CHAPTER VI

THE CENTURY OF UNCERTAIN STEPS

Whether the Mayor was elected immediately after the concession of the Commune, or a year or two later, as happened in certain French towns, matters very little. The point of importance is that even after his election, and that of the Council, his powers were ill-defined. During the reign of Richard the First, while he was not even recognised by the King, we can understand that a wise Mayor would not seek to magnify his office; it would be safer to allow the Commune to go on quietly, so as to accustom the King to its existence. This, I take it, was the policy of Henry FitzAylwin, the first Mayor, during his three-and-twenty years’ tenure of office.

It may be assumed that the duties and the authority of the Guild Merchant were at once transferred to the Mayor and his Council. But what were the duties of that body? What were its powers? What were its limits? In order to show the uncertainty on this subject, remember that when Walter Hervey was Mayor he gave Charters to certain trades. It was not contended that the Mayor had no right to grant Charters, but that these Charters had no effect after his Mayoralty came to an end. The powers of the Mayor were as yet uncertain; it was not thought desirable to limit or to define them too closely. Therefore the right of the Mayor to grant Charters was not questioned. At the same time, it was no doubt felt, and quite rightly, that for any one Mayor to grant Charters without consulting the Aldermen and the more “discreet” citizens might impose intolerable mischiefs upon the City.

Yet, a hundred years later, we find the trades drawing up ordinances for the regulation of their own crafts, and praying that they might be accepted and placed under the protection of the Mayor and Aldermen. In the meantime, it is obvious, the power and the authority of the Mayor had been more clearly defined. The statutes placed under his protection were also placed under the protection of the Court of Aldermen.

One more point to illustrate the uncertainty introduced by the new order. In the year 1200, according to the book which will form the text of this chapter, a Council of twenty-five “of the more discreet men of the City” were sworn to assist the Mayor. Round, as we have seen (p. 18), shows that the number was not twenty-five, but twenty-four; he has discovered their oath, which did not in any way resemble the oath of an Alderman; and he has adduced other instances of such a Council. So that there can be no doubt whatever as to its existence. Now in the same book, which records its creation and carries the chronicle of the City down to the year 1273, there is not a single word said about this Council. We hear of the Aldermen, the more discreet citizens, and the principal citizens. But not one word about the Council. Either, therefore, which one can hardly believe, the Council was allowed to drop out of existence, or, which is much more likely, it was a purely civic body, not recognised by the Charters and with no legal powers; a body which acquired its importance from the Mayor of the year, and was more in evidence a kind of private advisory committee with which the Mayor could take counsel if he wished, or which he could neglect if he wished.

The book, which I have called the Text-book of the present chapter, is the Chronicle printed by the Camden Society from the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_, by Arnold FitzThedmar. This book is, of all the mediæval documents connected with the history of London, perhaps the most important. For it is the work of a contemporary, one who took part in the events which he describes, a strong partisan yet fair to his enemies; evidently a man of the highest honour and principle, and as much a condemner of the common people as any old Tory of 1832.

His family history shows the ease with which foreigners were admitted in the twelfth century to reside in, to trade in, and to become citizens of, the City of London.

His grandfather, named Arnald, or Arnold, or Arnulf, was a merchant of Cologne. He married one Ode, of the same town, with whom he lived for some years without children. Hearing, however, of the miracles performed daily by St. Thomas à Becket, the pair crossed the seas and made a pilgrimage to the shrine at Canterbury, imploring the favour of the Saint in the matter of offspring. This done, they went on to visit the famous City of London. Here the wife found that St. Thomas had heard, and had granted her prayers. The pair accordingly remained in London until the child was born. Then they bought a house and remained altogether in London. They had eleven children, of whom six died young. One of the surviving daughters was Juliana, who married a native of Bremen, also a resident merchant in London. The youngest son, Arnold, was the author of the Chronicle before us. A miraculous dream, he proudly tells us, accompanied his birth. Most mediæval families were able to point with pride to miraculous interpositions and dreams. In this case, as Arnold himself says, the difference between the log of wood and the slab of marble which formed the dream was known to God only. And so we may leave it.

Arnold became a man of considerable wealth. He was an Alderman, and when the City was fined 20,000 marks by Henry and 1000 marks for his brother, Richard of Almaine, his tallage amounted to 132 marks, or nearly a hundred and fifth part of the whole. The way of assessment was as follows:—He first paid four marks and forty pence for his house; then 20 marks “by inquisition of his neighbours”; then an increase of five marks; after that an assessment of 100 marks in a lump sum by John Waleran, Constable of the Tower, and William Hazelbech, commissioner, for the assessment appointed by the King. After that, half a mark, and then fifteen shillings on his rent. From this assessment it appears that the principal part of the fine must have been paid by the wealthy sort. Arnold had a good deal of trouble over the business, being annoyed by Walter Hervey and by Henry Waleys in succession for not having paid enough. However, he obtained protection from King Henry first and King Edward next.

Let us now proceed to show, from Arnold’s book, the “uncertain steps” of the City during the century of the new order.

The office of Alderman was passing out of the hereditary stage; there was a strong sense among the people that the City offices were to be held during good conduct only. Thus, in 1216, Jacob Alderman (had he no other designation either of trade or of birth?), being Mayor, was turned out by the King and another Mayor appointed. We have seen that in 1233 Symon FitzMary was turned out of his Shrievalty for wasting the City property. In 1248 the same citizen was deprived of his Aldermanry for siding with Margery Vyel. In 1254, on account of the escape of a criminal, the Sheriffs were deprived of office. In 1257 eight of the Aldermen were deposed for alleged malpractices.

The list of sixty-two names given in Appendix III. rescues from oblivion almost as many Aldermen of the thirteenth century. If we look into the names we can pick out with some degree of certainty those which belong to the aristocratic party, including the old City families and some of those which had become naturalised. Thus, we have Aswy, Basing, Blunt, Bukerel, Farndon, or Farringdon, Fulk, Gisors, Hardel, Haverhill, de Lisle, Renger, Sperling, Rokesley, Tovy, Tidmar (one Arnold FitzThedmar), Vyel, etc., about one-third of the whole.

We then find certain names without surnames at all, such as Adrian, Edmund, Geoffrey, Matthew; we are surely justified in concluding that they belonged to crafts; names such as FitzMary and FitzAlice, which indicate a mother but not a father; names where the father’s is also a Christian name, as Thomas FitzThomas, who, we know from FitzThedmar, belonged to the popular party; names of trades, as Cordwainer, Ferrun, and Potter. These may all be assigned to the popular party, and they account for nearly another third. There remain about twenty-five names which are local, as William de Hereford, of whom it is difficult to pronounce with any certainty. It is, however, certain that in the thirteenth century a good deal had been already effected in the breaking down of the oligarchy and the entrance upon office of the popular side.

There can be little doubt that Henry throughout his whole reign was bitterly hostile to the City. On the other hand, the City, it must be acknowledged, with its turbulence and its claims of privilege and liberty, gave a despotic monarch a great deal of annoyance. Henry’s principal weapon of retaliation was to take the City into his own hands, _i.e._ to depose Mayor and Sheriffs, to deprive the Aldermen of their powers, and to appoint a Warden. In 1245, on a charge of harbouring a traitor, Henry took over the City, restoring the Charter after inflicting a fine of £1000. In 1247, during the famous case of Margery Vyel, the King again took the City into his own hands (see p. 46). Also in 1249, after the tumult of the populace against the Abbot of Westminster; in 1254, on the plea of mal-observance of the assize of bread, really in consequence of the quarrel between Richard of Almaine and the City; in 1259, when the City refused to pay the “Queen’s Gold”; in 1257, when the “Green” roll gave an occasion to make inquisition into the tallages; in 1263, after the Battle of Evesham; in 1265, the reason not stated; in 1266, after Gloucester had held the City. This is a considerable list of offences and punishments.

As regards the election to the City offices, there was a great deal of uncertainty with many changes. In 1265 only one Sheriff was allowed. In 1267 the City was ordered to elect, and to present to the King, six persons, from whom the King would choose two for Sheriffs.

The Folk Mote was used throughout this period as a weapon against the aristocratic party. The popular leaders, William Longbeard, Thomas FitzThomas, Walter Hervey, all made use of the Folk Mote. The King made use of it, notably after the Green Roll business, when he sent Maunsell to persuade the people as he pleased. It was at a Folk Mote in 1241, and at another in 1259, that the King took formal leave of the City before going to Gascony. It was charged against Thomas FitzThomas that he pampered the people, calling them the “Commons of the City,” calling them together at Folk Mote asking them what was their will without consulting the Aldermen at all. So that the people leagued themselves together, broke into the houses of usurers, removed encroachments, threw open rights of way; and in many other ways showed a rude, but resolute, desire to obtain justice. Again, in 1271, on the disputed election of Walter Hervey, the people raised the cry, “We are the Commons of the City. To us belongs the election of the Mayor.”

With all this apparent tyranny, it is quite certain that the King always recognised the importance of London. He stood by the City in their determination not to allow the Thames fisheries to be ruined; he granted their very reasonable request that Jews, “held in warranty by Writ of Exchequer,” should plead before citizens as to tenements in London, and that Jewish “cheirographs,” _i.e._ keepers of “starrs,” or deeds and covenants of Jews, should be tallaged like any other people. His brother Richard, although continually at variance with the City, wrote a most friendly and interesting letter on his reception in Germany. When the King introduced his new gold coinage, he took the advice of the City on the measure, and because they were opposed to it, he made it optional whether the people took the gold coinage or not. He granted the prayer of the City that pleas of the citizens relating to debt should be heard in the City only and before the Sheriffs. In 1268, when the King granted to his son Edward customs on everything that came into England or went out, and Edward had leased the grant to certain Italians, the City petitioned the Prince against a continuance of this burden. The Prince resigned the privilege, and so eased the City.

A great deal more might be extracted from this short chronicle. Enough, however, has been taken to show the uncertainty of the City during the first century of the new order: the people always ready to assert their rights, fancied or real, as the Commons; the Aldermen standing, as a rule, for the old rights; the King taking offence, often, one acknowledges, deservedly, and revenging himself by taking the City into his own hands, by fines, by depositions, by refusals to receive Mayor or Sheriffs; nothing settled as to the rights and methods of procedure in elections, or in continuance of office, or in the power and authority of the Mayor, while of the new Council of twenty-four, as I have said, not one single word.

In the next chapter we shall have to consider the City under its new form of government, after the powers of the various offices have been defined and the manner of election has been settled.