Part 3

First, they advise that all ale-houses be forbidden, except those which shall be licensed by the common council of the city at Guildhall, excepting those belonging to persons willing to build of stone, that the city may be secure. And that no baker bake, or ale-wife brew, by night, either with reeds or straw or stubble, but with wood only.

They advise also that all the cook-shops on the Thames be whitewashed and plastered within and without, and that all inner chambers and hostelries be wholly removed, so that there remain only the house (hall) and bed-room.

Whosoever wishes to build, let him take care, as he loveth himself and his goods, that he roof not with reed, nor rush, nor with any manner of litter, but with tile only, or shingle, or boards, or, if it may be, with lead, within the city and Portsoken. Also all houses which till now are covered with reed or rush, which can be plastered, let them be plastered within eight days, and let those which shall not be so plastered within the term be demolished by the aldermen and lawful men of the venue.

All wooden houses which are nearest to the stone houses in Cheap, whereby the stone houses in Cheap may be in peril, shall be securely amended by view of the mayor and sheriffs, and good men of the city, or, without any exception, to whomsoever they may belong, pulled down.

The watches, and they who watch by night for the custody of the city shall go out by day and return by day, or they by whom they may have been sent forth shall be fined forty shillings by the city. And let old houses in which brewing or baking is done be whitewashed and plastered within and without, that they may be safe against fire.

Let all the aldermen have a proper hook and cord, and let him who shall not have one within the appointed term be amerced by the city. Foreign workmen who come into the city, and refuse to obey the aforesaid decree, shall be arrested until brought before the mayor and good men to hear their judgment. They say also that it is only proper that before every house there should be a tub full of water, either of wood or stone.

THE LIBERTIES OF THE CITY CONFIRMED (1191).

When Richard I. set out on his crusade, he left the government of England in the hands of William Longchamp, as Chancellor. This man made himself most unpopular by his tyrannical acts, and John, the King's brother, for purposes of his own, joined the malcontents. Longchamp attempted to gain the support of London, and at a meeting of citizens in the Guildhall he denounced John as aiming at the crown, and prayed them to uphold the King. The citizens, however, received John with welcome, and he was given to understand that he would receive the support of the City on certain terms, to which, of course, he agreed. This "commune," which was granted by John and the barons, was the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate.

=Source.=—Translated from _Benedict of Peterborough_, vol. ii., p. 213.

John, with almost all the bishops and barons of England in attendance on him, entered London on that day (October 7, 1191), and on the following day John and the Archbishop of Rouen and all the bishops and barons, and with them the citizens of London, met in St. Paul's church, and accused the chancellor of many things, especially with regard to the injuries which he had wrought to the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, and his son Henry. Moreover the colleagues of the chancellor, whom the King had associated with him in the government of the country, accused him of many crimes, saying that he had performed everything without their counsel and consent. Then the Archbishop of Rouen and William Marshall showed to the assembly the King's letter, by which it was ordered that if the chancellor did any foolish thing to the harm of the King or the realm, the said Archbishop of Rouen was to be appointed in his stead.... Therefore John the King's brother, and all the bishops and barons and the citizens of London, decided that the chancellor should be deposed from the government of the kingdom.... John and the Archbishop of Rouen, and all the bishops and barons of the kingdom who were present, granted to the citizens of London their commune, and swore that they would guard it and the liberties of the city of London, as long as it pleased the King; and the citizens of London and the bishops and barons swore allegiance to King Richard, and to John the King's brother, and undertook to accept John as their lord and King, if the King died without issue.

From _Richard of Devizes_, vol. iii., p. 416.

On that day was granted and confirmed the commune of London, to which the barons of the whole kingdom and the bishops of every diocese gave their consent. On that occasion for the first time London realized that the kingdom was without a king, by this conspiracy which neither Richard himself nor his father Henry would have allowed to take place for a million marks. A commune puffs up the people, threatens the kingdom, and weakens the priesthood.

JOHN'S THIRD CHARTER (1199).

John granted five charters to the City, and in this third charter he restored to the citizens two privileges, of which they had been deprived by Matilda and Henry II. The latter, wishing to bring the City under the direct supervision of the Crown, had retained the appointment of sheriffs in his own hands; Matilda had annulled the arrangement by which the citizens were to have the farm of Middlesex on payment of £300 every year. The restoration of the right of electing the sheriffs was not of very great importance, for during the period which had elapsed since Henry II. assumed this privilege the office of Mayor had become established, and this had considerably lessened the importance of the sheriffs.

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and earl of Anjou; to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, rulers, and to all his bailiffs and loving subjects.

Know ye, that we have granted, and by this our present writing confirmed, to our citizens of London, the sheriffwicks of London and Middlesex, with all the customs and things to the sheriffwick belonging, within the city and without, by land and by water, to have and to hold, to them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, paying therefor three hundred pounds of blank sterling money, at two terms in the year; that is to say, at the Easter exchequer, one hundred and fifty pounds; and at the Michaelmas exchequer, one hundred and fifty pounds; saving to the citizens of London all their liberties and free customs.

And further, we have granted to the citizens of London, that they amongst themselves make sheriffs whom they will; and may amove them when they will; and those whom they make sheriffs, they shall present to our justices of our exchequer, of these things which to the said sheriffwick appertain, whereof they ought to answer us; and unless they shall sufficiently answer and satisfy, the citizens may answer and satisfy us the amerciaments and farm, saving to the said citizens their liberties as is aforesaid; and saving to the said sheriffs the same liberties which other citizens have: so that, if they which shall be appointed sheriffs for the time being, shall commit any offence, whereby they ought to incur any amerciament of money, they shall not be condemned for any more than to the amerciament of twenty pounds, and that without the damage of other citizens, if the sheriffs be not sufficient for the payment of their amerciaments: but, if they do any offence, whereby they ought to incur the loss of their lives or members, they shall be adjudged, as they ought to be, according to the law of the city; and of these things, which to the said sheriffs belong, the sheriffs shall answer before our justices at our exchequer, saving to the said sheriffs the liberties which other citizens of London have.

Also this grant and confirmation we have made to the citizens of London for the amendment of the said city, and because it was in ancient times farmed for three hundred pounds: wherefore we will and steadfastly command, that the citizens of London and their heirs may have and hold the sheriffwick of London and Middlesex, with all things to the said sheriffwick belonging, of us and our heirs, to possess and enjoy hereditarily, freely and quietly, honourably and wholly, by fee-farm of three hundred pounds; and we forbid that none presume to do any damage, impediment or diminishment to the citizens of London of these things, which to the said sheriffwick do or were accustomed to appertain: Also we will and command, that if we or our heirs, or any of our justices, shall give or grant to any person any of those things which to the farm of the sheriffwick appertain, the same shall be accounted to the citizens of London, in the acquittal of the said farm at our exchequer.

LONDON BRIDGE (1202).

It is possible that there was a London Bridge in Roman times, and there certainly was one, built of wood, before the Conquest. The modern structure was finished in 1831, and this replaced the old bridge, which was built between 1176 and 1209, about 200 feet east of the present one. It consisted of twenty arches, a drawbridge for large vessels, and a chapel and crypt in the centre, dedicated to St. Thomas of Canterbury. It was afterwards covered with houses and shops on both sides, like a street. The last of these buildings was removed in 1757.

The following letter was written by King John to the citizens of London during the construction of the bridge, and shows that the erection and maintenance of this important means of communication was a matter for royal and national, as well as local, consideration.

=Source.=—Document quoted by Maitland, vol. i., p. 45.

John, by the Grace of God, King of England, etc.

To his faithful and beloved the Mayor and Citizens of London, greeting.

Considering how the Lord in a short time has wrought, in regard to the Bridges of Xainctes and Rochelle, by the great care and pains of our faithful, learned and worthy clerk Isenbert, Master of the Schools of Xainctes: We therefore, by the advice of our Reverend Father in Christ, Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, and that of others, have desired, directed and enjoined him to use his best endeavour in building your bridge, for your benefit, and that of the public: For we trust in the Lord, that this bridge, so necessary for you, and all who shall pass the same, will, through his industry, and the Divine blessing, soon be finished: Wherefore, without prejudice to our right, or that of the City of London, We will and grant, that the rents and profits of the several houses that the said Master of the Schools shall cause to be erected upon the bridge aforesaid, be for ever appropriated to repair, maintain and uphold the same.

And seeing that the necessary work of the said bridge cannot be accomplished without your aid, and that of others; We charge and exhort you kindly to receive and honour the above-named Isenbert, and those employed by him, who will perform everything to your advantage and credit, according to his directions, you affording him your joint advice and assistance in the premises. For whatever good office or honour you shall do to him, you ought to esteem the same as done to us. But should any injury be offered to the said Isenbert, or the persons employed by him (which we do not believe there will), see that the same be redressed, as soon as it comes to your knowledge.

Witness myself at Molinel, the eighteenth day of April (1202).

OPPRESSION BY HENRY III. (1249).

Perhaps no monarch was ever more detested by the citizens of London than was Henry III.—a weak and foolish ruler, who subjected every class to his exactions and oppressions. He was himself preyed upon by swarms of favourites, and enticed into all manner of expensive projects, and could only free himself from his debts and difficulties by abusing his royal prerogative. On one occasion he sold his plate and jewels to the Londoners. "These clowns," he said, "who assume to themselves the name of barons, abound in everything, while we are reduced to necessities." Henry certainly seemed to regard their resources as inexhaustible; false charges were repeatedly made against them, for the purpose of exacting money; exorbitant sums were demanded for purchasing the King's good-will, and for the granting of charters; no occasion of soliciting presents was allowed to pass by; schemes of begging and robbing were carried on so assiduously by this infatuated monarch that the citizens were driven, in the end, to offer and render active assistance to the barons who leagued themselves against him. During this disturbed period the City did not prosper; it needed a firm and steady Government, and not till Edward I. ascended the throne did London resume its career of progress.

=Source.=—Matthew Paris, _History_.

The King began now sedulously to think how he could entirely dry up the inexhaustible well of England. For, on meeting with a just repulse from the community of nobles, as above mentioned, who stated that they would no longer lavish their property to the ruin of the kingdom, he studied, by other cunning devices, to quench the thirst of his cupidity. Immediately after the festivities of the said season, he entered upon the following plan of harassing the citizens of London: he suspended the carrying on of traffic in that city, as has been before mentioned, for a fortnight, by establishing a new fair at Westminster, to the loss and injury of many; and immediately afterwards he sent letters by his agents, containing subtle and imperious entreaties, asking them for pecuniary aid. On receipt of this message, the citizens were grieved to the heart, and said: "Woe to us, woe to us; where is the liberty of London, which is so often bought; so often granted; so often guaranteed by writing; so often sworn to be respected? For each year almost, like slaves of the lowest condition, we are impoverished by new talliages, and injuriously harassed by fox-like arguments; nor can we discover into what whirlpool the property of which we are robbed is absorbed." At length, however, although immense sums were demanded, the citizens, although unwillingly and not without bitterness of heart, yielded their consent to a contribution of two thousand pounds, to be paid to the King at a brief period....

About the same time, the City of London was excited in no slight degree, because the King exacted some liberties from the citizens for the benefit of the abbot of Westminster, to their enormous loss, and the injury of their liberties. The mayor of the city and the whole of the community in general, as far as lay in their power, opposed the wish (or rather violence and raving) of the King; but he proved harsh and inexorable to them. The citizens, therefore, in a state of great excitement, went with sorrowful complaints to Earl Richard, the earl of Leicester, and other nobles of the Kingdom, telling them how the King, perhaps bent into a bow of wickedness, by the pope's example, shamelessly violated their charters, granted to them by his predecessors. The said nobles were much disturbed at this, fearing that the King would attempt a similar proceeding with them; they therefore severely reproached him, adding threats to their reproaches, and strongly blamed the abbot, who, they believed, was the originator and promoter of this wrong, heaping insult upon insult on him; which, however, it does not become us to relate, out of respect to the order. Thus the prudence of the nobles happily recalled the King from his conceived design.

INTERFERENCE BY BARONS (1258).

When, in medieval England, the central authority was weak, injustice and oppression were rife throughout the country, and at such times the men of London were often hard pressed to maintain intact their privileges. Under the feeble and vacillating Henry III. there was little restraint upon corrupt and unscrupulous barons, such as the Hugh Bygot of the following passage. The right to attend to the administration of justice within the borders of the City was one of the most essential elements of the citizen's freedom; no interference in this direction could possibly be tolerated if the hardly won charters were to be of any avail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the arbitrary conduct of this justiciar, who pretended to act by royal authority, being a King's servant, aroused great resentment among the citizens.

=Source.=—Fitz-Thedmar's _Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs_, edited by Riley, p. 42.

This year, John de Gizors was chosen Mayor, and that too, even in his absence. This year, after a Parliament held by the Barons at Westminster, Hugh Bygot, the Justiciar, went to Saint Saviour's, and having Roger de Turkelby for his associate, held there all the Pleas which pertain unto the Justiciars Itinerant in the County of Surrey; and not only did he there amerce several bailiffs and others who had been convicted of offences committed against those subject to them, but he caused them to be imprisoned, clerks as well as laymen. And yet he ransomed one person for twenty marks, and certain others for forty marks, and more; while several others, for but trifling reasons, he immoderately aggrieved.

In these pleas the men of Southwark and others of the County of Surrey made complaint against the Sheriffs and citizens of London, that they unjustly took custom without the Stone Gate on the Bridge, seeing that they ought to possess no such rights beyond the Drawbridge Gate. The citizens, coming with their Sheriffs who had been summoned by the Justiciars, appeared at Saint Saviour's, before the Justiciars, and bringing with them their Charters, said that they were not bound to plead there, nor would they plead without the walls of the City; but without formal plea, they were willing to acknowledge that it was quite lawful for the Sheriffs of London to take custom without the gate aforesaid, and that too, even as far as the staples placed there, seeing that the whole water of Thames pertains unto the City, and always did pertain thereto; and that too, sea-ward as far as the New Weir. At length, after much altercation had taken place between the Justiciars and the citizens, the Justiciars caused inquisition to be made, on the oath of twelve knights of Surrey—and this, although the citizens had not put themselves on such inquisition—whether the Sheriffs of London had taken any custom beyond their limits. Who said, upon oath, that the Sheriffs aforesaid might rightfully take custom there, for that as far the staples before-mentioned, the whole pertains unto the City, and no one has any right upon the Thames, as far as the New Weir, save and except the citizens of London.

After this, the Justiciar before-mentioned, having as his associate Roger before-named, came to the Guildhall of London, and there held Pleas from day to day, as to all those who wished to make plaint; and at once, without either making reasonable summons or admitting any lawful excuses, determined the same, observing no due procedure of justice; and that too against the laws of the City, as also against the laws and customs of every freeman of the English realm. This, however, the citizens persistently challenged, saying that no one except the Sheriffs of London ought to hold pleadings in the City as to trespasses there committed; but to no purpose. Still however, the citizens had judgment done upon all persons abiding in the City, who had been convicted, or had been cast in making a false charge. At the same time also, the Justiciar summoned before himself and before the Earl of Gloucester all the bakers of the City who could be found, together with their loaves; and so, by some few citizens summoned before them, judgment was given in reference to their bread; those whose bread did not weigh according to the assay of the City, not being placed in the pillory, as they used to be, but, at the will of the Justiciar and Earl aforesaid, exalted in the tumbrel, against the ancient usage of the City and of all the realm.

THE STEELYARD (1282).

The Steelyard was the residence of the Hanse Merchants, who obtained a settlement in London as early as 1250. Valuable privileges were granted to them by Henry III., and these were renewed and confirmed by Edward I., who was anxious to encourage the trade of the City by all possible means. Many privileges were also conceded to the Steelyard merchants by the City, in return for which they undertook to maintain Bishopsgate in good repair and to assist in its defence when necessity arose. In spite of the jealousy of the English merchants, the foreigners flourished exceedingly, but towards the end of the sixteenth century their power began to fail. As English traders became more enterprising, the monopoly of the Steelyard merchants disappeared, and finally, in 1598, Elizabeth expelled them from the country.

=Source.=—Stow's _Survey_, p. 234.