CHAPTER III.

THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF IRONMONGERS.

Although existing records do not give us all the information we should like to have about the ancient history of the Guilds, we have, nevertheless, been able to show that by their joining in the election of the City officials in the year 1351, and choosing four of their members (John Deynes and Richard de Eure, wardens, and Henry de Ware and William Fromond), “the wisest and most sufficient” in the Guild, to treat with the Mayor and Sheriffs upon the “serious business” of the City, that the Ironmongers were duly recognised thus early as a firmly-established brotherhood.

The “market,” or special place of business of the fraternity, was, as we have said, in the neighbourhood of the City Guildhall, and hence the existing name of Ironmonger Lane, which is a thoroughfare out of Cheapside, on the north side, and the next turning to the Old Jewry westward, between which streets to this day stands a church, known as St. Olave’s (about to be removed), the predecessors of which—St. Martin’s, Ironmonger’s Lane, and St. Olave—contained the remains of several eminent ironmongers, including William Dikeman, “Feroner,” one of the sheriffs, 1367; Robert Havelocke, 1390; Thomas Michell, 1527; Richard Chamberlain, 1562. At what date the craft left this neighbourhood is unknown. We know they possessed the Ironmongers’ Hall, more east, near Billiter Street, in the middle of the fifteenth century, about which district the members individually may have carried on business; Strype, however, stating that when they removed from their old market they took up a position in Thames Street, wherein to this day, as is well known, the iron wharves and warehouses are numerous and extensive.

The precedency question in the olden time was a momentous one for the City Guilds, and led to many conflicts between the members of certain companies, which will be mentioned when speaking of “the Livery” and “apprentices” hereafter. It is worthy of note here to remark that in the year 1376(7), the fiftieth of Edward III., forty-eight Guilds elected 148 of their members as the Common Council, when the Ironmongers, standing the thirty-fifth in the list, elected four of their number. We imagine that no actual precedency was here followed, for in subsequent lists the “great” companies contained first thirteen names, and eventually twelve, in which the Ironmongers stood eighth, eleventh, and, finally, tenth, a position assigned them not so much for their wealth, but probably for their respectability, or, as old Stow says, “the worthiness of the men,” and the power they possessed.

Again, from these great companies the Lord Mayor was always chosen. The first Mayor was Henry Fitzalwyn, “Draper,” near the London Stone, which is an ancient City relic still existing (but not on its original site) in Cannon Street, not many yards from the office of THE IRONMONGER, in which this history is first published exactly 700 years afterwards, for Fitzalwyn was first chosen in 1189, and continued to hold office twenty-four successive years. As we have said, the Lord Mayor was always “one of the Twelve”; but in 1742 Sir Robert Wilmot, “Cooper,” declining to be “translated” to the Clothworkers (as was the custom when the Mayor elect was of a minor company), and there being no law to compel him, he was consequently the first Mayor not of the great companies; and it is a curious fact that Wilmot’s predecessor in office was an ironmonger, and to this day the Coopers and the Ironmongers are associated in the Irish estate.

After a lapse of 500 years it will be interesting to many, and to those who object to oath-taking in particular, if we give in its original form the wording of the Ironmongers’ Warden’s oath required to be taken before admission in the fiftieth year of Edward III. Its quaint phraseology must be our excuse for the transcript:—“Yᵉ shall swere that yᵉ shall wele and treuly ov’see the Craft of Iremongers’ wherof yᵉ be chosen Wardeyn for the yeere. And all the goode reules and ordynces of the same craft that been approved here be the Court, and noon other, yᵉ shal kepe and doo to be kept. And all the defautes that yᵉ fynde in the same Craft ydon to the Chambleyn of yᵉ Citee for the tyme beyng, yᵉ shal wele and treuly P’sente. Sparyng noo man for favor ne grevyng noo p’sone for hate. Extorcion ne wrong under colour of your office yᵉ shall non doo, nethir to noo thing thot shalbe ayenst the State, peas, and profite of oure Sovereyn Lord the Kyng or to the Citee yᵉ shall not consente, but for the tyme that yᵉ shalbe in office in all things thot shalbe longyng unto the same craft after the lawes and ffranchises of the seide Citee welle and laufully yᵉ shal have you. So helpe you God and all Seyntes.”

In 1397, one of the years of “Dick Whittington” as Lord Mayor, a curious case came before the Court of Aldermen for decision. William Sevenoake, a native of Sevenoaks, in Kent, and who, subsequent to the date we mention, was Sheriff and Mayor of London, and founder of the schools and almshouses at Sevenoaks, prayed the Court to be enrolled on the Grocers’ Company, notwithstanding in his apprenticeship his master Hugh de Boys was called an ironmonger. The Grocers having proved the facts, William was accordingly entered as a grocer, and 40_s._ paid for the privilege.

Before their incorporation, the Ironmongers were represented by three Mayors of London, viz., Sir Richard Marlow, 1409-10, and again, 1417-18, and by Sir John Hatherley, 1442-43, and yet, after their incorporation, and not until the year 1566-67 did another ironmonger fill the “chair,” although several sheriffs represented the Guild both before and after their charter was granted.

Herbert, the Guildhall librarian of half a century ago, speaking of the compulsory enrolment of the Companies’ charters, “regretted exceedingly that so little could be found about the ancient state of the City Guilds among the State papers and records preserved by the nation.” If the zealous literary citizen had only known then what we know to-day he would not only have regretted, but denounced in the strongest terms (as we do now), the gross mismanagement of the State Paper Office in the past and the red-tapeism of the present time, the former losing to us for ever most valuable records, the latter placing every obstacle possible in the way of the documents now remaining being conveniently used by historians, the publication of the contents thereof greatly helping towards their future preservation. In our searches at the Public Record Office for the purpose of this history, we have experienced this inconvenience, and we certainly consider it should not exist in a Government institution supported by the public. When we find the authorities at the British Museum, and the Guildhall, and other repositories open to us, and giving every facility with their records, which, after all, embrace priceless treasures and quite as worthy of safe custody, the restrictions placed upon literary research by the Master of the Rolls and the Record Office officials is really worthy a Royal Commission of inquiry.

When Henry VII. entered the City in 1485 the Guilds supplied 435 members to meet the King, and of these ten were Ironmongers. In the year 1504 there was a subscription of the sixty-one Companies, amounting to 313_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._, towards the erection of the kitchen and offices at Guildhall, and 5_l._ was the sum the Ironmongers gave. It must be borne in mind that in those days a small sum went a long way.

We now arrive at an interesting period of the Company’s history. Eight years previous to obtaining their charter of incorporation the Ironmongers obtained a grant of arms. Both charter and grant have been repeatedly exhibited and described, and beautiful facsimiles of the two documents will be found in Mr. G. R. French’s “Catalogue of the Ironmongers’ Exhibition of Antiquities,” in 1861, a most sumptuously printed and privately circulated work, and now very scarce.

By warrant dated September 1, the thirty-fourth of Henry VI. (1455), “Lancastre, Kyng of Armes,” and the College of Arms granted “Unto the honurable Crafte and felasship of the ffraunchised men of Iremongers of the Citie of London a token of armes, that is to sey: Silver a cheveron of Gowles sitte betwene three gaddes of stele of asure, on the cheueron three swevells of golde: with two lizardes of theire owne kynde encoupled with gowlys, on the helmet.”

The two lizards on the helmet, it must be borne in mind, represent the crest. “The Crafte” and their successors were to hold and enjoy these arms “for evermore,” and the privilege of using a tabard upon all state occasions. Clarenceux, King at Arms, inspected the original grant in 1530-31, and signed its confirmation, and in 1560 William Hervy, another Clarenceux, curiously enough upon inspecting the same document, found the patent “to be without good authoryte,” and therefore, either to ease his conscience or that of the College, or for the more likely reason to be mentioned presently, confirms once again the same grant of “armes, helme, and crest” to “the Corporacon, Company, and Comynalty, and to their successors for evermore,” to use the same “in shylde banners, standardes, and otherwyse,” and “without impedyment or interuption of any person or persons,” for the confirmation of which privilege, already enjoyed for one hundred years, the Ironmongers’ books, Mr. Nicholl tells us, show that “Mayster Clarensys” received thirty-seven shillings, and “his svant for bringing them hom” twelve pence for his own use.

Notwithstanding the official granting and confirmation, another gentleman from the college, this time the Richmond Herald, inspected the same document, and he too did the Company the honour in 1634 of again “confirming” the same grants, so that it is impossible to deny to the Ironmongers the right and privilege of bearing arms; and one fact is certain, if ever a Corporation or Brotherhood possessed appropriate armorials suggestive of their trade it is this Guild, which cannot be said of the armorial shields of many other City Companies.

Now, we have gone into this matter of the granting of the arms and the three confirmations beyond the usually allotted space in histories for the simple reason that one of the most extraordinary circumstances in connection with heraldic grants has yet to be explained. The Ironmongers’ Company, although possessing a grant which has been thrice confirmed by the College, and in which the two lizards appear as a crest, never received from either of the Heralds who were good enough for a consideration to inspect and confirm an authority which each ought to have given, to use “supporters” to the armorial shield, or, if the Company had no right to use them, to inquire the reason why, &c., when such were assumed.

The Company adopting the supporters, two lizards, as in the crest, Edmondson, another Herald, in 1780 actually stated in his Heraldic work that they were given the Company in one of the confirmations! In 1812 the question again came before Garter, King of Arms, when the Collegians were good enough to say that the Ironmongers might have a “confirmation” of the supporters upon paying the modest fee of 73_l._ It is needless to say that the Company declined to pay this (in our opinion) extortionate demand, and so to this day (as it has exercised from a period long before this century dawned) the Ironmongers bear their supporters, as only true citizens should.

It may be interesting to note here that in many armorial shields of private families there are similarities to that of the Ironmongers’, except that, in place of the chevron between three gads of steel, there are a chevron between three billets of wood, and it is particularly interesting to call attention to the fact that such a coat is to be found in a seal dated 1359, and still more curious that in the deed on which this seal appears three ironmongers are mentioned: John Deynes, William Dikeman, and Henry de Ware. This was nearly a century previous to the Company receiving a grant of arms.

The lizards, now used by the Ironmongers as crest and supporters, were also used when naming their manor in Ireland in the reign of James I., now known as the “Manor of Lizard,” and about which we shall speak hereafter. Mr. Herbert, fifty years ago, remarks:—“What are in the arms termed ‘lizards,’ we may rather imagine were intended to represent salamanders—a creature supposed, like iron, to live unhurt in fire.” Pennant says:—“The frolicsome agility of lizards enlivens the dried banks in hot climates, and the great affection which some of them show to mankind should further engage our regard and attention.” Another writer quaintly suggests that the dear little animal not only loves iron, but likes it hot, eating it with a relish, and digests it with ease. See also the head-piece to Herbert’s “History.”

Under the armorials is the Company’s motto, and that is, appropriately, “God is our strength.” It is not known when this was assumed, but the date is modern, for anciently—at all events, in the seventeenth century—the Ironmongers’ motto was “Assher Dure,” which a well-known antiquary translates as “steel endures,” and will be found in the heraldic volume of Companies’ arms in the British Museum.

A most important step was now taken, which in the history of the Guild at once entitled it to the style of “worshipful.” In 1463 it obtained a charter of incorporation. Written in Latin, it is not a lengthy document, but is interesting, and prettily illuminated in gold and colours, with the royal arms within the initial letter “E” of Edwardus, and another shield of the Company’s arms in the margin beneath. Pendant is a fine specimen of the royal seal of England, circular in size, in green wax, dated Westminster, March 20, the third year of Edward IV., then 1462, but, since the alteration of the calendar, now 1463. The King grants: “To our well-beloved and faithful liegemen all the freemen of the mystery and art of Iremongers of our City of London and suburbs thereof” the rights and privileges to be a body corporate for evermore, to have a master and two wardens (who are named as Richard Flemming, alderman; and Nicholas Marchall and Robert Toke) and a commonalty, with perpetual succession, under the name of “the master and keepers or wardens and commonalty of the mystery or art of Ironmongers of London,” to have a common seal, make ordinances, to purchase and hold lands and tenements to the value of 10 marks yearly.

The day upon which the Guild received their incorporation charter they, doubtless, celebrated with all the ceremonials and festivities which we, 400 years afterwards, indulge in to-day, and they recorded in their books a resolution: “That they shalle holde and kepe the said feste for their principall fesst, evermore.”

Ironmongers’ Hall in Fenchurch Street will be described in another chapter, but we may as well state that the site of the present building was granted in the year 1457 by the executors of Alice Stivard, the widow of Sir John Stivard, Knight, to the nineteen “citizen and ironmongers” mentioned (among whom were the three named in the charter), and that in the Company’s books occurs the entry, “Bought by the for wreten ffelowshipp and paid fore, and also posesson taken the XX daie of Octobr the XXXVI yer of King Henry the VI.”

Now, what do our reforming friends in 1889 say to this? There is nothing said about trusts here. It is as much the Company’s freehold and belongs to them, the “root and branch” descendants, as ever the commonest article that may be purchased (and paid for, mark ye!) by any citizen and working-man to-day. So, in simply quoting the purchase here, we do so to put all reformers on their guard not to be so ready to make hay (by their seizure) before the sun shines on assumed or presumed rights.

But we will go a little further. The Company did not buy without legal aid, for the books show “lernyd counsaile at the purchas makyng” received not only 26_s._ 8_d._ for their advice and labours, but there was paid “at taverns dyvers tymes” for refreshments to the same gentlemen the large sum of 3_s._ 6_d._

Having purchased a house and garden, and regularly gone into housekeeping, the Ironmongers began their furnishing in humble style. Among the first articles purchased were the following:—

x stoles iij_s._ iiij_d._ i fire forke } i pʳ tongs } xj_s._ vij_d._ i pʳ andyrons } i rake } vij candlestickes iij_s._ iiij_d._ i table and } ij tressels } iiij_s._ vj_d._ i caudron in a furneys in the kechen vij_d._ i pʳ bed bords in the chamber xx_d._ i water tankard xxij_d._ i cheste in the boterye, bounded wᵗʰ yron ij_s._

And the same accounts tell us that “the alderman and the bedill at ye possessyon takyng” received 2_s._ 6_d._ “For brede and ale at our possession takyn” 22_d._ was spent, while “barge hyre at twoo tymes” cost 14_s._, but there is no evidence what for, or where to the barges were so employed.

It must not be said that the Worshipful Company of Ironmongers commenced incorporated existence extravagantly. And we shall be able to show in our next chapter that, as they began so they continued, careful in the management of their charity trusts, and frugal in all matters pertaining to their government.