  Both London and Winchester had been laid in ashes during Stephen's reign, the former by a conflagration—which took place in 1136, again destroying St. Paul's and extending from London Bridge to the church of St. Clement Danes—the latter by the burning missiles used in the conflict between Stephen and the empress in 1141. Winchester never recovered her position, and London was left without a rival. Fitz-Stephen, who wrote an account of the city as it stood in the reign of Henry II, describes it as holding its head higher than all others; its fame was wider known; its wealth and merchandise extended further than any other; it was the capital of the kingdom (regni Anglorum sedes).135 Thomas of London. It was through the mediation of an intimate friend and fellow citizen of Fitz-Stephen that Archbishop Theobald had invited Henry of Anjou over from France in 1153. Thomas of London, better known as Thomas Becket, although of foreign descent, was born in the heart of the city, having first seen the light in the house of Gilbert, his father, some time Portreeve of London, situate in Cheapside on a site now occupied by the hall and chapel of the Mercers' Chapel. Having been ordained a deacon of the Church, he became in course of time clerk or chaplain[pg 056] On the accession of Henry, Thomas passed from the service of the archbishop, then advanced in years, to the service of the young king. He was raised to the dignity of chancellor, and became one of the king's most trusted advisers. By their united efforts order was once again restored throughout the kingdom. The great barons, who had established themselves in castles erected without royal licence, were brought into subjection to the crown and compelled to pull down their walls. Upon the death of the archbishop, Thomas was appointed to the vacant See (1162). From that day forward the friendship between king and archbishop began to wane. Henry found that all his attempts to establish order in his kingdom were thwarted by exemptions claimed by the archbishop on behalf of the clergy. He found that allegiance to the Crown was divided with allegiance to the Pope, and this state of things was likely to continue so long as the archbishop lived. Becket's end is familiar to us all. His memory was long cherished by the citizens of London, who made many a pilgrimage to the scene of his martyrdom and left many an offering on his tomb in the cathedral of Canterbury. It is hard to say for which of the two, the father or the son, the citizens entertained the greater reverence. For many years after his death it was the custom for the Mayor of the City for the[pg 057] Charter of Henry II to the City of London. Whilst the king and his chancellor were busy settling the kingdom, establishing a uniform administration of justice and system of revenue, and not only renewing but extending the form of government which had been instituted by Henry I, the citizens of London, availing themselves of the security afforded by a strong government, redoubled their energy in following commercial pursuits and succeeded in raising the city, as Fitz-Stephen has told us, to a pitch of prosperity far exceeding that of any other city in the world. [pg 058]They obtained a charter from Henry,139 although of a more limited character than that granted to them by his grandfather. The later charter, for instance, although in the main lines following the older charter, makes no mention of Middlesex being let to ferm nor of any appointment of sheriff or justiciar being vested in the citizens. It appears as if Henry was determined to bring the citizens no less than the barons of the realm within more direct and immediate subservience to the crown. The concession made by the king's grandfather had been ignored by Stephen and the empress Matilda, each of whom in turn had granted the shrievalty of London and Middlesex to the Earl of Essex. For a time the appointment of sheriffs was lost to the citizens. Throughout the reigns of Henry II and his successor they were appointed by the crown. Richard's charter to the citizens makes no mention of the sheriffwick, nor is it mentioned in the first charter granted by John. When it was restored to the citizens (A.D. 1199), by John's second charter, the office of sheriff of London had lost much of its importance owing to the introduction of the communal system of municipal government under a mayor. The Inquest of sheriffs, 1170. In the meantime the sheriffs of the counties, who had by reason of Henry's administrative reforms, risen to be officers of greater importance and wider jurisdiction, and who had taken advantage of their positions to oppress the people during the king's prolonged absence abroad, were also made to feel the power of the crown. A blow struck at the sheriffs was calculated to weaken[pg 059] The revolt of the barons, 1174. The last fifteen years of Henry's life were full of domestic trouble. He had always found it an easier matter to rule his kingdom than his household. His sons were for ever thwarting his will and quarrelling with each other. It was his desire to secure the succession to the crown for his eldest son Henry, and to this end he had caused him to be crowned by the Archbishop of York (14th June, 1170), who was thereupon declared excommunicated by his brother of Canterbury. The son began to clamour for his inheritance whilst his father still lived, and appealed in 1173 to the French king, whose daughter he had married, to assist him in his unholy enterprise. Whilst Henry was engaged in defending his crown against his own son on the continent, the great barons of England rose in insurrection, and the king was obliged to hasten home, where he arrived in July, 1174. The rebellion was quickly put down, and the strife between king and nobles for a time ceased. Disturbances in the city, 1174-1177. In the city there were occasional disturbances caused by the younger nobility—the young bloods of[pg 060] The last days of Henry II. 1177-1189. Having settled the succession of the crown of England upon his eldest son, the king put his second son, Richard, into possession of the Duchy of Aquitaine, and provided for his third son, Geoffrey, by marriage with the heiress of Brittany. There was yet another son, John, who was too young to be provided for just now, and who being without any territory, assigned to him, acquired the name of Lackland. Both Richard and Geoffrey had taken the part of their brother Henry in 1173, and in 1177 the three brothers were again quarrelling with their father and with each other. After the deaths of Henry and Geoffrey, the quarrel was taken up by the surviving brothers, Richard and John. In all these—more or less—petty wars with his sons, the king had always to deal with the ruler of France. At last, in 1189, the loss of Le Mans—his own birth-place—and the unexpected discovery that his youngest and best beloved son, John, had turned traitor towards him, left the king nothing to live for, and after a few days suffering he died, ill and worn out, at Chinon. Accession of Richard I, and administration of Longchamp, 1189-1190. Richard had scarcely succeeded to the throne, before he set out on a crusade, leaving the government of his country in the hands of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, as chancellor.143 With him was associated in the government, Hugh de Puiset, or Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, but Longchamp soon got the[pg 062] Longchamp opposed by Prince John, 1191. Arrival of Longchamp in London; the citizens divided, 7th October, 1191. Report of the Chancellor's conduct having reached the ears of Richard, he despatched the Archbishop of Rouen to England with a new commission, but the worthy prelate on arrival (April, 1191), was afraid to present the commission, preferring to let matters take their course.146 Already a fierce rivalry had sprung up between the chancellor and John, the king's brother, who, for purposes of his own, had espoused the cause of the oppressed. Popular feeling at length became so strong, that Longchamp feared to meet John and the bishops, and, instead of going to Reading, where his attendance was required, he hastened to London. Arriving there (7 Oct.), he called the citizens together in the Guildhall, and prayed them to uphold the King against John, whom he denounced as aiming plainly at the Crown. The leading men in the city at the time were Richard Fitz-Reiner and Henry de Cornhill. These took opposite sides, the former favouring John, whilst the latter took the side of the chancellor.147 John's party proving the stronger of the two, Longchamp thought it safest to seek refuge in the Tower.148 [pg 063]John admitted into the city. As soon as John found that the chancellor had gone to London instead of Reading, he too hastened thither. On his arrival he was welcomed and hospitably entertained by Richard Fitz-Reiner who gave him to understand on what terms he might expect the support of the city.149 As to terms, John was ready to accede to any that might be proposed. A meeting of barons and citizens in St. Paul's, 8 Oct., 1191. Longchamp deposed and John recognised as head of the kingdom. The next day (8 Oct.), a meeting of the barons of the realm, as well as of the citizens of London, was convened in St. Paul's Church, to consider the conduct of the chancellor, and it was thereupon decided that Longchamp should be deposed from office. The story, as told by different chroniclers,150 varies in some particulars, but the main features are the same in all. The king's minister was set aside, John was recognised as the head of the kingdom, and new appointments made to judicial, fiscal, and military offices. The Archbishop of Rouen, who attended the council, seeing the turn affairs had taken, no longer hesitated to produce the letters under the king's sign manual appointing a new commission for the government of the kingdom. John grants or confirms to the citizens their commune. The same day that witnessed the fall of Longchamp was also a memorable one in the annals of the City of London; for immediately after judgment had been passed on the chancellor, John and the assembled barons granted to the citizens "their commune," swearing to preserve untouched the dignities of the city during the king's pleasure. The citizens on[pg 064] Change of name from port-reeve to mayor. This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words their commune (communam suam) imply a commune of which they were de facto, if not de jure already in enjoyment. How long the commune may have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined; but that the term communio in connection with the city's organization was known half a century before, we have already seen;152 and, according to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction between the words communio, communa and communia.153 Bishop Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate communio as "commune," the latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of municipal government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or "franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization" in Stephen's reign, an idea which became fully developed in the succeeding[pg 065] Change of name from port-reeve to mayor. With the change from a shire organization to that of a French commune, whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon "port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"157 occurred, down to the present day, the sheriff's position has always been one of secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor. [pg 066]When did the change take place? The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal document is said to occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.158 The popular opinion, however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a statement to be found in an early manuscript record still preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and known as the Liber de Antiquis Legibus.159 The original portion of this manuscript purports to be a chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative to the year 1274. After naming the sheriffs who were appointed at Michaelmas, A.D. 1188, "the first year of the reign of King Richard,"160 it goes on to say that "in the same year Henry Fitz-Eylwin of Londenestane was made mayor of London, who was the first mayor of the city, and continued to be such mayor to the end of his life, that is to say, for nearly five and twenty years." That Henry Fitz-Eylwin was mayor in the first year of Richard's reign is stated no less than three times in the chronicle.161 [pg 067]Arnald Fitz-Thedmar, the compiler of the Liber de Antiquis. The compiler of the chronicle is supposed to have been Arnald or Arnulf Fitz-Thedmar,162 an Alderman of London, although it is not known over which ward he presided. Particulars of his life are given in the volume itself, from which we gather that he was a grandson on the mother's side of Arnald de Grevingge163 a citizen of Cologne; that his father's name was Thedmar, a native of Bremen; that he was born on the vigil of St. Lawrence [10 August] A.D. 1201, his mother being forewarned of the circumstances that would attend his birth in a manner familiar to biblical readers; that he was deprived of his aldermanry by the king, but was afterwards restored; that he became supporter of the king against Simon de Montfort and the barons, and that he was among those whom Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the leader of the democratic party and his followers, had "intended to slay" on the very day that news reached London of the battle of Evesham, which crushed the hopes of Montfort and his supporters. The date of his death cannot be precisely determined, but there can be but little doubt that it took place early in the third year of the reign of Edward the First, inasmuch as his will was proved and enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, held on Monday, the morrow of the Feast of St. Scolastica [10 Feb.] of that year (A.D. 1274-5).164 [pg 068]Setting aside the statement—namely that mention is made of a mayor of London, in a document of the reign of Henry II—as wanting corroboration, the first instance known at the present day of any such official being named in a formal document occurs in 1193 when the Mayor of London appears among those who were appointed treasurers of Richard's ransom.165 The title of Mayor, first mentioned in a Royal Charter of 1202. Richard's first charter to the City (23 April, 1194)166 granted a few weeks after his return from abroad makes no mention of a mayor, nor does the title occur in any royal charter affecting the City until the year 1202, when John attempted to suppress the guild of weavers "at the request of our mayor and citizens of London." A few years later when John was ready to do anything and everything to avoid signing the Great Charter which the barons were forcing on him, he made a bid for the favour of the citizens by granting them the right to elect annually a mayor, and thus their autonomy was rendered complete. Richard's return from captivity, March, 1194. When Richard recovered his liberty and returned to England he was heartily welcomed by all except his brother John. One of his first acts was to visit the City and return thanks for his safety at St. Paul's.167 The City was on this occasion made to look its brightest, and the display of wealth astonished the foreigners in the King's suite, who had been led to believe that[pg 069] Is crowned for the second time. The custom of the Mayor assisting the Chief Butler at coronation banquets. In order to wipe out the stain of his imprisonment, he thought fit to go through the ceremony of coronation for the second time. His first coronation had taken place at Westminster (3 Sept., 1189,) soon after his accession, and the citizens of London had duly performed a service at the coronation banquet—a service which even in those days was recognised as an "ancient service"—namely, that of assisting the chief butler, for which the mayor was customarily presented with a gold cup and ewer. The citizens of the rival city of Winchester performed on this occasion the lesser service of attending to the viands.169 The second coronation taking place at Winchester and not at Westminster, the burgesses of the former city put in a claim to the more honourable service over the heads of the citizens of London, and the latter only succeeded in establishing their superior claim by a judicious bribe of 200 marks.170 Heavy taxation. Richard was ever in want of money, and cared little by what means it was raised. He declared himself ready to sell London itself if a purchaser could be found.171 The tax of Danegelt, from which the citizens of London had been specially exempted by[pg 070] The rising in the city under Longbeard. 1196. The pressure of taxation weighed heavily on the poor, and occasioned a rising in the city under the leadership of William Fitz-Osbert. The cry was that the rich were spared whilst the poor were called upon to pay everything.172 Accounts of the commotion differ according as the writer favoured the autocratic or democratic side. One chronicler, for instance, finds fault with Fitz-Osbert's personal appearance, imputing his inordinate length of beard—he was known as "Longbeard"—to his desire for conspicuousness, and declares him to have been actuated by base motives.173 Others describe him as a wealthy citizen of the best family, and yet as one who ever upheld the cause[pg 071] Richard's so-called second charter ordering the removal of wears in the Thames, 14 July, 1197. Two years before his death at Chaluz, Richard, with the view of aiding commerce, caused the wears in the Thames to be removed, and forbade his wardens of the Tower to demand any more the toll that had been accustomed. The writ to this effect was dated from the Island of Andely or Les Andelys on the Seine, the 14th July, 1197, in the neighbourhood of that fortress which Richard had erected, and of which he was so proud—the ChÂteau Gaillard or "Saucy Castle," as he jestingly called it. The reputation which the castle enjoyed for impregnability[pg 072] First mention of a deliberative municipal body in the city, 1200. Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city, and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor."178 Just as in the constitution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the city—described by Lord Coke as epitome totius regni—the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of the common council. The council held at St. Paul's, 25th Aug., 1213. When, after thirteen years of misgovernment, during which John had enraged the barons and excited general discontent by endless impositions, matters were brought to a climax by his submission to the pope, it was in the city of London that the first steps were taken by his subjects to recover their lost liberty. On the 25th August, 1213, a meeting of the clergy and barons was held in the church of St. Paul; a memorable meeting, and one that has been described as "a true parliament of the realm, though no king presided in it."179 Stephen Langton, whose appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury had so raised John's ire, took the lead and produced to the assembly a copy of the Charter of Liberties, granted by Henry I, when that king undertook to put an end to the tyranny of William Rufus. If the barons so pleased, it might (he said) serve as a[pg 073] The clergy and people who had hitherto supported the king against the barons, having now engaged themselves to assist the barons against the tyranny of the king, John found himself with but one friend in the world, and that was the Pope. "Innocent's view of the situation was very simple," writes Dr. Gardiner, "John was to obey the Pope, and all John's subjects were to obey John." Within a few weeks of the council being held at St. Paul's, the same sacred edifice witnessed the formality of affixing a golden bulla to the deed—the detestable deed (carta detestabilis)—whereby John had in May last resigned the crown of England to the papal legate, and received it again as the Pope's feudatory.181 Meeting of the barons at Bury St. Edmunds, 1214. In the following year (1214), whilst the king was abroad, the barons met again at Bury St. Edmunds, and solemnly swore that if John any longer delayed restoring the laws and liberties of Henry the First, they would make war upon him. It was arranged that after Christmas they should go in a body and demand their rights, and that in the meantime they should provide themselves with horses and arms, with the view of bringing force to bear, in case of refusal.182 The citizens at the same time took the opportunity of strengthening their defences by digging a foss on the further side of the city wall.183 [pg 074]Open hostility between John and the barons, 1215. Christmas came and a meeting between John and the barons took place in London at what was then known as the "New" Temple. The result, however, was unsatisfactory, and both parties prepared for an appeal to force, the barons choosing as their leader Robert Fitz-Walter, whom they dubbed "Marshal of the army of God and of Holy Church."184 Robert Fitz-Walter, castellain of London. This Fitz-Walter was Baron of Dunmow in Essex, the owner of Baynard's Castle in the City of London, and lord of a soke, which embraced the whole of the parish known as St. Andrew Castle Baynard. He moreover enjoyed the dignity of castellain and chief bannerer or banneret of London. The rights and privileges attaching to his soke and to his official position in time of peace were considerable, to judge from a claim to them put forward by his grandson in the year 1303. Upon making his appearance in the Court of Husting at the Guildhall, it was the duty of the Mayor, or other official holding the court, to rise and meet him and place him by his side. Again, if any traitor were taken within his soke or jurisdiction, it was his right to sentence him to death, the manner of death being that the convicted person should be tied to a post in the Thames at the Wood Wharf, and remain there during two tides and two ebbs.185 In later years, however, upon an enquiry being held by the Justiciars of the Iter (a° 14 Edward II, a.d. 1321), the claimant was obliged to acknowledge that he had disposed of Baynard's Castle in the time[pg 075] Duties of the castellain of the City in time of war. But it was in time of war that Fitz-Walter achieved for himself the greatest power and dignity. It then became the duty of the castellain to proceed to the great gate of St. Paul's attended by nineteen other knights, mounted and caparisoned, and having his banner, emblazoned with his arms, displayed before him. Immediately upon his arrival, the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, who awaited him, issued solemnly forth from the church, all arrayed in arms, the mayor bearing in his hand the city banner, the ground of which was bright vermilion or gules, with a figure of St. Paul, in gold, thereon, the head, feet, and hands of the saint being silver or argent, and in his right hand a sword.187 The castellain, advancing to meet the mayor, informed him that he had come to do the service which the city had a right to demand at his hands, and thereupon the mayor placed the city's banner in his hands, and then, attending him back to the gate, presented him with a charger of the value of £20, its saddle emblazoned with the arms of Fitz-Walter, and its housing of cendal or silk, similarly enriched. A sum of £20 was at the same time handed to Fitz-Walter's chamberlain to defray the day's expenses.[pg 076] Feud between Fitz-Walter and King John. It is not improbable that Fitz-Walter's election as leader of the remonstrant barons was in some measure due to his official position in the city. It is also probable, as Mr. Riley has pointed out, that the unopposed admission of the barons into the city, on the 24th May, 1215, may have been facilitated by Fitz-Walter's connexion, as castellain, with the Priory of Holy Trinity, situate in the vicinity. But there were other reasons for selecting Fitz-Walter as their leader at this juncture. If the story be true, Fitz-Walter had good reason to be bitterly hostile to King John, for having caused his fair daughter Maude or Matilda to be poisoned, after having unsuccessfully made an attempt upon her chastity.188 This is not the only crime of the kind laid to the charge of this monarch,189 and there appears to be too much reason for believing most of the charges[pg 077] The Barons admitted into the City, May, 1215. After a feeble attempt to capture Northampton, the barons, with Fitz-Walter at their head, accepted an invitation from the citizens of London to enter the city. They made their entry through Aldgate.190 The concession which John had recently made to the citizens, viz.:—the right of annually electing their own mayor191—had failed to secure their allegiance. The city became thenceforth the headquarters of the barons,192 and the adhesion of the Londoners was followed by so great a defection from the King's party (including among others that of Henry de Cornhill), that he was left without any power of resistance.193 The city and Magna Carta, 15th June, 1215. The citizens met their reward for fidelity to the barons when John was brought to bay at Runnymede. In drafting the articles of the Great Charter the barons, mindful of their trusty allies, made provision for the preservation of the city's liberties, and the names of[pg 078] By way of further security for the fulfilment of the articles of the charter the barons demanded and obtained the custody of the City of London, including the Tower, and they reserved to themselves the right of making war upon the king if he failed to keep his word. For a year or more the barons remained in the city, having entered into a mutual compact with the inhabitants to make no terms with the king without the consent of both parties.195 Open war between John and the barons. The right of resistance thus established was soon to be carried into execution. Before the year was out, John had broken faith, and was besieging Rochester with the aid of mercenaries. An attempt to raise the siege failed, owing to the timidity (not to say cowardice) of Fitz-Walter, who, like the rest of the barons, was inclined to be indolent so soon as the struggle with the king was thought to have ended.196 London under an interdict. The Pope supported his vassal king. For a second time during John's reign London was placed under an interdict. The first occasion was in 1208, when the whole of England was put under an interdict, and for six years the nation was deprived of all religious rites saving the sacraments of baptism and extreme unction.197 It was then the object of Innocent[pg 079] The arrival of the Dauphin, May, 1216. Death of John, 19th October, 1216. The barons saw no other course open to them but to invite Louis the Dauphin to come and undertake the government of the kingdom in the place of John. On the 21st May, 1216, Louis landed at Sandwich and came to London, where he was welcomed by the barons. Both barons and citizens paid him homage, whilst he, on his part, swore to restore to them their rights, to maintain such laws of the realm as were good, and to abolish those (if any) that were bad.198 Suspicion, however, had been aroused against Louis by the confession of a French nobleman who had come over in his train, and who had solemnly declared on his deathbed that his master had sworn when once on the throne of England to banish all John's enemies.199 Just when matters seemed to be approaching a crisis and the barons were wavering in their allegiance, John died (19th October, 1216). |
|
