London and the Kingdom Volume I Part 11

(M223)

Out of this sum of 400, nearly one-half (178 3_s._ 4_d._), was allowed the city for the purpose of furnis.h.i.+ng the king with a contingent of 120 arbalesters, fully equipped for the defence of Berwick. Edward had been defeated by the Scots at Bannockburn (24 June, 1314), and Berwick was threatened. On the 21st November, Edward wrote from Northampton, asking for 300 arbalesters if the city could provide so many; but the city could do no more than furnish him with 120.(365) The fall of Berwick was only postponed. In 1318 the great border fortress against Scotland was captured by Bruce. Edward was forced soon afterwards to come to terms with the Earl of Lancaster and the barons with whom he had so long been in avowed antagonism, and a general pacification ensued, which received the sanction of Parliament sitting at York in November.(366) On the 4th December, the king sent home the foot soldiers which the city had furnished, with a letter of thanks for the aid they had afforded him. They were immediately paid off and disbanded.(367)

(M224)

It was not long before the king and Lancaster were preparing to join forces for the recovery of Berwick. In the meantime, the Barons of the Exchequer appeared at the Guildhall (25th February, 1319), and summoned the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen to answer for certain trespa.s.ses. Several holders of office, and among them Edmund le Lorimer, Gaoler of Newgate, for whom Hugh le Despenser had solicited the Small Beam, were deposed: a proceeding which gave rise to much bickering between mayor, aldermen and commons. Disputes, moreover, had arisen in the city touching the election and removal of the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, which required some pressure from the Earl Marshal and other of the king's ministers, sitting in the Chapter-house of St. Paul's, before peace could be restored.(368)

(M225)

According to the writer of the French Chronicle, to which reference has frequently been made,(369) the dissension in the city was mainly attributable to John de Wengrave, the mayor. The citizens had lately been busy drawing up certain "points" for a new charter. Wengrave, who was at the time, or until quite recently, the city's Recorder, had contrived, in 1318, to force himself into the mayoralty having served as mayor the two years preceding-"against the will of the commons." He had shown no little opposition to the "points" of the proposed charter, possibly because one of the points precluded the mayor, for the time being, from drawing or hearing pleas, saving only "those pleas which, as mayor, he ought to hear, according to the custom of the city."(370) If this received the king's approval, Wengrave's occupation as Recorder, at least so long as he was mayor, was gone. However this may be, the mayor's opposition was rendered futile, and the articles were confirmed by the king's letters patent.(371) Their main feature has already been alluded to; thenceforth the direct way to the civic franchise was to be through members.h.i.+p of one of the civic guilds. A foreigner or stranger, not a member of a guild, could only obtain it by appealing to the full body of citizens before admission through the Court of Husting. Conscious of their newly acquired importance, the guilds began to array themselves in liveries, and "a good time was about to begin."(372) Edward did not give his a.s.sent to these articles without receiving a _quid pro quo_. The citizens were mulcted in a sum of 1,000 before the king's seal was set to the letters patent.(373) They did not mind this so much as they did the annoyance caused by the king's justiciars eighteen months later.

(M226)

Early in 1321 commenced a memorable Iter at the Tower which lasted twenty-four weeks and three days. No such Iter had been held before, although the last Iter held in 1275 had been a remarkable one for the courageous conduct of Gregory de Rokesle, the mayor. This was to surpa.s.s every other session of Pleas of the Crown in its powers of inquisition, and was destined to draw off many a would-be loyal citizen from the king's side. Its professed object was to examine into unlawful "colligations, confederations, and conventions by oaths," which were known (or supposed) to have been formed in the city.(374) The following particulars of its proceedings are gathered from an account preserved in the city's records and supervised, if not compiled, by Andrew Horn, the city's Chamberlain, an able lawyer who was employed as Counsel for the city during at least a portion of the Iter.(375) The annoyance caused by this Iter, the general stoppage of trade and commerce, the hindrance of munic.i.p.al business, is realised when we consider that for six months not only the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen for the time being, but everyone who had filled any office in the city since the holding of the last Iter-a period of nearly half a century-as well as twelve representatives from each ward, were called upon to be in constant attendance. All charters were to be produced, and persons who had grievances of any kind were invited to appear. Great commotion prevailed among the citizens upon receiving the king's writ, and they at once addressed themselves to examining the procedure followed at former Iters. It is probable, as Mr. Riley suggests, that for this purpose they had resort to the "Ordinances of the Iter" already mentioned as set out in the city's Liber Albus.(376) When the dreaded day arrived and the justiciars had taken their seat at the Tower, the mayor and aldermen, who, according to custom, as already seen in Rokesley's day, were a.s.sembled at the church of All Hallows Barking, sent a deputation to welcome them, and to make a formal request for a safe conduct to the citizens on entering the Tower. This favour being granted, the king's commission was read.

(M227)

The opening of the Iter did not augur well for the city. Fault was found, at the outset, by Geoffrey le Scrop, the king's sergeant-pleader, because the sheriffs had not attended so promptly as they should have done. The excuse that they had only acted according to custom in waiting for the grant of a safe conduct was held unsatisfactory, and nothing would please him but that the city should be at once taken into the king's hand.(377)

(M228)

Again, when the citizens claimed to record their liberties and customs by word of mouth without being compelled to reduce them into writing, as the justices had ordered, the only reply they got was that they did so at their own peril.(378) Three days were consumed in preliminary discussion of points of etiquette and questions of minor importance.

(M229)

On the fourth day the mayor and citizens put in their claim of liberties, which they supported by various charters.(379) The justiciars desired answers on three points, which were duly made,(380) and matters seemed to be getting forward when there arrived orders from the king that the justiciars should enquire as to the ancient right of the aldermen to record their liberties orally in the king's courts. Having heard what the citizens had to say on this point, the justiciars were instructed to withhold their judgment; and this and other questions touching the liberties of the city were to be postponed for future determination.(381)

(M230)

On the ninth day of the Iter, a long schedule, containing over 100 articles upon which the Crown desired information, was delivered to each ward of the city.(382) Days and weeks were consumed in considering various presentments, besides private suits and pleas of the Crown. Suits were determined in the Great Hall of the Tower facing the Thames, whilst pleas of the Crown were heard in the Lesser Hall, beneath the eastern tower. The justiciars occasionally protracted their sittings till dusk, much to the disgust of the citizens, whose business was necessarily at a stand-still, and as yet no indictments had been made.(383) These were to come.

(M231)

On the thirty-fourth day of the Iter, John de Gisors was indicted for having during his mayoralty (1311-1313), admitted a felon to the freedom of the city, and fraudulently altered the date of his admission. The question of criminality turned upon this date. Had the felony been committed before or after admission? The accused declared in his defence that admission to the freedom had taken place before the felony; a jury, however, came to the opposite conclusion, and not only found that admission had taken place after an indictment for the felony, but that the mayor at the time was aware of the indictment. The judges therefore ordered Gisors into custody. He was soon afterwards released on bail, but not without paying a fine of 100 marks.(384)

(M232)

A similar indictment against his son Anketin, as having partic.i.p.ated in his father's offence, failed. Within a week of Gisors's indictment, the mayor for the time being, Nicholas de Farndon, was deposed, and the city placed in the hands of Sir Robert de Kendale, the king's commissioner.(385)

(M233)

For nine weeks in succession the citizens had suffered from the inconveniences of the Iter, when a brief adjournment over Easter took place. In the meantime, an a.s.say was held at the Guildhall of the new weights and measures which Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, had, in his capacity as the king's treasurer, caused to be issued throughout the country. One result of the trial was that whilst the city's weight of eight marks was discovered to be slightly deficient, the city's bushel was found to be more true than the king's.

(M234)

After Easter the sittings of the justiciars were resumed. A great change, however, had come over them during the recess. They no longer behaved "like lions eager for their prey; on the contrary, they had become very lambs."(386) The reason for this sudden change, we are told, was the insurrection in Wales, under the Earl of Hereford, the king's brother-in-law.

(M235)

The chief questions discussed before the justices were the right of the weavers of London to hold their guild, and the right of the fishmongers of Fish-wharf to sell their fish at their wharf by retail instead of on their vessels or at the city markets. The claim of the fishmongers was opposed by Andrew Horn, himself a fishmonger by trade, as well as an eminent lawyer, who acted on this occasion as leading counsel for the City.

(M236)

When Whitsuntide was approaching, an indictment was brought by the city wards against their old enemy John de Crombwelle, the Constable of the Tower. He had already made himself obnoxious to the citizens by attempting to enclose a portion of the city's lands;(387) and now he was accused of seizing a small vessel laden with tiles, and converting the same to his own use, and further, with taking bribes for allowing unauthorised "kidels" to remain in the Thames. The judges, having heard what he had to say in defence, postponed the further hearing until after Trinity Sunday (14th June). In the meantime, the citizens had the gratification of seeing the constable removed from office, for allowing the Tower to fall into such a dilapidated state, that the rain came in upon the queen's bed, while giving birth to a daughter, afterwards known as Joanna of the Tower,(388) and destined to become the wife of David the Second, King of Scotland.

(M237)

On the judges resuming their sittings after Trinity Sunday, they sat no longer in the Great Hall or the Lesser Hall, "as well by reason of the queen being in childbed there, as already mentioned, as of the fortifying of the Tower, through fear of the Earl of Hereford and his accomplices, who were in insurrection on every side." Temporary buildings had to be found for them. A fortnight later there were signs of the Iter being brought to an abrupt termination, the citizens having represented that they could not possibly keep proper watch and ward owing to disturbances consequent to the holding of the Iter;(389) and within a week, viz., on 4th July, it was actually closed.

(M238)

It was the bursting of the storm which had long been gathering against the king's new favourites, the Despensers, father and son, that caused the sudden termination of the Iter, and it was the fear lest he should lose the support of the city against Lancaster and his allies that caused the king quickly to restore to the citizens their Mayor. Hamo de Chigwell took the place of the deposed Farndon.(390)

(M239)

Within a few hours of the closing of the Iter Chigwell and the aldermen were summoned to Westminster to say whether they would be willing to support the king and to preserve the city of London to his use in his contest with the barons. Edward and his council received for answer that the mayor and his brethren "were unwilling to refuse the safe keeping of the city," but would keep it for the king and his heirs. They were thereupon enjoined to prepare a scheme for its defence for submission to the king's council, and this was accordingly done.(391)

(M240)

The city was, however, wavering in its support; Chigwell did his best to hold the balance between king and baron, and to hold a middle course, avoiding offence as far as was possible to one side and the other. After the lapse of a few days, a letter came from the Earl of Hereford, addressed to the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen and commonalty of the city, asking for an interview. It was then decided, after due deliberation in the Court of Husting, to ask Edward's advice on the matter before returning an answer. At first the king was disinclined to allow the interview, but when the lords approached nearer London, and resistance would have been hopeless, he gave way, and a deputation was appointed to meet the lords at the Earl of Lancaster's house in Holborn. To them the earl explained the aim and object of himself and his confederates. They were desirous of nothing so much as the good of the realm and the overthrow of the Despensers, father and son, who led the king astray and had caused the Iter to be held at the Tower in order to injure the city.

Having listened to the earl's statement, the recorder, on behalf of the deputation, asked for a few days' delay in order to consult with the mayor and commonalty. The matter was laid before an a.s.sembly which comprised representatives from each ward (30th July), and again it was resolved to ask the king's advice. At length a reply was sent to the lords to the effect that the citizens would neither aid the Despensers nor oppose the lords, but the city would in the meantime be strongly guarded for the preservation of order. With this the lords were satisfied.(392)

(M241)

A fortnight later (14th August) the king, moved by the intercession of the Earl of Pembroke, the bishops, and his queen, yielded to the lords, and an agreement between them was reduced to writing and publicly read in Westminster Hall.(393)

(M242)

Chigwell's conduct throughout met with so much favour from the citizens as well as from the king that when the latter issued letters patent(394) granting a free election of a mayor in October of this year, it was decided to continue Chigwell in office without a fresh election.(395)

(M243)

Such popularity as the king had for a time achieved by his concession to the demands of the lords, however unwillingly made, was enhanced by another circ.u.mstance. An insult had been offered to the queen by Lady Badlesmere, who had refused to admit her into her castle at Ledes, co.

Kent, when on her way to Canterbury. The queen was naturally indignant, and the unexpected energy displayed by Edward in avenging the insult gave fresh strength to his cause. With the a.s.sistance of a contingent sent by the citizens of London, the king beseiged the castle, and, having taken it, hanged the governor.(396) Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, the owner of the castle, was afterwards taken and put to death at Canterbury.

(M244)

Elated with his success, the king forthwith proceeded to issue "a charter of service"-_i.e._, a charter binding the citizens to serve him in future wars-which he wished the good people of London to have sealed, "but the people of the city would not accede to it for all that the king could do."(397) In the place of this charter, however, he was induced to grant the citizens one of a diametrically opposite nature, whereby it was provided that the aids granted by the citizens upon this occasion should not be prejudicial to the mayor and citizens, nor be looked upon as establis.h.i.+ng a precedent.(398)

(M245)

Having thus secured an acknowledgment of their rights, the citizens were ready enough to waive them when occasion required. The battle of Boroughbridge (16 March, 1322) was won for the king by the aid of Londoners. We know, at least, that when he started from London at the close of 1321 he was accompanied by five hundred men at arms from the city, and one hundred and twenty more were sent after him on the 3rd March.(399)

(M246)

The Londoners were by no means to be despised in the field. Froissart describes them as being very dangerous when once their blood was up, and slaughter on the battle field only gave them fresh courage.(400) A late writer(401) who was pleased to describe the city's military force as "an army of drapers' apprentices and journeymen tailors, with common councilmen for captains and aldermen for colonels," gave it credit, nevertheless, for natural courage, which, combined with befitting equipment and martial discipline, rendered the force a valuable ally and a formidable enemy.

(M247)