessary for the promotion of the common cause. Innocent III. annulled the Charter, excommunicated the barons, and suspended archbishop Langton. King triumphantly overran the kingdom, and shut up the barons and their army in London. The archbishop, their best or only leader, had been forced to make the long and perilous journey to Rome, to obtain from the Pope a reversal of the sentence against him, and also if possible to put the matters at issue in a clearer light. But the papal decrees continued to fall on London at the king's demand; and the citizens, again torn by violent factions, seem to have been unanimous only in defying king and pope alike. " The ordering of secular matters pertaineth not to the pope," they asserted ; [8] and Simon Langton, when he counselled them to ring the bells and celebrate mass as before, acted no doubt on an understanding with the archbishop his brother. We may see in the removal of Jacob Alderman from the mayoralty in , and the substitution of Solomon de Basinges, a temporary triumph of the aristocratic party, the same party which had already committed London to the cause of the French prince Louis. Dover Castle stopped the way, however; and while the siege went on, and the Londoners despatched FitzWalter with a contingent to invest Lincoln in conjunction with a French force, king died, and immediately the whole aspect of affairs was changed. The young king, proclaimed as Henry III., was speedily crowned at Gloucester; " for by reason of the war still continuing between himself and the aforesaid Louis and the barons of England, he could not come to London and there be crowned."[9] Peace was | |
131 | concluded in the following year, but not until FitzWalter, whose military skill did not equal his courage, had been taken prisoner in the narrow streets of Lincoln. But in the treaty of Lambeth the liberties of the city were acknowledged, and the citizens who had been captured during the late hostilities were now set at liberty. The French and aristocratic party evidently came out of the contest with a loss of prestige. In ,[10] "Serlo le Mercer was again made mayor of London, and so continued for five years." FitzWalter never recovered his influence, and the popular party for a brief period became so powerful that Constantine FitzAthulf or FitzOlaf, who at a wrestling match ventured to raise the cry of "Montjoye and St. Louis," was taken up by the justiciar without his aristocratic friends being able to deliver him. No form of trial delayed the sentence, and Constantine and two of his fellows were hanged; though, when he felt the halter round his neck, he offered 15,000 marks to save his life. [11] |
Serlo was succeeded in by Richard Reinger, another " plebeian " mayor-if I may borrow a term from Roman history-who also ruled for five years. A reaction began to set in about , when the same sheriffs, who, to judge by their names, Henry de Cokham and Stephen Bukerel, belonged to the "patrician" party, served for two years. A contest arose at the end of their second period of office, and the popular party so far prevailed that all the aldermen and principal citizens joined in an oath that for the future they would not permit the same men to serve as sheriffs for two consecutive | |
132 | years. Eleven years of comparative tranquillity were passed under two mayors, both of old city families, Roger le Duc and Andrew Bukerel; the aristocratic element reappears in the list of sheriffs; and on the disgrace of Hubert de Burgh and his flight to Brentwood, though the bishop of London was able to restore him to sanctuary, it is evident that the ascendant party in the city had no sympathy with his cause. Their opponents in the following year made an expiring effort, and obtained the election of their nominee to one of the sheriffships. But a charge was soon discovered or invented to displace him. Symon FitzMary, whose name sufficiently indicates his lowly origin, so sadly wasted the property that formed the issues of the sheriffwick that he was not allowed to receive them any longer-so says the Chronicle [12] -and the clerks of the sheriffwick were entrusted with the task of collecting them, and of acquitting with them "the ferm of his lordship the king." |
We have here the first indication of the growing rapacity of the young king. Symon FitzMary, though the chronicler frowns on him, was unwilling to hand over to the Crown what he considered more than its due. He was opposed, we may be sure, by the direct interference of the aristocratic party, who had by this time forgotten the old cry of "Montjoye," and joined the brilliant band of courtiers about the rightful heir of . But they soon found that the weak, rapacious, and fickle king despised them as upstarts, treated them with contempt, laughed at their assumption of nobility, and finally added injury to insult when he threw his weight into the scale against them, and actually commanded them to admit Symon FitzMary to the sheriffship. | |
133 | |
In this bid for popularity Henry succeeded for a time. The poorer citizens looked on him as their champion, the more so as the mayor, William Joynier, absolutely refused to admit FitzMary. Here he was acting strictly within his rights; and though it is difficult to explain the position taken up by FitzMary, it is easy to see that Henry was engaged, with all the characteristic Angevin cunning, in playing off one party against the other to his own advantage, while he watched for an opportunity of overthrowing the city liberties altogether. | |
A very small accident gave him this opportunity. Under the guise of supporting the cause of the widow and the oppressed, he was enabled to intervene in the administration of justice, Symon FitzMary being once more made his tool. Whether Symon was a singleminded man-whether he had the liberties of his fellows really at heart-or whether, on the other hand, he was a mere creature of the court hired to do a certain piece of work and reckless of consequences, we cannot tell. But the case of Margery Vyel brought affairs to a crisis. | |
She was the widow of a citizen named John Vyel, who at his marriage had made a settlement on her, and, having apparently prospered, died the owner of a considerable property. His son was sheriff in , but it does not appear whether this son, Vyel the younger, was the son of Margery or of a previous wife. Be this as it may, she claimed in to be entitled to a third of her deceased husband's goods, as his widow; but the city authorities, sitting at Guildhall, gave judgment against her, on the grounds that her settlement was sufficient, and that her husband had made no further provision for her in his will. The widow Vyel was by no means content, and, appealing to the king, brought about a serious conflict | |
134 | as to the old question of the freedom of London from the jurisdiction of any but its own magistrates. The matter was made a party question. The king on the one hand was anxious to humble the citizens. He had received several serious rebuffs from them as to the appointment of sheriffs and mayors. One mayor elected by the citizens had refused to serve, in consequence of the king's personal ill-will.[13] Symon FitzMary, unfortunately, played the king's game for him by opposing the election as sheriff of Nicholas Bat, another member of one of the old ruling families, on the ground that he had served the office in the previous year. Henry had on more than one occasion "taken the city into his hands," as it was termed, appointing the mayor, however, to govern it for him. He was now about to take a much more important and tyrannical step. Having sent Henry de Ba, or Bath, a justice, to St. Martin's-le-Grand, to try the case of the widow Vyel, on the refusal of the citizens to acknowledge his jurisdiction, the king took possession of the city, and, setting aside the mayor and the sheriffs, appointed as his bailiffs William de Haverille and Edward de . The mayor and principal citizens journeyed to Woodstock, and had an interview with Henry, but could not induce him to change his mind. This was towards the end of August,[14] and the time for new elections was approaching. William of Haverille insisted on the lower officials taking an oath of obedience to himself, and evidently anticipated a prolonged term of office. But on the 8th of September the king changed his mind. Some money transactions had no doubt taken place in the interval, and the mayor and sheriffs were reinstated, undertaking on their part that the city would plead in the king's court as to th |
135 | case of the widow Margery, on the ninth of the ensuing month of June. |
When the eventful morning arrived the mayor--[15] who had been re-elected-and the sheriffs attended at , and were kept waiting for four days before the king could be induced to attend to their business. Meanwhile a kinsman [16] of the widow had been constantly making allegations against the citizens, and they on their part had actually deprived Symon FitzMary of the office of alderman for taking her side. This Symon FitzMary by a deed dated in (see Smith's ' Topography,' p. 29) founded a priory at to be in the special patronage of the bishop of Bethlehem, to whom and his successors an annual payment was to be made by the priory. The foundation still exists under the name of " Bedlam." | |
When at length they were admitted to the royal presence a new demand was made upon them. Before proceeding to the case in hand, Henry announced to the astonishment of the burghers that he had made grants in to the abbot of -he was at that time actively engaged in the building and endowment of the Abbey -and desired their ratification of certain franchises. For these he proposed to offer certain exchanges of equal value. Now, if there was one thing which the aristocratic party in the city valued more than another it was the farm of , with the rights belonging to it, which they had enjoyed since the time of . For once, after a few minutes' hesitation, they had to fall back on the despised commonalty. "They could do nothing in the matter," they replied, " without the consent of the whole community." Although the king was much angered by this answer, evidencing as it did that on some subjects all classes of the citizens | |
136 | were at one, he dissembled for the time, and proceeded to hear the case of the widow Vyel. It was speedily determined against her, and the mayor and sheriffs went back to London victorious but not triumphant, knowing but too well that Henry would not let the abbot's claims rest, and that, in all probability, they would not so easily have won their cause, but for the greater importance of the new demand. |
The king, who cared nothing for Margery Vyel, had in fact been victorious. He had cajoled the citizens into coming before his court at , and he foresaw an infinite number of exactions, fines, gifts, bribes, and other means of replenishing his exhausted exchequer in this one great achievement. The claim of the abbot, unfounded as it was, cropped up at intervals for fifteen years, and was made a constant instrument of annoyance to the citizens. At length, towards the close of , after many events of greater importance had taken place, and while many questions of constitutional significance were still pending, the case was decided, under the rule of Simon de Montfort, in the king's court at . By verdict upon oath given by twelve knights of the county of , it was found that the sheriffs of London had power to enter "all the vills and tenements" which the abbot holds in , even to the very gate of the royal abbey itself. The tenants of the abbot were bound to do suit and service like the freeholders of the county at the County and Hundred Courts. This decision was duly pronounced by the justiciar, Gilbert Preston; and though the citizens denied the jurisdiction of the court, they were not unwilling to accept its sentence when given in their favour. The abbot, therefore, by deed, formally renounced all claim to the privileges illegally given him by the king-- | |
137 | only however to reassert them on the first convenient occasion. |
., in the interval, still continued to plot against the city liberties, and so far carried on his operations under the disguise of supporting the popular cause. A roll, sealed with green wax, was found in his wardrobe at Windsor, [17] early in . So the story ran, and that the king had read it, and had learned from it that his faithful commons were oppressed by the rich men of the city. How the roll with its green seal came into the wardrobe remained a transparent secret. Henry was at his wits' end for money. He had just accepted from the pope the crown of Sicily for his second son, Edmund; and parliament, at least the assembly which afterwards grew into parliament, had refused his demands for aid to prosecute the claim. The roll with the green wax seal came opportunely to his help. John Maunsell, one of the judges, and a fit implement of oppression, was despatched into the city. The folkmote was summoned and assembled on Sunday morning, January the 27th, when Maunsell read the contents of the roll to the people, and added that the king regretted to hear of such oppressions and would by no means permit them. It would be wearisome to go through all the subsequent processes, more or less legal, by which Maunsell brought the aldermen to their knees.[18] They went with Ralph Hardel, the mayor, a member of the patrician party, to meet the king at Knightsbridge on his return to ; but Henry sent a " certain esquire " forbidding them to come into his presence. On the 1st of February a meeting was held in Guildhall to receive a message | |
138 | from the king. The people attended in large numbers, the mayor and aldermen being also present. John Maunsell announced once more the king's desire to inquire into the grievances set forth in the now too famous roll, and desired the city authorities to make oath as to their assessment of tallages and other imposts. To take the oath was not only to endanger themselves, but it was also to give up an ancient and cherished privilege of the city, by which no citizen could be obliged to make oath in such cases as this. These objections were overruled by the voices of the people. They gave assent to the imposition of the oath by loud cries of " Ya, ya"; thus, as the chronicler bitterly remarks, disparaging their own liberties, "which, in fact, these same most wretched creatures had not been the persons to secure." |
The king's triumph was thus complete, at least for the moment. Maunsell, well instructed beforehand, lost no time in taking advantage of the popular vote. The mayor, the sheriffs, even the king's chamberlain, were removed. All the rolls of tallages were delivered to John Maunsell. The constableof the Tower, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk,[19] became governor of the city. The inquisition, as it was called, sat daily at the Guildhall. Six-and-thirty men of each ward were examined, and a report was prepared on their evidence. All this was done so speedily, that on the 10h February Maunsell had the act of accusation complete, and the city magnates were summoned to to receive judgment. Here Maunsell told them that they had been guilty of changing the mode of making the tallage; that they had not read the roll of the last tallage to the people in Guildhall, and so forth, a long list of charges being gathered of, it must be allowed, the most trumpery | |
139 | character. The aldermen answered, clearing up some of the charges, but, above all, putting themselves on their privilege as citizens of London, and offering to defend themselves according to the laws and customs of the city. An unseemly wrangle ensued. The offer of the citizens was too reasonable to be conceded, and at length they were dismissed with orders to return on the morrow. A new accusation was now made. The matter of the tallages, it was perhaps found, would not be sufficient; and when the mayor and aldermen came to they were charged before the king himself with having altered the weights and measures of the city. It was in vain that they pleaded that not the weights but the method of weighing had been changed, and that the change had been made on the recommendation of more than 200 trustworthy men. It was evident that the fable of the wolf and the lamb was being re-enacted. Once more the folkmote was summoned to meet in St. Paul's Churchyard, and John Maunsell,[20] addressing the people in a kind of sermon from the Cross, promised them all their rights and liberties at the hands of the king, who thus placed himself as it were in competition with the mayor and aldermen. The speaker went on to put a supposititious case, in which he asked the people what they could expect if, when their champion the king accused these men of oppression, they should be allowed to acquit each other, every alderman calling upon his fellows as compurgators. This question, of course, the populace answered as they were expected to answer, in contravention, as the chronicler sadly observes, " of the privileges of the franchises that had been granted unto the city of old, and by their predecessors, citizens of blessed memory, obtained." No conference of discreet |
140 | men was held. The voice of prudence was drowned in the acclamations of the populace, " sons of divers mothers," says our historian in bitter scorn, "many of them born without the city, and many of servile condition." The mayor and aldermen once more proceeded to , where Henry de Ba, their old enemy, gave judgment, suspending them, degrading them, and forbidding them to return to their respective wards without the king's permission. Henry was present, and saw that the time had come for an exhibition of magnanimity. With a few exceptions, one of them being the mayor, all were restored to their offices. William FitzRichard became mayor, and one of the sheriffs was changed, a man of the old Bukerel family being removed, and a tradesman of lower rank substituted. [21] These alterations and reinstatements did not take place without money payments, yet it is not easy to see what the king had gained by the whole transaction, except the immediate gratification of having humbled the chief citizens. This was the year of the "Mad Parliament" and the Provisions of Oxford, and it is possible that Henry began to foresee a time when those very citizens were the men on whom he might have to depend; that the populace was even more fickle than himself, and that there were men among the city aristocracy who, loyal as they were to their ancient privileges, were also willing, if he would allow them, to stand by the throne in the impending struggle. |
Two men were, however, now coming to the front with whom he would have to reckon. What Simon de Montfort did for England, Thomas FitzThomas did for London. He had been sheriff when the tallages question and that of the alteration of weights had been brought | |
141 | forward. The roll with the green seal had been found at Windsor when he was but three months in office. He seems to have perceived the probable change of front in the king's policy, and he also perceived that by such manipulations of the folkmote as he had now twice witnessed, the cause of the people was only ostensibly advanced, but really retarded. He saw that to put their trust in the throne, as against their own magistrates, was but to admit wolves to do the work of the sheepdogs. As Simon de Montfort called a new power into existence when he summoned the burgesses to parliament, so Thomas FitzThomas, by employing the most ordinary means, and showing the people how to use their own power, taught the " plebeian " citizens to elect for themselves representatives who as aldermen or mayors should do what they could and what the law permitted to remove their grievances. In the aristocratic party failed in the elections. William FitzRichard [22] was displaced, and the sheriffs, whose names for the three years of his mayoralty had been Adrian and Cornhill, Bruning and Coventry, Picard and de Northampton, were now Philip the Taillour and Richard of Walebrook. The new mayor was Thomas FitzThomas. |
FitzThomas must have been very busy during this year. It was in his first mayoralty that . made his retreat to the French court, feigning sickness, and Simon de Montfort was organising his preparations for enforcing the Provisions of Oxford, notwithstanding Urban IV.'s bull absolving the king from the oath he had taken to observe them. Such were the unhappy circumstances of the country [23] when FitzThomas's first | |
142 | mayoralty commenced. His second year was marked by an attempt of the constable of the Tower to take "prisage" of vessels coming up the with corn-an attempt defeated for a time by the vigilance of the citizens, and a declaration on the part of FitzThomas[24] that force would if necessary be repelled by force. Shortly afterwards he took the oath to Edward, afterwards ., as the king's heir and successor, and administered the same oath to the aldermen, attending for the purpose at the houses of those who were ill. So far there would seem to have been nothing in his rule except evidence of a strong desire to preserve the liberties of the city, and to act with loyalty towards the Crown. But he had already contrived to show the " patrician" or retrograde party among the citizens his determination to uphold the rights of the poor as well as of the rich, yet the Chronicle[25] which describes him at greatest length, was evidently written by one of the fiercest of his opponents, and we have therefore no account which even attempts to do justice to his qualities. He pampered the populace-so we are told. He taught them to style themselves the commons of the city. He gave them the first voice in everything, submitting every important measure to their vote, and asking their will upon it. If they replied with their familiar "Ya, ya," it was done; and the aldermen were little consulted.[26] When Montfort made his great march from Reading to Dover, a deputation of the |
143 | citizens was sent with the members of the council at the king's command. They took the opportunity of assuring the earl that he possessed the sympathy of the city; and something like a league was made between him and the burghers to observe the Provisions of Oxford, in fealty to the king, but always reserving the liberties of London. FitzThomas immediately organized the people by their wards. All aliens were dismissed. The "commons" enrolled themselves by hundreds and thousands; vigilance committees were appointed, and the worst excesses which ensued were only the destruction of some houses built upon common land, and the opening of some lanes and rights of way, which here and there powerful or wealthy persons had been suffered to stop. |
The conflict between the greater and lesser citizens, the merchants and the craftsmen, came to a head when, upon the earl's first success, he demanded of the citizens that they should formulate such rules as might be to their advantage, promising to obtain their ratification from the king in council. FitzThomas seized the opportunity for legalising the existence of the new trade guilds. He summoned the people, and telling them to organise themselves by their handicrafts, and to make such provisions as should secure the conduct of each, he dealt a fatal blow at the old oligarchy. The chronicler in his hatred of these proceedings styles the new "nations," into which the mechanics had enrolled themselves, "abominations," and describes their guilds, correctly enough, as "solely to their own advantage, and to the intolerable loss of all merchants coming to London." The influence of FitzThomas showed itself further in his obtaining at length the judgment, already mentioned, as to the claim of the abbot of ; thus vindieating | |
144 | his impartiality, and his anxiety for the full recognition of the liberties of great and small. |
But as the king, by a fluctuation in the tide of events, began to recover his power, his old desire to annoy the city showed itself anew; and when November came round, and FitzThomas was again elected, and actually sworn in as mayor, a brilliant opportunity presented itself for displaying the change of his policy in London. He now no longer sought popularity with the commons; but on FitzThomas presenting himself at for approval, sent to the barons of the exchequer a royal writ forbidding his admission to office. This was just before the reference of the questions at issue between Henry and his subjects had been made to the French king.[27] The news of Louis's award, by which the Provisions of Oxford were declared utterly null and void, was received in most parts of England with something like a sullen acquiescence. But the commons of London, whom, as we have seen, Henry had just gone out of his way to insult, wholly refused to abide by it. They had not, they said, joined in asking for French arbitration, and they would have none of it. After a momentary pause their example was followed by the great commercial towns of the south, the Cinque Ports, and by nearly all the middle class throughout England. Montfort was in rather hoping for than demanding admission to the city, but the retrograde party among the citizens contrived to keep the gates closed against him. The queen was lodging in the Tower, as during the publication of the award Henry had crossed to France, and on her attempting to join him on his return home, as she rowed in state up the river, the citizens assembled on the bridge reproaching her as the | |
145 | cause of all their troubles, her foreign relations having by their rapacity and misgovernment brought the king into his present straits. She was at length obliged to turn back under a storm of stones and foul words. The commons were further angered by an attempt which Henry made to take earl Simon from , and bursting the Bridge Gate they admitted him with acclamations to the city. Here, no doubt, he counselled the steps to be taken for the public safety before he went to attend the abortive parliament which Henry had summoned to meet at Oxford; and the citizens immediately throwing aside party feeling, and, acknowledging their need of experienced guides in the abeyance of the mayoralty, appointed Thomas Puleston their constable, and Stephen Bukerel their marshal, thus turning apparently to the leadership of their traditional rulers. They rapidly enrolled themselves, being joined by Le Despenser, whom Simon had made justiciar and had lodged in the Tower. Their first exploit was not very brilliant. It merely consisted in a march to Isleworth, where they burnt the palace of the king's brother.[28] |
Immediately on the rising of the parliament the earl of Leicester returned to London. Although he must have censured some of the recent excesses, which included a massacre of the Jews, he cannot but have seen with satisfaction the extensive preparations the citizens had made; and in the height of his difficulties must have derived the greatest encouragement from his reception in the city. A solemn treaty was drawn up, in which citizens and barons declared "they would stand together against all men, saving, however, their fealty to their lord the king." A march upon Rochester, which they | |
146 | occupied with the exception of the Norman keep, was the first service on which the Londoners were employed. They returned home for Easter-the last Easter for many of them-before the battle of Lewes, a battle which has been described as the Flodden of London. Though their cause was victorious, the messengers who brought the news that the king and his brother had been made prisoners, and that five-and-twenty of his lords had been killed or taken, had also to add that " Sir Edward le FitzRoy" had driven the citizens before him like sheep, and had wiped out the insult to his mother in the blood " of a countless multitude " of the commons. The capture of the prince could not restore the husbands and fathers for whom so many wept; and when, on the Tuesday before Ascension Day, [29] the army of Montfort returned to London in triumph, to lodge the king of the Romans in the Tower, and . at St. Paul's, many a cresset fire was unlighted in the street, and many a shuttered front told of death and mourning within. |
The Provisions of Oxford being accepted, and the constitution ratified by parliament, the difficulties of the popular party might be supposed at an end. John Maunsell was banished with the queen's foreign relations, and spent his time scheming with them for a descent upon the southern coast. The king's position was in reality that of a prisoner, and earl Simon knew how little the acts which he was compelled to sign as a prisoner would avail when he became free. The parliament of was but scantily attended by earls and barons. The addition of two citizens summoned from every borough to sit with the knights from every shire put the crown on the parliamentary edifice, and "has done more than any incident of this struggle to immortalise" | |
147 | the name of the earl. [30] They met in the chapter-house at on the 13th January, . Unfortunately the names of the first London M.P.'s have not been preserved. On St. Valentine's day they received a solemn declaration from the king, that he and his son were bound by the charter and would no more aggrieve or cause to be aggrieved the earl of Leicester, the earl of Gloucester or the citizens of London, for anything they had done during the past commotions. How the king kept his promise the subsequent history of Thomas FitzThomas will tell. |
He had acted as mayor during the year of the battle of Lewes, although many of the usual formalities had been omitted, and no "hustings" had been held. On the expiration of the term he was again elected (28th Oct., ), and on the morrow admitted to the full exercise of his office by the king. On the 17th March of the following year, the king, now restored as far as it was safe to restore him, to liberty, held a solemn court in the cathedral church of St. Paul. A strange scene took place. When the mayor and aldermen came up to do homage and to renew their oaths of fidelity, FitzThomas addressed the king in these memorable words :-" My lord," he said, in a voice audible to the assembled multitude, "so long as unto us you will be a good lord and king, we will be faithful and duteous unto you." [31] - | |
The king was powerless to show the resentment he must have felt at this qualification of the oath. He nursed his wrath, as became the son of king John, and in due time exacted the penalty to the full. | |
148 | |
The Londoners undoubtedly did not flinch from the duty they had laid upon themselves. Certain persons belonging to the Montfort party were arrested for outrages committed at Stepney and Hackney, during the raid of Simon de Montfort the younger. Having been duly convicted, they were hanged on the 29th June. Meanwhile prince Edward, who had escaped from custody, was engaged in the siege of Kenilworth, and after various skirmishes which concern the history of London only incidentally, had engaged the forces of Leicester and Gloucester at Evesham. The Londoners had cause to remember long afterwards a terrible thunderstorm which burst over their city on the 4th August. To them it was ominous of a long period of darkness and oppression. The news of the death of earl Simon and the destruction of his party came to them in two days' time, and they must have known, or at least feared, the worst. Before the civic year was out, all the king's acts done under pressure of earl Simon were annulled-all the oaths he had made and received, all the donations, charters, and writings to which he had set his hand were recalled; and the parliament, which met at Winchester a month after the fatal day at Evesham, disinherited or outlawed all who had been slain in the battle or taken at Kenilworth. Many prominent citizens were among the "disinherited," as they were called; but the commons met as usual on St. Michael's day to elect their sheriffs, and on the morrow accompanied them, with Fitz-Thomas as their mayor at their head, to be sworn in at before the barons of the exchequer. But no judges were in attendance. The doors of Rufus's hall were closed against them, and they returned to London with doubt and dismay depicted on every face. Rumours had come to them of a vast force which the | |
149 | king was already engaged in assembling at Windsor for the reduction of the rebellious city. Some were for fortifying it against the king. Others, comprising, of course, both those of the old court party who had always been against the commons and those whom fear or hope now caused to change their views, were for unqualified submission. They were still sufficiently powerful to take the lead in sending abject messages to the king by the hands of monks and friars. But Henry knew his advantage. The hour of vengeance had come. He turned a deaf ear to all informal embassies; and at last the citizens, whom suspense had by this time wholly demoralised, though a week had not elapsed since Michaelmas Day, sent a letter sealed with the common seal, throwing themselves on the king's mercy. Sir Roger de Leiburne was deputed by Henry to carry his terms to the citizens. They were to remove all barricades, chains or posts from the streets-the beginnings of unfinished fortifications,-to submit themselves wholly in life and limb, and, finally, to send the mayor and the principal men with him to the court at Windsor, ostensibly to confirm the conditions named in the letter. Leiburne met the citizens in the old church of All Hallows Barking, close to the Tower of which he had taken possession, and laid these terms before them, promising a safe-conduct to the mayor and his deputation. There was nothing for it but to obey. They had always professed obedience. They would have had nothing to fear from a constitutional king, such a king as Fitz-Thomas had described in his memorable speech at St. Paul's. On Friday the 5th October, therefore, they set out upon a journey from which some of them were destined never to return. It was not in the nature of such a man as Henry to keep a safe-conduct granted |
150 | under the circumstances. After long and vexatious delays, the mayor was admitted to the castle, the citizens remaining without until evening, when they were taken in and lodged in the keep, on the site of the present Round Tower. |
The next day the mayor, with Pulesdon, Thovi, Bukerel, and a certain John de Flete, of whom nothing else is recorded, were separated from the rest of the citizens who were lodged in the outer bailey, but, by a piece of the most odious ill-faith, the five first-named were reserved in the keep by the king's orders, their bodies, we are told, being granted to prince Edward and the safe-conduct " availing them nought." | |
Having thus secured the principal citizens, Henry proceeded to London, where he wreaked his vengeance as he pleased on all who had offended him. He gave away to his followers more than sixty houses, as even the royalist chronicler admits; hostages were demanded for the good conduct of above sixty more; their lands at Lynn and Yarmouth were seized; and finally, in contravention of another promise, Henry imposed a fine on loyal and disloyal alike, amounting to no less than 20,000 marks, or close upon 100,000£. of our money. Nor was this all. As if to heap insult on the fallen city, and to add every sign he could of his indiscriminate hatred, he issued a charter in which, acknowledging the receipt of the fine, " he remitted his indignation unto the citizens." | |
Thenceforth, for six long years London lay at the king's mercy. No mayor was elected, the city being governed by wardens appointed by the king, and by bailiffs chosen instead of sheriffs. Everywhere throughout England the proscribed adherents of earl Simon were in arms. The feeble king could but waste the | |
151 | public resources, and add to the general confusion, until Edward, his son, now arrived at maturity, and not oblivious of the teachings which in his early youth he had received from earl Simon, took affairs into his own hands, and gradually brought about a semblance of peace. |
Clear evidence of the poverty into which London had fallen in these bad times is afforded by the charter in which the prince, [32] then busy with his preparations for the crusade, remits to the citizens their share of an aid granted to him on the customs of the realm, and even more by the fact that in gratitude they presented him with the paltry sum of 200 marks. | |
Of the fate of FitzThomas we would fain know something. When he enters the keep at Windsor on that fatal Monday, he disappears from public view. He was alive a year later, at least in the belief of his fellowcitizens; for when, after a form of election, William FitzRichard was admitted warden of the city and sheriff of , the " fools of the vulgar classes" clamoured for his release. " We will have no one for mayor! " they cried, "save only Thomas FitzThomas." But their longings were in vain. The chronicler of the dominant party mentions very circumstantially a plot to seize the principal opponents of the mayor, which was frustrated by the battle of Evesham, but he puts it into his narrative as an afterthought, three years later; and its insertion may possibly be taken-if it is taken seriously at all,-to mark the receipt of some fresh intelligence of the ill-fated prisoner, perhaps his death. It would be more satisfactory to believe that with the settlement of affairs, | |
152 | or at the accession of Edward, he received his freedom; but his name occurs in no list of the pardoned, and we see our last of him, perhaps, pacing the leads of the tower on its lofty mound and looking wistfully eastward to where he might descry the smoky canopy of the city which he had loved so well and for which he had suffered so much. |
By imprisoning and gagging FitzThomas, Henry did but render his views more enduringly popular. For six years no election of mayor was permitted to take place. The chief magistrates and sometimes their subordinates were appointed by the king. One former mayor, as we have seen, stooped to hold power on such terms. But the policy of FitzThomas, which had made the cause of the commons that of the craft guilds, gave fresh strength to the popular party. The oppressions of these six years, and the intervention of great provincial nobles with their armies of half-tamed foresters and yeomen from the bleak hills of the west, only made the citizens of all classes long for a settled government. Custody of the bridge, from whose parapets she had been insulted, was given to the queen. By her the wardenship was farmed to collectors who spent nothing on repairs, so that the whole edifice sustained "great damage and peril." The state of the bridge was typical of the state of the city. At length the increasing decrepitude of the king and the corresponding growth of Prince Edward, both in popular estimation and in personal vigour, gave him sufficient influence in the management of affairs to make some improvement possible. The slaughterer of the citizens at Lewes was forgotten in the restorer of the old law and order. Men remembered that he had pleaded for earl Simon's life, and had followed his mutilated remains to the grave. The abundant harvest | |
153 | of had its indirect effect on the prosperity of the citizens. And three years later, in , they obtained leave once more to elect their own mayor. |
John Adrian, an alderman of the retrograde party, who had figured among the number of royal wardens, had influence enough to get himself elected; but both he and his sheriffs were displaced in the following year by members of the trade guilds. It is evident from the names as well as from the meagre records of the time, both that the old contest still went on, and that by degrees the new craftsmen were gradually gaining in wealth, influence, and a settled policy. The wards begin to assume their modern names, and are more seldom called after their owners, or the aldermen who govern them. In other words, the great estates were being broken up, and the power of the old families was waning. They put up Walter le Poter, who had been sheriff the previous year, as their candidate for the mayoralty at the ensuing election; but he was defeated by the " mob of the city," who would have no one but Walter Hervey, [33] a worthy pupil and successor of the ill-fated FitzThomas. | |
His opinions may be gathered from an anecdote told by his enemies. [34] He was censured by some persons for wishing to be mayor. No man, it was remarked, ought to have an office who covets it. Such people think only of their own promotion, and nothing of the welfare of those subject to them. Walter Hervey, on hearing this criticism, " made answer to the people standing about him, affirm. ing and swearing by God and by his own soul to the effect that he did not desire to be mayor, or any other officer in the city, for his own sake; but that, solely | |
154 | from love of God, and from motives of charity, he was willing to endure that burden and that labour." Such was his outspoken policy; and he further declared his intention of supporting the poor against the rich, and of watching that they were not unduly oppressed in the matter of tallages or civic expenditure. |
It may easily be guessed that these sentiments did not recommend him to the old oligarchy. The aldermen appealed in a body to the court at . Walter Merton was the ruling spirit of the council. The king was ill, or he might have meddled to defeat the moderate proposals of the minister. A warden was to be appointed until five arbitrators on either side had decided on a mayor. Evidently Walter le Poter had retired from the contest, as he is named on the side of the aldermen, with John Adrian, the late mayor, and Henry Waleys, who was destined, in more settled times, to rule the city for many years. Henry de Coventre and Thomas Basing, members of the oldest and proudest of the patrician families, were associated with them; while Hervey nominated Robert Grapefige, Robert Hauteyn, Alan, a capmaker, [35] Bartholomew, a grocer, [36] and Henry de Winchester, a member of one of the older families, who apparently had thrown in his lot with the popular party. | |
Before the committee could sit, however, another and greater arbiter had stepped in. Retribution, long delayed, had come at last. With the cries of the men he had so cruelly wronged ringing in his ears, Henry died. When the citizens assembled in clamouring day after day for the mayor of their choice, the noise, we are told, "reached his lordship the king in bed, to which he was confined by a severe illness." This was on the eleventh of November, and he never recovered, but died | |
155 | on the sixteenth, and four days later was buried in the noble church to build which he had robbed his people. There we may still see his handsome fatuous face in the earliest portrait of an English king that has come down to us. |
A hush fell upon the contest. The earl of Gloucester going into the city to proclaim the absent Edward, called the people together in their traditional folkmote in St. Paul's Churchyard. Before the meeting, he and the other ministers had so arranged matters with the chiefs of both parties that, when the folk assembled, Walter Merton, mounting the pulpit of St. Paul's Cross, told them that their mayor, Walter Hervey, would be admitted to office. | |
Footnotes: [1] 'Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London,' attributed to Arnald FitzThedmar, translated by H. T. Riley. [2] Mr. Stubbs ('Chronicles of Edward I . and Edward II .,' Rolls Series, p. xxxi.) observes-" It is improbable that London had a recognised mayor before 1191." He is first mentioned in a formal record in 1194, when he was one of the treasurers for Richard's ransom. In the text I have followed the received accounts, which have sufficient probability in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See above, p. 91, note. [3] There is much confusion about the dates of the early part of Richard's reign, and the City records place these events in 1188, as they make the year begin at Michaelmas. See 'Chronology of History,' by Sir H. Nicolas, p. 300, &c. [4] Green's ' Stray Studies,' p. 216. [5] Clark, in ' Old London,' p. 105. [6] This, the first charter of Richard I., is dated in the fifth year of his reign. [7] "It was for the most part an aristocratic constitution, and had its unity, not in the municipal principle, but in the system of the shire," observes Mr. Stubbs, speaking of the Norman period.-' Const. Hist.,' i. 407. [8] Green, i. 249. [9] 'Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs,' p. 4. [10] This is the date in the Chronicle. It means of course the end of the year. [11] The wealth of Constantine, his name, and the cry he raised are in my opinion sufficient justification for this view of his case; but he is sometimes, I am aware, reckoned among the popular leaders. [12] P. 7 [13] Gerard Bat, 1240. [14] 1248. [15] Michael Tovy. [16] Henry de la Mare. [17] Spelt Wyndlesore, here and elsewhere in the Chronicle. [18] The story is told with painful minuteness by the chronicler already quoted, p. 33, &c. [19] Earl Marshal 1245. [20] It may have been one of the other commissioners. [21] William Grapefige's name is perhaps enough to prove this. [22] His true character comes out in 1267. He became warden of the city at a time when the king abused its liberties after Evesham. [23] For an account of Simon de Montfort, and his brief but memorable career, see Green's ' History,' i. 293-307. [24] This is clear from the ' Chronicle,' though the mayor's name is carefully suppressed. [25] FitzThedmar, ' Chronicle of Mayors and Sheriffs,' already frequently noticed. [26] The chronicler contradicts himself palpably. The aldermen and chief citizens, he says, were little or not at all consulted, adding, they were just as though they had not existed. With so prejudiced a picture before us, it is as difficult to arrive at the truth as to avoid taking the opposite view too strongly. [27] Louis IX., called St. Louis. [28] Richard, king of the Romans, or, as he is described in the Chronicle, king of Almaine. [29] 1264. [30] Green, i. 300. [31] This anecdote is interpolated as a marginal note by the chronicler, who can scarcely find words to express his horror at the "wondrous and unheard of" conduct of "this most wretched mayor."--Chron,. Mayors and Sheriffs, p. 77. [32] I call Edward " prince" for convenience. The title was not used for kings' sons till long afterwards. He is usually styled " Sir Edward" in contemporary writings. [33] "Who before was mayor," says the Chronicle; but this is a mistake or a misprint. He had twice been sheriff-once by royal appointment. [34] Chronicle, p. 156. [35] " Le Hurer." [36] " Le Spicer." |