CHAPTER VIII

_The Governors of the City_

'London claims the first place... as the greatest municipality, as the model on which, by their charters of liberties, the other large towns of the country were allowed or charged to adjust their usages, and as the most active, the most political, and the most ambitious. London has also a pre-eminence in municipal history owing to the strength of the conflicting elements which so much effected her constitutional progress.'--Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, chap. xxi. par. 486.

The history of the early government of the city is full of pitfalls for the historian. For years an account of what occurred before the establishment of the mayoralty was generally accepted, which later research has proved to be entirely erroneous. Careful students of early documents have lately given us information of the greatest value, but we still wait for more facts.

In the following pages an attempt will now be made to place before the reader a short statement of what is known, with some indication of what we still have to learn. Fortunately, there is no lack of students who are constantly adding to our knowledge, and as in the last few years considerable discoveries have been published, there is every reason to hope that in the future other discoveries will be made equal at least in importance to those which have been made in the past.

We know remarkably little as to how the government of London was carried on before the Conquest, but probably the course of procedure was not very different from what was the practice immediately after that great event.

When William the Conqueror granted the first charter to London, he addressed the Bishop and the Portreeve.[197] The former as ecclesiastical governor, and the latter as the civil governor.

It has been a generally received opinion that there was a succession of portreeves until the first appointment of a Mayor, but Mr. Round believes that the title of portreeve disappears after the Conqueror's charter.[198] In this opinion he is opposed to the view of both Bishop Stubbs and Mr. Loftie. It is necessary to bear in mind that a reeve was an officer appointed by the King, just as the sheriffs (or shire reeves) of the various counties are still so appointed. There has been some difference of opinion as to the meaning of the title Port-reeve. It might at first sight be supposed to refer to the Port of London, but this is not the received opinion. Bishop Stubbs writes: 'The word port in port-reeve is the Latin _porta_ (not _portus_), where the markets were held, and although used for the city generally, seems to refer to it specially in its character of a mart or city of merchants.'[199]

The City of London obtained from Henry I. the right of appointing their own sheriffs, which was a very great privilege, and there must have been some very strong reason to induce the King to grant this great favour. Bishop Stubbs writes of this charter of Henry I. to the citizens of London: 'The privileges of the citizens of London are not to be regarded as a fair specimen of the liberties of ordinary towns, but as a sort of type and standard of the amount of municipal independence and self-government at which the other towns of the country might be expected to aim. At a period at which the other towns were just struggling out of the condition of demesne, the Londoners were put in possession of the ferm or farm of Middlesex, with the right of appointing the sheriff; they were freed from the immediate jurisdiction of any tribunal except of their own appointment, from several universal imposts, from the obligation to accept trial by battle, from liability to misericordia or entire forfeiture, as well as from tolls and local exactions such as ordinary charters specify. They have also their separate franchises secured and their weekly courts, but they have not yet the character of a perpetual corporation or _Communa_, and thus although possessing, by virtue of their associations in guilds, of their several franchises, of their feudal courts, and of their shire organisation under the sheriff, many elements of strength, consolidation and independence, they have not a compact organisation as a municipal body. The city is an accumulation of distinct and different corporate bodies, but not yet a perfect municipality, nor although it was recognised in the reign of Stephen as a _Communio_, did it gain the legal status before the reign of Richard I.'[200] Mr. Round shows, however, that the city possessed the privilege only for a short time: 'We see then that in absolute contradiction of the received belief on the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during the twelfth century (_i.e._, from '1101'), but was held by them for a few years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I. appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the city at that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterised the _régime_ of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to that of the great feudatories, in so far as they both strove for exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London, he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty was restored by John to the citizens (1199) the concession had lost its chief importance through the triumph of the communal principle.'[201]

Mr. Round holds that the office of Justiciar of London was created by Henry I.'s charter, and as that officer took precedence of the sheriff he must have been for a time the chief authority of the city. Mr. Round's explanation of this position is of so much importance that it is necessary to quote it here in his own words: 'The transient existence of the local _justitiarius_ is a phenomenon of great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage between the essentially _local_ shire-reeve and the _central_ justice of the King's court.... The _justitiarius_ for Essex or Herts, or London or Middlesex, was a purely local officer, and yet exercised within the limits of his bailiwick all the authority of the King's justice. So transient was this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains.... Now, in the case of London, the office was created by the charter of Henry I. (as I contend) towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to find it in existence, and it is precisely in that reign that we find the office _eo nomine_ twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.'[202]

The question of the date of the charter of Henry I. is discussed in _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 364), and reasons are given for dating it after 1130 instead of 1100 or 1101.

Bishop Stubbs specially refers to the foreign element in London at this time thus: 'Richard the son of Reiner, the son of Berengar, was very probably a Lombard by descent; the influential family of Bucquinte, Bucca-uncta, which took the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than Italian; Gilbert Becket was a Norman.' And further, in a note, he adds: 'Andrew of London, the leader of the Londoners at Lisbon in 1147, is not improbably the Andrew Bucquinte whose son Richard was the leader of the riotous young nobles of the city who in 1177 furnished a precedent for the Mohawks of the eighteenth century.'[203] Andrew, who was present at the transference of the Cnihtengild's land to the Priory of Holy Trinity (1125 or 1126), was one of the witnesses of the agreement between Ramsay Abbey and Holy Trinity after that date, where his name is written 'Bocunte.'[204] He was Justiciar of London in Stephen's reign.[205] The Buccarelli were another Italian family whose name is said to be preserved in Bucklersbury, and Round also mentions Osbert Octodenarii (otherwise Huitdeniers), a kinsman and employer of Becket.

The origin of the Commune of London has always been an exceedingly obscure problem, but Mr. Round has succeeded in throwing a flood of light upon the subject.

In the twelfth century there was a great municipal movement over Europe. Londoners were well informed as to what was going on abroad, and thoroughly dissatisfied with the existing organisation they waited and were constantly looking for an opportunity of obtaining the privileges of the Commune. Mr. Round points out that 'even so early as 1141, when the fortunes of the Crown hung in the balance between rival claimants, we find the citizens forming an effective _Conjuratio_, the very term applied to their "Commune" half a century later by Richard of Devizes. Moreover, earlier in the same year (April), William of Malmesbury applies to their government the term _Communio_.[206] Miss Mary Bateson has gone to the manuscript from which Mr. Round obtained the Oath of Commune (B.M. Add. MS., 14,252), and her conclusion after consideration is that 'the collection as a whole leaves the impression that "Communio quam vocant Londoniarum" (1141), as it is styled by William of Malmesbury, was not merely a unit in the eyes of the Exchequer, that the jurisdictional unity of the city organised in folkmoot and husting gave something substantial whereon the foundations of mayoralty and Commune could be laid.'[207]

Mr. Round writes: 'The assumption that the mayoralty of London dates from the accession of Richard I. (1189) is an absolute perversion of history,' and he adds that 'there is record evidence which completely confirms the remarkable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would King Richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of the _Communa_ in London.'[208]

In October 1191 the conflict between John, the King's brother, and Longchamp, the King's representative, became acute. William of Longchamp, Bishop of Ely (1189) and Chancellor to Richard I., was once described by Henry II. as the 'son of two traitors.' When Richard called a Council in Normandy in February 1190 Longchamp hurried over to the King in advance of his enemies and returned to England as sole justiciar. The Pope also made him Legate.

Longchamp bitterly offended the Londoners who, finding that they could turn the scales to either side, named the Commune as the price of their support of John.

Bishop Stubbs, in his Introduction to the Chronicle of Roger de Hoveden, after referring to the negotiations between Longchamp and John, and describing the hastening of the two parties to London on Monday, 7th October, when Longchamp met the citizens in the Guildhall, writes: 'The magnates of the city were divided--Richard Fitz-Reiner, the head of one party, took the side of John. Henry of Cornhill was faithful to the Chancellor. These two knights had been sheriffs at Richard's coronation, and both represented the burgher aristocracy.' Longchamp betook himself to the Tower, and a meeting was held at St. Paul's on Tuesday the 8th, and the barons welcomed the Archbishop of Rouen as chief justiciar, and saluted John as Regent. 'This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the justiciar and the barons swore to maintain the _Communa_ of London; the oath of fealty to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers, with the express understanding that should the King die without issue they would receive John as his successor.'[209]

Mr. Round writes: 'The excited citizens, who had poured out overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th October at the well-known sound of the great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul's Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the "Commune" like a French King or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of her own.'[210] After this the influence of Longchamp at once faded away. He stood a three days' blockade in the Tower, after which he was forced to surrender, and was deposed from all secular offices.

As to the results of this revolution Mr. Round writes: 'Of the character of the "Commune" so granted, of its ultimate fate, and of the part it played in the municipal development of London, nothing has been really known. The only fact of importance ascertained from other sources has been the appearance of a Mayor of London at or about the same time as the grant of a "Commune." It cannot, indeed, be proved that, as has been sometimes supposed, the two phenomena were synchronistic, for no mention of the Mayor of London, after long research, is known to me earlier than the spring of the year 1193. But there is, of course, the strongest presumption that the grant of a "Commune" involved a Mayor, and already, in 1194, we find a citizen accused of boasting that, "come what may, the Londoner shall have no King but their Mayor.'"[211]

Mr. Round then states very clearly the divergent views of Bishop Stubbs, Mr. Loftie and Mr. Coote on the question of the concession of the Commune. The bishop held that it was difficult to decide with certainty on the point, as no formal record of the confirmation of the Commune is now preserved. Mr. Coote believed that a charter was granted in 1191, which has been lost, and Mr. Loftie dates the mayoralty from 1189, and deemed the Commune to have been of gradual growth, and to have been practically recognised by the charter of Henry I.

In reply to Mr. Coote's view that in the case of London, which had acquired all other things, the Commune expressed for its citizens the mayoralty only, Mr. Round writes: 'We find, however, that on the Continent the word "Commune" did not of necessity imply a Mayor, for Beauvais and Compiègne, though constituted "Communes," appear to have had no Mayors during most of the twelfth century. The Chroniclers, therefore, had they only meant to speak of the privilege of electing a Mayor, would not have all employed a word which did not connote it, but would have said what they meant. Moreover, his theory rests on the assumption common till now to all historians that the citizens had continuously possessed from the beginning of the twelfth century the privileges granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ that these privileges were not renewed by Henry II. or Richard I., and this fact strikingly confirms the explicit words of Richard of Devizes when he states that neither the one nor the other would have allowed the Londoners to form a "Commune" even for a million of marcs.'[212]

Of Mr. Loftie's argument that Glanville's words prove that London, if not other towns as well, had already a Commune under Henry II., Mr. Round remarks that it had been disposed of by Dr. Gross in his _Gild Merchant_ (i. 102).[213]

We have now to refer specially to Mr. Round's remarkable discovery among the manuscripts of the British Museum of the Oath of the Commune, which proves for the first time that 'London in 1193 possessed a fully-developed "Commune" of the continental pattern.'

This discovery not only gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the aldermen. From this we learn that the government of the city was at that time in the hands of a Mayor and certain échevins (skivini).

Of the existence of these skivins in England no suspicion has previously been expressed. Mr. Round, indeed, points out that Dr. Gross, in his _Gild Merchant_, considers these governing officers as a purely continental institution.

Twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document, preserved in the same volume, that '_alii probi homines_' were associated with the Mayor and échevins to form a body of twenty-four (that is twelve skivini, and an equal number of councillors).

In these documents there is no mention of aldermen, and further information is required as to when the Court of Aldermen first came into existence. This point will be discussed later on in this chapter, when the position of the alderman as a governor is considered.

Mr. Round holds that the Court of Skivini and '_alii probi homines_,' of which at present we know nothing further than what is contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the Common Council. He prints the oaths and compares the oath of the twenty-four with that of the freemen in the present day.[214]

The striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new privileges were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and that the names of Mayor and échevins were French, thus excluding the aldermen who represented the Saxon element. Still, as time went on, the aldermen obtained their natural position in the government of London, and the foreign name of échevin sank before them.

The intimate connection between Normandy and England made it certain that Englishmen would seek inspiration from Normandy. Mr. Round has devoted considerable attention to Monsieur Giry's valuable work, _Les Etablissemens de Rouen_, and shows that there is conclusive proof of the assertion that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. The _vingt-quatre_ of the latter city formed the administrative body annually elected to act as the Mayor's Council. Mr. Round further found that the oath of this 'twenty-four' bears a marked resemblance to the oath of the London Commune discovered by him. 'The three salient features in common are--(1) the oath to administer justice fairly; (2) the special provisions against bribery; (3) the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe.[215]

Much attention has been given lately to the important question of continental influence on English municipalities, and Miss Mary Bateson has discovered that a considerable number of boroughs in England, Wales and Ireland drew their customs from the little Norman town of Breteuil.[216] These are Bideford, Burford, Chipping Sodbury, Hereford, Lichfield, Ludlow, Nether Weare, Preston, Ruyton, Shrewsbury; Llanvyllin, Rhuddlan, Welshport; Drogheda, Dungarvan, Kildare and Rathmore. Besides these there are eight suspected cases and a number of derived cases.[217]

Although the fact that the Council of twenty-four seemed to exclude the already existing aldermen from the chief government of the city was opposed to our previous views, Mr. Round has set himself to show that a Mayor's Council of twenty-four (not aldermen) was not unusual, and he draws especial attention to the case of Winchester. There the Mayor had a Council of twenty-four, who continued to exist down to the year 1835. This Council was elected by the city as a whole and not by the wards, and Mr. Round believes that this was also the case in London. He then quotes from Dean Kitchin's book on Winchester (_Historic Towns_) where it is said: 'The aldermen, in later days, the civic aristocracy, were originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city and entrusted with the administration of it.... It was not till early in the sixteenth century that they were interposed between the Mayor and the twenty-four men.' We learn from Mrs. Green (_Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_) that there was a Council of twenty-four at Colchester, Ipswich, Leicester, Northampton, Norwich, Oxford, Wells, and Yarmouth.

When the city obtained the long-coveted privilege of the Commune and the power of electing their own Mayor, one would naturally expect the electors to choose the most distinguished citizen. We cannot however say whether Henry Fitz-Ailwin was that. At all events, he seems to have retained the esteem of the city, as he was continued in office until his death in 1212.

Mr. Round wrote the Life of Fitz-Ailwin in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, but he was unable to discover much of the Mayor's history. He presumes that he was the grandson of an unidentified Leofstan, but he rejects the view that he was the grandson of Leofstan, Portreeve of London before the Conquest. Leofstan was a common name among the Saxons, and two or three of the same name have been confounded by historians.

Fitz-Ailwin is described as 'of London Stone,' because his dwelling--'a very fair house'--stood on the north side of the Church of St. Swithin, and over against the London Stone, which was situated on the south side of Cannon [Candlewick] Street, but afterwards removed to the north side of the street. The advowson of the church was appropriated to the mansion. London Stone itself is one of the most valued relics of London, and its history is lost in antiquity. We know that in the Middle Ages it was esteemed to possess a special value as a representative stone monument.

The seal of Fitz-Ailwin is attached to a deed preserved among the public records. It represents a man on horseback with a hawk perched on his wrist. There is an inscription round the circumference of the seal, but it is so defaced as to be illegible.[218]

The city was given the right of electing the Mayor, but we do not know for certain who it was who first exercised this right. Bishop Stubbs says that two years after the death of Fitz-Ailwin, King John granted to the 'barones' of the City of London the right of annually electing the Mayor.[219]

The roll of Mayors is one of considerable distinction, and those who obtained this position were mostly men of great character and authority. Some of them were on the side of popular freedom, while others were active in the support of the prerogatives of the privileged classes.

Sometimes the King degraded the Mayor and appointed a custos or warden in his place. As early as 1222, twenty years after the death of Fitz-Ailwin, in the reign of Henry III., Hubert de Burgh, chief justiciar, superseded the Mayor and appointed a custos in his place. Again, in 1266, William Fitz-Richard was appointed by the King warden of the city. In November of the same year Fitz-Richard was replaced by Alan Souche, and John Adrian and Luke de Batincourt were elected by the citizens bailiffs of London and Middlesex. 'The bailiffs and the whole Commune (_Communa_) of the said city' are mentioned in 1267.[220] In 1268-1269 Hugh Fitz-Otho was custos, and then follow some stirring times in London.

Sir Walter Hervey, the predecessor of the famous Sir Henry Waleys in the Mayor's chair, was the popular leader against the proceedings of his successor.

Sir Henry de Waleys, Le Waleis, Le Walleis, or Le Galeys (for in all these forms does his name appear), was elected sheriff with his distinguished contemporary Gregory de Rokesley in 1270. His first mayoralty was in 1273, and in 1275 he was Mayor of Bordeaux.

He was a very active chief magistrate and a good administrator; he was also high in the royal favour. He proceeded against bakers, butchers and fishmongers, and ordered them to remove their stalls from West Cheap. He also came in conflict with the Barons of the Cinque Ports. The King sent a mandate to the justices in Eyre at the Tower commanding them not to molest Waleys for his reforms.

In the year 1285 the city again lost its franchise. Gregory de Rokesley was deposed from the mayoralty by Edward I. for refusing to render any account of how the peace of the city was maintained, thus omitting to show proper respect to the King's justices at the Tower. For the next thirteen years London was governed by a warden appointed by the King, in the person of Sir Ralph de Sandwich or John le Breton.[221] Sir Ralph de Sandwich is described in Letter Book A as warden of the city, as well as warden of Cordwainer Street.

In 1297, a few months before the King restored the mayoralty to the citizens, John le Breton who had for many years acted as the King's warden of the city in place of the Mayor, is recorded as having summoned the aldermen and six representatives of each ward and in their presence to have declared, _inter alia_, that the weighing machines for weighing corn at the mills should be abolished, and that bakers convicted of fraud should no longer be drawn on the hurdle, but suffer instead the punishment of the pillory.

As soon as the citizens recovered their liberties and Le Breton ceased to be warden, Le Waleys was again elected to the chair. The charter of restitution of the city's liberties bears date 12th April, 26 Edw. I. [1299], and it is preserved at the Guildhall.[222] The particulars of the various stages of these proceedings are set out fully in the city's records. The writ was sent to the late warden on the 5th April, and the notification to the citizens took place on the 9th. Le Waleys was elected and admitted by the King at Fulham on the 16th.[223]

The King issued a writ to the Barons of the Exchequer from York, notifying the restitution of the city's liberties, on 28th May, and a proclamation followed. The day after the Mayor was sworn he was compelled by business of his own to proceed at once to Lincoln, and during his absence his official duties were committed to William de Betoyne and Geoffrey de Nortone.

It is very important to bear in mind that the Mayors of London, besides holding a very onerous office, were men of great distinction. They held rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of the country. They were mostly representatives of the landed interest, as well as merchant princes, but sometimes, as already stated, the Mayor sided with the populace in opposition to the views of his own compeers. Bishop Stubbs describes the struggles between the magnates and the Commons, and shows how Thomas Fitz-Thomas favoured the latter.

'In 1249, when the Mayor and aldermen met the judges at the Temple for a conference on rights claimed by the Abbot of Westminster, the populace interfered, declaring that they would not permit them to treat without the participation of the whole "Communa."... In 1262 Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the Mayor, encouraged the populace to claim the title of "Communa civitatis," and to deprive the aldermen and magnates of their rightful influence; by these means he obtained a re-election by the popular vote in 1263, the voices of the aldermen being excluded: in 1264-1265 he obtained a reappointment, but his power came to an end after the Battle of Evesham.'[224]

To pass on to the fourteenth century, we learn that in 1326 Queen Isabel sent a letter to the citizens permitting them to elect a Mayor, as in the days before the Iter of 1321. They elected Richard de Betoyne, whom the barons had that day appointed warden of the Tower conjointly with John de Gisors.[225]

Sometimes the sovereign, when he went abroad, endowed the Mayor with considerable powers for the preservation of peace. This was the case in 1340 when Andrew Aubrey, the Mayor, acted on the authority of Edward III. A conflict had taken place in the streets of the city between the skinners and the fishmongers, which the Mayor attempted to stop. John Hansard, a fishmonger, brandishing a drawn sword, seized Aubrey by the throat and offered to strike him, while John le Brewere wounded one of the city serjeants. The delinquents were at once seized, carried to Guildhall, arraigned, found guilty, condemned to death, and beheaded in Cheap. When the King heard of this bold proceeding he immediately wrote to the Mayor, warmly approving of his conduct, congratulating him on his spirit, and adopting and ratifying the deed--'_Si vous en savons très bon gree et votre fait acceptoms et le ratifioms_.'[226]

Sir William Walworth, the most famous of Mayors, died in 1385, after a full and strenuous life. He is said to have suppressed usury in the city, and we have seen how important a figure he was during Wat Tyler's insurrection. He was a prominent member of the Fishmongers' Company, and improved the old Church of St. Michael's, Crooked Lane (in which parish he lived), adding the Fishmongers' aisle.[227]

The end of the fourteenth century was, perhaps, the most stirring period in the history of the London municipality. There was a deadly feud between the leaders, who were men of strong character, endued with courage to carry out their views to the extreme. These feuds were no matters of merely local interest, but the incidents were followed with the greatest attention by the Court and the whole country.

The feuds arose from the increased power of the livery companies and the antagonism between the victualling and clothing trades. This division existed in most of the towns of the land, but the battle was fought out with deadly effect in the City of London. Walworth, a fishmonger, was the chief of the victualling party, but the two prominent leaders of the two parties were Nicholas Brembre and John of Northampton.

Doubtless the victualling companies had obtained a preponderating influence, and it is recorded that at one time sixteen of the aldermen belonged to the Grocers' Company, of which Brembre was a member.[228]

When John of Northampton, a draper, was elected Mayor in 1381, in succession to Walworth, he set himself to crush the victualling party. The Act of Edward II. having been evaded, another was passed in 1382 (6 Richard II. cap. 9), by which it was ordained that 'no victualler shall execute a judicial place in a city or town corporate.'[229] (_See_ p. 305.)

He forced Sir John Philipot, a public-spirited man and ex-Mayor, but a friend of Walworth's and of the King's, to resign his aldermanry. On 7th November 1382, John Filiol, a fishmonger, was brought before the Mayor and aldermen on a charge of having 'said that John Norhamptone, the Mayor, had falsely and maliciously deprived the fishmongers of their bread.' For this offence Filiol was adjudged to be 'imprisoned at Newgate, in a place then called "Bocardo," for one year then next ensuing, unless he should deserve more extended favour in the meantime.'

On the 6th December John Filiol 'was liberated at the instance of his friends, on the surety of William Naufretone and others.' When the charge was made against Filiol, Richard Fiffyde was one of those questioned on the subject, and he 'said that he and all the other fishmongers of London were bound to put their hands beneath the very feet of Nicholas Extone, for his good deeds and words in behalf of the trade aforesaid.'[230]

John of Northampton was Mayor for two years, and had held the office of sheriff in 1377 (M.P. for the city, 1378). He was head of John of Gaunt's supporters and a prominent follower of Wyclif in London. He was leader of the party which sought to gain the favour of the populace, and he encouraged the citizens to set at naught the jurisdiction of their bishop.

He would probably have been returned again in October 1383 as the champion of cheap food if the King had not carried the election of Brembre by force.

Brembre was the chief supporter of Richard II. in the city, and he was the King's financial agent in 1381. He was first elected Mayor in 1377, and at the Parliament of Gloucester in 1378 Thomas of Woodstock, the King's uncle, demanded his impeachment as Mayor.

From 1379 to 1386 Brembre was one of the two collectors of customs for the Port of London, with Chaucer for his controller. He was M.P. for London in 1383.

When he succeeded Northampton, in 1383, he set himself to undo the evil caused by the action of his predecessor. Northampton was arrested in 1384, when returning from a riotous demonstration at Whitefriars. He was tried at Reading, before the Council over which the King presided. After a brief imprisonment, the condemned man was brought up for a fresh trial, before Chief-Justice Tresilian, in the Tower of London, and was imprisoned in Tintagel Castle, Cornwall.

Brembre was also opposed to Nicholas Twyford, who would probably have been elected Mayor but for the high-handed proceedings of Brembre. Twyford's party was confident of victory, and shouted at the election 'Twyford, Twyford!'; but when the voting commenced the soldiers placed by Brembre behind the arras in the Guildhall rushed out and drove Twyford's followers from the building. Brembre's party were allowed to remain, and they carried the election for their candidate.

It is worthy of note that during Brembre's mayoralty, in 1378, Nicholas Twyford, one of the sheriffs, was brought up for contumacy towards the Mayor, and punished for the same. There had been a conflict in Cheapside between the goldsmiths and the pepperers (grocers), and John Worsele, one of the sheriff's suite, was brought before the Mayor as a principal mover in the strife. Twyford refused to do the Mayor's behests as to the imprisonment of his follower after arrest.[231]

With the fall of the King, Brembre also fell, and there was a revolution in the government of the city as well as in that of the country. Northampton was released from Tintagel Castle, and restored to his property; and Brembre was tried for his life, condemned to death, and executed in the Tower in February 1388. The companies who petitioned for Brembre's punishment were Mercers, Cordwainers, and eight others, all opposed to the victualling trades.

In 1387 a proclamation was made in the city, by the King's command, forbidding, on pain of death and forfeiture of goods, all true lieges of London to speak evil of the King and Queen. The issuing of this proclamation in the city formed one of the charges of high treason against Brembre and his followers.

In this same year, 1387, a book of civic regulations called _Jubile_, promulgated by John de Northampton and his party, was ordered to be burnt. Mr. Riley refers to the petitions in Parliament for 1386-1387,[232] where we learn from the petition of the Cordwainers against Nicholas Brembre and his adherents that in this book of _Le Jubile_ 'were comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good governance of the said city, and that Nicholas Extone, the Mayor, and all the aldermen and good Commons of the city had sworn for ever to maintain them, to the honour of God and the profit of the common people; but that the said Nicholas Extone and his accomplices have burnt it without consent of the good Commons of the city, to the annihilation of many good liberties, franchises and customs of the city.'[233]

The feuds of those days continued to agitate the city for some years, but at last the differences between the various trades cooled down somewhat. In 1391, however, a proclamation was issued that 'no person shall speak or give his opinion as to either Nicholas Brembre or John Norhamptone' on pain of imprisonment for a year and a day. The preamble is as follows: 'Whereas many dissensions, quarrels and false reports have prevailed in the City of London as between trade and trade, person and person, because of divers controversies lately moved between Nicholas Brembre, knight, and John Norhamptone, of late Mayors of the same city, who were men of great power and estate, and had many friendships and friends within the same; to the great peril of the same city, and maybe of all the realm.'[234]

The names of many other Mayors who have conferred distinction on their office might be mentioned here, but the space at our disposal will not allow of any statement of the claims to honour of these men who have made their mark in the history of London.

It is a curious fact that we have no authority whatever for fixing a date for the first use of the title 'Lord Mayor,' and there can be little doubt that it was originally assumed without any positive right. Dr. Sharpe thinks that possibly the expression 'domino maiore,' strictly 'Sir Mayor,' may account for the origin of the Lord Mayor's title.[235] A claim has been set up for Thomas Legge, Mayor the second time in 1354, that he was the first Lord Mayor, but there is positively no authority whatever for this claim, although it is boldly stated that he was created Lord Mayor by Edward III. in this year.

One point is worthy of special attention, although it does not throw any actual light on the matter. Bishop Stubbs says that the Mayor of York was known as Lord Mayor in 1389 [1389]. Richard II. had in that year presented his own sword to the Mayor, who was thence-forward known as the Lord Mayor; and in 1393 he had given the Lord Mayor a mace.[236]

If this were so, we can scarcely believe that the Londoners, who had always been very tenacious of their pre-eminent position, would be content to allow their chief magistrate to continue without a title possessed by the Mayor of York. Still, there is not the slightest evidence that the title of Lord Mayor was used in London at this early period, and it is possible that Bishop Stubbs's statement is too definite. There is no doubt that the title 'Lord Mayor' was used at an early date in York, but the prefix 'Lord' was not always applied, and as late as 1565 there is reference in the Chamberlain's account book 'to Mr. John Bean, Mayor.'[237]

A correspondence of some interest was printed in _The Times_ in November and December 1901 on this point; but although Legge's claim was disproved, few if any positive facts were brought forward. The most satisfactory letter was one from Mr. W. H. St. John Hope, of the Society of Antiquaries, who, as the result of a search in the city books, gave some definite information as to the use of the title. 'Down to about 1540 the chief magistrate was invariably styled Mayor.... There are, however, instances as early as 1519 where he is referred to as "my lorde mayr," but seemingly in the same way as we speak of "my lord bishop" or "my lord the King," for the same entry that refers to him as "my lorde mayr" nowe beyng, continues "as well as all other mayres his successours." After 1540 the use of the term "Lord Mayor" becomes general--_e.g._, 1542, "every lorde mayer's house"; 1545, "the lorde mayers of the same cytie"; 1546, "the lorde mayor," &c.'

We have seen how important was the office of Mayor in mediæval times, and how like a king the holder's dignity was upheld.

The Mayor has certain very remarkable privileges, which prove the high esteem in which he was held by the sovereign. These privileges are of considerable antiquity, and have not yet been traced to their source. The four principal are:--

I. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.

II. The Mayor's position in the city, where he is second only to the King.

III. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign.

IV. His position of Butler at the Coronation banquets.

_I.--The closing of Temple Bar to the Sovereign._

The gates of Temple Bar were invariably closed by the city authorities whenever the sovereign had occasion to enter the city. A herald sounded a trumpet before the gate--another herald knocked--a parley ensued--the gates were then thrown open and the Mayor for the time being presented the sword of the city to the sovereign, who graciously returned it to the Mayor. The earliest record of this custom is connected with Queen Elizabeth's visit to St. Paul's to return thanks for the defeat of the Spanish Armada, but evidently the custom must be one of great antiquity, and probably in the case of the early kings it was carried out at one of the city gates long before the bars of the liberties were thought of, although no records have come down to us.

Stow's account of the proceedings in his _Annales_ is as follows: 'Over the gate of the Temple bar were placed the waites of the cittie, and at the same barre the Lord Maior and his brethren the aldermen in scarlet received and welcomed her Majestie to her cittie and chamber, delivering to her hands the scepter, which after certaine speeches had, her Highnesse redelivered to the Maior, and hee againe taking his horse, bare the same before her. The companies of the cittie in their liveries stoode in their rayles of tymber, covered with blew cloth, all of them saluting her highnesse, as shee proceeded along to Paules Church.'

_II.--The Mayor's position in the City._

None of the privileges connected with the Mayor's office has been so jealously guarded as the one upon which is founded the claim to the Mayor's supremacy in the City of London, where the sovereign only takes precedence of him. In Riley's _Memorials_ there is an extract from Letter Book I (1415) which refers to Henry V.'s speech on the contemplated invasion of France and the seat of honour accorded to the Mayor, in presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King's brothers. When these notabilities met together diligent council was held as to the order in which they ought to sit, and 'the Lords agreed together among themselves to the effect that the Mayor, in consideration of the reverence and honour due to our most excellent Lord the King, of whom he is the representative in the city, should have his place, when sitting, in the middle, and that the said Lords of Canterbury and Winchester should be seated on his right hand, and John, Humphrey and Edward on the left, upon seats arranged for them; these to make declaration on behalf of our said Lord the King.'[238]

The actual right to pre-eminence was seldom challenged in the city, but there were certain places which were supposed to be outside the Mayor's jurisdiction, such as the Inns of Court, where misunderstandings were frequently taking place. A very interesting instance is given in Gregory's Chronicle, and it is well worth quoting here for the striking light it throws upon the dignity of the office:--

'Thys yere [1465], abute mydsomyr, a[t] the ryalle feste of the Sargentys of the Coyfe, the Mayre of London [Mathew Phylyppe] was desyride to be at that feste. And at denyr time he come to the feste with his offecers, agreyng and acordyng unto hys degre. For withyn London he ys next unto the kyng in all maner thynge. And in tyme of waschynge the Erle of Worseter was take before the mayre and sette downe in the myddis of the hy tabelle. And the mayre seynge that hys place was occupyd hylde hym contente, and went home agayne with-owt mete or drynke or any thonke, but rewarde hym he dyd as hys dygnyte requyred of the cytte. And toke with hym the substance of hys bretheryn the aldyrmen to his place, and were sette and servyd also sone as any man couthe devyse, bothe of sygnet and of othyr delycatys i-nowe, that alle the howse mervelyd howe welle alle tynge was done in soo schorte a tyme, and prayde alle men to be mery and gladde hit shulde be a-mendyd a-nothyr tyme.

'Thenn the offesers of the feste, fulle evylle a-schamyd, informyd the maysters of the feste of thys mysse-happe that ys be-falle. And they consyderynge the grete dygnyte and costys and change that longgyd unto the cytte, and anon sende unto the mayre a present of mete, brede, wyne, and many dyvers sotelteys. But whenn they that come with the presentys say [saw] alle the gyftys, and the sarvyse that was at the borde, he was fulle sore a-schamyd that shulde doo the massage, for the present was not better thenn the servyse of metys was byfore the mayre, and thoroughe-owte the hyghe tabylle. But hys demenynge was soo that he hadde love and thonke for hys massage, and a grette rewarde with-alle. And thys the worschippe of the cytte was kepte, and not loste for hym. I truste that nevyr hyt shalle, by the grace of God.'[239]

Another and a later difficulty with the lawyers is recorded by Pepys on March 3, 1668-1669. In order to understand the cause of contention it is necessary to bear in mind that within the city the Mayor's sword was held up before him, but outside it was held down.

'Meeting Mr. Bellwood, did hear how my Lord Mayor [Sir William Turner] being invited this day to dinner at the Reader's at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private councillor's chamber, until the Reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my Lord Mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth, with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students; and my Lord Mayor did send to the King.'

On Sir William Turner's complaint, the King agreed to have the case argued before him in council, but after hearing the evidence his Majesty thought it best to suspend the declaration of his pleasure until the right and privilege should be determined at law, and apparently the question remains unsettled to the present day.

A note may here be made of the Mayor's position in the city as the chief of the military forces within his jurisdiction, with the right of forbidding the entry of troops without his sanction. 'The 3rd regiment of foot, raised in 1665, known by the ancient title of the Old Buffs, have the privilege of marching thro' London with drums beating, colours flying, which the city disputes, not only with all other corps, but even with the King's Guards going on duty to the Tower.'--Major R. Donkin, _Military Collections_, New York, 1777, p. 134.

_III.--The Mayor's summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new Sovereign._

This is intimately connected with the claim of the city to a voice in the election of the King, which found practical expression even before the Conquest. There can be no doubt that in mediæval times the support of London was eagerly sought for in cases of disputed succession. During the nineteenth century it was the custom to belittle the Mayor and Corporation, and Lord Macaulay in his history ignores the considerable influence of the city in securing the succession of his hero William III. to the throne.

At the Councils held on the accession of Queen Victoria and King Edward VII. the respective Lords Mayor, although summoned, were not allowed to remain to the meeting of the Council.

Little has been written upon this very important privilege of the Lord Mayor, but its consideration opens up a very remarkable constitutional question which requires very careful investigation. There ought to be sufficient information available to settle the question.

On the accession of his present Majesty, the Lord Mayor (the late Mr. Alderman Green, afterwards Sir Frank Green, Baronet) was invited to sign the proclamation immediately after the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues' signatures following his lordship's.

It is said that the great Duke of Wellington laid great stress upon the attendance of the Lord Mayor, and it was supposed that as the death of the sovereign cancelled the appointments of Court officials, the Lord Mayor, who continued in office, was an official of considerable importance on the occasion of the accession of a new sovereign. The continuance of Court appointments is now settled by an Act of Parliament.

_IV.--The Mayor s position at the Coronation Banquets._

The privilege of assisting the chief butler at the coronations of the Kings of England accorded to the citizens of London appears to date back before the appointment of a Mayor. Dr. Sharpe, referring to the double coronation of Richard I., writes: 'His first coronation had taken place at Westminster (3rd 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. The second coronation taking place at Winchester [17th April 1194] 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.'[240]

Andrew Bokerel, Mayor in the year 1236 (21 Henry III.), claimed to serve as butler at the coronation of Eleanor, daughter of Raymond Berengar IV., Count of Provence, Queen of Henry III., but his claim was set aside on this occasion by the King's command.[241]

In the remarkable record of the Court of Claims held before the coronation of Richard II. (over which John of Gaunt presided as High Steward), _Close Roll_, I _Ric. II. mem. 45_. (Public Record Office), the claim of the Mayor and citizens is fully set forth: The King 'willed and decreed that the citizens of the said city should serve in the hall of botelry helping the chief butler, while the King himself sat at table on the day of his coronation, and when the same our lord the King, after dinner, entered his chamber and asked for wine, the said Mayor should serve our said lord the King with a bowl of gold, and afterwards should receive that bowl with the ewer appertaining to the same bowl, as a gift from the King.'[242]

At the coronation of Henry VI. (6th November 1429), William Estfield, the recently elected Mayor, received the customary gold cup and ewer used on the occasion, which he afterwards bequeathed to his grandson.[243]

The latest instance of this jealously guarded privilege occurred at the coronation of George IV., July 19, 1821.[244]

The claim to this honourable service in the cases of the coronations of William IV and Queen Victoria was not made because no banquet took place on these occasions.

In the case of the coronation of his present Majesty the claim was excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims under the royal proclamation. The terms of the judgment on a further claim is as follows: 'The Court considers and adjudges that the Lord Mayor has by usage a right, subject to His Majesty's pleasure, to attend the Abbey during the coronation, and bear the crystal mace.'[245]

It will be seen that of these four special privileges two relate to the Mayor's position in the city and two to his position outside the city.

The pageants connected with the election of the Mayor are of great antiquity, but we have little information respecting the earlier ones. It is a tradition that when the mayoralty was granted by the King, a stipulation was made that the Mayor should be presented for approval either to the King or his justiciar, and the processions then commenced.

In 1415 the Mayor proceeded to Westminster on horseback, but in 1453 Sir John Norman, the Mayor, was infirm, and he introduced the custom of making the progress from London to Westminster by barge. This continued till the horseback procession was revived in 1657, much to the disgust of the London watermen.

Even when the water procession was the regular practice, the procession on horseback to the Guildhall and then to the waterside for embarkation took place.

No Lord Mayor in a city procession used a coach before 1712, and then only an ordinary one. The present State coach was built in 1757.

Sir John Shaa, Mayor in 1482, was the first to give the annual banquet in the Guildhall. Previously, the feast had taken place either at Grocers' Hall or some other convenient place. The practice of dining at the Guildhall did not become general until 1501, when alterations were made in the kitchen, and the requisite offices having been added the series of annual banquets was commenced there.

There was no feeling of contempt of trade in the Middle Ages, and the Merchant Princes of London were held in high esteem. The custom of ridiculing the city and its rulers did not then exist, but it seems probable that it first came into being in the reign of Elizabeth.

Richard Johnson's _Nine Worthies of London_ (1592) contains the praise of the worthies, written by the author in a mock heroic style. Of the nine four were Mayors, namely, Sir William Walworth, 1374, 1380; Sir Henry Pitchard (Picard), 1356; Sir William Sevenoke, 1418; and Sir William White, 1553.

Most of the Mayors of the Middle Ages were men of birth and position, and it is difficult to understand how it was that the popular idea of a poor boy coming up to London penniless, making his way here, and eventually rising to be Mayor, first came into existence. The elaboration of this idea in the chap-book life of Sir Richard Whittington is entirely opposed to the facts of the case.

ALDERMEN

The consideration of the actual position of the alderman in the government of London is one of great difficulty, and Mr. Round's discovery of the Oath of the Commune in which aldermen are not mentioned has made it difficult to conjecture when it was that they took their natural place as the advisers of the Mayor.

The title 'alderman' is a survival of the Saxon period (as is also that of 'sheriff'), but the duties of the holders of the office have frequently been changed.

The word 'alderman' was a generic term as well as the distinctive title of a special officer. King Alfred appointed an alderman over all London, and the chief officer of the various guilds was originally known as an alderman.

The various wards were each presided over by an alderman from an early period, but, as already noted, we cannot fix the date when they were united as a Court of Aldermen.

Bishop Stubbs writes: 'The governing body of London in the thirteenth century was composed of the Mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs. All these were elective officers.'[246]

The difficulty is, that although aldermen were undoubtedly elected as the heads of wards they are not referred to as the colleagues of the Mayor until the very end of this century.

In March 1298-1299 letters were sent from 'the Mayor and Commune of the City of London' to the Echevins, Jurats and Commonalty of the town of Burges' [Bruges]; 'to the Provost, Bailiffs and Commonalty of the town of Caen'; and 'to the Provost, Echevins and Commonalty of the City of Comerac' [Cambray?].[247]

Although the official form of 'The Mayor and Commune' was continued until the end of the thirteenth century, and it was not until early in the fourteenth century that the form 'Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council' came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the aldermen and Common Council before that time were acting with the Mayor as governors of the city.

As already quoted from Bishop Stubbs, that authority describes the aldermen as assistants of the Mayor as early as 1249. At all events, in the record of the election of aldermen in 1293, they are specially described as elected for the government of the city.

In 1299 (27 Edw. I.) 'it was agreed by Henry le Galeys, Mayor, and the aldermen, that Strago, the sweeper of litter in the ward of Chepe, should be taken and imprisoned until, etc., because he, the said Strago, had scandalized the aldermen by saying that they take the money of the commonalty at the Guildhall under pretext of wardship of orphans and then waste such money for their own profit.' In consequence of these unfounded charges Strago was committed to the Tun.[248]

There are in Riley's _Memorials_ about this date several other references to aldermen acting with the Mayor, thus, on the 14th September 1301: 'Walter Swan appeared before Sir Elias Russel, Mayor of London, and other aldermen then present';[249] and in December 1310 Roger de Eure having insulted and assaulted Richard de Gloucestre, alderman, the two parties 'appeared in the Guildhall before Sir Richer [de Refham] the Mayor, and the aldermen.'[250]

In 1311 (4 Edw. II.) the form of description of the governors was 'The Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City.'[251] From this time the general form was either this or 'The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty.' It is necessary, however, to mention that a congregation of Mayor and aldermen is referred to in Fitz-Ailwin's Assize of 1189.[252]

The title of 'echevin,' as applied to a governor of the city, is at present only known to us as used in the Oath of the Commune, found by Mr. Round, and it may therefore have had a very short existence. It is possible that aldermen were elected on to the Mayor's Council under the title of 'echevins.' This, however, is not the opinion of Mr. Round, who is inclined to believe that the body of echevins became in course of time the Court of Common Council.

The whole question is at present one of great difficulty, and I only state the facts here without venturing to express any confident opinion until more evidence is forthcoming.

We may be allowed to think that too great an importance has been ascribed to the position of the early aldermen in connection with their wards. It is generally affirmed that the aldermen were hereditary owners of the various wards, on account of the fact that the wards were named after them, an instance of which practice remains in Farringdon, Bassishaw and Basingshall. There is no evidence of this proprietorship, and it seems improbable on the face of it. Mr. Round believes that what an alderman inherited can only have been the aldermanry of his ward, like, he suggests, an hereditary sheriff.

Mr. Baddeley writes that 'early in 1276 we find mention made of "the ward of Henry de Frowyk within the Gate" (_i.e._, Cripplegate), and ten years later (_circ._ 1285) he figures in the earliest list of aldermen extant in the city's records as alderman of the same ward.'[253]

At the election of aldermen in 1291 (19 Edw. I.) sixteen of the wards were named after the aldermen and eight after places. The latter being the wards of Chepe, Castle Baynard, Walebroke, Douegate, Bridge, Portsoken, Vintry, and Bassieshawe.

At the election two years afterwards (1293) all the wards were named with their proper names, and not after the aldermen.

The ward of Ludgate and Neugate presented Nicholas de Farndone, it being styled in the previous list 'the ward of William de Farndone.' Many of the same names are found in the two lists, but they represent different individuals of the same family.

The preamble to the list of elections in 1293 is of considerable interest: 'Be it remembered that on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Botolph, 21 Edw. I., in the presence of Sir John le Bretun, Warden of London, the whole commonalty of the city aforesaid was assembled, viz., from each ward the wealthier and wiser men, who each by their several wards elected for themselves aldermen freely, of good will and of their full consent, and the aldermen so elected, they presented to the warden aforesaid in this form, that all and singular the things which the aforesaid aldermen of their wisdom and discretion shall do and ordain for the government of the city and the maintenance of the King's peace, in conjunction with the warden and their superiors for the time being shall be straitly observed, and shall be held ratified and confirmed before other provisions touching the commonalty without any challenge or opposition in the future; and each ward elected its aldermen, for whom it would answer as to all his acts affecting the city, the Commune (_Communam_) and its estate.'[254]

It will be seen from the above that the election of aldermen was only in the hands of a few of the 'wealthier and wiser men' of the wards, but later on the electors were freemen of the city, 'paying scot and bearing lot.'

There was much difference of practice in the election of aldermen. Various orders were issued from time to time, and some of them fell out of use.

In 1377 it was ordered that aldermen should be elected annually, as appears from the following entry in Letter Book H (f. 58):--

'51 Edw. III. Precept (_bille_) for the men of each ward to meet on Saturday, the 7th March, and elect an alderman other than the sitting alderman, and to have the name of the alderman so elected endorsed on the Bill at the Guildhall on the Feast of St. Gregory next, at eight o'clock at the latest, under penalty.'

This precept was elaborated in an Ordinance made on Friday, 6th March, 51 Edw. III., with the assent of the Mayor, aldermen and divers representations of the livery companies.

It was ordered that 'aldermen removed for good and reasonable cause shall not be open for re-election, but that those who go out of office on St. Gregory's Day and have not misconducted themselves may be re-elected after the interval of one year.'

In 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an alderman to be re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year of office without any interval (Letter Book H, f. 173).

In 1394 the Ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the King, and aldermen were henceforward elected for life.

6th March, 17 Ric. II., 'and have also ordained for the honour and greater increase of the good government of our said city, that they who should be chosen aldermen of our same city should not be removed out of their offices during their lives, unless for just, reasonable and notable cause.'

Shortly after this an order of the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty was issued which took away the right of the wards of directly electing their aldermen. A ward was only allowed to nominate two persons, of whom the Mayor and aldermen were to choose one. Five years later, that is in 1402, the number of names to be nominated was raised to four, and in 1420 this order was reaffirmed.[255]

Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen; thus the Common Seal of the Corporation bears the inscription: _Sigillum Baronum Londoniarum_, and we are told by John Carpenter in _Liber Albus_, 'it is a matter of experience that even since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was observed; for in the church where the alderman was about to be buried a person appeared upon a caparisoned horse, arrayed in the armour of the deceased, bearing a banner in his hand, and carrying upon him his shield, helmet and the rest of his arms, along with the banner, as is still the usage at the sepulture of lords of baronial rank. But by reason of the sudden and frequent changes of the aldermen, and the repeated occurrence of pestilence, this ceremonial in London gradually died out and disappeared.'[256]

When the poll tax of 1379 was imposed the Mayor was assessed as an earl and the aldermen as barons.[257]

On August 12, 1417, a royal mandate (5 Hen. V.) was issued to the Mayor enjoining that the aldermen shall reside within the city: 'We do therefore will, and do command and charge you that you cause your letters to be addressed unto each one of the said aldermen so absent from our said city, charging them strictly thereby on our behalf that they return unto our said city and do tarry and remain there, to support you and to administer counsel and assistance in all that may touch the preservation of the said peace and good governance of our said city.'[258] This was an irksome regulation, and in the charter of Edward IV. the aldermen were released from the obligation.

'It is well-known and manifest that those of the said city which are elected aldermen have sustained great cost and pains for the time they make their abode and residence in the same city, and for that cause oftentimes do leave their possessions and places in the country that therefore they and every of them may without fear of unquietness or molestation peaceably abide and tarry in such their houses and possessions, when they shall return thither for comfort and recreations sake.'

It has sometimes been the fashion of the wits to gird at the aldermen and other city magnates, but although some of the names on the list may be of little account there are many which are written on the page of history, and a large number of noble families owe their origin to famous aldermen.

Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, Mayor in 1457, was great-grandfather to Anne Boleyn, and therefore ancestor of Queen Elizabeth; Sir Thomas Canynge, Mayor in 1456, was ancestor of George Canning, Earl Canning, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; Sir William Loke, sheriff in 1548, the favourite of Henry VIII., who had a key of the King's private chamber so that he might come whenever he would, was the ancestor of John Locke, Lord Chancellor King, and the Earl of Lovelace; John Cowper, alderman in 1551, was the ancestor of Lord Chancellor Cowper and the poet William Cowper; Sir Edward Osborne was the ancestor of the Dukes of Leeds.

Among other distinguished men descended from aldermen may be mentioned Bacon, Beckford, Byron, Cromwell, Howe, Marlborough, Newcastle, Melbourne, Nelson, Palmerston, the two William Pitts, Raglan, Salisbury, and the Walpoles.

SHERIFFS.

The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period of our history, and these reeves were appointed by the King. When William the Conqueror demanded entrance to London the joint governors were the bishop and the portreeve. How long before the Conquest a portreeve had been appointed and how long after his office was continued we do not know. The sheriff to some extent took his place, but Henry I. gave the city the right of appointing justiciars and sheriffs, and the justiciar, according to Mr. Round, took precedence of the sheriff.

After the establishment of the Commune and the appointment of a Mayor the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became what they are styled in _Liber Albus_, 'the Eyes of the Mayor.' They often in early times were called also bailiffs. When Middlesex was in ferm to London the two sheriffs were equally Sheriffs of London and Middlesex. There is one instance only in the city records of a Sheriff of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and Walter le Blond are described as Sheriffs of London, and Gerin as Sheriff of Middlesex.[259] This anomaly has not been explained, but Dr. Sharpe remarks respecting a writ of 1308: 'The King to the Sheriff of Middlesex, greeting,' that this was 'presumably addressed to and the return made by the Sheriffs of London acting as Sheriff of Middlesex according to custom.'

It was ordained and agreed in 1383 (7 Ric. II.) 'that no person shall from henceforth be Mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff of the said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty.'[260]

Mr. Baddeley has very clearly described the changes made at various times in the election of sheriffs, and I therefore quote from his book: 'Until the commencement of the fourteenth century the sheriffs were elected by the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city. In 1301 an attempt was made to restrict the number of electors to twelve representatives of each ward, but this, like other subsequent attempts, proved unsuccessful. In 1347 is met with, for the first time, a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the Mayor and the other by the commonalty, and this prerogative of the Mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few, if any, exceptions down to 1638.'[261]

This is the mode of election which is described in the _Liber Albus_: 'In the first place, the Mayor shall choose, of his own free will, a reputable man, free of the city, to be one of the sheriffs for the ensuing year, for whom he is willing to answer as to one half of the ferm of the city due to the King, if he who is so elected by the Mayor shall prove not sufficient. But if the Mayor elect him by counsel and with the assent of the aldermen they also ought to be answerable with him. And those who are elected for the Common Council themselves, and the others summoned by the Mayor for this purpose, as before declared, shall choose another sheriff for the commonalty, for whom all the commonalty is bound to be answerable as to the other half of the ferm so due to the King, in case he shall prove not sufficient. And if any controversy arise between the Commons as to the election, the matter is to proceed and be discussed.'[262]

COMMON COUNCIL.

We do not know when the Court of Common Council was first formed, but, as already stated, Mr. Round supposes it to have grown out of the body of echevins brought into being on the granting of a Commune. It seems probable that the two courts--that of aldermen and that of the Common Council--were formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have at present no definite information on the subject. Now that special attention is drawn to this matter, it is to be hoped that some facts settling the question may be forthcoming. The number of members of the Common Council varied greatly at different times, but the right to determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward III., 1341, which enables the city to amend customs and usages which have become hard.

The preamble to an Act of Common Council, 8th May 1840 (3 Vict.), passed to reduce the total number of Common Council, and to apportion more equally the members to the different wards, contains the following statement of its antiquity:--

'Whereas from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, there hath existed, and still doth exist, within the City of London, a Common Council, consisting of the Mayor and aldermen of the said city, and certain citizens, being freemen of the said city, annually elected to be of the same Council, and called the Commons of the said city; and whereas, under and by virtue of the ancient charters, ordinances, statutes and customs of the said city, the power of appointing and regulating the number of citizens to be from time to time elected of the same Common Council hath, from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, belonged, and still of right doth belong, to the Mayor, aldermen and Commons of the said city.'[263]

The Common Council were chosen by the wards until 1351 (25 Edw. III.), when certain Companies appointed the Common Council.[264]

In 1376 (50 Edw. III.) an Ordinance was made by the Mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole Commons, to the effect that the companies should select men with whom they were content, and none other should come to the elections of Mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four, and the least two.[265] Forty-seven companies nominated 156 members.

In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained again by the companies in 1467.

ARMS OF LONDON.

The arms of the City of London are simple and of great interest, consisting as they do of the Cross of St. George with the Sword of St. Paul in the dexter quarter, but unfortunately an absurd popular blunder has been prevalent that the sword was really the dagger with which Sir William Walworth killed Wat Tyler.

The history of these arms is fully set forth in Jewitt and Hope's _Corporation Plate_, and there illustrated with figures of the old common seal of London, and the first and second mayoralty seals. The facts as there set forth are shortly stated here.

The old common seal is a fine example of the early part of the thirteenth century. Stow in his _Survey_ dates it in 1224, and Gregory in his _Chronicle_ in 1227-1228. Mr. Hope says that the seal may well be of a date _circa_ 1225, and that it certainly was in use in 1246. The obverse of the seal represents a figure of St. Paul, with a sword in his outstretched right hand, and a banner of England in his left hand. 'The saint is represented as standing in the middle of the city over which he keeps guard; the spire of the cathedral church rises in front of him, and other steeples on each side.... In front of all is the city wall with its ditch, with lofty central gateway and two lesser flanking towers or bastions.' The legend is: SIGILLUM BARONUM LONDONIARUM.

The first mayoralty seal bears the seated figures of St. Thomas of Canterbury and St. Paul with his sword. The legend is _Sigillum Maioratus London._ and the date _circa_ 1280.

The second mayoralty seal, which was produced a century after the first one, is of very special interest. It bears seated figures of St. Thomas and St. Paul, and in base a shield of the city supported by two lions. The legend is _Sigil: Maioratus: Civitatis: London_. The record of the making of this seal in 1381 is found in Letter Book K, f. cxxxijb., and Mr. Hope's remarks on the value of this piece of evidence must be quoted entire: 'This seal is of special interest, not only from its being a dated example, but because it proves beyond doubt the absurdity of the silly notion that the object in the dexter chief of the city arms is the sword or dagger wherewith Sir William Walworth slew Wat Tyler, instead of being, as it undoubtedly is, the sword of St. Paul. Wat Tyler was killed on June 15, 1381, whereas the new seal of the mayoralty had been formally adopted on April 17, two months before. This seal is also one of the earliest authorities for the city arms. Its silver matrix is still preserved at the Mansion House, but in so worn a condition that little else than the deepest parts can be traced. It is only now used for mercantile documents going abroad.'[266]

To return to the common seal, it may be noticed here that the original reverse had 'in base a view of the city somewhat resembling that on the obverse, surmounted by a segmental arch. On the top of the arch, seated on a throne or chair of state, is a figure of St. Thomas of Canterbury with cross and pall.'

In accordance with the famous proclamation of Henry VIII. (Nov. 16, 1538) which enacted 'that Thomas Becket' should no longer 'be esteemed, named, reputed nor called a sayncte, but Bysshop Becket, and that his ymages and pictures through the hole realme shalle be putte downe,' etc., it was enacted in 1539 that this reverse of the common seal should be destroyed.

'The beautiful reverse of the common seal, after doing duty for over three centuries, was therefore broken up, and presumably its silver used to make a new matrix. This is of the same size as its predecessor, but, in accordance with the resolution, it bears for device simply the city arms, _argent a cross gules and in the dexter quarter the sword of St. Paul_, with helm, mantling and crest, _a dragon's wing expanded argent charged with a cross gules_. The legend is: _Londini. Defende. Tuos. Deus. Optime. Cives._'[267]

In connection with the arms it may be noticed that the supporters which are usually described as griffins are really dragons, in allusion to St. George.