Classic Audiobook Collection - The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley ~ Full Audiobook [history]

Episode Date: July 5, 2024

The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley audiobook. Genre: history In The Story of London, Victorian scholar Henry B. Wheatley invites listeners on a vivid, street-level journey through the making of one of the world's most influential cities. Moving from Londons earliest beginnings on the Thames to the rise of a sprawling metropolis, Wheatley traces how rulers, merchants, craftsmen, and everyday residents shaped the citys character through centuries of change. Along the way, famous landmarks and vanished neighborhoods come to life as he explains how fires, plagues, political turmoil, and booming trade repeatedly remade the urban landscape. Wheatley also explores the institutions that gave London its distinctive power - from the Citys guilds and governance to the courts, churches, bridges, and markets that organized daily life. Rich in anecdote and observation, the book balances grand events with the practical details of streets, wards, and customs, showing how Londons physical form and civic spirit evolved together. Part historical panorama, part guided walk, this classic account reveals why London became a capital of commerce, culture, and empire, and why its layered past still echoes in the modern city. For ad-free listening try our premium subscription Chapters (Approximate) (00:00:00) Chapter 01 (00:06:44) Chapter 02 (00:46:39) Chapter 03 (01:24:44) Chapter 04 (02:01:09) Chapter 05 (02:34:53) Chapter 06 (03:12:25) Chapter 07 (03:48:17) Chapter 08 (04:30:50) Chapter 09 (05:01:16) Chapter 10 (05:33:27) Chapter 11 (06:13:03) Chapter 12 (06:44:18) Chapter 13 (07:18:42) Chapter 14 (07:31:46) Chapter 15 (08:00:33) Chapter 16 (08:30:11) Chapter 17 (09:03:16) Chapter 18 (09:22:03) Chapter 19 (09:54:16) Chapter 20 (10:32:13) Chapter 21 (11:07:01) Chapter 22 (11:40:05) Chapter 23 (12:12:38) Chapter 24 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Dedication and preface. Dedication To the memory of a lifelong friend, Danby Palmer Fry. Late legal advisor to the local government board. I dedicate this book as a slight expression of the debt of gratitude I owe to him and of the great loss I, in common with all his friends, have suffered by his death. I especially wish to associate his honoured name with this book

because he took the greatest interest in its evolution and I have had the benefit of his acumen and wide knowledge in the consideration of most of the subjects discussed in its pages. Henry B. Wheatley Preface History What is history but the science which teaches us to see the throbbing life of the present in the throbbing life of the past?

Jessop's Coming of the Friars, page 178. There can be no doubt that our interest in the dim past is increased the more we are able to read into the dry documents before us, the human character of the actors. As long as these actors are only names to us, we seem to be walking in a world of shadows. But when we can realize them as beings like ourselves with the same feelings and aspirations, although governed by other countries, conditions of life. All is changed, and we take the keenest interest in attempting to understand circumstances so different from those under which we live. The history of London is so varied, and the materials so vast, that it is impossible to compress into a single volume and account of its many aspects. This book, therefore, is not intended as a history, but as, to some extent,

a guide to the manners of the people and to the appearance of the city during the medieval period. An attempt is here made to put together some of the ample materials for the domestic history of the city which have been preserved for us. The city of London possesses

an unrivaled collection of contemporary documents respecting its past history, some of which have been made available to us by the late Mr. H. T. Riley and others are being edited with valuable notes by Dr. Reginald Sharp. The Middle Ages may be considered as a somewhat indefinite period, and their chronology cannot be very exactly defined, but for the purposes of this book, the portion of the medieval period dealt with is that which commences with the Norman conquest,

and ends with the Battle of Bosworth. It is impossible to exaggerate the enormous influence of the Norman conquest. The Saxon period was as thoroughly medieval as the Norman period, But our full knowledge of history begins with the conquest because so few historical documents exist before that event. Moreover, the mode of life in Saxon and Norman London was so different that it would only lead to confusion to unite the two in one picture. In order, however, to show the position of the whole medieval period in the full history, an introductory chapter is given which contains a short notice of some of the events during the Saxon rule. And a chapter at the end is intended to show what remains of the medieval times were left when Shakespeare lived and Johnson expressed his opinion of the preeminent position of London.

It is necessary for the reader to bear in mind that London means the city and its liberties up to the end of the 18th century. The enlarged idea of a London in the north and the south, the east and the west, is a creation of the 19th century. The city of London is still the centre and heart of London, and the only portion of the town which has an ancient municipal history. Other cities have shifted their centres, but London remains as it always was.

The bank, the Royal Exchange, and the mansion house occupy ground which has been the Eye of London since Roman times. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that things were quiescent during the Middle Ages. for these pages at least will show that that was a time of constant change when great questions were fought out. The first seven chapters of this book refer to life in the old town. Here we see what it was to live in a walled town, what the manners of the citizens were,

and what was done to protect their health and morals. The following five chapters deal with the government of the city. Some notice is taken of the governors and the officials of the citizens of the city. the corporation, the tradesman and the churchman. The subject of each chapter is of enough importance to form a book by itself, and it is therefore hoped that the reader will not look for an exhaustive treatment of these subjects. There is more to be said in each place, but I have been forced to choose out of the materials

that which seemed most suitable for my purpose. During the editing of this volume, a vivid picture of the medieval life has ever been before my mind, and I can only regret that it has been so difficult to transfer that picture to paper. I can only hope that my readers may not see the difference between the conception and the performance so vividly as I do myself. In the preparation of these pages, I have received the kind assistance of more friends than I can mention here. But I wish especially to thank Mr. Hubert Hall Mr. W. H. Shingon Hope

Mr. J. E. Matthew General Millman, C.B. Mr. Darcy Power. Sir Walter Priddo. Sir Owen Roberts. Mr. J. Horace Round. Dr. Reginald Sharp and Sir William Soulsby, C.B.

End of dedication and preface. End of Section 1. Section 2 of the Story of London. This is a Libravot's recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley.

Chapter 1 Introduction Early History of London to the Norman Conquest. The question as to the great antiquity of London has formed a field for varied and long-continued disputes. An elaborate picture of a British London, founded by Brut, a descendant of Aeneas, as a new Troy, with grand and noble buildings,

was painted by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The absurdity of this conception, although it found credence for centuries, was at last seen, and some antiquaries then went to the opposite, opposite extreme of denying the very existence of a British London. The solid foundation of facts proving the condition of the earliest London are the waste, marshy ground, with little hills rising from the plains and the dense forest

on the north, a forest that remained almost up to the walls of the city even in historic times, animal remains, flint instruments, and pile dwellings. All the rest is conjecture. We must call in the aid of geography and geology to understand the laws which governed the formation of London. The position of the town on the River Thames proves the wisdom of those who chose the site, although the swampiness of the land, caused by the daily overflowing of the river before the embankments were thrown up, must have endangered its successful colonization. When the vast embankment was completed, the river receded to its proper bed, and the land which was retrieved

was still watered by several streams flowing from the higher ground in the north into the Thames. Animal remains, very various in character, have been found in different parts of London. Examples of mammoth, elephant, rhinoceros,

elk, deer, and many other extinct as well as existing species are represented. Of man, the mass of flint instruments in the Paleolithic floor, which proves his early existence, is enormous. General Pitt Rivers, then Colonel Lane Fox, in 1867 made the discovery of the remains of pile dwellings near London Wall and in Southwark Street. The piles averaged six to eight inches

square, others of a smaller size were four inches by three inches, and one or two were as much as a foot square. They were found in the peat just above the virgin gravel, and with them were found the refuse of kitchen middens and broken pottery of the Roman period. There is reason to believe that the piles were sunk by the Britons rather than by the Romans, and General Pitt Rivers was of opinion that they are the remains of the British capital of Cassivalonus, situated in the marches, and, of necessity, built on piles. Dr. Monroe, however, who alludes to this discovery in his book on lake dwellings, believes that these piles belong to the post-Roman times,

and supposes that in the early Saxon period these pile dwellings were used in the low-lying districts of London. The strongest point of those who disbelieve in a British London is that Julius Caesar does not mention it, but this negative evidence is far from conclusive. We learn from Tacitus that in AD 61, the Roman city was a place of some importance, the chief residence of merchants and the great mart of trade. Therefore we cannot doubt but that to have grown to this condition it must have existed before the Christian era.

The Romans appear to have built a fort where the Tower of London now stands, but not originally to have fortified the town. London grew to be a flourishing centre of commerce, though not a place capable of sustaining a siege, so the Roman general, Paulinus Soutonius, would not run the risk of defending it against Boudassia. Afterwards, the walls were erected, and Lundinium took its proper position in the Roman Empire. It was on the high road from Rome to York, and the starting point of half the roads in Britain. Bishop Stubbs wrote, Britain had been occupied by the Romans,

but had not become Roman. Probably few Romans settled here. The inhabitants consisted of the governor and the military forces and Romanized Britons. When the Roman legions left this country, Lundinium must have had a very mixed population of traders. There were no leaders, and a whale went up from the defenseless inhabitants.

In the year 446, we hear of the groans of the Britons to Aetius for the third-time consul, which took this form of complaint. The savages drive us to the sea, and the sea casts us back upon the savages. So arise two kinds of death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered. In this place, however, we have not to consider the condition either of British, or Roman London, for the Middle Ages may be said to commence with the breakup of the Roman Empire. Saxon London was a wooden city, surrounded by walls, marking out the same enclosure that existed in the latest Roman city. We have the authority of the Saxon Chronicle for saying that,

in the year 418, the Romans collected all the treasures that were in Britain and hid some of them in the earth. From the date of the departure of the Roman legions to that of the Norman conquest, nearly six centuries and a half had elapsed. Of this long period, we find only a few remains, such as some articles discovered in the river, and some entries in that incomparable monument of the past, the Saxon Chronicle. All we really know of Saxondom, we learn from the Chronicle,

Beads' ecclesiastical history and the old charters. The history of England for the greater portion of this time was local and insular, for the country was no longer a part of a great empire. Professor Earl tells us that the name London occurs 50 times in the Chronicle, and London-Burr 13 times, but we do not know whether any distinction between the two names was intended to be indicated. The chronicler tells us of the retreat of the Roman legions, and how Hengist and Horsa, invited by Vortigern, king of the Britons, landed in Britain.

Then comes the ominous account of the Saxons, who turned against the friends that called upon them for succour and totally defeated the British at Crayford in Kent. Quote 4.57 This year Hengist and Aisk, his son, fought against the Britons at the place which is called Kreggenfalled, and there slew four thousand men, and the Britons then forsook Kent, and in great terror, fled to Londonburg.

End quote. Then, for a century and a half, there is no further mention of London in the Chronicle. We are not told what became of the fugitives, nor what became of the city. As Lappenberg says, no territory ever passed so obscurely into the hand of an enemy as the North Bank of the Thames. It is as difficult to suppose what some have supposed, that the city was deserted and remained desolate for years, as to imagine that trade and commerce continued in the city while all around was strife.

There may have been some arrangement by which the successful Saxon who did not care to live in the city agreed that those who wished to do so should live there. But all this is conjecture in the face of this serious blank in our history. If there had been a battle and destruction of the city, we should doubtless have had some account of it in the Chronicle. Gradually, the Saxons settled on the hithes or landing places on the riverside, and at last overcame their natural repugnance to town life and settled in the city. When London is again mentioned in the Chronicle, it appears to have been inhabited by a population of heathens still to be converted. Under the date 604 we are told

Quote This year Augustine consecrated two bishops, Meletus and Justice. He sent Meletus to preach baptism to the East Saxons whose king was called Seaburt, son of Rickhol, the sister of Ethelbert, and whom Ethelbert had then appointed king. And Ethelbert gave Meletus a bishop's sea at Londonwick,

and to justice he gave Rochester, which is 24 miles from Canterbury. End quote. The Christianity of the Londoners was of an unsatisfactory character, for after the death of Seaburt, his sons, who were heathens, stirred up the multitude to drive out their bishop. Meletus became Archbishop of Canterbury, and London again relapsed into heathenism. In this, the earliest period of Saxon London recorded

for us, there appears to be no relic left of the Christianity of the Britons, which at one time was well in evidence. Godwin recorded a list of 16 ecclesiastics, styled by him, Archbishops of London, and Lenev adopted the list in his Fasti-Eccleseisais Anglicanai on the authority of Godwin. The list begins with Theanus, during the reign of Lucius, king of the Britons in the latter half of the second century. The second is Eloanus, who was said to have been sent on an embassy to Ilyutherius, Pope from AD 171 to 185. The 12th on the list is Restitutus, whose name is found on the list of prelates present at the Council of Arles in the year 314. Perhaps the answer to the question as to the extinction of British Christianity in London is to be found in Geoffrey of Monmouth's statement

that when the Saxons drove the British fugitives into Wales and Cornwall, Theon, the 16th and last on the list of British bishops, fled into Wales with the Archbishop of Carylon, the Bishop Thaddiak of York, and their surviving clergy. The traditional date of this flight is AD 586, not many years before the appearance of Miletus. Geoffrey of Monmouth is not a very trustworthy authority, but there is no reason to doubt his belief in his own story,

and it is interesting to note that he specially mentions Theonus. At all events, we know from other sources that there were bishops of London during the Roman period. The bold statement that King Lucius founded the Church of St. Peter, Cornhill, can scarcely be said to find any credence among historians of the present day, but a reference of the doings of this ancient king will be found embedded in the statute book of St. Paul's Cathedral. Quote,

In the year from the incarnation of the Lord 185, at the request of Lucius, the king of Greater Britain, which is now called England, there were sent from Eleutherius, the Pope to the aforesaid king, two illustrious doctors, Fagnus and Dumannus,

who should incline the heart of the king and of his subject people to the unity of the Christian faith, and should consecrate to the honour of the one true and supreme God the temples which had been dedicated to various and false deities. End quote. To return from the wild statements of tradition to the facts of sober history, we find that London, after the driving out of Meletus,

remained without a bishop until the year 6.56, when Seda, brother of St. Chad of Litchfield, was invited to London by Sigabert, who had been converted to Christianity by Fennon, Bishop of the Northumbrians. Seder was consecrated bishop of the East Saxons by Fienin about 6.56, and held the sea till his death on the 26th of October 664. The list of bishops from Seda to William, who is addressed in the Conqueror's Charter, is a long one, and each of these bishops apparently held a position of great importance in the government of the city.

In the 7th century, the city seems to have settled down into a prosperous place and to have been peopled by merchants of many nationalities. We learned that at this time it was the great mart of slaves. It was, in the fullest sense, a free trading town, neutral to a certain extent between the kingdoms around, although the most powerful of the king successively obtained some authority over it when they conquered their feebler neighbours. As to this, there is still more to be said.

During the 8th century, when a more settled condition of life became possible, the trade and commerce of London increased in volume and prosperity. A change, however, came about towards the end of the century when the Scandinavian freebooters, known to us as Danes, began to harry our coasts. The Saxons had become law-abiding, and the fierce Danes treated them in the same way. way that in former days they had treated the Britons. Freeman divided the Danish invasions into three periods.

1.787 to 855. A period when the object was simply plunder. 2.902 to 954. Attempts made at settlement. 3. 980 to 1016. During this period, the history of England was one record of struggle with the power of Denmark till Canute became undisputed king of England. We still have much to learn as to the movements of the Danes in this country,

and when the old charters are more thoroughly investigated, we shall gain a great accession of light. Thus we learn from an Anglo-Saxon charter, printed in de Grey Birch's Cartularium Saxonicum, that in the year 872, a great tribute was paid to the Danes which is not mentioned in the Chronicle. London was specially at the mercy of the fierce sailors of the North, and the times when the city was in their hands are almost too numerous for record here. Even when Alfred concluded with Guthran in 878, the Treaty of Wedmore, as it is still commonly called,

and by which the country was divided between the English and the Danes, London suffered much. With the reign of Alfred, we come to the consideration of a very difficult question in the history of London. It has been claimed for this king that he rebuilt London. Mr. Lofty expresses this view in the very strongest terms. He writes, quote, So important, however, is this settlement, so completely must it be regarded as the ultimate fact in any continuous narrative relating to the history of London,

that it would be hardly wrong to commence with some such sense, sentence as this. London was founded exactly a thousand years ago by King Alfred, who chose for the site of his city a place formerly fortified by the Romans, but desolated successively by the Saxons and the Danes. End quote. There is certainly no evidence for so sweeping a statement. Nothing in the Chronicle can be construed to contain so wide a meaning. The passage upon which this mighty superstructure has been formed is,

is merely this. Quote, 886. In the same year, King Alfred restored, Geseta, London, and all the Angle race returned to him that were not in the bondage of the Danish men, and he then committed the burr to the keeping of the Alderman Ethered.

End quote. The great difficulty in this passage is the word Geseta, which probably means occupied, but may mean much more, as founded or settled. Some authorities have therefore changed the word to beset, besieged. Professor Earl proposed the following solution of the problem, which seems highly probable. London was a flourishing, populous and opulent city,

the chief emporium of commerce in the island, and the residents of foreign merchants. Properly it had become an Angle city, the chief city of the Anglian-Nem. nation of Mercia, but the Danes had settled there in great numbers, and they had many captives whom they had taken in the late wars. Thus, the Danes preponderated over the free angles, and the latter were glad to see Alfred come and restore the balance in their favor. It was of the greatest importance for Alfred to secure this city, not only the capital of Mercia, but able to do what Mercia had not done, to bar the passage of pirate ships to the Upper Thames. Accordingly, Alfred, in 886, planted the garrison of London, i.e., introduced a military

colony of men, and gave them land for their maintenance, in return for which they lived in and about a fortified position under a commanding officer. Professor Earl would not have London Burr taken as merely an equivalent to London. Alfred, therefore, founded not London itself, but the Burr of London. Under Athelstan, we find the city increasing in importance and general prosperity. There were then eight mints at work, which shows great activity and the need of coin for the purposes of trade. The folk moot met in the precincts of St. Paul's at the sound of the bell, which also rang out when the armed levy was required to march under St. Paul's banner. For some years after the decisive battle of Brunnenburg, 937, the Danes ceased to.

trouble the country, but one may affirm that fire was almost as great an enemy as the Dane. Fabian, when recording the entire destruction of London by fire in the reign of Ethelred, 981, makes this remarkable statement. Quote, ye shall understand that this day the city of London had most housing and building from Ludgate toward Westminster, and little or none where the chief or heart of the city is now, except that in diverse places were housing, but they stood without order. End quote. The good government of Athelstan and his successors

kept the country free from foreign freebooters, but when Ethel read the second, called the unready, or rather the readless, came to the throne, the Danes saw their opportunity. In 991 he tried to bribe his enemies to stay away, and was the first English king to institute. the Dengelt, which was for so many years a severe tax upon the resources of the country. The bribe was useless, and the enemy had to be bought off again. A Danish fleet threatened London

in 992, and in 994, Olaf, or Anlaf, Trigwison, who appears first as Harrier of English soil in 98, with Swain, the Danish king, laid siege to London, but they failed to take it. They then harried, burned and slew all along the sea coasts of Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. The English paid £10,000 to the Danes in 991, and in 1994 they had to produce the still larger sum of £16,000 in order to purchase peace. Olaf then promised never again to visit England, except in peace. Subsequently, Ethelred brought disaster upon himself. in his country by his treachery.

In 1002, he issued secret orders for a massacre of all the Danes found in England, and in this massacre, Gunnhild, sister of Swain, was among the victims. In consequence of Ethelred's conduct, the Danes returned in force to these shores and had to be bought off with a sum of £36,000. They came again and made many unsuccessful assaults upon London, upon which the chronicler remarks, quote, they often fought against the town of London,

but to God be praised that it yet stands sound, and they have ever fared ill. End quote. In 1010, Ethelred took shelter in London, and in 1013 Swain again attacked the city without success, but having conquered a great part of England, the Londoners submitted to him, and Ethelred fled to Normandy.

After Swain's death in 1014, Ethelred was invited to return to England, as the country was not willing to receive Swain's son Cunute as its king. When Ethelred returned to England, he was accompanied by another Olaf, Anlaf Haraldson, who succeeded by a clever manoeuvre in destroying the wooden London bridge and taking the city out of the hands of the Danes. The story is told in Snorrosdilson's Heim Scribler, the story of Olaf the Holy, the son of Harold. Quote

Olaf covered the decks of his ship with a roof of wood and wicker work to protect them from the stones and shot which were ready to be cast at them by the Danes. King Olaf and the host of the Northman rode right up under the bridge and lashed cables round the poles that upheld the bridge and then they fell to their oars and rode all the ships downstream as hard as they might. The poles dragged along the ground, even until they were loosened under the bridge. But inasmuch as an host under weapons stood thickly arrayed on the bridge, there were on it both many stones and many war weapons. And the poles, having broken from it, the bridge broke down by reason thereof, and many of the folk fell into the river.

But all the rest thereof fled from the bridge, some into the city, some into Southwark. and after this they made an onset on Southwark and won it. And when the townsfolk saw that the River Thames was won, so that they might not hinder the ships from faring up into the land, they were afeard, and gave up the town and took King Ethelred in. End quote. The later life of Olaf was one of adventure. He was driven by Canute from his kingdom of Norway,

and took shelter in Sweden. Here he obtained help and in the end regained his throne. At the Battle of Sticklestead he was defeated and slain, 10.30. His body was hastily buried, but was afterwards taken up, and, being found incorrupt, was buried in great state in a shrine at Drontheim. He was canonized and several English churches are dedicated to him. There are four parishes bearing the name of St. Olaf in London, One of the churches is in Tully Street, which also preserves the name of St. Olav in a curiously corrupted form.

After this, Ethelred succeeded in driving Canute out of England back to Denmark. Of this success, Freeman enthusiastically wrote, Quote, That true-hearted city was once more the bulwark of England, the centre of every patriotic hope, the special object of every hostile attack. End quote. There was, however, little breathing space, for Cunute returned to England in 1015, and Ethelred's brilliant son, Edmund Ironside, prepared to meet him. Edmund's army refused to fight unless Ethelred came with them,

and unless they had the support of the citizens of London. Before, however, Cunute arrived, Ethelred died. England was in the hand of the Dane, and London only renal. remained free. Edmund was elected king by the Wittan, united with the inhabitants of the city, and thus the Londoners first asserted the position which they held to for many centuries, of their right to a voice in the election of the king. Canyute was determined now to succeed, and he at once sailed up the Thames. He was, however, unable to pass the bridge, which had been rebuilt.

He therefore dug a trench on the south side of the river, by which means he was enabled to draw some of his ships above the bridge. He also cut another trench entirely round the wall of the city. In spite of this clever scheme, the determined resistance of our stubborn forefathers caused it to fail. Edmund Ironside was successful in his battles with Cnut, till his brother-in-law, Edric, alderman of Mercia, turned traitor, and helped him to be able to be able to be able to be in the battle. the Danish king to vanquish the English army at Asundon, now Ascenton in Kent. Edmund was now forced to agree to Cunuch's terms, and it was therefore settled that Edmund should retain his crown and take all England south of the Thames, together with

East Anglia, Essex and London, Cunute taking the rest of the kingdom. On the 30th November 1016, Edmund died, and Cunute became king of the whole of England. His reign was prosperous, and he succeeded in gaining the esteem of his subjects, who appreciated the long-continued peace which he brought them. Dr. Stubbs describes him as one of the conscious creators of England's greatness. He died in November 1035 at the early age of 40. We may now pass over some troubled times, caused by the worthless successes of Cunute, and come to the period when the West Saxon line was restored in the person of Edward

the confessor, who, being educated at the Norman court, became more a Norman than an Englishman and prepared the way for the conqueror's success. The confessor was but an indifferent king, although he holds a more distinguished place in history than many a more heroic figure, as the practical founder of Westminster Abbey, where his shrine is still one of its most sacred treasures. When Edward died, the Wittan which had attended his funeral elected to succeed him, Harold, the foremost man in England, and the leader who had attempted to check the spread of the far too wide Norman influence. After conquering his outlawed brother Tostig and Harold Hadrada, King of Norway, at Stamford Bridge, he had to hurry back

to meet William Duke of Normandy, which he did on a hill on the Sussex Downs, afterwards called Senlac. He closed his life on the field of battle, after a reign of 40 weeks and one day. Then, the conqueror had the country at his mercy, but he recognized the importance of London's position and moved forward with the greatest caution and tact. The citizens of London were possibly a divided body, and William, knowing that he had many friends in the city,

felt that a waiting game was the best for his cause in the end. His enemies, led by Ansgar, the Staler, under whom as sheriff the citizens of London had marched to fight for Harold at Senlac, managed to get their way at first. They elected Edgar Atheling, the grandson of Edmund Ironside, as king, but this action was of little avail. When William arrived at Southwark, the citizens sallied forth to meet him, but they were beaten back, and had to save themselves within the city walls.

William retired to Berkhamstead, and is said to have sent a prize. message to Ansgar asking for his support. In the end, the citizens, probably led by William the Bishop, who was a Norman, came over to the conqueror's side, and the best men repaired to Berkhamsted. Here they accepted the sovereignty of William who received their oath of fealty. Thus ends the Saxon period of our history, and the Norman period in London commences with the conqueror's charter to William the Bishop and Gosrith the Port Reve. supposed to be the elder Geoffrey de Mandeville. In the foregoing pages, the main incidents of the history of Saxon London are recited.

These are, I fear, rather disconnected and uninteresting, but it is necessary to set down the facts in chronological order, because from them we can draw certain conclusions as to the condition of London before the Norman conquest. Unfortunately, our authorities for the Saxon period do not tell us much that we want to know, and, in consequence, many of the suggestions made by one authority are disputed by another. Still, we can draw certain very definite conclusions which cannot well be the subjects of contention. The first fact is the constant onward march of London towards the

fulfilment of its great destiny. Trouble surrounded it on all sides, but, in spite of them all, the citizens gained strength in adversity, so that at the conquest, the city was in possession of those special privileges which were cherished for centuries, never given up, but increased when opportunity occurred. Patient waiting was therefore rewarded by success,

and London, by the endeavours of her men, grew in importance and stood before all other cities in her unique position. The governor who possessed the confidence of Londoners, although all the rest of the country was against him, need not to despair, while he who had the support of the rest of the country, but was opposed by London, could not be considered as triumphant. The so-called Heptarchy was constantly changing the relative positions of its several parts, until Egbert, the King of Wessex, became Rex Totius Britanné, AD 827. The seven kingdoms were, at some hypothetical.

period. Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, south of the Thames. East Anglia, Mercia, north of the Thames, Northumbria, including Deira and Bonissia, north of the Humber, and as far north as the fourth. The walled city of London, distinct political unit, although it owed a certain allegiance to one of the kingdoms, which was the most powerful for the time being. This allegiance therefore frequently changed, and London retained its identity and individuality all through. Essex seems seldom to have held an independent position, for when London first appears as connected with the East Saxons, the real power was in the hands of the King of Kent.

According to Beade, Winnie, being expelled from his bishopric of Wessex in 635, took refuge with Wolf here, King of the Mercians, of whom he purchased the Sea of London. Hence, the Mercian king must then have been the overlord of London. Not many years afterwards, the King of Kent again seems to have held some jurisdiction here. From the laws of the Kentish kings, Lothier and Eerdrick, 673 to 685, we learned that the Wick Rive was an officer of the King of Kent, who exercised a jurisdiction over the Kentish men trade. with or at London, or who was appointed to watch over their interests. There is a very interesting question connected with the position of the two counties in which London is

situated. It is necessary to remember that London is older than these counties, whose names, Viz, Middlesex and Surrey, indicate their relative position to the city and the surrounding country. We have neither record of their settlement nor of the origin of their names. Both must have been peopled from the river. The name Middle Saxons clearly proves that middle sex must have been settled after the East and West Saxons had given their names to their respective districts. There has been much discussion as to the etymology of Surrey,

more particularly of the second syllable. A once favourite explanation was that Surrey stood for South Kingdom, Anglo-Saxon Riki, but there is no evidence that Surrey ever was a kingdom, and this etymology must surely be put aside. In Elton's Origins of English History, there is the following note. Quote, Three underkings concur in a grant by the King of Surrey, end quote.

This is a serious misstatement, for the document cited says, Ego Frithwaldis, Pruinchié, Surinorum, subregulus regis Wulfari, Murcianorum, Dono concedo, etc. Frithwald is here described as subregulus, under-king, subject to the king of the Mercians, and in the attestation clause it is added, E. Isti sunt subregulai qui omnes subsigno suo-subscriptsorant. Their names are Frithwold, Osric, Whigherd, and Ethelwold.

Each is described as testis merely. This does not seem to imply concurrence, but, even if it does, the title subregulus does not mean an independent sovereign. In the description of the boundaries of the granted land, which is in Anglo-Saxon, the Grantaur is certainly described as Frithwald King, but this cannot mean king in the full sense, and the Anglo-Saxon clause in the Charter could not have been intended to contradict the Latin, which designates Frithwald as subregulus throughout.

Dr. Stubbs, after describing the gradual disappearance of the smaller sovereignties, and pointing out that, The Heptarchic King was as much stronger than the tribal king as the King of United England was stronger than the Heptarchic King, wrote, quote, in Wessex, besides the Kings of Sussex, which has a claim to be numbered among the seven great states, were kings of Surrey also, end quote. The note to this, however, only refers to Frithwald, subregulus or alderman of Surrey, and no mention is made of any ruler who was capable of making Surrey into a kingdom. The form of the name used by bead, in Regione Sudagiona,

may suggest a derivation quite different from any yet suggested. Surrey was originally an integral part Kent, and when it was severed from that county, it became, apparently, an independent district, a sort of republic under its own alderman. In later times it became subject to the neighbouring kingdoms. At the date of this charter, it was under Mercia. It was never reckoned as a separate member of the Heptarchy. London fought an uphill fight with Winchester for the position of chief city of southern England. under Egbert, London grew in importance, but Winchester, the chief town of Wessex, was still the more important place politically.

In the trade regulations enacted by Edgar in the 10th century, London took precedence of Winchester. Quote, let one measure and one weight pass such as is observed at London and at Winchester, end quote. In the reign of Edward the Confessor, London had become the recognised capital, of England. Some dispute has arisen respecting the position of the Lithsman, who appear at the election in Oxford of Cunute's successor, and subsequently. Freeman describes them as seafaring men of London, while Gross writes, quote, The Lithsman, shipowners, of London, who, with others, raised Harold to the throne,

were doubtless such Bergthains. End quote. Another important point to be noted is the prominent political position of the bishop. As early as AD 900, the bishop and the Reeves who belong to London are recorded as making in the name of the citizens laws which were confirmed by the king, because they had reference to the whole kingdom. Edward the confessor greeted William Bishop, Harold Earl, and Esgar Storla. So that William the Conqueror followed precedent when he addressed his charter to bishop

and Port Reve. Foreigners in early times occupied an important position in London, but there was serious complaint when Edward the Confessor enlarged the numbers of the Normans. The Englishman always had a hatred of the foreigner, and this dislike grew as time went on,

and the English tried to obtain the first place and succeeded in the attempt. Other points, such as government by folk moots and guilds, which will be discussed in the following chapters, find their origin in the Saxon period. The government of London under the Saxons was of a simple character, approximating to that of the Shire, and so it continued until some years after the conquest.

When the commune was extorted from the crown, a fuller system of government was inaugurated, which will be discussed in a later chapter. End of Chapter 1. End of Section 2. Section 3 of the Story of London. This is a Libravoc's recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org.

Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 2 The Walled Town and Its Streets Part 1 In the medieval city, the proper protection of the municipality and the citizens largely depended on the condition of the walls and gates. The government of town life was specially congenial to the Norman, and the laws he made for the purpose

were stringent, while the Saxon, who never appreciated town life, preferred the county organization. Thus it will be found that, as the laws of the latter were too lax, those of the former were too rigorous. Riley, referring to the superfluity of Norman laws, describes them as, quote, laws which, while unfortunately they created or protected few real valuable rights,

gave birth to many and grievous wrongs. End quote. He proceeds to amplify this opinion and gives good reason for the condemnation he felt bound to pronounce. Quote, That the favoured and so-called free citizen of London, even, despite the extensive privileges in reference to trade

which he enjoyed, was in possession of more than the faintest shadow of liberty, can be hardly allowed if we only call to mind the substance of the enactments and ordinances, arbitrary, illiberal, and oppressive. Laws, for example, which compelled each citizen, whether he would or no, to be bail and surety for a neighbour's good behaviour, over whom it was perhaps impossible for him to exercise the slightest control. Laws which forbade him to make his market for the day, until the purveyors for the king and the great lords of the land, had stripped the stalls of all that was choicest and best. Laws which forbade him to pass the city walls for the purpose of meeting his own purchased goods.

laws which bound him to deal with certain persons and communities only, or within the precincts only, of certain localities. Laws which dictated, under severe penalties, what sums and no more he was to pay to his servants and artisans. Laws which drove his dog out of the streets, while they permitted genteel dogs to roam at large. Nay, even more than this, laws which subjected him to domicil, visits from the city officials on various pleas and pretexts, which compelled him to carry on a trade under heavy penalties, irrespective of the question whether or not it was at his loss, and which occasionally went so far as to lay down rules at what hours he was to walk in the streets, and incidentally what he was to eat and what to drink. End quote.

We see from this quotation that the position of the inhabitant of a walled town was not a happy one. Still, he was more favoured than his neighbour who lived in the country. A few examples will show us what the city life was, and these specific instances are necessary, for so many centuries have passed since Englishmen lived in a walled town, that without them it is barely possible for us to conceive what this life of suspicion and fear of danger was really like. The one thing which we do see distinctly is the gradual emancipation, of the Englishman from the wearing thraldom of his position. He went on gradually in this course, always bearing towards the light,

and he gained freedom long before the citizens of other countries. In the 15th century, we find that galling laws here in England were allowed to fall into desuetude in favour of freedom, while the same ruled were retained in foreign countries. Some of our countrymen objected to this, and English merchants were irritated to find that, while the regulation in joining every alien merchant during his residence in London, to abide in the House of a Citizen assigned to him as a host by the magistrates, had fallen into abeyance, the restriction was rigidly enforced abroad.

The writer of the remarkable libel of English policy, 1437, alludes to this feeling. Quote, What reason is that we should go to host in these countries, and in this English coast they should not so, but have more liberty than we ourselves? End quote. The citizens had to put up with constant surveillance. The gates were closed early in the evening,

and at curfew, all lights, as well as fires, had to be put out. Nightwalkers, male and female, and roisterers generally had a bad time of it, but probably they were very ill-behaved, and in many cases they doubtless deserved the punishment they received. In the year 1100, Henry I relaxed these stringent regulations and restored to his subjects the use of lights at night. The streets were first lighted by lanterns in 1415.

London within the walls was a considerable city in the Middle Ages, although it only contained the same area that was walled in during the later Roman period. The relics of this wall, continually renewed with the old materials, are so few, and the old area is so completely lost sight of in the larger London, that it is necessary to point out the line of the walls before dealing further with the habits of the Londoners. It was long supposed that the Ludgate was the chief entrance to the city from the west, but, in spite of its name, there can be little doubt that for some centuries the great

Western approach was made through Newgate. We will therefore commence our walk round the walls with that gate. Although there can be no doubt that here was a gate in the Roman period, we have little or no record of its early history. One of its earlier names was Chamberlain's Gate. The new gate was erected in the reign of Henry I, and in a pipe roll of 1188, it is mentioned as a prison. In 1414, the prison was in such a loathsome condition that the keeper and 64 of the prisoners died of the prison plague. In consequence of this, it was decided to rebuild the gate. Richard Whittington was the moving spirit in this rebuilding, and it is supposed that he paid the expenses. In the course of excavations made in 1874 to 1875 for the improvement of the western end of Newgate Street,

the massive foundations of Whittington's Gate were discovered several feet below the present roadway. The wall passed north through the precincts of Christ's Church, Christ's Hospital, formerly occupied by the Greyfriars or Franciscans. The town ditch, which was outside the walls, and arched over, about the year 1553, ran through the hospital grounds. The wall then turned round to the north of Newgate Street and passed into St. Martin's Le Grand, where, in 1889, the foundations of several houses on the west side were exposed, while the excavations for the latest addition to the General Post Office

were being proceeded with. The great bell of the Collegiate Church of St. Martins told the curfew hour when all the gates of the city were to be shut. The great gates were shut at the first stroke of the bell at St. Martin's, and the wickets opened. At the last stroke, the wickets were to be closed, and not to be opened afterward that night unless by special precept of the mayor. The ringing of the curfew of St. Martins was to be the signal for the ringing, quote, at every parish church, so that they begin together and end together, end quote. In an ordinance, Edward III,

1363, the bell at the Church of Our Lady at Bow was substituted for that at St. Martin's. Outside the walls were Smithfield, where the tournaments were held, and Gilt Spurst Street, where knights bought their spears and armour might be repaired when tournaments were going on. Within the gate were the Greyfriars, Stinking Lane, now King Edward Street, and the butcher's shambles in Newgate Street. St. Paul's had its enclosed churchyard so that the main thoroughfare for centuries passed round it from Newgate Street to Cheapside. The name of Cheap, tells of the general market held there,

and the names of several of the streets out of Cheapside tell of the particular merchandise appropriated to them, as Friday Street, Friday's Market for Fish, Milk Street and Bread Street. At the west end of Cheapside, was the Church of St. Michael Le Kern, or at the corn, which marked the site of the corn market. It was destroyed in the Great Fire. At the east end of this church stood the old cross, which was taken down in the year 1390, and replaced by the little conduit, which is described

as standing by Paul's Gate. There is an engraving of this church and the conduit, with the waterpots of the water carriers dotted about. The wall passed north along the side of St. Martin's La Grande, till it came to Aldersgate, close by the Church of St Botov. The exact spot is marked by No. 62 on the east side of the street. Stowe's etymologies of London names are seldom very satisfactory, but he never blundered worse than when he explained Aldgate as the old gate, and Alders Gate as the older gate.

But his explanation has been followed by many successive writers who do not seem to have seen the impossibility of the suggestion. One of the earliest forms of the name is Aldred's Gate, showing pretty conclusively that it was a proper name. The wall proceeds east to Cripplegate with an outpost, the watchtower, or Barbican. The Reverend W. Denton has explained the name of Cripplegate as due to the covered way between the Poster and the Barbican, or Burr-Kennie. Anglo-Saxon Crepple, or Crippel, a borough or passage underground.

The name occurs also in the doomsday of Wiltshire, where we read, quote, to Wandsdyke, thenceforth by the dike to Cripplegate, end quote. If this etymology be accepted, we have here the use of the word gate as a way. In the north, this distinction is kept up, and the road is the gate, while what we in the south call the gate is the bar. For instance, at York, Micklegate is the road, and the entrance to the wall is Micklegate Bar. It may be noted that St. Giles was the patron saint of cripples, but the first church was not built until about 1090 by Alfune, the first hospitaler of St. Bartholomew's, so that the dedication may have been owing to a mistaken etymology at that early date. In the churchyard is an interesting piece of the old wall still in position.

The course of the wall to the east is marked by the street named London Wall, from Cripplegate to Bishop's Gate Street. Here it bore south to Camomile and Wernwood streets, where stood till 1731, the gate. The distance between Cripplegate and Bishop's Gate is not great, and much of the space outside the walls was occupied by Moor Ditch. Still, in 1415, Thomas Falconer, then Mayor, opened a postern in the wall, where Moorgate Street now is,

for the benefit of the hay and wood carts coming to the markets of London. He must also have made a road across the morass of Moorfields, for that place was not drained until more than a century, afterwards. The site of Bishop's Gate is marked by two tablets on the houses at the corner of Camomile and Wormwood Streets, respectively, Numbers 1 and 64 Bishop's Gate Street without, inscribed with a mitre and these words, quote, adjoining to this spot, Bishop's Gate formerly stood, end quote. Footnote. It is scarcely creditable to the city authorities that no mark of the position of the other gates has been set up.

To place these memorials would be an easy thing to do, and this attention to historical topography would be highly appreciated by all Londoners. The mark of Aldgate should take the form of a statue of Chaucer, who lived at that gate for some years. The corporation would honour themselves by doing further honour to the great Englishman, who was also one of the greatest of Londoners,

if they placed at the great Eastern, and entrance to London, a full-length effigy of the son of one of London's worthy merchants. This would be, in addition to the gift of a bust to Guildhall by Sir Reginald Hansen. The line of the wall should also be marked, but this would be a more difficult operation. End of footnote. Bishop's Gate was named after Erkenwald, Bishop of London. Died, 685, son of Offer, King of M. Mercia, by whom it was erected.

At first, the maintenance of the gate was considered to devolve upon the Bishop of London, but after an agreement with the Hans Merchants, it was ruled that the bishop, quote, is bound to make the hinges of Bishop's Gate, seeing that from every cart laden with wood he has one stick as it enters the said gate. End quote. The liability was limited to the hinges, for after some dispute it was, 1305 Quote

Awarded and agreed that Almanes belonging to the house of the merchants of Al-Maine shall be free from paying two shillings on going in or out of the gate of Bishop's Gate with their goods

seeing that they are charged with the safekeeping and repair of the gate end quote The line of the wall bears southward to Aldgate and is marked by the street named Houndstitch

The earliest form of the name Aldgate appears to have been Aylgate or Algate, and therefore has nothing to do with Old, the D being intrusive. Within the walls was the Great House of Christ Church, founded by Queen Maud or Matilda, wife to Henry I in the year 1108, and afterwards known as the Priory of the Holy Trinity within Altgate. In 1115, the famous Conichtongill, the guild, possessors of the ward of Port Soaken, which was the Sok, without the port or gate, called Aldgate, presented to the priory all their rights, offering upon the altars of the church the several charters of the guild. The king confirmed the gift, and the prior became

ex officio an alderman of London. This continued to the dissolution of the religious houses when the inhabitants of the ward obtained the privilege of electing their own aldermen. Stowe tells us that he remembered the prior riding forth with the mare as one of the aldermen. Quote, These priors have sitten and ridden amongst the aldermen of London, in livery like unto them, saving that his habit was in shape of a spiritual person, as I myself have seen in my childhood. End quote.

The old name of Christchurch is retained in St. Catherine Cree, or Cree. Christ Church on the north side of Lednor Street, which was built in the cemetery of the dissolved priory. This church was taken down in 1628, and the present building erected in 1630. The wall led south by the line of the street now called the Mineries to the tower, thus dividing Great Tower Hill, which was within the wall, from Little Tower Hill, which was outside. The Abbey of Nuns of the Order of St. Clair, which was situated outside the city walls, gave its name of Minareesses to the street.

When William the Conqueror built the tower, he encroached upon the city ground, a proceeding which was not popular with his subjects. Near Tower Hill, that is out of George Street, Trinity Square, there is a fine fragment of the old London Wall. We must now turn westward and follow the course of the river from the custom house to the Blackfriars, as this forms the southern boundary of the city. A little to the west of the Tower Gate was Galley Key, where, according to Stowe, quote, the galleys of Italy and other parts were used to unlaid and land their merchandises

and wares, end quote. These strangers, inhabitants of Genoa and other parts, lodged, says Stowe, in Galley Row, near Mincing Lane. They, quote, were commonly called galley men, as men that came up in the galleys, brought up wines and other merchandises which they landed in Thames Street at a place called Galley Key. They had a certain coin of silver amongst themselves, which were halfpence of Genoa, and were called galley halfpence. These halfpence were forbidden in the 13th of Henry IV, and again by Parliament in

the fourth of Henry V. Notwithstanding, in my youth I have seen them pass current, but with some difficulty, for that the English halfpence were then, though not so broad, somewhat thicker and stronger. End quote. Next galley key was bear key, appropriated chiefly to the landing and shipment of corn. The first custom house of which we have any account was built by John Churchman, Sheriff of London in 1385, and stood on Customers' Key to the east of the present building, and therefore much nearer Tower Wharf.

Another and a larger building was erected in the reign of Elizabeth, and burnt in the Great Fire of 1666. Wren designed the third building, which was completed in 1671, and destroyed by fire in 1718. Ripley's building, which succeeded this, was destroyed in the same way in 1814. The present is therefore the fifth building devoted to the customs of the country. Billingsgate must be of great antiquity, but it has not always held its present undisputed position. In early times, Queen Hithe and Billingsgate were the chief city wharfs for the mooring of fishing vessels and landing their cargoes.

The fish were sold in and about Thames Street, special stations being assigned to the several kinds of fish. Queen Hithe was at first the more important wharf, but Billingsgate appears to have gradually overtaken it, and eventually to have left it quite in the rear, the troublesome passage of London Bridge, leading the shipmasters to prefer the below-bridge wharf. Corn, malt and salt, as well as fish, were landed and salt. at both wharves, and very strict regulations were laid down by the city authorities as to the tolls to be levied on the several articles, and the conditions under which they were to be sold. In 1282, a message was sent from Edward I to the sergeants of Billingsgate and Queen Hithe,

commanding them, quote, to see that all boats are moored on the city side at night, end quote. And in 1297, the order was repeated, but it was never. directed to the warden of the dock at Billingsgate and the warden of Queen Hithe who were, quote, to see that this order is strictly observed, end quote. Opposite to Billingsgate, on the north side of Lower Thames Street, the foundations of a Roman villa were discovered in 1847, when the present coal exchange was built. A spring of clear water which supplied the Roman baths was found running through the ruins at the time of the excavations. This was the spring which supplied the boss,

fountain or jet by the corner of an opening, of old called Boss Alley, where a reservoir was erected by Sir Richard Whittington, or his executors, expressly for the use of the inhabitants and market people. We now come to London Bridge, the great southern approach to London, and the most important strategic position,

as when that was fortified, the inhabitants were safe from attack on the south. Passing westward from the bridge, we come to the Old Swan Stairs, the Steel Yard, Cold Harbour, Dowgate, and the Vintree, and then we come to Queen Hithe, said to have been named after Eleanor, widow of Henry II, to whom it belonged. It was previously known as Edred's Hithe. Passing Paul's Wharf, we come to the vast building known as Bainard's Castle, built by Humphry, Duke of Gloucester in 1428. This mansion had an eventful history until it was destroyed in the Great Fire. A previous Bainard's castle was situated on the Thames nearer the Fleet River,

which was named after Ralph Bainard, one of the Norman Knights of William the Conqueror. It afterwards came into the possession of Robert Fitzwalter, chief bannerer or castellan of the city of London. When the Dominicans or black fries removed from Holborn to Ludgate, they swallowed up in their precincts the Tower of Montfichet and Castle Bainard, which were the strongholds built at the west end of the city. Edward I allowed the friars to pull down the city wall and take in all the land to the west as far as the river fleet.

Moreover, the king intimated to the mayor and citizens his desire that the new wall should be built at the cost of the city. We here pass up to Ludgate, which does not appear to have been a gate of much importance until the beginning of the 13th century. The idea that it is named after a mythical king Ludd is, of course, exploded now, and there are at present two etymologies to choose from.

Dr. Edwin Freshfield supposes the name to be derived from the word load, a cut or drain into a large stream. The main stream of the fleet passes from the Thames to the foot of Ludgate Hill, but a short branch went in a north-eastward direction to Ludgate, joining there the town ditch. Mr Lofty explains Ludgate as a postern, and supposes it to have existed in the Saxon period as a postern gate. All along the riverfront of London originally there was a wall,

remains of which have been found at various times. Fitz Stephen, writing in the 12th century, says, quote, London formerly had walls and towers on the south, but that most excellent river the Thames, which abounds with fish, and in which the tide ebbs and flows, runs on that side,

and has, in a long space of time, washed down, undermined, and subverted the walls in that part. End quote. Outside Luddgate, the road to the west was not much frequented. Fleet Street and the Strand were not the important thoroughfares during the Middle Ages that Holborn was. The roads were much neglected, and no one traversed them who could travel by boat on the Thames,

which was literally the silent highway of London. When the gates of London were closed at 8 o'clock at night, and the inhabitants were ruled with an iron hand, it was somewhat a sign of reproach to live. live outside the walls. This feeling continued for centuries, and the name of suburbs was long held in little respect. In spite of this stigma, the main avenues leading to the several gates became inhabited, and in course of time were added to the city of London as liberties. The extent of these liberties was marked by bars, thus outside Ludgate was Temple Bar,

outside Newgate, Holborn bars, outside Aldersgate, Aldersgate bars, outside Bishop's Gate, Barsight, and outside Aldgate, Aldgate bars. After this arrangement, the liberties were no longer suburbs, and the disreputable neighbourhood was therefore pushed farther out. The suburbs outside Cripplegate were unlike those of any of the other gates. There was no main road straight north, but a village with a church, and a four street grew up outside the walls. There is a great deal of information respecting the protection of the walls and the city gates

in the important series of letter books, preserved among the city archives and in Riley's memorials. The authorities were allowed by the king to levy attacks called Murage from time to time on goods entering the city to enable them to keep the wall and gates in a state of efficiency. In 1276, Edward I called upon the citizens to devote a portion of the dues to the rebuilding of the city walls by the House of the Blackfriars. And eight years after, the grant of Murage was renewed to the mayor and citizens on condition that they built this wall, so that for some years the city gained no particular advantage from the King's license. The Hans merchants were freed from payment of Murage on account of their engagement to keep,

Bishop's Gate in order. In 1310, a royal writ was issued for the punishment of those who injured the city walls, gates and posterns. Two years before this date, special orders were issued as to the guard of the gates. The wards adjoining each gate had to supply a certain number of men at arms. Newgate was supplied with 26 men, Aldgate, Bishop's Gate, Ludgate, and Bridgegate, with 24 each, Cripplegate and Aldersgate with 20 each.

The authorities were often very parsimonious, and we find in Riley this curious entry under the date of 1314. Quote, Removal of an elm near Bishop's Gate, and purchase of a cord for a ward hook with the proceeds of the sale thereof, end quote. Some of the gates were letters dwelling houses, Chaucer's tenancy of Aldgate being a familiar instance,

but this practice was found to be very inconvenient and objectionable, and in 1386 an enactment was issued for bidding the grant in future of the city gates or of the dwelling houses there. There must have been accommodation at the gates, even when letters dwelling houses, for the sergeants who performed the duty of opening and closing the gates. One of the orders that these sergeants had to carry into effect was to prevent the admission of lepers into the town.

Money was collected at the gates for the repair of the roads, a charge which was in addition to Murage. The sergeants also had to see that a fugitive bondman did not enter the city, because if one gained admittance and resided in a chartered town for a year and a day, he obtained freedom and was entitled to the franchise. In small towns it was easier to keep out the fugitive, but in a large city like London, he could often escape notice, although the authorities might be against him.

In letter book A, we read this notice. Quote, pray that the said fugitives may not be admitted to the freedom of the city. End quote. And Pollock and Maitland write, Quote, the townsmen were careful not to obliterate the distinct between bond and free, and did not admit one of servile birth to the citizenship." End quote. There can be little doubt that there was much laxity in keeping the gates at various times,

and in cases where there was fear of invasion, the king sent special orders to the mayor to see to the protection of the city. In spite of the singular freedom of England from invasion, the English have constantly been overwhelmed with panic, fearing the worst which never came. In 1335, an alarm was raised of a French invasion. The king, at the beginning of August, wrote to order all men between 16 and 60 to be a raid, and a council to be immediately held in London. Leaders of the Londoners were appointed who were to defend the city in case the enemy landed.

Again, in 1370, preparations were made for an expected attack upon the city, and in 1383, false reports were circulated from the war in Flanders, for the circulation of which an imposter was punished. Three years later, the citizens were in great terror on account of a widespread report that the French king was about to invade England. There seems to have been something in the report, because Harry Hotspur believed it, and having waited impatiently for the French king to besiege Calais,

returned to England to meet him here. Stowe, however, was very satirical about the English fears. He wrote, Quote, The Londoners, understanding that the French king had got together a great navy, assembled an army, and set his purpose firmly to come into England.

They, trembling like leverets, fearful as mice, seek starting holes to hide themselves in, even as if the city were now to be taken. And they that in times past, bragged they were blow all the Frenchmen out of England, hearing now a vain rumour of the enemies coming, they run to the walls, break down the houses adjoining, destroy and lay them flat, and do all things in great fear, not one Frenchman yet having set foot on shipboard.

What would they have done if the battle had been at hand, and the weapons over their head? End quote. No improvement in the condition of houses in London appears to have taken place until long after the conquest, and the low huts, closely packed together which filled the streets during the Saxon period, were continued well into the 13th century. These houses were wholly built of wood and thatched with straw or reeds. All medieval cities were fatally liable to destruction by fire, but London appears to have been specially unfortunate in this respect. In the first year of the reign of Stephen, a destructive fire spread from London Bridge to the Church of St. Clement

Danes, destroying St. Paul's in the way. This fire caused some improvements in building, but special regulations were required, and one of the early works undertaken by the newly established commune was the drawing up, in 1189, of the famous Assize of Building, known by the name of the first mayor as Fitz Aylwyn's Assize. In this document, the following statement was made. Quote, Many citizens, to avoid such danger, built, according to their means, on their ground, a stone house covered and protected by thick tiles against the fury of fire,

whereby it often happened that when a fire arose in the city and burnt many edifices, and had reached such a house, not being able to, injure it there became extinguished, so that many neighbours' houses were wholly saved from fire by that house." End quote. Various privileges were conceded to those who built in stone, and these privileges are detailed in the Assize of 1189. No provision, however, was made as to the material to be used in roofing tenements. This Assize, which has been described as the earliest English building act, is of the greatest value to us from an historical point of view,

and much attention is paid to it in Hudson Turner's domestic architecture, where a translation of the Assize is printed. Turner points out that it is evident from this specimen of early civic legislation, that although citizens might, if it so please them, construct their houses entirely of stone, yet they were not absolutely required to do more than erect party walls 16 feet in height, the materials of the structure built on such walls being left entirely to individual choice, and there could be no doubt that in the generality of houses it was of wood.

This assumption is justified by the fact that, in deeds of a much later period, houses constructed wholly of stone are frequently named as boundaries, without any further or more special description than that such was the substance of which they were built. Turner adds that it is obvious that such a description would have been vague and insufficient in a district where houses were generally raised in stone, and he therefore supposes that the Assize of 1189 had no more direct effect than in regulating the method of constructing party walls, and then only in cases where individuals were willing to build in stone. There can be no doubt that the Assize had but little effect, for in 1220,

a still more destructive fire occurred which destroyed part of London Bridge, then a wooden structure, and the Church of St. Mary, Overy, Southwark. It raged for ten days, and it is calculated that one thousand persons, men, women and children, lost their lives in the fire. This fire had a striking effect upon the authorities, for at once they set to work to enact a new ordinance which introduced certain compulsory regulations. This is known as Fitz Aylwyn's seconder size, 1212, and thus the first mare, about whom little else is known,

is associated with two important acts, one issued at the beginning and the other near the end of his long mayoralty. Thenceforth, everyone who built a house was strictly charged not to cover it with reeds, rushes, stubble, or straw, but only with tiles, shingle boards, or lords, lead. In future, in order to stop a fire, houses could be pulled down in case of need with an alderman's hook and cord. For the speedy removal of burning houses, each ward was to provide a strong iron hook with a wooden handle, two chains and two strong cords, which were to be left in the charge

of a beddle of the ward, who was also provided with a good horn, loudly sounding. It was also ordered that occupies of large houses should keep one or two ladders for their own house and for their neighbours in case of a sudden outbreak of fire. Also, they were to keep in summer a barrel or large earthen vessel full of water before the house for the purpose of quenching fire, unless there was a reservoir of spring water

in the curtilage or courtyard. End of chapter 2, part 1. End of Section 3. Section 4 of the Story of London This is a Libravox recording All Libravox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravox.org

Read by Paul Lolly Jones The Story of London by Henry B Wheatley Chapter 2 The Walled Town and its streets Part 2 Ancient Lights are not provided for, and chimneys are not mentioned. They were not general in Italian cities in the 14th century, but in London they were comparatively common by the year 1300. In the Rotuli

100orum, date 1275, a chimney is mentioned as built against a house in St. Mary at Hill made of stone, a foot or more in breadth, and projecting into the street. Most of the houses consisted of a little more than a large shop and an upper room or solar. The latter was often merely a wooden loft. When an upper apartment was carried out in stone, it was described in deeds as solarium lapidium. In the 14th century, houses were built of two and three stories, and in some cases each story was a distinct freehold.

This seems to have caused a large number of disputes. It is an interesting fact that at a certain period there was the possibility of London becoming a city of flats. One cannot but feel that it is strange that flats should be general abroad and in Scotland, while it is only lately that they have become at all popular in England. Some reason for this diversity of custom must exist if we could only find it out. Sellers were entered from the street, and possibly in those cases where separate floors belong to different tenants, the upper stories were entered by stairs on the outside.

Sometimes a householder was allowed to encroach upon the road, and in Riley's memorials we find patents of leave for building a Hotepah, that is, a room or floor raised on pillars and extending into the street. Such a grant was made to Sir Robert Knowles and his wife Constance in the year 1381. Penthouses are frequently mentioned in the city ordinances, and they were to be at least nine feet in height, so as to allow of people riding beneath.

It was enacted, for the benefit of landlords, that penthouses, once fastened by iron nails or wooden pegs to the timber framework of the house, should be deemed not removable, but fixtures, part and parcel of the freehold. Shops were open to the weather, and the need of a better place of protection for certain property was felt, which caused the erection of celds, sheds, or warehouses, which were let out in small compartments for the storing of cupboards or chests. These served in their day the purpose fulfilled in hours by safe deposit companies.

Several of these celds are mentioned in the city books. Thus there was the Tanners-celled, in or near St. Lawrence Lane, and Winchester-seld, near the wool market of Woolchurch, also another in Thames Street. In the Hustings' role, we hear of the Great Seld of Roissier de Coventre in the Mercery, known as the Great or Broad-Seld. In 1311, we find tenants surrendering to Roissier, wife of Henry de Coventre, space for the standing of a certain chest in the celled called Labroseld in the parish of St. Pancras in the ward of cheap.

Windows are mentioned in the Assize, but glass was only used by the most opulent. The windows of the citizens in the reign of Richard I were mere apertures, open in the day, crossed perhaps by iron stanchions, and closed by wooden shutters at night. Glass is mentioned as one of the regular import into this country in the reign of Henry III, and in the time of Edward III, glaziers, verres, are mentioned as an established guild. The buildings were constantly improved as time passed,

and there is reason to believe that London was much in advance of continental cities as to comfort and cleanliness, in spite of some unflattering pictures that have come down to us. We have reason to believe that the standard idea of Englishmen as to comfort and decency, was always higher than that of his neighbours. This point, however, will be more fully considered in the seventh chapter on sanitation. It took some time to establish the principle that an Englishman's house is his castle, and some of our kings tried hard to override the rights of the faithful citizens. Mr. Riley makes the following remarks on this point.

Quote, In the times of our early kings, when they moved from place to place, it devolved upon the Marshal of the King's household to find lodgings for the royal retinue and dependence, which was done by sending a billet and seizing arbitrarily the best houses and mansions of the locality, turning out the inhabitants and marking the houses so selected with chalk, which latter duty seems to have belonged to the Sergeant Chamberlain of the King's household. The city of London, fortunately for the comfort and independence of its inhabitants, was exempted by numerous charters from having to endure this most abominable annoyance

at such times as it pleased the king to become its near neighbour by taking up his residence in the tower. Still, however, repeated attempts were made to infringe this rule within the precincts of the city. End quote. Henry III instituted some sense. especially tyrannical proceedings in the year 1266, which naturally gave great offence. The particulars are related in Stowe's Chronicle. Quote, Henry III came to Westminster, and there gave unto diverse of his household servants about the number of three-score households and houses within the city, so that the owners

were compelled to agree and redeem their houses, or else to avoid them. Then he made Custus of the city so often, constable of the tower, who chose bailiffs to be accountable to him. After this, the king took pledges of the best men's sons of the city, the which were put in the Tower of London, and there kept at the costs of their parents. End quote. To meet such violations of the liberties of the city, an enactment was promulgated apparently in the reign of Edward I, to the effect, quote, that if any member of the royal household or any retainer of the nobility shall attempt to take possession of a house within the city, either by main force or by delivery of the marshal of the royal household, and if, in such attempt, he shall be slain by the master

of the house, then, and in such case the master of the house shall find six of his kinsmen who shall make oath, and himself making oath as the seventh, that it was for this reason that he so slew the intruder, and thereupon he shall go acquitted." End quote. In spite of this, Edward II tried to carry out a similar piece of tyranny, but he was thwarted by John DeCawston, one of the sheriffs, who proved himself a stalwart leader of the citizens. Alan Deleck, Sergeant Harbourer, provider of lodgings, prosecuted John de Caustan and said,

quote, that whereas his lordship the king, with his household, on the Monday next after the feast of the translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, in the 19th year of the said king then reigning, came to the Tower of London, there at his good pleasure to abide. And the said Alan, the same day and year, as in virtue of his office bound to do, did assign lodgings unto one Richard de Airman, secretary to his said lordship the king, in the house of the aforesaid John de Causton, situated at Billingsgate in the city of London, and for the better knowing of the livery so made, did set the usual mark of chalk over the doors of the house aforesaid, as the practice is, and did also place men and sergeants with the horses and harness of the said Richard within the livery so made as aforesaid." End quote.

The sheriff, knowing this to be an illegal exercise of royal privilege, boldly rubbed out the obnoxious marks and turned the king's men and sergeants out of his house. When he was brought to trial, the mayor and citizens appeared for him and pleaded the rights of the city. Cawston successfully defended himself before the steward and marshal of the king's household sitting in the tower in judgment upon him, and he came off, Scott Free. consider the smallness of the houses in the early period of the Middle Ages, and the insufficient accommodation for families, we see that the greater part of the population must, of very necessity, have constantly filled the streets, and the Londoners appear, from accounts that have come down to us, to have been a rather turbulent body. The watch and ward arranged for the protection of the city was efficient enough in quiet times, but when the inhabitants were troublesome, it was quite

insufficient. The regulations were strict, but the streets were crowded, as more than half of them were used as marketplaces, and every moment occasions for quarrelling arose, of which the young bloods were only too ready to avail themselves. Punishments and fines were frequent. Cheats and fraudulent tradesmen were promptly punished, and those who had a sharp tongue soon found that the free use of it was dangerous. The authorities, who had the making of the laws, had no fancy for being maligned. Such entries as these are frequent in Riley's memorials. Process against Roger Torold for abusing the mayor, 1355.

Punishment or imprisonment for reviling the mayor, 1382. Pillary and whetstone for slandering the mayor, 1385. Pillary for slandering an alderman, 1411. Punishment for insulting certain alderman. Pillary for insulting the recorder, 1390. The pillory was freely used for cheats, users of false dice, false checkerboards, 1382, swindlers, forges of title deeds, bonds, papal bulls, etc.

Imposters pretending to be dumb, etc. False measures, false materials, and unwholesome food were confiscated and publicly burnt. Dishonest tradesmen appeared to have been very reckless, and punishment was constantly awarded for the sale of putrid fish, food and meat. Enhances of the price of wheat were specially obnoxious to the citizens, and some of the cheats connected with breadmaking were curious, such as inserting iron in a loaf to increase the weight, 1387, and stealing dough by making holes in the baker's moulding boards, 1327. The cellar of unsound wine was punished by being made to drink it, 1364. Nightwalkers, male and female, were very summarily treated, but they must have been mostly connected with the dangerous classes,

for we read of notorious persons with swords and bucklers and frequenters of taverns after curfew, quote, contrary to peace and statutes, end quote. We may presume that quiet, inoffensive persons who were known to be law-abiding citizens were not necessarily hauled up for being in the streets after regulation hours. Mr. Riley, in his valuable introduction to the Lieber Albus, make special reference to these nightwalkers. Quote, It being found that the houses of women of ill fame

had become the constant resort of thieves and other desperate characters It was ordered by royal proclamation, Temp, Edward I, that no such women should thenceforth reside within the walls of the city under pain of 40 days' imprisonment. A list too was to be taken of all such women by the authorities and a certain walk assigned to them. The stews of Southwark are once and only once alluded to in this volume,

and the result of this enactment was no doubt to drive the unfortunate's thither, end quote. Ordinances of later date appear to have been still more stringent. The ton, a round house or prison on Cornhill, was so called from its having been, quote, built somewhat in fashion of a ton standing on the one end, end quote. It was built in 1282 for the special reception of Nightwalkers. In spite of stringent regulations, the streets were seldom free from rioting of some kind, and the watch were kept fully employed. There is a record of inquests or trials by juries,

the jury consisting of no less than four representatives from each of the wards, held in 1281 upon a number of offenders, quote, against the king's peace and the statutes of the city, end quote. The offences for the most part comprise night walking after curfew, robbery with violence, frequenting taverns and houses of ill fame and gambling. In 1304, there was an inquisition as to the persons rioting and committing assaults by night, and in 1311, a similar inquisition and delivery made in the time of Sir Richard de Repum, Mayor, as to misdoers and nightwalkers. Women of bad repute were restricted to a certain garb.

It was enacted by Royal Proclamation of Edward I, that none of them should wear Minerva, spotted Ermine, or Sendale, a particular kind of thin silk, on her hood or dress, and if she broke the law in this respect, the city sergeant was allowed to seize the Minerva or Sendale and retain it as his perquisite. At later periods it was enacted, quote, that no,

common woman shall wear a vesture of peltry or wool, end quote. And again, that she shall not wear, quote, a hood that is furred except with lamb's wool or rabbit skin, end quote. From the letter books we learn that, in the middle of the 14th century, most of these women were Fleming's by birth. The prisons mentioned in the Lieber Albus are Newgate and Ludgate, the Tun and the Comptus, They could none of them have been pleasant places, but it is probable that they were not so intolerable as they afterwards became. It is impossible that they could have been in a worse condition than the grossly mismanaged prisons of the 18th century. It is not easy to understand what was the level of morality in the medieval cities and towns.

In truth, we can only draw inferences from the facts, and as most of the documents that have come down to us relate to those who have broken the laws, we are too apt to take a low view of the morality of the mass. Laws are not made for the law abiding, except for their protection, and we have reason to know that this class is by far the most numerous. Comfort, as we understand it, could not have existed in the Middle Ages, but the life seems to have been fairly agreeable to those who lived it, and it is only fair to give credence to such witnesses as Fitz Stephen, who knew the noble city of London well, and could only write of it in terms of hearty praise. He commences with these words, and then proceeds to substantiate the several points mentioned. Quote, amongst the noble and celebrated cities of the world,

that of London, the capital of the Kingdom of England, is one of the most renowned, possessing, above all others, abundant wealth, extensive commerce, great grandeur and magnificence. It is happy in the salubrity of its climate, in the profession of the Christian religion, in the strength of its fortresses, in the nature of its situation, the honour of its citizens, and the chastity of its matrons. In its sports too it is most pleasant, and in the production of illustrious men most fortunate. End quote. The people must have been closely packed in some parts of London,

but gardens and open spaces within the walls were not uncommon. The statistics of the Middle Ages are not to be relied upon, as they largely consisted of the wildest guesses. Kings and parliaments were continually deceived as to the produce of attacks, owing to the impossibility of knowing the number of the people upon whom it was to be levied. During the latter part of the Saxon period, the numbers of the population of the country began to decay. This decay, however, was arrested by the Norman conquest. The population increased during ten peaceful years of Henry III, and increased slowly until the death of Edward II, and then it began to fall off,

and it continued to decrease during the period of the Wars of the Roses until the accession of the Tudors. a calculation has been made of the population of England and Wales in the last years of the reign of Edward III, 1372, which fixed the number at two and a half millions. MacPherson adopted this as a correct guess, but it probably errs more on the side of excess than of deficiency. Of this population, it has been estimated that those employed in agriculture were in proportion to townspeople as 11 to 1,

but, according to another estimate, it was as 15 to 1. It is not easy to arrive at a satisfactory calculation of the approximate population of London at different periods. At the end of the 12th century, Peter of Blois, Archdeacon of London, in a letter to Pope Innocent the 3rd, calculates the population at 40,000, and this is a quite probable calculation, although Francis Drake maintains that London was less populous than York about the time of the conquest. York, however, could not then have had anything like 10,000 inhabitants. Fitz Stephen greatly exaggerated the population of London. He wrote,

quote, The city is ennobled by her men, graced by her arms, and peopled by a multitude of inhabitants, so that in the wars under King Stephen, they went out to a muster of armed horsemen, esteemed fit for war, 20,000, and of infantry, 60,000. End quote. Hallam agrees generally with Peter of Blois' calculation, for he supposes London to have had a

population in John's reign of at least 30,000 or 40,000. In 1377, the population, reckoned by the poll tax, was 44,770. The number taxed, consisting of males and females above 14 years of age, being 23,314. We see from these numbers how greatly the population of London was in excess of the other great towns. From the same source, we find the population of the towns next in size were. York, 7,248. Bristol, 6,3308. Plymouth, 4,837, Coventry, 4,817, Norwich, 3, 952.

Londoners were fortunate in not having suffered from any severe attack upon their fortifications, and therefore we are unable to tell how London would have stood a prolonged siege. We know, however, that at some periods it was very insecure. The most portentous event in England during the Middle Ages, in respect to the changed conditions of life caused by it, was the peasants rising of 1381, the turning point of which is entirely connected with the history of London. For four days, the very existence of the city was in the direst peril. It is styled a rising, but it was really a revolution, and it is only lately that the full history of the movement has been presented to us. in Mr. G. M. Trevelyan's valuable book, England in the Age of Whitcliff, 1899. There are two particular incidents in the history of medieval London,

which are of the first importance as illustrations of the life of the inhabitants of a walled city. They stand alone, for no other internal occurrences fraught with such possible evil consequences are to be found in our history. And it is well to compare their likenesses and distinctions. distinguish their unlikenesses. For this purpose, it is not necessary to enter at all fully into the respective causes and effects of Watt-Tylers and Jack Cade's rebellions. The consideration of these points belongs to the history of the country, but a fairly

full account of the proceedings of the few days in which the city was given over to the lawless violence of the followers of what Tyler and Jack Cade respectively seems to be necessary here. In both insurrections, the mob had their own way entirely at the beginning of the outbreaks. The insurgents were allowed to enter the city through the sympathy of many of the citizens, and in both cases the insurgents were worsted in the end, one hardly knows how, except we explained the causes due to the inherent weakness of an undisciplined mob. Both insurrections occurred owing to widespread discontent.

in the case of what Tyler's, from social ills of the most serious character, while in that of Jack Cades, the evils complained of were purely political. Again, the movement in the earlier rebellion came from below, while in the later one the prime movers were the squires. In what Tyler's rebellion, the king and court were present at all the great events, but in Jack Cades, the king marched off to Kenilworth and left the city to take care of itself. Other likenesses and unlikenesses will be evident in the notices of the respective insurrections. In order to understand the doings in London from Wednesday, June 12th, to Saturday the 15th,

inst 1381, it is necessary to take some measure of the movement as a whole. Most of the chroniclers naturally write in strongly condemnatory terms of what Tyler's rebellion, but Stowe, in his chronicle, attempts to be just. although he describes John Ball as, quote, a wicked priest, end quote. He had the advantage of consulting a manuscript account of the Rising in 1381, written in Old French, apparently by an eyewitness. The different descriptions are full,

but they vary greatly in details so that, though it is possible to make a complete record of events, we cannot be sure that we are altogether correct. At this distance of time, of time from the occurrences, we ought to be able to consider the sequence of events with a judicial mind. Both sides in the duel are, to a great extent, outside our sympathies. The rebels were exorbitant in their demands and violent in their methods, while the court, being completely at the mercy of the mob, promised everything demanded, with no intention of carrying out their pledges.

They had, however, this excuse that the only way to save the city and its inhabitants was to get the mob into the open country by any possible means available. The vast concourse of persons who demanded entrance into the city was composed of a heterogeneous mass of discontented men with different aims to forward and different grievances calling for redress. The poll tax, although it gave great dissatisfaction to the nation, was not the cause of the outbreak. The great object of the majority was to obtain the abolition of serfdom.

Had this been the only demand, the sympathies of the country would have been entirely with the insurgents, but, in order to increase the number of their followers, the leaders had gathered around them all the disaffected persons they were able to get together, and what Tyler, to enhance his importance, formulated a number of revolutionary and socialistic demands. It is not necessary here to discuss these demands, for their number sufficiently condemns them.

We may allow that the masses have a right to demonstrate an urge upon their rulers a change of so fundamental a nature of serfdom, which affected them all, more or less, but an evil which the rulers were very amiss in attempting to redress. At the same time, no government can exist if mob law is triumphant, and if an irresponsible mass of people is allowed to demand changes which require much consideration by a legislative body as what Tyler's followers did. It is instructive to find that although the demands were first agreed to by the king, and then the promise revoked, the serfs were gradually freed while the other demands were quite overlooked. Serfdom was out of date, and the change could no longer be postponed. Richard II, a boy of ten years, came to the throne in 1377, and few sovereigns have had to take

up a more troubled inheritance. The whole country was distressed, and the agricultural population had been driven to the verge of rebellion. Revolutionary views, supported from the writings of Whitcliffe and Langland, had taken root among large masses of the people. Doubtless, the reformer and the poet had great influence on the people, and although they were not themselves, so as of sedition, their burning words were quoted with effect by the leaders of the revolutionary movement. John Ball's democratic preaching caused the insurrection,

but he gave way to the more practical Watt Tyler as the leader of the rebels. The area of the risings extended over part of the Midlands, south of Yorkshire, and the whole of the south. There was a reign of terror on all sides. The manor houses were broken open and sacked by mobs, and it was said that every attorney's house in the line of March was destroyed. Lawyers were exposed to the special hatred of the rebels,

who exhibited an ignorant hatred of legal documents. The University of Cambridge suffered severely from the lawlessness of the mob. The university chest was robbed, and a large number of documents were ruthlessly destroyed. many of the colleges also suffered. The mob that marched on London and besieged it were mostly from Kent and Essex, and their march was marked by murder and pillage. The authorities were paralysed, and when the mob arrived at the walls of London,

no preparations had been made, save the strengthening of the gates, so the king and the court were cut off from communication with all outside London. It is remarkable that we are able to record the daily, proceedings of the mob which took place more than six centuries ago. Still, we can be fairly certain that the event which dovetail into one another are to a great extent correctly reported. The chief difficulty arises when we consider the speeches of the several actors. Chronicles like John Stowe are very picturesque in their descriptions

and often put words into the mouths of their puppets which are evidently written for the purposes of effect. Even when the words are probably historical, there is some doubt as to whether they have not been attributed to the wrong persons. On Monday, June 10th, Canterbury had been overrun, and on Wednesday the 12th, the main body of the rebels from Kent were crowded together on Blackheath. John Ball preached to them from the text which has come down to us in the familiar couplet. When Adam Dalfe and Eve Span, Woe will

was then a gentleman, and he kept his audience enthralled with his eloquence. Messengers were sent by the king to demand the cause of the rising, and brought back the answer that the commons were gathered together for the king's safety. The king's mother, Joan, Princess of Wales, and widow of Edward the Black Prince, who had been on a pilgrimage to the shrines of Kent, was allowed by the rebels to enter the city. Mr. Trevelyan tells us how a conference was proposed. Quote, The rebels invited the king to cross the river

and confer with them at Blackheath. He was rode across in a barge accompanied by his principal nobles. At Rotherhithe, a deputation from the camp on the moor above was waiting on the bank to receive them. At the last moment, prudence prevailed, and Richard was persuaded not to trust himself on shore.

The rebels, shouting their demands across the water, professed their loyalty to Richard, but required the heads of John of Gaunt, Sudbury, Hales, and several other ministers, some of whom were at the moment in the boat. The royal barge put back to the tower. End quote. Stowe tells us that the watchword of the peasants was,

With whom hold you? And the answer was, with King Richard and the True Commons. The Chronicle adds, Quote, Who could not that watchward? off went his head, end quote. Mr. James Tate, the author of the excellent life of What Tyler in the Dictionary of National

Biography, mentions, quote, a proclamation in Thannet Church on 13th June, which ran in the names of What Tyler and John Rackstraw, but the St. Alban's insurgents, who reached London on Friday the 14th, were divided as to which was the more powerful person in the realm, the king or Tyler, and obtained from the latter a promise to come and shave the beards of the abbot, prior, and monks, stipulating for implicit obedience to his orders. End quote. The men of Essex were outside Aldgate in great numbers, and as the day advanced, the leaders became fearful as to their condition.

They had no means of breaking into the city, and if they remained long where they were, they would inevitably have been starved. Quote, Walworth guarded the bridge and sent to the peasants, bidding them, in the name of the king and the city, come no nearer to London,

end quote. If there had been no treachery, it would have been easy to keep the rebels outside till they were forced by hunger to desist from their endeavours to enter, for time was on the side of the besieged. But the peasants had friends and well-wishers within, and the city being divided against itself fell.

Mr Trevelyan writes, quote, A committee of three aldermen rode out to Blackheath to deliver Wolworth's message. Two of them, Adam Carlyle and John Fresh, faithfully performed their mission. But the third alderman, named John Horn, separated himself from his two colleagues, conferred apart with the rebel leaders,

and exhorted them to march on London, at once, for they would be received with acclamation into the city. After this treachery, he did not fear to return to the city, and brought some of the peasants with him and lodged them in his house. He even advised Walworth to admit the mob. End quote. The rioters burnt the Marshal Sea prison, situated in the High Street, Southwark, and set the prisoners free. Others gutted Lambeth Palace to show their hatred of the Archbishop, but he was not there. On Thursday morning, 13th June, Horn, the disaffected alderman,

rode out to Blackheath to confer with the rebels, and he urged them to come to the bridge where they would find friends. He had an ally in Walter Sibble, alderman of Bridge Ward, who, in virtue of his office, took command on the bridge, and he announced that he would let the rebels in by the bridge gate in spite of all opposition. Then, Walworth, the mayor, finding that he was powerless, gave leave to what Tyler's followers to enter the city on condition that they paid for everything they took and did no damage.

The Kentish rebels poured into the city over the bridge, and at the same time the men of Essex were let in at Aldgate. The first cry of the mob as they entered the city, their defiant answer to the mayor's condition was, to the Savoy, to the Savoy, the House of Sourke's. of John of Gaunt, outside the city liberties and by the riverside, which was burnt and entirely destroyed. In the accounts of the Savoy for 1393 to 1394, mention is made of the annual loss of £4, £13, shillings and fourpence. Quote, the rent of 14 shops belonging lately to the manor of the Savoy annexed, for each shop by the year, at four terms, six shillings and apence, the occupant had nothing because they were burnt at the time of the

insurrection and are not rebuilt." In these accounts, the rising of 1381 is referred to as the rumor. End of Chapter 2 Part 2. End of Section 4. Section 5 of the Story of London. This is a Libravots recording. All Librevots recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones

The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 2 The Walled Town and Its Streets Part 3 Sir Robert Hales, the treasurer, was a marked man and his manor house at Highbury was burnt and utterly destroyed. Jack Straw's Castle, which was built, on the site of the Highbury Castle retained the name of the second leader of the revolt

almost to our own time. Later in the same day, the Priory of the Order of St. John at Jerusalem, at Clarkenwell, of which Hales was prior, was burnt by the men of Essex, who in their march to London had previously attacked the Priory of the Order at Cressing, Essex. Stowe informs us that the Commons passed through the city and did no harm. They took, quote, nothing from any man, but bought all things at a just price, and if they found any man with theft, they beheaded him, end quote. This, however, was soon changed. First, they were joined by the dangerous classes in the city, who were glad of an opportunity of punishing their enemies the Fleming's by the riverside, and the lawyers of the temple. Then, the prisons of Fleet, Newgate,

and Westminster were broken open, and hordes of rascality were added to those contributed by the marshal sea. To add to these elements of disorder, the men became drunk with wine supplied by the rich citizens, and we hear no more of restraints. Gross outrages against property and life now follow one another rapidly. Much damage was done in Fleet Street and the temple. The rolls and records of the lawyers were burned or otherwise destroyed. The Royal Account Book suffered in the same way. Stowe relates that the insurgents, quote, determined to burn all court rolls and old muniments,

that the memory of antiquities being taken away, their lords should not be able to challenge any right on them from that time forth. End quote. Not content with destroying the documents, they desired to destroy the producers of documents. Again, Stowe tells us that, Quote, They took in hand to behead all men of law,

As well apprentices as utter barristers and old justices. With all the jurors of the country whom they might get into their hands, They spared none whom they thought to be learned, Especially if they found any to have pen and ink, They pulled off his hood, And all with one voice crying, Hail him out and cut off his head. End quote.

The only place of safety was the tower, and here the young king watched the flames in several parts of the city, and listened to the turbulent cries of the mob on all sides of him. Just beneath, on the east side, near St. Catherine's Hospital, was an encampment of the rebels who clamoured for the murder of the Chancellor and others who had taken refuge in the tower. This was an eventful day for all, crowded with actions more than enough to terrify a boy suddenly called upon to act. The councillors were hurriedly called together, and after considering the serious dangers which surrounded them, agreed to a policy of concession. The rebels, however, were invited to meet the king

at Mile End on the following day. On Friday the 14th of June, the king and his court went to Myel End to hear the demands of what Tyler and his followers. We learn from the Stowe manuscripts, referred to above, that when they arrived, the Commons came to the King, and all knelt to him, saying, quote, be welcome, our Lord King Richard, if it please you, and we will not have any other king than you. And what Tyler, master and leader of them, praying to him, the King, on the part of the Commons, that he would suffer them to take and have all traitors that were against the king and the law. End quote. The demands are recited as a lot. The demands are recited as follows in the manuscript.

Quote, That no man should be a serf by birth, nor do homage or any manner of suit to any lord. No man should be a serf to any man except by his own will, and by covenant duly indentured. To give fourpence for an acre of land. End quote.

Stowe gives the demands in full of detail. Quote, The first, that all men should be free from servitude and bondage, so as from thenceforth there should be no bondmen. The second, that he should pardon all men of what estate soever, all manner actions and insurrections committed, and all manner treasons, felonies, transgressions, and extortions by any of them done, and to grant them peace. The third, that all men from thenceforth might be enfranchised,

to buy and sell in every country, city, borough town, fair, market, and other place within the realm of England. The fourth, that no acre of land holden in bondage or service, should be holden but for fourpence, and if it had been holden for less a foretime, it should not hereafter be enhanced. End quote. Stowe adds, quote, these and many other things they required. Moreover, they'd hold him, the king, that he had been evilly governed till that day, but from that time he must be governed otherwise. End quote.

After consultation with his courtiers, the king conceded everything asked by what Tyler. They agreed that serfage should be abolished, and that all servile dues should be commuted for a rent of fourpence per acre, and a general pardon was pronounced on all. Clarks were set to work to draw up charters of liberation and pardon in proper legal form for every village and manner, as well as for every shire. While these arrangements were going on, the soldiers, who could have kept the tower with ease, were ordered, or at least permitted, to let in the mob. This appears to have been part of the agreement, and we cannot but brand it as a wicked compact, as it was clearly the duty of the court to protect its servants. The unfortunate leg, the farmer of the Poltacks, was murdered,

and a learned friar, the friend and advisor of John of Gaunt, was torn in pieces as a substitute for his patron. In the chapel, Archbishop Sudbury and Hales were torn from the altar and hurried to Tower Hill, where their heads were struck off and straightway placed on London Bridge. John Ball was said to be among the first who entered the tower, and to have directed the outrages. The mob suffered the Princess of Wales to escape by boat,

when she went to the Queen's wardrobe, which had been given to Queen Philippa, and was afterwards called the Tower Royal in the Vintry Ward. In some accounts, it is said that she went to the wardrobe in Carter Lane, but this is a mistake. The king, after his return from Mile End, joined his mother at the Queen's wardrobe. On Friday and Saturday, as they received their charter,

the bulk of the insurgents left London and returned to their homes, leaving the residue and more dangerous masses behind them. Mr Trevelyan relates how the king and his nobles rode out from the Queen's wardrobe through Ludgate and Temple Bar, passed along the strand by the smouldering ruins of the Savoy to Westminster. This was on Saturday the 15th of June. The royal party was met at the doors of the Abbey by a sorrowful procession of monks,

penitential garb, bearing the cross before them. The king dismounted and kissed the cross. The nobles, the courtiers and men-at-arms entered the church and performed with unusual fervour the acts of piety. The reason why the monks were in this subdued condition was owing to the fact that a violation of sanctuary had just occurred. The insurgents had marched on Westminster, broken open the exchequer, destroyed the books and records,

and violated the sanctuary. Richard or John Inworth, warden of the marshal sea, after the destruction of that prison, had fled for refuge to Westminster Abbey. On their arrival, the mob found him at the shrine of Edward the Confessor, and having torn him away,

carried him back to the city where his head was struck off on the block in Cheapside. Stowe gives a vivid account of the king's visit to the Abbey. Quote, The same day, June 15th, after dinner, about two of the clock, the king went from the wardrobe called the Royal, in London, toward Westminster, attended only by the number of 200 persons, to visit St. Edward's shrine, and to see if the commons had done any mischief there. The abbot and convent of that abbey, with the canons and vickers of St. Stephen's Chapel,

met him in rich copes with procession, and led him, by the charnel house into the abbey, then to the church, and so to the high altar, where he devoutly prayed and offered. After which he spake with the anchor, anchor it, to whom he confessed himself. Then he went to the chapel called Our Lady in the Pew, where he made his prayers. End quote. Fossart tells us that the figure of the virgin in this chapel was renowned for its many virtues, and that the kings of England had much faith in the miracles performed at this shrine. When Richard left Westminster, he, quote, made proclamation that all the commons of the country that were in London should meet him at Smithfield.

End quote. In the Stowe manuscript, there is a very full and clear record of the subsequent proceedings. The king went to the house of the canons of St. Bartholomew, quote, and then the mayor of London, William Walworth, came to the king, who commanded him to go to the commons to make their chieftain come to him, and when he was called by the mayor, what tyler of Maidstone by name, he came to the king with great countenance, mounted on a small horse, so as to be seen by the commons, and dismounted, carrying a dagger in his hand, which he had taken from another man. And when he was dismounted,

he took the king by the hand, half kneeling, and shook his arm sharply and strong. saying to him, Brother, be of good comfort. And the king said to the said what, Why will you not go to your country? And the other replied with a great oath, that he and his companions would not go unless they had their charter such as they wished to have.

End quote. The points are then set forth in fuller particularity than they were in the previous meeting at Mile End. Such demands as were not mentioned previously are as follows. quote, that there should be no law outside the law of Winchester, that no outlery should be by any process of law made henceforth, that the goods of Holy Church should not be in the hands of men of religion, nor of the Parsons and Vickers, nor of others of Holy Church,

but the Aventus should have their sustenance easily, and the remainder of the goods should be divided among the parishioners, and no bishop should be in England except one, and all the lands and tenements of the possessors should be taken from them and parted among the commons, saving to them their reasonable sustenance. To this the king replied easily, and said that he, what,

should have all this that he, the king, could properly grant, saving to him the rights of his crown, commanding him, what, to go to his hold without more delay. End quote. From this point, there are differences in the accounts, and it is difficult to be quite certain about the sequence of events which bought about What Tyler's death. Stowe accuses the leader of a deep-laid scheme for which there does not appear to be any special authority. He writes, quote, What Tyler, being a crafty fellow, of excellent wit, but lacking

grace, answered that peace be offered, but with conditions to his liking, minding to feed the king with fair words till the next day, that he might, in the night, have compassed his perverse purpose, for they thought the same night to have spalled the city, the king first being slain, and the great lords that cleaved to him, to have burnt the city by setting fire in four parts thereof. End quote. We now have to coordinate the different accounts of the end of what Tyler. Some of these take no notice of the causes that led to Wolworth's action, but Stowe's description seems in the main to make the whole scene clear, although he does not produce a consecutive narrative, but rather relates incidents out of their proper order.

The great open space of Smithfield, the favourite meeting place on the north of London, and the chosen site for the tournaments and jousts, was crowded on all sides. Near the gate of St. Bartholme's Priory were the king and his court, and farther to the west were the ranks of the commons set in order of battle. There had been some conference between the leaders, but no agreement had been come to, and naturally the state of tension was profound. What Tyler threatened the king,

and took umbrage at the position of Sir John Newton, or Newington, keeper of Rochester Castle, who bore the king's sword. He treated with much disrespect the knight, who remarked that he recognized in the rebel leader the greatest thief and robber of his country. This so enraged Watt Tyler that he first ordered his followers to behead Newington,

and then attempted to strike him with his dagger. At this, Wollworth came forward and requested the king to allow him to arrest Watt, who struck at him, but without effect, as Walthworth's armour protected him. The mayor then, in self-defence, attacked Watt and wounded him in the neck, and gave him a blow on the head.

John Cavendish, or, as some say, Ralph Standish, then came forward in support of the mayor and wounded Watt in several places. The chieftain spurred his horse and cried to the commons to avenge him. After riding some 30 yards, he fell off his horse, half dead, and was taken to the hospital of St. Bartholomew's where he died. What purports to be the dagger with which Walworth struck Watt-Tiler is in the possession of the fishmonger. company. The suspense at this crisis must have been intense. The rebels prepared their bows, but the arrows were not let fly, for the king, spurring his horse, rode forward across the square to the host, and cried out,

Will you shoot your king? I am your captain and leader. Follow me. This brilliant display of courage by the beautiful boy of fourteen, who had the misfortune to be king, had its effect. and the commons followed him peaceably into the fields of Clarkenwell. Walworth raised a body of loyal citizens, and these marched out under the command of Sir Robert Knowles

and surrounded the rebels who surrendered and asked for pardon. The host was divided into companies and sent to their respective homes under proper escort. Now that the authorities were triumphant, the leaderless rebels fared badly. On July 2nd, the church, charters were revoked. John Ball fled to the Midlands, and, according to Fossar, he was taken prisoner at Coventry in an old ruin. On the 15th of July, he was drawn, hanged and quartered,

just one month after the death of Watt Tyler. On December 13th, the king proclaimed a general pardon. A contemporary account of the insurrection was drawn up and inserted in the city Letterbook A translation of this is printed in Riley's memorials. It is of great interest, but naturally no attempt at a judicial statement is made. The events are described as, quote, among the most wondrous and hitherto unheard-of prodigies that ever happened in the city of London, end quote, and it is stated that, quote, hardly was there a street in the city in which there were not bodies lying of those who had been slain, end quote.

The traitors who let in the mob are described as, quote, perfidious commoners within the city, end quote. The whole account is written with spirit, and the ending of the fearful days is graphically described. Quote, therefore our lord the king returned into the city of London with the greatest glory and honour, and the whole of this profane multitude in confusion fled forthwith for concealment in their affright.

Our Lord the King, beneath his standard in the said field, with his own hands, decorated with the Order of Knighthood the said Mayor, William Walworth, and Sir Nicholas Bremba and Sir John Philippot, who had already been mayors of the said city, and also Sir Robert Lamb. End quote. Thus ended the peasants rising, which, although it ended in total defeat to its promoters, exercised an enormous influence on the course of English history. The insurrection of Jack Cade was not so important an event as that of what Tyler,

but it must not by any means be considered merely as an outbreak of the lower classes. Fabian, the alderman and sheriff, has left us particulars of the insurrection, and some further details have been discovered by Dr. James Gardner, C.B., who has given a connected account in the preface to his authoritative edition of the Paston Letters, and also in the Dictionary of National Biography. It is almost impossible to understand the characters of the men who held responsible positions in the reign of Henry VI. The uncles of the king quarreled among themselves, and their respective followers were hunted down by their enemies. William de la Poul, the fourth Earl and first Duke of Suffolk, a distinguished leader in the French wars,

but a politician in later life, was the chief opponent of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the leader of the warlike party. Suffolk was an active agent for peace. Apparently, the English people were then very much like what they have been in later time. Peace, after a successful war, has usually been unpopular, and the unfortunate Suffolk was howled at for having given back the provinces to France. Quote, By thee, Anjou and Main were sold to France. The false-revoting Normans, thorough thee, disdained to call us Lord, and Picardy, hath slain their governors, surprised our forts, and sent the ragged soldiers wounded home.

End quote. The Londoners were strongly antagonistic to Suffolk, who was generally accused of maladministration and malversation without definite charges. His friend could not protect him against his enemies, and when trying to escape to France, he was intercepted in the Straits of Dover, put in a little boat, and murdered. His body was thrown on the beach near Dover. It was afterwards buried by order of the king. His death did not satisfy the discontented,

and other courtiers succeeded to his place in the disfavor of the people. Whole districts of the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex rose in arms to the extent of 30,000 men, clamouring for the redress of grievances. The masses received assistance from some of the best families of these counties. The chronicler Gregory says that the captain, Quote, compassed all the gentles to arise with him, end quote. A man who called himself John Mortimer, and affirmed that he was a cousin of the Duke of York,

was chosen to be leader. His real name was believed to be Cade. He was an Irishman who had had some experience in war, and showed himself a strong leader. On the 1st of June 1450, a considerable army marched on London and encamped at Blackheath, where they formed a regular encampment. On hearing of this, Henry the 6th came from Leicester to London, where he arrived on the 6th. He took up his quarters at the hospital of St. John's Clarkenwell, and with him were 20,000 troops. The king sent to know the cause of the rising, and was answered thus, quote, to destroy traitors being about him with other diverse points, end quote. A message was then sent by the king, and proclamation was made that loyal men should immediately

quit the field. Upon the night after, all the insurgents were gone, and the insurrection seemed to have come to an end. On the 11th of June, the king proceeded to Blackheath, and he found that the rebels had withdrawn in the night-time. Instead of leaving well alone, it was decided to pursue the insurgents, and a detachment of the Royal Army under Sir Humphrey Stafford and his brother William was sent in pursuit. A battle took place on the 18th at Sevenoaks, in which both the Staffords were killed and the rest of the party completely routed.

The followers of the king in the royal camp were dismayed, and many of them threatened that if justice was not done on certain treacher, traitors who had resisted the king, they would go over to the captain of Kent. One of the chief of these unpopular courtiers was James Fines, Lord Say and Sell, a follower of Suffolk, and to please the disaffected, he was sent to the tower. The king withdrew to Greenwich, and the whole of the army dispersed. He returned to London by water and made preparations for removal to Kenilworth. The mayor and the commons beseeched him to remain in London,

offering to live and die with him and to pay half the cost of his household, but he would not consent. The city authorities did not know what to do, and a party among them opened negotiations with the insurgents. Alderman Cook passed to and fro under the safe conduct of the captain. Stowe Prince in his chronicle, Quote, The safeguard and sign manual of the Captain of Kent sent to Thomas Cook, Draper of London, by the Captain of the Great Assembly in Kent, end quote. He also gives, quote, the complaint of the Commons of Kent, end quote, and, quote, the requests by the

Captain of the Great Assembly in Kent, end quote. These are differently worded from the, quote, proclamation made by Jack Cade, end quote, which has been printed from a manuscript in the handwriting of Stowe, but the sentiments and complaints in all of the documents are essentially the same. They contain a remarkable expression of the feelings of general unrest among the people, although they are doubtless very unjust to the character of the Duke of Suffolk and his followers. On the 1st of July, the insurgents entered Southwark, and Jack Cade made the White Heart in his headquarters. According to Fabian, while the Commons of Kent settled themselves in Southwark, the rebels of Essex made, quote, a field of

upon the plain of Mile End, end quote, their resting place. On the 2nd of July, a court was held by the mayor for the purpose of considering the best means of resisting the entry of the rebels into the city. It was found, however, that the majority were in their favour, so that Alderman John Horn was committed to Newgate for opposing the views of the malcontents. In the afternoon, about five o'clock, the insurgents were admitted into the city and passed over London Bridge, Cade cutting the ropes of the drawbridge with his sword. Cade then issued proclamations in the king's name

against robbery and forced requisitions and rode through the streets, taking the city under his complete control. When he came to the London stone in Cannon Street, he struck it with his sword and said, quote, Now is Mortimer Lord of this city, end quote. This was a circumstance.

of the greatest interest in the history of London, for it shows that some special virtue was supposed, in the popular mind, to be connected with London Stone. Cade now gave orders to the mayor and returned to Southwark for the night. On Friday the 3rd of July, he returned to the city and sent for Lord Say and ordered him, after a mock trial, to be beheaded at the standard in Cheapside. Cromer, an unpopular sheriff of Kent and son-in-law to say, was beheaded at Mile End. As Jack Kay did not wish to be publicly recognised by those who knew his origin, he caused one Bailey, who was supposed to be an old acquaintance, to beheaded at Whitechapel. Attention to the rules of order and honesty at length tired the leader,

and Stowe relates that, quote, he went into the house of Philip Malpas, Draper and alderman, and robbed and spoiled his house, taking from thence great substance, and returned unto Southwark. On the next morrow he again entered the city, and dined that day in the parish of St. Margaret Patton's, at one Gerstey's house, and when he had dined, like an uncourteous guest,

he robbed him, as the day before he had malpass. For which two robberies, although the poor people drew to him and were partners in the spoil, yet the honest and wealthy commoners cast in their minds the sequel of this matter, and fear lest they should be dealt with in like manner. End quote. On Sunday the 5th of July, Cade and his followers remained in Southwark all day, and in the evening, the mayor and citizens, with a force under the command of Matthew Goff,

occupied London Bridge to prevent the Kentishmen from entering the city. Desperate fighting on the bridge continued all through the night, from nine o'clock to nine on the following morning. Quote, sometime the citizens had the better, and sometimes the other, but ever they kept them upon the bridge, so that the citizens never passed much the bulwark at the bridge foot,

nor the Kentishmen no farther than the drawbridge. Thus continued the cruel fight to the destruction of much people on both sides, end quote. Matthew Goff, John Sutton, Alderman, and Roger Hoysand, citizen, were among the killed. When the rebels got the worst of the encounter, a truce was made. A conference was arranged, and Waynefleet, Bishop of Winchester, and some others met Cade in St Margaret's Church, Southwark.

The bishop produced two general pardons sent by the Chancellor, Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of York. One for the captain himself, and the other for his followers. These were eagerly accepted as the insurgents were disgusted with their leader, and they were only too glad to return to their homes. It seems to have been generally believed that Cade was entitled to the name of Mortimer, but after this conference the truth got abroad, and his pardon was necessarily invalidated in consequence of this discovery. On the 12th of July, therefore, a proclamation of the king was issued for the apprehension of Cade,

and the offer of a reward of 1,000 marks to anyone who should take him alive or dead. Cade escaped in disguise towards the woody country round Lewis. He was pursued by Alexander Iden and captured and mortally wounded by him at Heathfield, Sussex, on the 13th. The place is known as Cade Street, and a stone with an inscription stands on the site of the capture. Cade's body was taken to London. his head was placed on London Bridge and his four quarters were sent to different parts of Kent.

Thus ended this dangerous rebellion. The whole history of the origin of the rising is most complicated. Not only, as already mentioned, were the gentry of Kent on the side of the rebels, but most of the important persons in Southwark supported them. There were Richard Dartmouth, Abbott of Battle, John Daniel, prior of Lewis, and Robert Poinings,

uncle of the Countess of Northumberland and husband of Margaret Paston. Quote, When the pardon time came, a goodly list of names was recorded, with which it was thought wise to deal leniently. End quote. The second part of King Henry VI,

which Shakespeare slightly altered from, the first part of the contention betwixt the two famous houses of York and Lancaster, is chiefly concerned with Cade's Rebellion. but it is sad that such a perversion of history should in any way be connected with the honoured name of our greatest poet. The libel against Suffolk, quote, There let his head and lifeless body lie until the queen his mistress bury it, end quote, is apparently devoid of the slightest foundation.

The representation of Cade is also a ridiculous travesty. His proclamation, which has come down to us, will be seen to be a very clear and ingenious piece of composition. Moreover, Latin is quoted in it, and therefore the writer is not likely to have considered it a crime to speak Latin. Cade's description of Lord say, Quote, Thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the realm in erecting a grammar school, and whereas before our forefathers had no other. the books but the score and the tally, Thou hast caused printing to be used,

and contrary to the king, his crown, and dignity, thou hast built a paper mill, end quote, has no foundation whatever in history. In spite of the anachronism of the allusion to the printing press, Gibbon was deceived by the description, and, in claiming Lord Say as an ancestor, styled him a martyr to learning. Dr. Gerdner discovered in Gregory's Chronicle

a very remarkable statement which, if true, would throw great light upon the origin of the outbreak. Quote, And after that, the Battle of Sevenoaks, upon the first day of Jouille, the same captain come again, as the Kentishmen sayed, but Hitt was another that named himself the captain,

and he come to the Blackheath. End quote. Dr. Gerdner is inclined to take this as something more than a mere rumour, but he waits for some corroboration from another source before entirely accepting it. He adds in a note, quote, The story of Jack Cade, however, is attended with difficulties from any point of view, and it is remarkable that when Cade's body was brought to London,

it was taken to the White Heart at Southwark, where he had lodged before his entry into the city. and identified by the woman who kept the house. We hear nothing of its being identified by anyone who had seen the leader before the Battle of Sevenoaks. End quote. End of Chapter 2 Part 3. End of Section 5.

Section 6 of the Story of London. This is a Librevox recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, here, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 3

Round the town with Chaucer and the poets of his time. Having considered some of the chief conditions of life in a walled town and the manners of the inhabitants, we can now proceed to look at Old London through the eyes of the great English poets of the later medieval period. to whom we are so much indebted for the insight they give us into the habits of a long-dead past. That wonderful book, Piers Plowman, not only brings before us in the most vivid fashion,

the life of the 14th century, but opens out to us the thoughts and hopes of the leaders of men. One of the most striking passages contains a description of the interior of a beerhouse in the reign of Edward III, with the company assembled therein. This is a scene common to the whole country, but London places are also frequently mentioned in Pears Ploughman. The author, William Langland, called Long Will, probably from his tallness, was an inhabitant of London, but he has little to say in its favour. He wrote, quote, I have lived long in London, but have never found charity. All whom I have seen are covetous. End quote. Professor Skeet says,

Quote, One great merit of the poem is that it chiefly exhibits London life and London opinions, which are surely of more interest to us than those of Worcestershire. He does but mention Malvern three times, and those three passages may be found

within the compass of the first eight passes of text A. But how numerous are his allusions to London? He not only speaks of it several times, but he frequently mentions the law courts of Westminster. He was familiar with Cornhill, East Cheap, Cock Lane in Smithfield, Shoreditch, garlic hive, Stratford, Tyburn, and Southwark, all of which he mentions in an offhand manner. He mentions no river but the Thames, which is with him simply synonymous with river. for in one passage he speaks of two men thrown into the Thames and in another he says that

rich men are wont to give presents to the rich which is as superfluous as if one should fill a ton with water from a fresh river and then pour it into the Thames to render it wetter to remember the London origin of a large portion of the poem is the true key to the right understanding of it end quote Footnote There was another cock lane near Shoreditch,

now Boundary Street, which may be the one connected with Langland. End of footnote. Monsieur Jusseron, in his interesting study of Piers Ploughman, says of Langland, quote, He tells us what he has seen and nothing else. His sole guide is the light that shines over the town

where truth is imprisoned. end quote. He continues. Quote, it clears the darkness of the London lanes where, under the pent roof of their shops, the merchants make guile, disguised as an apprentice, sell their adulterated wares. It brightens the hovel in Cornhill where the poet lodges his emaciated body. It throws its rays on the scared faces of sinners for whom the hour of punishment has rung. We have here a hovel in Cornhill where the hollied. whole gallery of portrait which stand out in an extraordinary manner.

End quote. Monsieur Gisorin takes a somewhat unfavourable view of Langland's character. He says that the poet, quote, blames those who go to London and sing for souls, yet he confesses that he does the same. He blames people of a wandering habit, yet he is a wanderer. He heaps scorn on the men who seek for invitations at the house of of the great, yet he does so. He condemns, though that feign and hear fallis, and he assumes the appearance of a foal. He hates lazy people, laurels, lollairs,

yet he lives himself as a laurel, a luller, a spill time. And love it welfare, and no deed to do but drink and to sleep, end quote. The satirist and the censor cannot always be consistent, and without deciding upon the character of Langland, gratitude to him causes us to forgive his inconsistencies, and make us more inclined to agree with the high estimate of Professor Skeet, rather than with the condemnation of Monsieur Gisséééééren. Langland was taken by the leaders of the peasants rising as the great profit of their movement, but he himself stood outside the political circle. He completed complained of the evils that were everywhere rampant, but he did not wish to set himself against the

government. As Dr. Skeet says, quote, his Richard the Readless is a tender and touching remonstrance to the king, Richard II. End quote. Thomas Hockleave and John Gower were Londoners, the former a clerk in the Privy Seal office, and the latter probably a city merchant. Hockleave is supposed to have taken his name from the village of Hockcliffe, Bedfordshire, on the Roman road, four and a half miles south of Woburn, and three and a half east of Leighton Buzzard. He intended at first to become a priest, but instead he entered the Privy Seal office in 1308,

when he was 19 or 20 years of age. He complained of the drudgery of copying, and seems to have always been ready to shirk his work. Dr. Fernival's side notes to the autobiographical portion of the Regiment of Princes shows what the complaints are like. Quote, A copier must always work, mind, eye, and hand together. He can't talk to other folk, or sing, but must give all his wits to his work. Workmen talk, sing, and lark.

We labour in silence, stoop and stare on the sheepskin. Our copying hurts our stomachs, our backs, and our eyes. Anyone who has copied for 20 years like I have suffers for it in every bit of his body. It's nearly done for me. Had I always lived in poverty, I shouldn't feel it so much now, but the change is strange. God keep me from poverty. I'd sooner die than live miserably. End quote.

As there were many copyists employed in London, we must hope that they were not all so weary of their work as the poet was. He lived at Chester Inn, which stood on part of the site of the present Somerset House. Quote, at Chester Inn write fast be the strand. End quote. His daily occupation took him to Westminster, where the Privy Seal office was situated, and as the Strand was but a poor road, we may suppose that he went from home to office in a boat.

He went frequently to Paul's Head tavern in St. Paul's Churchyard, where he made love to the waitresses and others. He also belonged to a dining club, called the Temple Club, quote, the court of good company, end quote. Often, after dinner, instead of going back to the office, he took his pleasure on the Thames, being flattered by the Waterman, who fought amongst themselves for his patronage and called him master because he paid them well. He was a good churchman, and denounced the Lollard rising in St. Giles Fields in January 1414 in good, set terms.

Hockleave was not a very lively poet, and he always seems to have been in want of money. He enjoyed the early part of his life, but when he married, and the pinch of poverty came upon him, he was very dejected. In spite of his faults, we cannot but esteem him, and feel that he has a claim on our gratitude because he was devoted to Chaucer, and was the cause of our possessing the best portrait there is of the poet. Hockleave was near Chaucer in his last days. He could easily passed from Westminster Palace to the Garden of the Chapel of St. Mary. Dr. Furnival suggests that he was with Chaucer when the great poet died there. Dr. G. C. McCauley, in the introduction to his valuable and exhaustive edition of Gower's

complete works, says that the poet speaks with special respect of the estate of merchants, which seems to suggest that it was, as a merchant, he made the money which he spent in buying his land, and this inference is supported by the manner in which he speaks of, quote, Our City, end quote, and by the fact that it is with members of the merchant class that he seems to be most in personal communication. Dr. McCauley supposes Gower to have been a dealer in wool, with the natural dislike of the Londoner for foreigners. The jealousy of the Lombard which he expresses has every appearance of being a prejudice connected with rivalry in commerce. Quote,

I see Lombards come, he says, in poor attire as servants, and before a year has passed, they have gained so much by deceit and conspiracy that they dress more nobly than the burgesses of our city. End quote. John Gower at one time lived at Southwark, and in St. Xavier's Church, his tomb still stands. One day, in the year 1390,

when he had taken boat on the Thames, he accidentally met the king, Richard II, in his tapestried barge. The river was the silent highway for all Londoners, also the Royal Road from Westminster to the Tower, and from thence to Greenwich. Brilliant scenes were to be seen on the river, which joined all parts of the town in one.

Here all classes were brought together, the gentry and the working classes, and court pageants were constantly being enacted. When Richard saw Gower, he commanded him to come into the royal barge, and then charged him to write some new thing which he might read. The poet obeyed the command, and produced the Confessio Amantis, with a prologue in which occur these lines. Quote,

In our English, I think make, a book for King Richard's sake, to whom belongeth my legions, with all mine heart's abasance, In all that ever a liege man, unto his king may do nor can, So perforth I me recommend, To him which all me may command, Pray end unto the high reign, which causeth every king to reign, That his coron long stood. I think and have it understood, As it befell upon a tide, as thing which should though be tied,

Under the town of New Troy, Which took of brute his first joy, In Thames when it was flow-end, As I be bot Camroend, So as fortune here time set, My liege-lord-Pa-Chonce I met, And so befell as I came nigh, Out of my bot when he me sigh,

He bad me come into his barge. And when I was with him at large, Amongst other things said, He had this charge upon me led, And bad me do my business, That to his high worthiness, Some new thing I should boke, That he himself it might look,

After the form of my writing. And thus upon his commanding, Mine heart is well the more glad, To write so as he me bad, And eke my fare as well the lass, That none envy shall compass, without a reasonable white to pine and blame that I write." End quote.

As time went on, Gower lost faith in Richard. The personal reference to the king was suppressed, and instead of, A book for King Richard's sake, he wrote, quote, a book for England's sake, end quote. The original picture is of all the more interest because Gower's verse is not usually elusive to the characteristics of London life. John Lydgate was a countryman and monk of Bury, born at Lydgate, near Newmarket, about 1370,

as he himself tells us in the tale of princes. He was not in sympathy with the doings of the city, but his London Lickpenny is an invaluable record of London life in his day, in which are related the adventures of a poor Kentish man who comes to London in search of justice, but cannot find it for lack of money. First, he went to Westminster Hall, and visited successively the different courts of law, the King's Bench and the Common Pleas,

and then to the rolls, quote, before the clerks of the Chancery, end quote. Quote, Within this hall, neither rich nor yet poor, Would do for me aught, although I should die, Which seeing I got me out of the door, Where Fleming's began on me for to cry,

Master, what will you copen or buy, Fine felt hats, or spectacles to read, Lay down your silver, and here you may speed, End quote. At Westminster Gate, Quote, Cooks to me they took good intent, and proffered me bread with ale and wine, ribs of beef, both fat and full fine, a fair cloth they gan for me to spreeed,

but wanting money I might not then speed. End quote. No doubt the countryman had sufficient cause for many of his complaints. But we cannot but ask, why should he expect to obtain things without paying for them? He proceeds to London and hears the various cries of the streets. Hot peas' codes, strawberry ripe, cherries in the ryes, i.e., on the bough. Some of the tradesmen offered spice, pepper and saffron. In cheapside he saw velvet, silk and lawn, and, quote,

parish thread, the finest in the land, end quote. He goes by London. stone through Cannon Street, where drapers offered him much cloth. Others cried, Hot sheep's feet, mackerel, rushes green. In East Cheap there were ribs of beef, many a pie and pewter pots in a heap. A tavernor in Cornhill took him by the sleeve. Quote, Sir, said he, will you our wine assay?

End quote. He was now tired of his excursion. and walked to Billingsgate, where he prayed a bargeman to take him in his boat for nothing. All this is a groundless complaint, but he was also robbed at Westminster of his hood. In Cannon Street he was asked to buy a new one, and in Cornhill, among much stolen property, he saw his own hood hanging up for sale. This reminds one of the oft-repeated story of the man who, walking through Petticoat Lane, was robbed as he entered

and found the object stolen from and ticketed for sale as he turned out of it. The countryman soon has enough of London and its ways and conveys himself back into Kent, ending his account of his adventures with these words. Quote, save London and send true lawyers their mead, for those who so wants money with them shall not speed.

End quote. The words of the poet already referred to to are of the greatest valley to us, and we are grateful for the vivid pictures of medieval life they have left us. But we have in Chaucer an ideal Londoner, far beyond the others in the charm of his writing, one who loved the city in which he lived and died. Langland was too much occupied in denouncing the evils of his time to be able to see the good. Lydgate, Hockleve and Gower also took partial views of the life around them. It is the great genius and large-heartedness of Chaucer

that enables us to see the mixed good and evil. Thanks to the labours of many scholars, we seem to know Chaucer, who died five centuries ago, better than many great men who have lived nearer our own days, and, strange to say, although we take him as a representative of the Middle Ages, and he was that, he was so imbued with the modern spirit that we cannot but feel that he is at one with us in his views of the life around him.

He was associated with all parts of London, so that, in a walk through the town with him, we can illustrate our journey from the facts known of his life and with extracts from his works. The facts of Chaucer's life, as written in official documents which have been found by enthusiastic searches, are largely illustrative of London history, and it is only with these special facts that we are here concerned. Geoffrey Chaucer was the son of a citizen and vintner of the city of London, and probably born at his father's house in Thames Street, in the vintry, at or near the foot of Dowgate Hill.

The house came into Geoffrey's possession after his father's death when he sold it. There has been much discussion as to the date, of his birth. It must have been after 1328, because we know that in that year his father was a bachelor. There is much to be said in favour of the supposition that he was born about 1340. His family must have stood well in public esteem, with good connections, as the young man was early attached to the court, and during his lifetime he filled several offices of distinction. His grandfather, Robert La Chaucer, was one of the collectors at the Port of London of the New Customs upon wine, granted by the merchants of Aquitaine. We have no information as to Geoffrey's schooling, but doubtless the position of his father was such that he would find a place at one of the schools that were attached to the chief religious houses of London.

Fitz Stephen tells us that the three chief schools were connected with St. Paul's, St. Martin's LaGras, and Holy Trinity, Altgate. Neither of these schools is far from the vintry, and Chaucer might have gone to either of them. St. Paul's is, of course, the nearest, but if he went to this school, there ought to be some tradition of the fact still existing. There is no claim, however, to Chaucer,

set up by the historians of the successor of the old school, the new foundation of Dean Collett. Chaucer's early life was spent at court and in diplomatic missions. In June 1374, he was appointed comptroller of the customs and subsidy of wool skins and tanned hides

in the port of London. Attached to his office was the obligation to keep the records with his own hand and to be continuously present. In the previous May, looking out for a convenient residence, he rented Aldgate from the city authorities.

In The House of Fame, we have a picture of, of the poet at Aldgate after a hard day's work, writing of love, with his head aching, in his study at night. Quote, That there no tiding cometh to thee, but of thy very neighbours, that dwellen almost at thy doors, thou hearest neither that nay this, for when thy labour doone all is, and hast imad thy reckonings, instead of rest and newer things, thou gotst whom to thy house an and also dom as thy stoon, thou sittest at another book, till fully dasward is thy look, and livest thus as anhermite, although thine abstinence is light."

Here, at Aldgate, Professor Hales tells us he wrote most of the works of his middle period. Quote, It was in the old tower of Aldgate that he made himself a supreme master of the poetic craft, and turned his mastery to immortal account in the production of so exquisite a piece as Troilus and Cressida, and in the designing of a work that should give yet ample expression to his manifold gifts and graces, to his maturist thought and his highest inspiration. End quote. In 1382, he obtained an additional comptrollerhip, that of the petty customs of the Port of London, with leave to nominate a substitute on the understanding that he was responsible for him.

In February 1385, the same privilege was allowed him in regard to his old Comptrollerhip, and soon afterwards he left the Gate House of Altgate. In October 1386, he was elected Knight of the Shire for Kent, and then political troubles caused him to lose both his comptrollerhips. Professor Hales finds that the premises were granted in October 1386 to Richard Foster, possibly identical with Richard Forrester, who was one of Chaucer's proxies when he went abroad for a time in May 1378. The date of The Legend of Good Women is given as probably in the spring or summer of 1386, and as the house in which he was then living had a garden and an arbour,

It could not have been the dwelling-house of Aldgate. Professor Hales believes that when the poet left the latter place, he went to live at Greenwich. Quote, When that the sun out of the south gone west, And that this flower gone close and go to rest, For darkness of the night, for which she dread, Home to mine house full swiftly I-me-sped,

To go to rest, and early for to rise, to see this flower spread as I devise. And in a little arbour that I have, That benched was on terns, fresh egrave, I bad men should me my couch make, For dainty of the news summer's sake, I bad them straw and flowers on my bed. End quote.

The year 1387 has been fixed as the date of the framework Of the pilgrimage to Canterbury, Starting from the Tabard, fast by the ball in Southwark. Some of the tales had certainly been written before this, but then it was that they were gathered together. A very interesting note by Professor Hales, on the date of the Canterbury Tales,

is printed in the Athenium, in which some excellent reasons are given in support of this date. Quote, it has been, and is by some still, placed as late as 1393. But the evidence for placed it so late is extremely slight, if, indeed, there is any at all that bears investigation. Whereas, assuredly, many things point to the year 1387 or thereabouts as the year of the

pilgrimage and of Chaucer's immortal description of it. End quote. In 1389, Chaucer was clerk of the King's Works at the Palace of Westminster, the Tower of London, and various royal manners. In 1390, he was employed to repair St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and to erect scaffolds at Smithfield for Richard II and his queen, Anne of Bohemia, for them to view a great tournament. He was also appointed one of the Commission for the Repair of the Roadways on the Banks of the River between Greenwich and Woolwich. About this time, a great misfortune overtook the poet. In the pursuit of his duties, with the king's money in his purse to pay the workman, he was robbed by highwaymen twice on the same day,

the first time at Westminster of £10, and the second a hatcham, near the foul oak, of £9, £3 shillings and apence. This was a serious loss, and he was forgiven the amount by writ dated 6th of January 1391. In this same year, Chaucer lost his lucrative clerkshire, and we hear no more of him from the records till 1399, when he took a lease for 53 years of a tenement

in the Garden of St. Mary's Chapel, Westminster, on the site of Henry the 7th Chapel. Here he died ten months after, on the 25th of October 1400. Thus ended the full and busy life of the many-sided poet, who was also a man of science, soldier, a squire of the king's household, envoy on several foreign missions,

Comptroller of Customs and Member of Parliament. From this catalogue of Chaucer's offices and official movements, we can see that a better guide to the London of his day could not be found. We may take it for granted that he walked over the greater part of the city continually. As a boy, he was an inhabitant of the Vintry, and from here he could walk to school either in a northeasterly direction to Holy Trinity, Trinity, Aldgate, or in a westerly direction to St. Paul's or St. Martin's Legrand. Then, at about 17 years of age, he was attached to the court, and for some years he was a

frequent attendant at the Palace of Westminster. When he settled to his duties at the Customs House, he went backwards and forwards to Altgate. Sometimes he would walk up Spurrier's lane, now Water Lane, cross Tower Street, along Fenchurch's Starr, Starr, Starr, street, up Mark, then Mart, lane to the gate. At other times he would probably find his way to Great Tower Hill and pass through the Tower Posturn to Little Tower Hill. From here, he would walk northward among the trees between the wall and town ditch on the one side, and the nunnery of the minaretses on the other. In 1381, at the time of the Peasant's Revolt, Chaucer was, we may suppose, in London, but he does not allude at all fully to the reign of terror which for four

days overshadowed the city. The men of Essex were outside Aldgate waiting to be let in, and when the bridge gate was open to the men of Kent, the eastern gate was also thrown open. One would wish to have known what Chaucer was doing then. Did he look out of the window of his house and watch the threatening crowd, or had he gone to the support of the king in the tower? He only makes a passing allusion to the murder of the Fleming's in the nun's priest's tale. Quote, Seert's he jack's drawer and his mane, Ney Madden shouts never half so screel,

When that they wouldn't any Fleming kill, As Lil Kade was made upon the fox. End quote. Chaucer must have often wandered outside Aldgate, And after a hard day's work, he would naturally stroll along the wide and pleasant eastern road. He introduces the Benedictine nunnery of Stratford-up-Boe in his description of the prioress, Madame Eglentine.

Quote, And French, she spake full fair and fetusly, after the skull of Stratford-up Boe, for French of Paris was to hear unknown. End quote. And certainly he must have passed over the bridge built by Queen Matilda in the 12th century, which gave its name to the village. In 1389, after he had left Aldgate, and when he was probably settled at Westminster,

of which palace he was clerk of the works, he was often called to the tower, close by his old office at the custom house, to see to the necessary repairs. Like others, Chaucer probably used the river as often as possible, for many of the streets were not very pleasant to walk along. But in carrying out his many official duties, he was obliged to visit all parts of the city, and he must therefore have left few streets within the walls untraversed. We have chiefly noted the places on the east side of London, and we can therefore now pass to the west. The controversy that raged over the question of the respective claims of the families of Scrope,

and Grovener to a certain coat of arms is of high interest to the herald. But in the voluminous evidence, the lover of Chaucer and of London scarcely expects to find a statement by the poet himself as to his being in Friday Street on a certain day and what he saw there. The whole account of the poet's examination is of the greatest interest. Quote, Geoffrey Chaucer, Esquire, of the age of 40 years and more, armed 27 years for the side of Sir Richard Lestcropp, sworn and examined, being asked if the arms, as ye abend, or, belong or ought to pertain to the said Sir Richard by right and heritage, said,

Yes, for he saw him so armed in France, 1359, before the town of Rettus, Rettel, and Sir Henry Lescrop armed in the same arms with a white label and with banner, and the said Sir Sir Sir Richard armed in the entire arms, Asia Abendor, and so during the whole expedition, until the said Geoffrey was taken. Being asked how he knew that the said arms belonged to the said Sir Richard, said that he had heard old knights and esquires say that they had had continual possession of the said arms, and that he had seen them displayed on banners, glass painting and vestments, and commonly called the arms of Scrope.

Being asked whether he had ever heard of any interruption or challenge made by Sir Robert Grovener, or his ancestors, said, no, but that he was once in Friday Street, London, and walking up the street he observed a new sign hanging out with these arms thereon. And he inquired what in that was that had hung out these arms of Scrope, and one answered saying, they are not hung out, sir, for the arms of Scrope. grope, nor painted there for those arms, but they are painted and put there by a knight of the county of Chester called Sir Robert Grovener. And that was the first time he ever heard speak of Sir Robert Grovener, or his ancestors, or of anyone bearing the name of Grovener. End quote.

Friday Street was close by Old St. Paul's, the glory of the city, which was magnificent within and without. When Chaucer knew it, the fine tomb. of Sir John Beauchamp, died 1358, constable of Dover Castle, in the middle aisle of the nave, was new. The monument was the chief object in the nave, and came to be called incorrectly Duke Humphrey's tomb, and the nave from it was styled Duke Humphrey's Walk.

The stately tomb of John of Gaunt, died 1399, which was later on the most prominent object in the choir, was probably not erected in Chaucer's lifetime. The old cathedral was full of chanthries, as were the other churches of London. The number of chantry priests gave great offence, as appears in Pears Plowman and the works of the other poets. The poor Parson is described in the prologue of the Canterbury Tales

as attending to his own flock, and not performing the services of the dead at other shrines. Quote, He set not his benefice to hire, and let his sheep accumbered in the mire, and ran unto London into St. Paul's, to seek an him a chauntry for souls. End quote. Outside Newgate, Chaucer went up Cow Lane, now King Street, to Smithfield, the open space appropriated to tournaments, markets, and shows, to prepare for the jousts to be held before the king and his house. to prepare for the jousts to be held before the king and his queen in 1390. Passing from London to Westminster, we come to the Muse,

the site of the present National Gallery, which Chaucer had for a time under his charge. He settled in the precincts of Westminster Abbey, and there passed away. It has been erroneously stated on the authority of Stowe that Chaucer was first buried in the cloisters. This is refuted by Kaxton's distinct statement that the body was first buried in front of the chapel of St. Benedict. In 1555, or 1556, it was removed to its present position in the tomb prepared for it by Nicholas Brigham, where it has become the central object of the world-renowned poet's corner.

The last place to be mentioned, and the one which he has chiefly immortalized, is the High Street, Southwark. called also Long Southwark. Here was the Tabard, where gathered the Canterbury Pilgrims, who set out on their pilgrimage under the leadership of Harry Bailey. Bailey was a real personage, and at one time member of Parliament for Southwark. Footnote. The Tabard was one among many inns from which travellers started on their journeys along the road to Canterbury and to the seaports of the South. The whole of the buildings which Chaucer knew were burnt in the Great Southwark Fire of 1676. End of footnote. Of all the pictures drawn by Chaucer, the portraits of the pilgrims in the prologue to the Canterbury Tales are the most valuable for our present

purpose, as showing us the men and women who are to be seen daily in the streets of London. It is a difficult matter to appraise the relative positions of our great authors, but probably the true test of immortality is the creation of living characters. It is largely the dramatic power displayed in the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, which places Chaucer by the side of Shakespeare. End of Chapter 3. End of Section 6. Section 7 of the Story of London This is a Libravots recording.

All Librevots recordings are in the public domain. For more information ought to volunteer. volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 4. The River and the Bridge The River has made London, and London has acknowledged its obligations to the Thames. It was the silent highway along which the chief traffic of the city passed during the Middle Ages,

and, probably, the roads of London. would have been better if the water carriage had not been so good. The river continued to be the silent highway until the 19th century, when it lost its high position. With the construction of the Thames Embankment, the river again took its proper place as the centre of London, but it did not again become its main artery. We have seen in the previous chapter how the poet Gower met King Richard II near Westminster and was summoned to the royal barge. Fitz Stephen gives a vivid description of the sports on the Thames.

Quote, In the Easter holidays, they play at a game resembling a naval engagement. A target is firmly fastened to the trunk of a tree which is fixed in the middle of the river, and in the prow of a boat, driven along by oars and the current, a young man who is to strike the target with his lance.

If, in his own, hitting it, he break his lands, and keep his position unmoved, he gains his point, and attains his desire. But if his lance be not shivered by the blow, he is tumbled into the river, and his boat passes by, driven along by its own motion. Two boats, however, are placed there, one on each side of the target, and in them a number of young men to take up the striker when he first emerges from the stream. On the bridge, and in balconies on the banks of the river, stand the spectators. End quote. Four centuries after this, Stowe describes a somewhat similar scene. Quote, I have also in the summer season, seen some upon the River of Thames rode in Waries,

with staves in their hands, flat at the foreend, running one against another, and for the most part, one or both overthrown and well ducked. End quote. One of the most remarkable incidents in the life of the Middle Ages is connected with the history of that highly placed lady, the unfortunate Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester, whose enemies succeeded in condemning her to do penance in London in three open spaces on three separate days.

She was brought by water from Westminster, and on the 13th of November 1441, was put on shore at the Temple Bridge, on the 15th at the Old Swan, and again on the 17th at Queen Hythe, and from these landing places she walked to the place of penance. The Old Swan, which stood near London Bridge, just where its successor now stands, can be traced further back than the reign of Henry VI, for a tavern with the sign of the swan is mentioned in a deed of Edward II's time. The Old Chronicles are full of references to what took place on the river.

Thus, Edward Hall has a vivid picture of how the Archbishop of York, after leaving the widow of Edward IV in the sanctuary at Westminster, returned home to York Place at dawn of day. Quote, and when he opened his windows and looked on the Thames, he might see the river full of boats of the Duke of Gloucester, Richard III, his servants, watching that no person should go to sanctuary, nor should pass unsearched. End quote.

Cavendish, in his Life of Woolsey, shows us two prelates talking confidentially in the Cardinals' barge. Quote, Thus, this court passed from session to session, and day to day, in so much that a certain day,

the king sent for my lord, the breaking up one day of the court, to come to him in Bridewall, and to accomplish his command. He went under him, and being there with him in communication in His Grace's privy chamber from eleven until twelve of the clock and passed at noon, my lord came out and departed from the king, and took his barge at the Blackfriars, and so went to his house at Westminster. The Bishop of Carlisle, being with him in his barge, said unto him, wiping the sweat from his face,

Sir, quoth he, it is a very hot day. "'Ye,' quoth my lord Cardinal, "'if you had been as well chafed as I have been within this hour, "'you would say it was very hot.' "'End quote. "'The river swarmed with watermen, "'and these men had their songs and choruses. "'A favourite song was an honour of Sir John Norman,

"'Mayer in 1454, "'who first broke the rule of riding to Westminster on Mayer's Day "'and rode thither by water, "'a practice which continued for me, many years, and might now be revived with advantage. Quote, row the boat, Norman, row to thy leman, end quote. We can see from this how much both of the business and pleasure of London took place on the Thames. It reminds us vividly of the busy life of the canals of Venice.

The river was the highway of business as well of pleasure, and the intimate relations between England and Normandy after the conquest, naturally encouraged commerce between the continent and England, and London rapidly became the centre of this trade. Ships came here from Flanders, Germany, Gascany, Italy, and also from Norway. Wharves lined the sides of the Thames, and each class of goods was landed at a wharf set apart for a special nationality. In Henry II's reign, London and Bristol became a world. the chief commercial ports of the kingdom, the former trading with Germany and the central ports of the continent, and the latter with the Scandinavian countries and with Ireland.

The Normans had special privileges, and Mr. Horace Round points out that the Charter of Henry Duke of the Normans, afterwards Henry II of England, to the citizens of Rouen 1, 1150 to 1151, confers to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days of Edward the confessor. Mr. Round adds that this is a fact unknown to English historians. The early history of Queen Hithe, for many years the chief rival to Billingsgate, is somewhat difficult to follow. In the Saxon period, it appears to have belonged to one Edred, who gave the wharf his name, by which it continued to be called for some years after the conquest. It was granted to Holy Trinity within Aldgate by William de Iphe, who received it from King Stephen.

After some time it again came into the possession of the king, and John is said to have given it to his mother, Eleanor, Queen of Henry II, after whom it received its name of Queen Hithe. By some means not recorded, the Rieper Regina came into the possession of Richard Earl of Cornwall, who, in 1246, granted it to John Gizor's, then Mayor, and the Commons of London to farm at an annual rent of £50, Henry III confirmed this grant, and the custody of the Hithe was thereupon committed to the sheriffs, and half a year's rent had been allowed, as the place appears to have fallen into decay, owing probably to the death of John de Stortford during his shrievelty. According to Stowe, quote, Edward II in the first year of his reign gave to Margaret, wife to Piers de Gaveston,

£43 £12 shillings and ninepence halfney farthing, out of the rent of London to be received of the Queen's Hithe. End quote. Queen Hithe was the usual landing place for wine, wool, hides, corn, firewood, fish, and all kinds of commodities. It was probably to Queen Hithe that the wine-fell, fleet which brought to London the produce of the vineyards of the banks of the Moselle was bound. In the Lieber Customarum, there is a full account of the yearly visit of this fleet, and the regulations as to its arrival at the New Year, in the vicinity of Janlaid, the present Yantlett Creek, at the mouth of the Medway, which was the limit of the civic jurisdiction of the Thames. Here it was the duty of the fleet of adventurous hulks and keels, quote, to arrange

themselves in due order and raise their ensign, the crews being at liberty, if so inclined, to sing their Kiriel or song of praise and thanksgiving, according to the old law, until London Bridge was reached. Arrived here, and the drawbridge duly raised, they were for a certain time to lie moored off the wharf. Here they were to remain at their moorings two ebbs and a flood, during which period the merchants were to sell no part of their cargo, it being the duty of one of the sheriffs and the King's Chamberlain to board each vessel in the meantime. The two ebbs and a flood expired,

and the officials having duly made their purchases or declined to do so, the wine ship was allowed to lie alongside the wharf, the tons of wine being disposed of under certain regulations, apparently meant as a precaution against picking and choosing, to such merchants as might present themselves as customers, those of London having the priority, and those of Winchester coming next. End quote.

The boats were bound to leave London by the end of 40 days. Mr. Riley refers to the fondness of the merchants in the Middle Ages for music on board ship, and quotes from Monsieur Michel the following. Quote, en mares en-en-en-en-en-e-dresser-en-lae lovoale. They put to sea and set their sails, the janglers on board amuse them.

End quote. Another passage from the Roman de Tristan, quoted by Riley, is also very much to the point. Quote, As son battel, en va'amunt. Dray to London desues le Punt.

His merchandise is loch de courvre. So doa de se plait and uvre. On board his bark he goes straight to London, beneath the bridge, his merchandise he there shows, his cloths of silk smooths and opens out. End quote. Mr. Riley gives an interesting account of the localities adjoining the northern banks of the Thames in the 14th century.

Quote The banks of the Thames from the poston of Petit Wales near the tower, so far probably as the Friars Preachers, or Blackfriars, near the entrance of the Fleet River, seemed to have been intersected in these times

by numberless small lanes, which, themselves public property, ran from Thames Street, by the side of a private residence or other edifice, and led to the owner's wharf in front of his dwelling-house, These wharfs, again, in some instances, being separated by water gates, through which, apparently the public, had a right to claim, as an easement, right of passage.

From many of the wharfs that also projected bridges or jetties into the river, for the same purpose as the stairs of modern times. End quote. Many of the wharves on the Thames were known as gates besides Billingsgate. as Ebgate, identical with the present Old Swan Lane and Wharf, Upper Thames Street, and Oystergate, on the site of the north end of the present London Bridge. The latter was the principal place for the sale of shellfish, which was only to be sold, quote, from the way of London Bridge towards the west,

unto the corner of the wall of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, end quote. Oystergate was also a place of great resort for the sellers of rushes, who paid a small rent for their standing. We learn from Fitz Stephen that, quote, London formerly had walls and towers in like manner in the south, but that most excellent river the Thames, which abounds with fish,

and in which the tide ebbs and flows, runs on that side and has, in a long space of time, washed down, undermined, and subverted the walls in that part. End quote. Whether there were gates or not along the riverfront of London, there can be little doubt that there were not structures at all the places named gates. Many of these were doubtless merely ways.

This use of the word gate is common enough in the south, as in Ramsgate, Margate, sandgate, etc. There appear to have been constant attempts made by the landowners on the Thames to close the lanes leading to the river, thus preventing the free access of the public. Special complaint was made before the mayor and sheriffs in 1360 against the prior of St. John of Jerusalem for closing the right of way through the temple.

This place, having come into the possession of the Knights Hospitals of St. John, after the suppression of the Order of Knights Templars. The evidence of John de Hidingham, and eleven others, was taken. Quote, Who say upon their oath, that time out of mind, the commonality of the city aforesaid, have been wont to have free ingress and egress with horses and carts from sunrise to sunset, for carrying and carting all manner of victuals and wares therefrom to the water of Thames? and from the said Water of Thames to the city aforesaid, through the great gate of the Templars,

situate within Temple Bar, in the ward aforesaid, in the suburb of London, that the possessors of the Temple were wont, and by right ought to maintain a bridge at the water aforesaid, a pier or jetty for landing called Temple Bridge. They say also that the prior of St John of Jerusalem in England, who is the possessor of the temple aforesaid, molests the citizens of the said city, so that they cannot have their free ingress and egress through the gate of foresaid, as of old they will want to have. End quote. The prior did not like this interference with his doings on the part of the city, and in 1374

he obtained, from Edward III, a royal order to stay. proceedings. The order, addressed to the Mayor, recorder, an alderman of London, after recapitulating the terms of complaint, proceeds, quote, we, deeming it not to be consonant with reason that this matter, seeing that it concerns you and the commonalty aforesaid, should be discussed before you, inasmuch as a party ought not to be judge in his own cause. And taking into consideration that if the bridge aforesaid, which has been intended for the advantage and easement of the nobles and others coming to our parliaments and councils, and wishing to reach their barges and boats, these should be broken by the laying of stone and timber thereon, it would be greatly to the

prejudice of such persons, and desiring for the reasons aforesaid that this matter shall be discussed and determined before our council, where justice therein unto you as well as to the prior aforesaid may speedily be done. Do command you that you appear before our said council at Westminster on that day, month after Easter day, next to come? End quote. This question of the exclusion of the common people from certain wharves and stairs continued for many years to be a burning one.

In 1417, an ordinance of the mayor and aldermen was issued forbidding this exclusion, which commences as follows. Quote, whereas heretofore, and now also from day to day, many persons dwelling in the city and the suburbs of London, more consulting and attending to their private profit and advantage, than to the common good and convenience, do hold certain wharves and stairs on the Bank of the Thames, which are held by encroachment upon, and or situate on a common soil and the course of the water, without having any license or paying anything to the community

for the same. And then, the same being by favour obtained and colourably appropriated, have mixed up their own and separate soil and land therewith, and what is even worse, from day to day, these persons do make new customs and imposts upon the poor common people, who time out of mind have there fetched and taken up their water, and washed their clothes, and done other things for their own needs, maliciously interfering with them in their said franchise, and demanding and taking from such as resort there too, from some one halfpenny, and from others one penny, two, or more, by the quarter, to the great injury of all the commonality, and expressly against the good usages and ancient customs of all the city.

End quote. After this preamble, the mayor and alderman with the ascent of the commons, quote, ordained and established, for all time to come, that no person who dwells on the Bank of the Thames, or other person whatsoever, having or holding any wharf or stare, situate or encroaching upon the common soil, to which there has been, or been accustomed to be, common resort of the people heretofore for such needs as aforesaid, shall from henceforth,

disturb, hinder, or molest anyone in fetching, drawing, and taking water, or in beating and washing their clothes, or in doing or executing other reasonable things and needs there, or shall demand or take privily or openly from any person, any manner of sum or piece of money, or other thing whatsoever for custom. End quote. Many of these alleys and lanes were left in a very objectionable condition, but the consideration of their state must be postponed for Chapter 7 on the health and sanitation of London.

In spite of all the recorded impurities of the streets, the water of the river was pure, as may be proved from the fact that fishing was general. In 1343, an Inquisition was held before the mayor and alderman as to the use of unlawful nets, or those whose meshes were less than two inches wide, when it was found that four nets were good and were to be given back to the owners, and four were false and to be burnt. The custom of the city was that the meshes of the nets should be two inches wide at least, so that small fish could pass through. In the next year, certain fishmongers were appointed inspectors,

quote, to make scrutiny as to false nets placed in the water of Thames, from the place called Yanleet, Yantlet, on the east, as far as the bridge of Staines on the west, for taking the small fish to the destruction of the fish of such water, and to bring such nets to the guild hall when found. end quote. In another document, also of the year 1344, three nets are mentioned by name, all of which were found to be false, and were burnt near the Stone Cross by the north door of St. Paul's in the High Street of Cheap. These were a dray net belonging to the Abbot of Stratford,

a second net called a codnet, belonging to Robert Peasock of Plumstead, and a third net called a Kiddell, claimed by no one. A cod net was a net with a cod or pouch containing a stone for sinking the net, also called a purse net, and a kiddles, or weirs. There were several different classes of fishermen, as Trinkerman, who used trinks or nets attached to posts or anchors for taking fish, and Peterman, who used a broom in fishing, beating the bush. There are many other references to the burning of false nets in the city archives. From certain regulations of the year 1388, we learn that, quote, no man shall fish in the Thames with

any nets but those of the assays ordained at the Guildhall, and that only at the proper seasons, and that no one shall fish near to the wharves in London between the Temple Bridge and the Tower within a distance of 20 fathoms. End quote. The bridge. It is supposed that during the early years of the Roman occupation, there was a ferry across from London to Southwark, but that a bridge was built when Roman London had become a place of importance.

We have already seen that a wooden bridge existed during the Saxon period. This must have been constantly rebuilt, and the last wooden bridge continued for many years after, the Norman conquest. The first stone bridge was commenced in the year 1176, under the superintendence of Peter de Colchurch, chaplain of St. Mary Colchurch, a building which stood in the old jury until the time of the Great Fire when it was destroyed. Peter died in 1205 and was buried in the crypt of the chapel built over the centre pier of the bridge and dedicated to St. Thomas of Canterbury.

Here, the chaplain's bones were found in 1832, when the old bridge was cleared away after the opening of the new bridge. So little public interest was taken in relics of the past at this time, that the bones were sacrilegiously flung into a barge, along with the accumulated rubbish, and destroyed by careless workmen. The building of the stone bridge was a long operation, and in 1201, King John entrusted its completion, to a Frenchman named Isambert. The king seems to have made a careful choice, for the Frenchman had already shown his skill by the erection of fine bridges in the French cities of Saint and La Rochelle.

Monsieur Gusserant, in his English wayfaring life in the Middle Ages, quotes from the original patent, published by Hearn, in his edition of the Liber Niga Skokariai. Jusserun also quotes from Hearn as to a series of letters patent relating to the maintenance of the bridge. John ordered certain taxes to be devoted to this purpose, and a patent of Henry III was addressed, quote,

to the brothers and chaplains of the chapel of St. Thomas on London Bridge, and to other persons living on the same bridge, end quote, to inform them that the officers of St. Catherine's Hospital by the Tower would receive the revenues and take charge, of the repairs of the bridge for five years. After the Battle of Evesham in 1265, when the city was at the king's mercy,

Henry III granted his queen the custody of the bridge. Quote, Alianor, by the grace of God, Queen of England, Lady of Ireland, Duchess of Aquitaine, and by our Lord the King Henry, warden of the bridgehouse, end quote.

The queen continued to, enjoy the rents and lands belonging to the bridge for nearly six years, during which time the repair of the bridge was neglected. Realising at length how matters stood, she restored it to the citizens, who, on the 1st of September 1271, elected again their own wardens. Early in the reign of Edward I, 1281, a patent was issued ordering a general collection throughout the kingdom

on account of the bad condition of the bridge. A tariff of tolls was also issued, and Pontage was exacted from all vessels for the passage of which the drawbridge was raised. One William Cross, a fishmonger, was, quote, sworn to well and faithfully receive all issues of rents of London Bridge, and also all other money accruing to the said bridge

from whatever cause, and to expend the same well and faithful for the use and benefit of the aforesaid bridge. End quote. In the 26 of Edward I, the rents of a house called La Hales were appropriated for the support of London Bridge, and this is recorded in the Lieber Customarum. It is not known where this house was situated. Riley conjectures that it was a great house in Stocks Market,

but Dr. Sharp suggests that it is just as likely to have been one of a large number of houses which Henry Legaly's, or Whaley's, erected by license of the king, year 10, Edward I, near Old Change and St. Paul's, the prophets of which were also devoted to the support of the bridge. A stone was fixed before each of these tenements in token of the duty of the tenants to repair the bridge, but these appeared to have been removed in the same rain by Walter Hervey, a pruator of the city, a title which Riley translated as Improver. The bridge was built on piles and must have been solidly constructed, for although it needed, from the first, a great deal of cobbling,

and underwent much alteration, it survived almost to our own day. It consisted of 20 arches, 19 of stone and one of wood, the drawbridge. By this drawbridge was the tower or storehouse upon which the heads of traitors were set up. This became decayed and was taken down in April 1577. The heads were removed and set on the gate at the bridge foot towards Southwark. On the 28th of August, Sir John Langley, Lord Mayor, laid the first stone of a foundation for a new tower, in the same place, which tower was finished in September 1579.

The great wonder of the bridge was a beautiful wooden structure, called Nonsuch House, which stood on the 7th and 8th arches from the Southwark side, and gave its name to the Nonsuch lock. The great weight of the buildings caused occasional sinkings and a general insecurity. In 1481, it is recorded that a block of buildings toppled over into the river. In 1633, a fire swept from one end of the bridge to the other, and many of the houses were destroyed, which were not rebuilt. In 1757 to 1758, all the remaining houses were cleared away in order to make the structure more secure.

The bridge was one of the chief sites of London, and a great deal of history has grown up about it. it, but it would require a volume to do justice to these circumstances. One of the most curious of these was the duel between Sir David Lindsay, Earl of Crawford, and John Lord Wells, Fifth Baron, ambassador at the Scottish Court in 1390. Lord Crawford chose the place, and, furnished with a safe conduct from Richard II, came from Scotland to London for this special purpose. The duel took place in this apparently inappropriate locality in the presence of a great concourse of sightseers.

Most of the travellers in England, who have written on the subject, speak of the bridge with high praise. Frederick, Duke of Wurttemberg, who visited this country in 1592, was pleased with what he saw, and his secretary wrote, quote, Over the river at London, there is a beautiful long bridge, with quite splendid, handsome and well-built houses, which are occupied by merchants of consequence.

Upon one of the towers, nearly in the middle of the bridge, are stuck up about 34 heads of persons of distinction, who had, in former times, been condemned and beheaded for creating riots and from other causes. End quote. It will be seen from this passage that when the new tower was built, the heads which had been removed during the rebuilding to the bridge foot were taken back to the new tower. Six years later, Hensner wrote of London Bridge as,

quote, a bridge of stone, 800 feet in length, of wonderful work. It has supported upon 20 piers of squared stone, 60 feet high and 30 broad, joined by arches of about 20 feet diameter. The hole is covered on each side with how, so disposed as to have the appearance of a continued street, not at all of a bridge." End quote. Corre, the Venetian ambassador in 1610,

states that the bridge was so narrow that it was very difficult for two coaches meeting to pass each other without danger. Englishmen were not behind hand in singing the praises of the bridge. Thus, Lili wrote in, Youfew's and His England, Quote, among all the strange and beautiful shows, methinkest there is none so notable as the bridge which crosseth the Thames,

which is in manner of a continual street, well replenished with large and stately houses on both sides, and situate upon twenty arches, whereof each one is made of excellent three stone squared, every one of them being three score foot in height, and full twenty in distance one from another. End quote. The chapel on the bridge had an endowment for two priests or chaplains,

four clerks and other brethren, with certain chantries annexed. A dwelling-house was afterwards attached to the chapel, which, at the close of the 13th century, was known as the Bridge House. In the year 1298, John de Lewisham, Lewisham, brother of the London, quote, bridge house, end quote, was made bailiff of the manor of Lewisham, quote, the proceeds of which were then, as they still are, devoted to the maintenance and repair of the bridge, end quote. In the folklore of bridges, the frequent practice in the Middle Ages of building a chapel forms a special feature of the subject. There are several instances still remaining. One,

of which is the chapel of the old bridge at Bradford on Avon. The waterway of the Thames was obstructed by the bridge, which formed a sort of lock to keep the waters in the upper portion of the river. The widest of the arches was 36 feet, and some were too narrow for the passage of boats of any kind. The resistance caused to so large a body of water on the rise and fall of the tide, by the contraction of its channel, produced a fall or rise. rapid under the bridge. Quote, With the flood tide, it was impossible,

and with the ebb tide, dangerous to pass through or shoot the arches of the bridge. End quote. In the latter case, prudent passengers landed above bridge, generally at the old Swan stairs, and walked to some wharf, generally Billingsgate.

In 1428, according to Stowe, the Duke of Norfolk was like to be drowned, passing from St. Mary ovary stairs through London Bridge. His barge was overset and 30 persons drowned. In A Chronicle of London, edited by Nicholas, we read, As God would, the Duke himself and two or three other gentlemen, seeing that mischief, leaped upon the piles and so were saved through help of them that weren't above the bridge, with casting down of ropes.

End quote. Many such accidents were constantly occurring, so that there was probably truth in one of Ray's proverbs. Quote, London Bridge was made for wise men to go over and fools to go under. End quote. That boats were frequently overturned is proved by Norden's view of London Bridge in which boats, bottom upwards, fill the foreground.

End of Chapter 4. End of Section 7. Section 8 of The Story of London. This is a Libravot's recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravocs.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 5. The King's Palace The Tower The Tower of London has existed for over eight centuries, and long before the conquest, the site was occupied by a Roman fortification. It is the most time-honoured building in Great Britain,

and probably the foremost building, not a ruin, in the world. With so much in London that is new, it is a source of the deepest pride to every Londoner that there is a relic of the past of unequed interest, on whose walls are written the chief incidents of the history of England. The name has long been a puzzle, but Mr. Horace Round has explained it, and thus thrown a fresh light upon the study of Norman military architecture. There were two different kinds of fortified places during the medieval period. Viz. One, the Roman castrum or castellum, which survived in the fortified enclosure, and two, the medieval motte or tour, which survived in the central keep.

When the tour coalesced with the Castellum, a name was required for the entire fortress. Sometimes the keep was added to the castle, and sometimes the castle to the keep. It was then a question which word should prevail. Touris or Chastellum. Generally the word castle has prevailed, but the respective strongholds in the capitals of Normandy and England with a Tour de Rouen and the Tower of London. Gray alludes to the Towers of Julius, and Shakespeare's reference to the place is equally erroneous. Prince Edward, I do not like the tower of any place. Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?

Buckingham. He did, my gracious Lord, begin that place, which since succeeding ages have reedified. Prince Edward, is it upon record or else reported successively from age to age he built it? Buckingham. Upon record, my gracious Lord. Richard III, Act 3, Scene 1. Of course, Julius Caesar had nothing to do with the Tower, but the Roman remains that have been discovered on the site proved that this grand strategic position had been utilised from the early period of London's history. Mr. George T. Clark writes, quote, when having crossed the Thames, the Conqueror marched in person to complete the investment of London. He found that ancient city resting upon the left bank of its river, protected on its landward side by a strong wall, a Roman work, with mural towers and an

exterior ditch. End quote. In 1777, some Roman coins were discovered, and a double wedge of silver inscribed X. Afikina honoriae, which makes the conjecture probable that at this early period, as in later times, The buildings on the site of the tower were used as a mint. William the Conqueror was crowned in 1066, and Mr. Clark says that, quote, it was from Barking, immediately after the ceremony, that he directed the actual commencement of the works, which were no doubt, at first, a deep ditch and strong palisade. For the keep, probably the earliest work in masonry, appears not to have been begun until 12 or 14 years later, end quote.

The Keep, known later as the White Tower, was built by Gundulf, a monk of Beck, who, in 1077, soon after his arrival in England, was consecrated Bishop of Rochester. We learn from the Textus Rufensis, written about the year 1143, that Gundulf, while employed upon the tower, lodged at the house of Edmund Annhund, a Burgess of London, but he is not supposed to have commenced the building until 1078. A great work such as the construction of the Tower of London took many years to complete. It is supposed that although the conqueror, to a great extent, planned the fortress, he did not build more than the inner ward. The existing curtain of the inner ward, nine to twelve feet thick and from 39 to 40 feet high, is thought

by Clark to be the work of William Rufus. In November 1091 there was a violent storm which did immense damage in London. Stowe says in his chronicle that, quote, the Tower of London was also broken, end quote. And in the survey, he further writes that the tower was sore shaken by the tempest of wind, but was repaired by William Rufus and Henry I. Clark doubts this, but adds that the outworks, both wall and towers, if in course of construction with scaffolding about them, probably suffered severely.

He further writes, quote, The tower, therefore, of the close of the reign of Rufus, and of those of Henry I and Stephen, was probably composed of the white tower with a palace ward upon its southeast side, and a wall probably that we now see, and certainly along its general course, including what is known as the inner ward.

no doubt there was a ditch, but probably not a very formidable one. End quote. Fitz Stephen is not very full in his description of the tower. He merely says, quote, on the east stands the Palatine Tower, a fortress of great size and strength, the court and walls of which are erected upon a very deep foundation, the mortar used in the building being tempered with the blood of beasts,

end quote. The tower is believed to owe much to Henry III, who made extensive alterations and additions. The new works were unpopular among the citizens, and, as some of them were unfortunate, a legend came into existence to account for the misfortune. St. Thomas's Tower and the Trater's Gate beneath it were in course of construction in 1240, when on St. George's night the gateway and wall fell down. They were at once re-erected, but in the following year, they again fell down. The story, as told by Matthew Paris, is that on the night of the second

fall, a certain grave and reverend priest saw a robed archbishop cross in hand, who gazed sternly upon the walls, with which the king was then girdling the tower, and striking them sharply asked, Why build ye here, on which the newly built work fell, as though shattered by an earthquake? wake. The priest, too alarmed to accost the prelate, addressed himself to the shade of an attendant clerk. Who then is the archbishop? St. Thomas the Martyr was the answer, by birth a citizen, who resents these works, undertaken in scorn, and to the prejudice of the citizens, and destroys them beyond the power of restoration. On which the priest remarked, What outlay in labour of the hands he has destroyed?

had it been, said the clerk, simply that the starving and needy artifices thence promised themselves food, it had been tolerable, but seeing that the works were undertaken, not for the defence of the realm, but to the hurt of the citizens, even had not St. Thomas destroyed them, they had been swept away utterly by St. Edmund, his successor. This was Edmund of Abingdon, who died in 1240. The works were resumed, and in spite of the powerful opposition of St. Thomas, they were completely successful, and the rebuilding was strong and satisfactory. The outer ward is supposed to have been completed by Henry III. It is a strip of from 20 feet to 110 feet in breadth, which completely surrounds the inner ward, and is itself contained

within the ditch, of which its wall forms the scalp. The tower has been, one, a fortress, and so it remains to the present day. 2. A palace, and 3, a prison. We can now consider it under these three aspects, merely mentioning in passing that it was also a mint, an armoury, and a record office. The Tower as a Fortress It was regarded as impregnable in the reign of Stephen, when it was specially required by the king as a fortress, and during the whole medieval period it was always a

place of strong defense. It does not appear ever to have endured a siege of any importance, but if it had, it would doubtless have successfully resisted attack. The Bywood Tower is the great gatehouse of the outer ward, and the middle tower is its outwork. There was formerly a drawbridge across the ditch or moat, where now there is a stone bridge 130 feet wide. The gateway to the Bloody or Garden Tower is the main entrance to the inner ward. The inner ward is enclosed within a curtain wall having four sides, twelve mural towers and a gatehouse. Wakefield Tower, known also as the record tower and as the Hall Tower, is, in its lower story, next in antiquity to the White Tower. Commencing with Wakefield and passing westward, the towers are Bloody, where the Duke of Clarence,

is supposed to have been drowned in Marmsey, and the two sons of Edward VIII smothered. Bell, so called from an alarm bell in the little turret. Beauchamp, from Thomas de Beauchon, Earl of Warwick, and also called Cobham Tower, after Lord Cobham. Devereaux, after Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex, also called Robin the Devils Tower. Flint Bowyer, so called because it was the residence and work. workshop of the Royal Maker of Bowes.

Brick. Previously Burbage. Martin. Or jewel, at one time styled brick tower. Constables. Broad Arrow. Salt, meaning salt Peter. In the 16th century, it was known as Julius Caesar's Tower.

And, Lansthorne, called in 1532 the new tower. It was pulled down in 1788, after a fire. The wall of the outer ward has upon it bold drum bastions at the angles of the north front, and the south or Thames front is protected by five mural towers, of which one covers the land gate and one the water gate, and two others are connected with posterns.

These towers are Devlin, called Gallimais Tower in Fourth Richard II, well, cradle, St. Thomas's, Over Trader's Gate, and Bywood. Mr. Clark writes, quote, The tower at the commencement of the present century was an extraordinary jumble of ancient and later buildings, the towers and walls being almost completely encrusted by the small official dwellings by which the area was closely occupied.

A great fire in 1841 removed the unsightly armoury of, of James II and William III, on the north of the inner ward, but the authorities at the time were not ripe for a fire. The armoury was replaced by a painfully durable Tudor barrack, and the repairs and additions were made with little reference to the character of the fortress. More recently, the general improvement in public taste has made its way even into the tower, end quote. The tower is still a fortress. Each night, the medieval ceremony of the, locking the gates takes place, after which no one can enter without the password, and this,

after the manor at fortresses, is changed daily. The password is always communicated to the Lord Mayor, who each quarter receives a list containing the password for each day in the coming three months. Residents in the tower can enter until 12 midnight, when the wickets are locked by the yeoman on watch duty, and no one is allowed to enter after that hour, unless they give the password. At a few minutes before 11, the yeoman porter takes his keys and applies to the sergeant for the escort for the keys. The sergeant acquaints the officer, and the officer placing the guard under arms, furnishes a sergeant and four men. Two of the men are unarmed. Their duty is to assist in closing the gates, and to carry the ancient lantern, which contains a tallow candle.

The procession is formed, and the yeoman porter with the keys places himself in the midst of the escort. He goes the round of the gates, and when he returns to the main guard, the sentry at the guardroom challenges, Holt, who comes there? The keys, replies the yeoman porter. Whose keys?

King Edward's keys. Advance, King Edward's keys. The yeoman porter places himself in front of the guard. The guard present arms, and the yeoman porter says, God preserve King Edward, and the guard from the officer to the drummer answer, Amen. The keys are then carried by the yeoman porter to the king's house,

to be delivered into the charge of the officer of the tower in command. A similar escort is called for by the yeoman porter when the gates are opened in the morning, but no ceremony takes place at that time, nor does the guard turn out. Medievalism is in our very midst, and here, at all events, medieval London still exists. The Tower as a Palace Most of our kings from the conqueror to Charles II used the tower as a palace.

Those who feared their subjects sheltered themselves there, but those who were popular preferred the comfort of Westminster and Whitehall. Mr. Clark says that, quote, The strong monarchs employed the tower as a prison, the weak ones as a fortress, end quote. After the Middle Ages had closed, the sovereigns kept out of the tower as much as they could, and seldom visited it unless they were officially obliged,

and these visits were almost confined to a lodging there on the day before the coronation. Charles II was the last sovereign to carry out this convention. William I, William II, and Henry I. All three inhabited the tower, but it was not until the reign of Stephen that its value as a place of refuge was proved. with the Empress Matilda at Winchester and King Stephen at London, the State of Public Affairs, with sieges and counter-seeges in which neither party gained any great success, came to a deadlock. Stephen, in 1140, sought safety in the tower in close proximity to his trusty followers, the Londoners, but in the following year he was made a prisoner at Lincoln.

The Londoners attended the Synod at Winchester and requested the king's release, but without avail. Geoffrey de Manderville, constable of the Tower of London, whose faithless conduct in these civil wars has been fully set out by Mr. Horace Round, had been made Earl of Essex by Stephen, but when the Empress came to London,

he had no compunction in transferring his allegiance to her, for which conduct she loaded him with honours. He was, however, short-sighted in his action, for Matilda treated the Londoners with such contumly that they rose against her, and drove her from the city. They also attacked Mandeville in the tower, but this, Mr. Facing both ways,

finding that the Empress Matilda had fled, and the Queen Matilda, Stephen's wife, taken her place in London, saw no objection to supporting the latter's cause. Stephen was soon afterwards released, and he again honoured Geoffrey de Manderville. No amount of special favour, however, was sufficient to keep this man to his allegiance,

and he planned a revolt in favour of the Emperor, This came to naught, and the king captured the fortifications erected by the earl at Farringdon and took him prisoner. Mandeville took no more part in public affairs, and ended his life as a marauding freebooter in September 1143. Thus ignominiously came to a conclusion the career of a man who held a foremost place in London. He was not wise in his conduct, because in the word of the Empress's charter to him, he made the Londoners his mortal foes. As Dr. Sharp says of these same Londoners, they, quote, throughout the long period of civil dissension were generally to be found on the winning side, and held, as it were, the balance

between the rival powers. End quote. In John's reign, London opened its gates to the forces of the barons, organised under Robert Filswalter, Castell, Castell, of London as Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church. During the period that the barons were at war with John, Prince Louis of France lived in the Tower prior to his renunciation of all right of sovereignty in England and his return to France. Henry III, in 1236, summoned the Council to meet him in the Tower, but the barons had so little faith in their king that they refused to assemble there.

The King was satisfied to be safe in the Tower in 1263, while Simon de Montfort, with the barons, pitched tents at Isleworth. The Londoners were distinctly disloyal, and Stowe tells us that, quote, when the Queen would have gone by water unto Windsor, the Londoners, getting them to the bridge in great numbers, under the which she must pass, cried out on her, using many vile reproachful words, through dirt and stones at her, that she was constrained to return again to the tower.

End quote. In Edward I's reign, Raymond Lully, the Alchemist, is said to have taken up his residence in the tower at the king's desire, and to have performed in the royal presence the experiment of transmuting some crystal into a mass of diamond or adamant, of which the king is said to have made little pillars for the tabernacle of God. The biographers of Lully, however, expressed the belief that he never visited England. Edward II seldom visited the tower, except when he sought shelter. from his subjects. His queen gave birth there to her eldest daughter, who was known as Jane of the Tower. His second son, John of Eltham, who was born on August 15th, 1316, was appointed warden of the city of

London and warden of the tower when he was ten years of age. In 1328, a year after his father's death, John of Elton was created Earl of Cornwall, and in 1336 he himself died. The first years of Edward III's reign was spent in the tower, and the king was forced to remain there till he had put down Mortimer and was able to assume the government himself. He made many additions to the buildings, and Clark supposes that he built the Beauchamp and Salt Towers, and perhaps the Boya. The king took great pride in the tower, which he made his chief arsenal,

and strongly fortified and garrisoned. Hence, his anger in 1340 when he unexpectedly returned to England and found the tower unguarded. His first act was to imprison the constable and other officers for their negligence. The mayor, the clerk of the exchequer, and many others whose duty it was to raise or receive the subsidies which have been granted were thrown into prison. The tower stands out very prominently in the history of the reign of Richard II. We have already seen in the second chapter what crimes were perpetrated there during the Peasants' Revolt in 1381. In 1390, a grand international tournament was arranged when many foreigners of distinction became the guests of the king in the tower.

On the 29th of September 1399, in the council room of the White Tower, occurred that sad scene when Richard, in his kingly robes, sceptre in hand and crown upon his head. head, abdicated his throne, saying, quote, I have been King of England, Duke of Aquitaine, and Lord of Ireland about 21 years, which scenery, royalty, scepter, crown, and heritage I clearly resign here to my cousin, Henry of Lancaster, and I desire him here in this open presence in entering the same possession to take the scepter. End quote. So closed the career of a king whose son rose, with so much promise, only to set in misfortune, and leave behind him the recollection of one of the greatest disappointments of history. Henry VIII had a sorry time in the Tower, but the incidents

connected with the constant vicissitudes, which at one time raised the fortunes of the Yorkists, and at another those of the Lancasterians, caused so many changes in the occupation of the Tower that it is impossible to note here all that took place. When the Yorkist earls of Salisbury, Warwick, and March, returned to England in 1460, they marched on London, but the Common Council determined to oppose their entrance into the city. This arrangement was agreed on with Lord Scales and Hungerford, who, with others, held the tower for King Henry.

The citizens, however, after a time, began to doubt the wisdom of supporting the imbecile Henry. So on July 2nd, they admitted the Yorkist earls' is, into the city. While London was thus on the side of the Yorkists, the tower remained true to the king, but every effort was made to obtain the surrender of the fortress. The tower was invested by land and water, and the garrison was staffed out and had to surrender. In the following year, the Earl of March became king as Edward IV, and made himself agreeable to his subjects. When in 1464 he married Elizabeth Woodville, the citizens showed their respect for the queen by riding out to meet her and escorting her to the tower, besides presenting her with a gift of 1,000 marks.

A change occurred in 1470 when Edward had to fly and Henry was restored. Henry V. 6th, no longer a prisoner, was removed from his cell to the palace, but soon afterwards he was taken to the Bishop of London's Palace at St. Paul's. In the following year, however, Edward recovered the throne and was let into London by the recorder and some alderman. In May 1471, when Edward VIII was out of the city, Thomas, the natural son of William Neville, First Lord Falkenburg, Earl of Kent, known as the Bastard Falcon Bridge, headed a rising of Kentish men and marched on London in support of Henry the 6th. He was supported by a fleet in the river. With the help of a company of shipmen and other followers, he made an attempt to force Bishop's Gate, Altgate and the bridge. Some of his followers

got through Altgate, but the Port Cullis being let down, those who had entered were cut off from the main body and lost their lives. A few days after this unsuccessful assault, May the 21st, King Henry was murdered in the tower. The name of Richard III was intimately associated with the council chamber, and the consideration of the particulars of his violent methods help us to obtain a vivid picture of the dark passages filled with armed men ready to do the wicked will of their employer. The most memorable of these scenes occurred when the council was sitting.

Suddenly there is a cry of treason from the adjoining apartment. Gloucester rushes to the door and is met by a party of soldiers, who, at his command, arrest all the council but the Duke of Buckingham. The astonished nobles have scarcely time to recover from their surprise before they see from the windows of their prison Lord Hastings beheaded on Tower Green. In the following reign, when Henry V. 7th fixed the day for the coronation of his queen, November 25, 1487,

she came by water from Greenwich two days before, attended by the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen, and many citizens, chosen some from each craft, wearing their liveries, in barges, quote, freshly furnished with banners and streamers of silk, end quote. One of the barges, called the bachelors, contained, quote, many gentlemanly pageants well and curiously devised to do her highness sport and pleasure, end quote. The king received the queen at the tower.

Much might be said of the doings of Henry VIII, Edward the 6th, Queen's Mary and Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I. But there is no room in this book for a complete history of the Tower, and we must therefore hurry on in order to give some notice of a few of the celebrated prisoners. There could never have been much accommodation in the White Tower, so called on account of the whitewashing it received in the reign of Henry III, as a suitable reservation. for the sovereign. So that as the centuries passed, and more comfort was expected by all classes, kings and queens would naturally expect to be better cared for. A palace was therefore built in the inner ward, and the Lampthorn Tower formed a part of this palace, containing as it did the king's bedchamber and his private closet. These buildings appear to have fallen into decay in the reign of Elizabeth, by whom or by James the Great Hall was removed. Some were

destroyed by Cromwell and others by James II to make room for a new ordinance office, and the remains of the Lansthorne Tower were taken down late in the 18th century. 1788. That royalty was not always well housed may be seen by a recorded case in the reign of Edward II. Johann de Cromwell, constable of the Tower, gave great offence to the citizens by reason of certain of his high-handed actions, and in the end he was dismissed from his office, but the reason given for his dismissal was not on account of the offensive acts complained

of, but for the neglect of duties, by which the rooms were allowed to remain out of repair, and because the rain came in upon the queen's bed. Some particulars are given in the Lieber Albus respecting the legal position of the tower. When the excheco was closed, the mayor was to be presented at the tower, and the pleas of the city with the crown were sometimes held there. and when this was the case, the city barons were to place their own janitors outside the tower gate, and the king's janitor was to be on the inside. They further had an osteiarius outside the door of the hall when the police were held, to introduce the barons, and the king had an osteiarius inside.

Mr. Clark supposes the hall to have been the building afterwards superseded by the Office of Ordinance, quote, and the entrance to which is thought to have been by the modernised doorway close east of the Wakefield Tower, end quote. St John's Chapel is one of the most interesting ecclesiastical buildings in England. It is a singularly fine example of early Norman architecture, and many historical events are associated with it. The Triforium was used as a gallery, and it is supposed that the queens and their maids of honour sat there at the services. It is traditionally reported that in front of the old altar, now replaced by a new one, Brackenbury, when kneeling at prayer, was tempted by the emissaries of Richard of Gloucester to make away with the young princes, a suggestion which he indignantly repudiated.

Here also Mary I was betrothed to Philip of Spain. One important appanage of the palace was the menagerie of wild beasts, which was placed near the entrance at a very early date. Henry I kept lions and leopards, and Henry III added to the collection. Stowe tells us that in the year 1235, Frederick the Emperor sent to Henry III three leopards in token of his regal shield of arms

wherein those leopards were pictured, since the witch time those lions and others have been kept in a part of this bulwark, now called the Lion Tower, and their keepers there lodged. In 1255, the sheriffs built a house for the king's elephant, which was brought from France and was the first scene in England. Edward II, in the 12th year of his reign,

quote, commanded the sheriffs of London to pay to the keeper of the king's leopard, sixpence the day for the sustenance of the leopard, and three halfpence a day for diet of the said keeper, end quote. Edward III appears to have taken much, pride in his menagerie, and in 1364, a proclamation was issued by the king for the safe keeping of a beast called an Ur, which was in danger from certain persons who threatened to do grievous harm to the keepers. Quote, and atrociously to kill the said beast, end quote.

Mr. Riley, who prints the proclamation in his memorials, supposes the animal to be either the Uris, or ox, or bison, from the east of Europe, or the Irwe, or the Irwe, and, and, and from Morocco. The proclamation addressed to the mayor and sheriff runs thus. Quote, We, wishing to preserve the said keepers and the beast from injury and grievance, do command you that in the city aforesaid, and the suburbs thereof, where you shall deem most expedient, you do cause public proclamation to be made, and it on our behalf strictly to be forbidden, that any person, native or stranger,

of whatsoever condition he may be, on pain of forfeiting unto us as much as he may forfeit, shall have the audacity to do any damage, violence, misprison, or grievance under the said keepers or to the beast, which we have so taken under our protection and especial defence, or to any of them, or shall presume to intermeddle for getting a sight of the said beast against the will of them, the keepers thereof. and if you shall know anyone to attempt the contrary hereof, then you are so to punish them that the same punishment may deter all others from attempting the like, and to answer unto us as to such forfeiture in manner as is befitting."

End quote. In later times, the collection of wild beasts must have been considerable, and Stowe relates in his chronicle how trials of strength between the animals were exhibited before the royal family. On the 23rd of June 1609, quote, The king, queen, and prince, the Lady Elizabeth, and the Duke of York, with diverse great lords and many others, came to the tower to see a trial of the lion's single valour against a great fierce bear, which had killed a child that was negligently left in the bearhouse.

This fierce bear was brought into the open yard, behind the lion's den, which was the place for fight. end quote Two mastiffs let into the yard past the bear and attacked the lion then a stallion and six dogs

were introduced the dogs worried the horse till three stout bear wards drove them off the bear and lion looking on the latter was allowed to escape to his den

and other lions were brought out but none would attack the bear on the 5th of July this same bear was baited to death on the 10th of April

1610 Then, Prince Henry and attendant nobles went privately to the tower to see a fight between the great lion and four dogs. The dogs got the better of the lion, and another lion and lioness were brought to see if they would help the first lion, but they would not, and all three were glad to escape to their dens. The few animals that remained in the menagerie in the 19th century were removed to the zoological gardens in Regents Park in 1834. The Tower as a Prison It is as a state prison that the tower is most associated in our memories. Here have been confined some of the noblest of English men and women, but besides these,

there were others who have richly deserved their fate. Some of the prisoners lodged here only for a time, but the majority found it to be merely the threshold of death. The first prisoner was Ralph Flambard, Bishop of Durham, the hated minister of William Rufus. on that king's death, Henry I, with the advice of his council, shut the bishop up in one of the topmost chambers of the white tower. Flambard was not very carefully guarded, and he used the liberal allowance put aside for him in providing drink for his keepers.

He received a rope in a flagon from friends outside, and while his jailers were drunk, he managed to escape by its means on the night of the 4th of February 1101. Although the rope proved too short and he was injured by his flannel. he reached Normandy safely. Five years after this, the Count of Mortain, who was taken prisoner by Henry I, was imprisoned in the tower as we learn from the testimony of Edma. The Jews in large numbers were thrown into the tower in 1282.

The Welsh next furnished victims, and then the Scots. The Battle of Dunbar in 1296 caused many prisoners, including the king, John Balliol, and a host of his nobility to fall into the hands of Edward I. In 1303, the king's treasury was robbed while Edward I was in Scotland, and suspicion fell upon the abbot and monks of Westminster. The sacristan, sub-priar and others were imprisoned in the tower. The whole affair is very difficult to understand, but it was fully investigated by order of the king,

and there can be no doubt that some members of the monastery were deeply implicated. It created a great scandal and was one of the most remarkable crimes ever committed. Mr. L. O. Pike gives a full account of the incidents in his History of Crime in England, 1873, and says, quote, it is quite evident that an enterprise which required more than four months for its accomplishment could not have been successful had there been no collusion within the Abbey Gates. The findings of the various juries point to a deep-laid conspiracy between some persons in the Abbey and others in the neighbouring palace.

End quote. Wallace, in 1305, found a prison here before he was drawn through Cheapside and executed in Smithfield. The Order of the Knights Templar was abolished in 1313, and all the members south of the Trent were imprisoned in the tower, where the master died. The earliest drawing of the tower which has come down to us contained a curious picture of the building, and a represent of the building. of the incidence of the captivity of Charles, Duke of Orleans, who was taken prisoner at the Battle of Agincourt.

This interesting picture is in one of the manuscripts in the British Museum. As was the custom of the early artists, a succession of incidents in the life of the prisoner are depicted in the same drawing. The Duke is seen at a turret window, then writing at a desk in a large chamber. At the foot of the white tower, he is embracing the messenger who brings him his ransom. He is then seen mounting his horse, and he and a friendly messenger ride away from the tower. Lastly, we see him in a barge with lusty rowers pulling down the stream for the boat which is to carry him home to France. There were two places of execution, that on Tower Hill, under the authority of the governors of the city, and the other on Tower Green within the Tower walls.

Edward IV set up a scaffold and gallows upon Tower Hill, but the other, the other on Tower Green, within the Tower Walls. the city of London insisted upon their ancient right of dealing with offenders within their own precincts, so the king's scaffold and gallows were taken down with many apologies, and the sheriffs maintained their ancient privileges of headings and hangings beyond the tower walls. The city boundary existed within the tower, and in James I reign, a question arose as to whether or no Sir Thomas Overbury's murder was committed within the city. As his apartment was situated on the west of the boundary, the criminals came under the jurisdiction of the city. The place of execution on Tower Green is a spot of hallowed memories.

It was marked off and railed in by command of Queen Victoria. Lord Hastings was probably beheaded there in 1483, and among the distinguished names of those who suffered on this spot are Anne Boleyn in 1536, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, daughter of the Duke of Clarence and mother of Cardinal Pole, in 1541, Catherine Howard and Jane, Viscountess Rocheford, sister-in-law of Anne Boleyn, in 1542, Lady Jane Grey in 1554, and Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex, in 1601. The Chapel of St Peter's Advincula was probably first built by Henry II.

although the earliest mention of it occurs in the year 1210. It was burned in 1512 and rebuilt as we see it now about 1532. The great interest of this chapel centres around the names of the great who, having suffered in life, now rest in this temple of the dead. A tablet on the wall contains a list of the most distinguished of these names. The Beauchamp Tower is one of the most interesting of the buildings, as it is full of inscriptions on the walls cut by the prisoners. Close by is the yeoman jailer's lodging,

where probably Lady Jane Grey stood to see her husband taken from Beauchamp Tower to execution on Tower Hill. Sir Walter Raleigh was three times a prisoner in the tower, and he was very differently treated each time. In Elizabeth's reign, he could converse with those outside from the walk near the Bloody Tower, which is named after him. In James's reign he had for a fellow prisoner, Henry, 9th Earl of Northumberland, known as the Wizard Earl. The great philosopher Thomas Harriet was allowed to visit the two prisoners, and he travelled on the Thames between the Tower and Ceyon House,

bringing from the latter place books out of the Earl's Library for the solace of Northumberland and Raleigh. With Traitor's Gate we end this sad event for history. Samuel Rogers wrote in his poem of human life. Quote, On through that gate misnamed, through which before,

went Sydney, Russell, Raleigh, Cranmer, Moore. End quote. These are great names, but there are others. The Duke of Buckingham

in 1521 was taken to Westminster in a barge furnished with a carpet and cushions. After his trial and condemnation for the crime

of being too nearly related to the throne, he refused the seat of honour on his return to prison, crying, Quote, When I came to Westminster, I was Lord High Constable, and Duke of Buckingham,

but now, poor Edward Bohan, end quote. The Princess Elizabeth, in her sister Mary's reign, refused at first to land at Trater's Gate, but agreed at last, using these words,

quote, here landeth as true a subject, being a prisoner, as ever landed at these stairs, and before thee, O God, I speak it, having none other friend but thee." End quote. What misery and what cruelty a full record of the sufferings of the prisoners in the tower would unfold to our view. Some of the prisoners reap the natural consequences of their actions, for they were on the losing

side, but others were most unnaturally treated, and among these were noble women whose only fault was that they were related to persons obnoxious to those in power. In later times, imprisonment became somewhat of a farce. Great nobles, unpopular statesmen and others who were in disgrace were sent to the tower. It still sounded a serious punishment, but the practice gradually fell into disfavor, because people would no longer allow of the beheading of unpopular statesmen. End of Chapter 5. End of Section 8.

Section 9 of the Story of London This is a Libravot's recording All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravocs.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 6

Manors Part 1 Our notices of the sports of medieval London must commence with a reference to the curious essay of the monk Fitz Stephen who was the first to describe the chief features of London history. Quote, moreover, to begin with the sports of the boys, for we have all been boys,

annually on the day which is called Shrove-tide, the boys of the respective schools bring each a fighting cock to their master, and the whole of that forenoon is spent by the boys in seeing their cock's fight in the schoolroom. After dinner, all the young men of the city go out into the fields to play at the well-known game of football. The scholars, belonging to the several schools, have each their ball, and the city tradesmen, according to their respective crafts, have theirs.

The more aged men, the fathers of the players and the wealthy citizens, come on horseback to see the contests of the young men, with whom, after their manner, they participate, their natural heat seeming to be aroused by the sight of so much agility, and by their participation in the amusements of unrestrained youth. Every Sunday in Lent, after a dinner, a company of young men enter the fields mounted on warlike horses, on courses always foremost in the race,

of which each steeds well trained to gallop in a ring. The lay sons of the citizens rush out of the gates in crowds equipped with lances and shields, the younger sought with pikes from which the iron head has been, been taken off, and there they get up sham fights and exercise themselves in military combat. When the king happens to be near the city, most of the courtiers attend, and the young men who form the households of the earls and barons, and have not yet attained the honour of knighthood, resort thither for the purpose of trying their skill. End quote.

Footnote. Proclamation was made against playing at football in the fields near the city as early as 1314 during the mayoralty of Nicholas Defardon. End of footnote. Then, Fitz Stephen tells of the sports on the river, but these remarks have already been referred to in the fourth chapter. The description of the sports of summer and winter are then continued. We find a curious account of the Londoners delight both in sliding and skating, and is contempt for the dangers of the sports. Quote,

During the holidays in summer, the young men exercised themselves in the sports of leaping, archery, wrestling, stone-throwing, slinging javelins beyond the mark, and also fighting with bucklers. Scytheria leads the dances of the maidens who merrily trip along the ground beneath the uprisen moon.

Also, on every holiday in winter, before dinner, foaming boars and huge-tussed hogs intended for bacon, fight for their lives, or fat bulls or immense bores are baited with dogs. When that great marsh which washes the walls of the city on the north side is frozen over, the young men go out in crowds to divert themselves upon the ice. Some having increased their velocity by a run, placing their feet apart, and turning their bodies sideways, slide a great way. Others make a seat of large pieces of ice like millstones,

and a great number of them running before, and holding each other by the hand, draw one of their companions who is seated on the ice. If at any time they slip in moving so swiftly, all fall down headlong together. Others are more expert in their sports upon the ice, for fitting to and binding under their feet the shin bones of some animal, and taking in their hands poles shot with iron,

which at times they strike against the ice. They are carried along with as great rapidity as a bird flying, or a bolt discharged from a crossbow. Sometimes two of the skaters having placed themselves a great distance apart, by mutual agreement, come together from opposite sides. They meet, raise their poles, and strike each other, either one or both of them fall, not without some bodily hurt. Even after their fall, they are carried along to a great distance from each other by the

velocity of the motion, and whatever part of their heads comes in contact with the ice is laid bare to the very skull. Very frequently, the leg or arm of the falling one, if he chance to light upon either of them, is broken. But youth is an age eager for glory and desirous of victory, and so, yes, young men engage in counterfeit battles that they may conduct themselves more valiantly in real ones. Most of the citizens amuse themselves in sporting with martins, hawks, and other birds of alike kind, and also with dogs that hunt in the wood.

End quote. It was one thing to go out into the fields to play these games, but when there was a large population within the walls, it must have been very inconvenient to the inhabitants to find the streets occupied by footballers. The practice seems to have been allowed until it became a public nuisance. In the year 1406, Proclamation was issued

for bidding hocking in streets of London. Quote, Let proclamation be made that no person of this city or within the suburbs thereof, of whatsoever estate or condition such person may be, whether man or woman, shall, in any street or lane thereof, take hold of or constrain any person of whatsoever state or condition he may be,

within house or without, for hocking on the Monday or Tuesday next, called Hock Days, on pain of imprisonment, and of making fine at the discretion of the mayor and alderman. End quote. Hock Monday and Tuesday were the Monday and Tuesday following the second Sunday after Easter Day, and Spelman describes the sport of hocking, as consisting, quote, in the men and women binding each other, and especially the women the men, end quote. Hoan writes in his everyday book, quote, Tuesday was the principal day, Hock Monday was for the men, and Hock Tuesday for the women. On both days, the men and women,

with great merriment, intercepted the public road with ropes and pulled passengers to them, from whom they extracted money to be laid out for pious uses, Monday probably having been originally kept as only the vigil or introduction to the festival of Hock Day. End quote. The proclamation of 1406 does not seem to have been effectual, and therefore three years afterwards, another proclamation was issued against Hocking, Football, and Cockthreshing. The prohibition of Hocking is expressed in the same terms as in the Proclamation of 1406,

and to this is added the following. Quote, And that no person shall levy money, or cause it to be levied, for the games called football and cockthreshing, because of marriages that have recently taken place in the said city, or the suburbs thereof, on pain of imprisonment, and of making fine at the discretion of the mayor and alderman." Cock-throwing and football were especially in season at Shrove-tide,

and at that time it was difficult for the authorities to hold the Londoners in hand and prevent them from making the streets their playground. The cases of punishment already referred to are connected with prohibitions, but in 1389, a curious case of a fine inflicted for stopping a procession on the festival of Corpus' Christi is recorded. A citizen was brought before the mayor and the sheriffs, recorder, and alderman to answer for having prevented a procession from passing through his house, which the parishioners believed to be their right. It is one thing for the inhabitants of a small town like Helston in Cornwall to pass through houses without hindrance on Furry Day,

and quite another for the same right to be claimed in London, even in the Middle Ages. The case is so remarkable that it seems well to quote the whole statement. Quote, Because that, by the reputable men of the parish of St. Nicholas Ackon, Nicholas Twyford, Knight, Mayor of the City of London, was given to understand that whereas they, time out of mind, had been wont and accustomed to have free ingress and egress with their procession, on the befitting unusual days,

through the middle of a certain house belonging to John Bass, citizen and Draper of London, situate in the parish of St. Mary Abchurch in London. The aforesaid John, together with John Creek, Draper, and others of their coven on Thursday, the Feast of Corpus Christi last passed, armed with diverse arms, guarded the house before mentioned by main force,

and would not allow the prisoners of the Church of St. Nicholas aforesaid to enter the house with their procession, as they had been wont to do, but grievously threatened them as to life and limb. In breach of the peace of our Lord the King and to the manifest disturbance of the tranquility of the city aforesaid, for the said reason the same John and John were arrested. Afterwards, on the 26th day of June, in the 13th year, etc.,

they were brought before the said mayor and the sheriffs, recorder and aldermen in the chamber of the guild hall, and were there questioned as to the matter aforesaid, and were asked how they would acquit themselves thereof, whereupon they acknowledged that they were guilty of all the things above imputed to them, and put themselves upon the favour of the court as to the same. And counsel, having been held hereon, according to the usage of the city in like cases, it was a judge that the said John Bass, as being the principal and the prime mover in the contempt aforesaid,

should have imprisonment for one year then next ensuing, to commence from the Friday next after the Feast of St. Botov, 17th of June, namely Friday the 18th of June then last passed, and that on his leaving prison he should pay to the Chamberlain of the Guildhall 200 marks to the use of the commonalty for the contempt aforesaid, unless he should meet with increased favour in the meantime. And that the aforesaid John Creek, for the contempt so by him committed,

should have imprisonment for half a year after the said Friday next ensuing, and that on his leaving prison he should pay to the aforesaid Chamberlain 100 marks to the use of the commonalty, unless he should meet with increased favour in the meantime. End quote. These were truly exemplary damages, and we find that the imprisonment was remitted on the same day, and the fines were respectively reduced to £15 and 100 shillings.

Besides sports in the streets, there was a constant succession of pageants, processions, and tournaments in the Middle Ages, which made the streets gay and brought out most of the inhabitants to see the sights. The royal procession arranged in connection with coronations were of great antiquity, but one of the earliest to be described is that of Henry III, in 1236, which was chronicled by Matthew Paris. After the marriage at Canterbury of the King with Eleanor of Provence, the royal personages came to London, and were met by the mayor, alderman, and principal citizens to the number of 360, sumptuously apparelled in silken robes embroidered, riding upon stately horses. A very interesting point is mentioned by Matthew Paris,

viz, that each man carried a gold or silver cup in his hand, in token of the privilege claimed by the city of the mayor being chief butler of the kingdom at the coronation. Something further respecting this claim will be found in the eighth chapter of this book. On this occasion, the streets of the city were adorned with rich silks, pageants and a variety of pompous shows, and the citizens attending the king and queen to Westminster

had the honour of officiating at the queen's coronation. At night, the city was illuminated with an infinite number of lamps, cressets, etc. After the death of Henry III, 1272, the country had to wait for their new king, who was then in the Holy Land. Edward I came to London on the 2nd of August, 1274, where he was received with the wildest expressions of joy.

The streets were hung with rich cloths of silk, arras, and tapestry, the aldermen and principal men of the city threw out of their windows handfuls of gold and silver to signify their gladness at the king's return and the conduits ran with wine both white and red the coronation took place on the nineteenth of august the happy married life of edward i first and eleanor of castile came to an end in twelve ninety and in connection with her death was arranged the most striking and most beautiful expression of her husband's and and a nation's love in our history. The Queen died in Harby, Lincolnshire, and the funeral procession came slowly to London and Westminster. Beautiful crosses were afterwards placed on the various spots where each night the body stopped. Two of these stopping places were in London,

at Cheapside, beneath the shadow of Old St. Paul's, and at Charing Cross on the way to Westminster, where the Queen's beautiful tomb remains as one of the chief glories of our wonderful Aspenes, Abbey Church. Cheapside Cross was reedified in 1441, and afterwards newly guilt and newly burnished. Defaced and repaired at different times, little was left of the original when the cross was cleared away in 1647, at the same time as Charing Cross.

Only three of the original Eleanor Crosses remain, two in Northamptonshire, one at Gettington and the other at Northampton, and the other at Northampton, and the third. third at Waltham Cross. Every Englishman should be proud of these glorious records of a past age, which not only tell of the devoted love of two sovereigns, of whom we all must be proud, but also because they prove the high state of English art at this time. Until late years, when certain documents were discovered containing the names of the artists,

the historians of art attempted to believe that the designs were too good for Englishmen and must have been made by foreigners. In order to establish peace between England and France, King Edward married Margaret to France, sister of the French king, at Canterbury in 1299, and in the following year she first came to London. The citizens, to the number of 600, rode in one livery of red and white,

with the cognizance of their mistress embroidered upon their sleeves, and received her four miles with her four miles without the city and so conveyed her to Westminster. Edward I was buried at Westminster on October 27th, 1307, and his son, on coming to the throne, recalled Piers Gaveston from banishment. He made him regent of the kingdom when he crossed to France to be married to Isabella, the daughter of Philip IV. In February 1307 to 1308, Edward II returned to England with his bride,

and was joyfully received by the citizens. On the 24th they were crowned at Westminster. The king, we are told by Stowe, offered on the altar first a pound of gold made like a king holding a ring in his hand, and then a mark of gold, eight ounces, made like a pilgrim putting forth his hand to receive the ring. The crush was very great at his coronation,

and in it Sir John Blackwell was killed. In November 1312, Queen Isabel announced to the Mayor her safe delivery of a son in the following letter. Quote, "'Isabel, by the grace of God, Queen of England, Lady of Ireland, and Duchess of Aquitaine, to our well-beloved, the Mayor and Alderman of the Commonwealth of London, greeting. For as much as we believe that you would willingly hear good tidings of us, we do make known unto you that our Lord of His Grace has delivered us of us, son." End quote. Afterwards, Edward III.

The mayor and his alderman and commonalty on hearing the news, quote, assembled in the guild hall at time of Vespers and caroled, and showed great joy thereat, and so passed through the city with great glare of torches and with trumpets and other minstrelsees. And on the Tuesday next, early in the morning, cry was made throughout all the the city to the effect that there was to be no work, labor, or business in shop on that day, but that everyone was to apparel himself in the most becoming manner that he could, and come to the Guildhall at the hour of prime, ready to go with the mayor, together with the other good folks, to St. Paul's, there to make praise and offering to the

honour of God, who had shown them such favour on earth, and to show respect for this child that had been born. end quote. At the beginning of the next week, all went richly costumed to Westminster, riding on horseback, and there made offering. After dinner in the Guildhall,

quote, they went in carols throughout the city all the rest of the day and great part of the night, end quote. The conduit of cheap ran with nothing but wine, and a pavilion extended in the middle of the street near Broken Cross,

at the north door of St. Paul's, in which was set a ton of wine, for all passers-by to drink of. In the following February, the fishmongers company caused a boat to be fitted out in the guise of a great ship, to be drawn to Westminster and presented to the Queen. The Fishmongers, very richly costumed, escorted the Queen through the city on the same day on her way to Canterbury on pilgrimage. In 1330 there was an accident during the progress of a great tournament in Cheapside, which was part of an entertainment offered by the citizens to the young king, Edward III, and Queen at the birth of their first son. The Queen Philippa displayed the same good qualities which, on a later occasion,

she showed after the surrender of Calais, and thereby secured a lasting fame as a good woman. Stowe relates the event as follows. Quote, there was a very solemn jousting of all the stout earls, barons, and nobles at London in cheap, betwixt the great cross and the great conduit nisopalain, which lasted three days, where the Queen Philippa, with many ladies, fell from a stage, notwithstanding they were not hurt at all, wherefore the Queen took great care to save the carpenters from punishment, and through her prayer, which she made on her knees, she pacified the king and council

whereby she purchased great love of the people. End quote. This accident was the cause of Edward III ordering the construction in stone of a shed, Seldam, on the north side of Bow Church, so that the royal party might in future be able to view the joustings and other shows with safety. Edward III was for some years

the most popular of our monarchs, for he was constantly conquering his enemies, and his people were proud of him. In 1343, a great triumph was organized in his honour, which is described in Sir William Segar's honour military and civil. The king commanded that the tournament should be proclaimed in France, Henno, Flanders, Brabant, and other places. Quote, giving passport and secure abode to all noble strangers that would resort into England. End quote.

The triumph took place in London and continued for 15 days. Dr. Jessop gives us a vivid picture of what occurred four years afterwards. Quote, when King Edward III entered London in triumph on the 14th of October 1347, he was the foremost man in Europe, and England had reached a height of power and glory such as she had never attained before. At the Battle of Cressy, France had received a crushing, blow, and by the loss of Calais, after an 11-month siege, she had been reduced well-nigh to the lowest point of humiliation. David II, King of Scotland, was now lying a prisoner in the Tower of London.

Louis of Bavaria had just been killed by a fall from his horse, the imperial throne was vacant, and the electors in eager haste proclaimed that they had chosen the King of England to succeed. To their discomfiture, the King of England declined the Prophet. Crown, he had other views. Intoxicated by the splendor of their sovereign and his martial renown, and the success which seemed to attend him wherever he showed himself, the English people had gone mad with exultation. End quote.

Two years later, in 1349, the fearful pestilence, known of late years as the Black Death, was destroying half the population of the country. One of the most interesting of London processions was that which took place when the chivalrous black prince brought his prisoners to England in 1357. Stowe's account of the historic scene is so vivid that it needs must be transferred to these pages without paraphrase. Quote, Edward, Prince of Wales, returning into England with John, the French king, Philip, his son, and many other prisoners, arrived at Plymouth on the the 5th of May, and the 4th of May entered London with them, where he was received with great honour of the citizens, and so conveyed to the king's palace at Westminster, where the king, sitting in his estate in Westminster Hall, received them, and after conveyed the French king to a lodging

where he lay a season, and after the said French king was lodged in the Savoy, which was then a pleasant place belonging to the Duke of Lancaster. In the winter following, were great and royal jousts Holden in Smithfield at London, where many knightly sights of arms were done to the great honour of the king and realm, at the which were present the kings of England, France and Scotland,

with many noble estates of all those kingdoms, whereof the more part of the strangers were prisoners. End quote. The King of France remained a prisoner for three years, but in 1360, King Edward marched upon Paris, and peace was made to the joy of the French, although the English gained a third of that kingdom by the peace of Breitigny.

When the peace was confirmed, Edward III came to England, quote, And so straight to the tower to see the French king, where he appointed his ransom to be three millions of Florence's, and so delivered him of all imprisonment, and brought him with great honour to the sea, who then sailed over to France,

end quote. the 8th of June 1376, that flower of chivalry, the black prince, died in the archbishop's palace at Canterbury. His young son Richard was then created by the king, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, and Prince of Wales. At Christmas, the Londoners formed a torch-like procession from the city to Kennington in honour of the prince. Quote, On the Sunday before candle mass, in the night, 130 citizens, disguised and well horsed, in a mummery with sounds of trumpets, large trumpets, horns, shalms, and other minstrels, and innumerable torchlights of wax, rode from Newgate through cheap, over the bridge,

through Southwark, and so to Kennington, besides Lambeth, where the young prince remained with his mother. In the first rank did ride 48 in the likeness and habit of Esquire, two and two together, clothed in red coats and gowns of say or sandal, with comely visors on their faces. After them came riding forty-eight knights in the same livery of colour and stuff. Then followed one richly arrayed like an emperor, and after him at some distance, one stately attired like a pope, whom followed twenty-four cardinals, and after them eight or ten with black visors not amiable, as if they had been legates from some foreign princes. These maskers, after they had entered the manor of Kennington,

alighted from their horses and entered the hall on foot, which done, the prince, his mother, and the lords came out of the chamber into the hall, whom the said mummers did salute, showing by a pair of dice on the table their desire to play with the prince, which they so handled that the prince did always win when they cast them. Then the mummers set to the prince three jewels one after another, which were a bowl of gold, a cup of gold, and a ring of gold, which the prince won at three casts.

Then they set to the prince's mother, the duke, John of Gaunt, the earls, and other lords, to every one a ring of gold, which they did also win. After which they were feasted and the music sounded. The prince and the lords danced on the one part with the mummers, who did also dance, which jollity being needed they were again made to drink, and then departed in order as they came. End quote.

On the 21st of June following, 1377, Edward III, deserted by his mistress, Alice Perez, and his courtiers, and attended by a solitary priest, died at Sheen, now Richmond. Before the breath was out of his body, the citizens waited upon the young, young Prince Richard, and offered their allegiance, requesting him to come to London. In Walsingham's Chronicle, there is an account of a pageant in honour of the young king in the following month. On the feast of St. Swithon, the mayor and citizens assembled near the tower when King Richard, clad in white garments, came forth with a great multitude in his suite, also dressed in white. The streets were hung with cloth of gold and silver and silken stuff,

and the conduits ran wine for three hours. At the upper end of Cheapside was erected a castle with four towers. In the towers were placed four beautiful virgins, of stature and age like to the king, apparelled in white. These damsels, on the king's approach, blew in his face, leaves of gold, and threw on him and his horse counterfeit golden florins. When he was come before the castle they took cups of gold,

and filling them with wine at the spouts of the castle, presented the same to the king and his nobles. On top of the castle, betwixt the towers, stood a golden angel, holding a crown in his hands, and so contrived that when the king came, he bowed down and offered him the crown. There was infinite variety in these pageants, and they were very frequent during the Middle Ages,

and long after, but the two full description of them is like, likely to become monotonous. It will therefore be sufficient to refer to some of the other rejoicings in a more succinct manner. On Friday after the Epiphany, 1382, the mayor and alderman and Commons rode to meet the new Queen, Anne of Bohemia, and conducted her through the city. All the crafts were charged to wear nothing but red and black. End of Section 9. Section 10 of the Story of London.

This is a Libravot's recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravocs.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 6. Manners Part 2 In 1392, Richard II

wanted to borrow £1,000 from the Londoners. However, they not only refused, but killed a certain Lombard who would have lent the sum. The king was very angry and deposed the mayor, imprisoning him in Windsor Castle, and the sheriffs and various prominent citizens in other prisons. Finding that they were in a bad case, the citizens repented and offered the king £10,000.

Richard, learning that the Londoners were, in heaviness and dismayed, said to his men, as Stowe tells us, quote, I will go to London and comfort the citizens, and will not that they any longer despair of my favour. End quote. On leaving Sheen, he was met on Wandsworth Common by four hundred of the citizens on horseback, clad in one livery, who, in the most humble manner, craving pardon for their past defences besought him by their recorder to take his way to his palace at Westminster through the city of London. The request having been granted, the king pursued his journey to Southwark, where, at St George's Church, he was met by a procession of the Bishop of London and all the

religions of every degree, and above 500 boys in surpluses. At London Bridge, a white steed and milk-white palfrey both saddled, bridled and caparison, and cloth of gold, were presented to the king and queen. The citizens received them standing in their liveries on each side of the street, crying, King Richard, King Richard. Handsome presents were made to the king and queen, who proceeded to St. Paul's. After the offerings had been made there, the mayor accompanied the king to Westminster. On the following day, the citizens again went to the palace with presents,

and received a new confirmation of their liberty. They had, however, to present a golden tablet of the story of Edward the Confessor for the shrine of that royal saint, and were further mulcted in a heavy tax. Seven years after this, the principal actors were changed, and Henry, Duke of Lancaster, approached London with Richard as a captive. He was received in great pomp by the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, and all the several companies in their formalities, with the people incessive. recently crying, long live the good Duke of Lancaster, Our Deliverer. On the 13th of October in the same year,

1399, Henry went in great pomp from the tower to Westminster, and there was crowned. In 1413, Henry V passed in procession from the Tower through London to Westminster, where he was crowned. But though there was a brave show on this occasion, it was as nothing to what was provoked. It was as nothing to what was provided to do honour to the king's return from the glorious field of Agincourt in 1415. The mayor and alderman, apparelled in Orient Grain Scarlet, and 400 commoners in Murray, well-mounted, with rich collars and chains, met the king at Blackheath, and the clergy of London in solemn procession, with rich crosses, sumptuous copes, and many censors, received him at St. Thomas of Waterings, a place on the old Kent Road,

which Chaucer's pilgrims passed when they had gone about two miles from the Tabard. At the entrance of London Bridge, on the top of the tower, stood a gigantic figure, bearing in his right hand an axe, and in his left the keys of the city hanging to a staff, as if he had been the porter. By his side stood a woman of scarcely less stature, intended for his wife. Around them were a band of trumpets and other wind instruments. The towers were adorned with banners of the royal arms, and in the front of them was inscribed Civitas, Regis, Justiciere. Henry V made another triumphant entry into London with his bride, Catherine of France, who was crowned at Westminster Abbey on the 14th of February 1421.

On the 31st of August following, the king died in France. On the 14th of November 1422, the infant Henry, Henry the 6th was carried through the city to the Parliament at Westminster on the lap of his mother, who sat in an open chair. On the 6th of November 1429, the young king was crowned in Westminster Abbey. The coronation was a very imposing ceremony. At the commencement of the proceedings, the Archbishop of Canterbury made proclamation at the four corners of the scaffold on which the king sat.

He spoke as follows. Quote Series Here cometh Harry King Harry the fifth is son Humility to God and Holy Church Asking the crown of this realm

By right and descent of heritage If ye hold you well pleased with all And will be pleased with him Say you now, yea, and hold up your hands End quote Then all the people with one voice cried Yay, yay. Henry the 6th was crowned in France on the 7th of December 1431 by Cardinal Beaufort, his uncle,

Bishop of Winchester, and on his return to England, he was met at Blackheath by the Mayor and Citizens on the 21st of February 1431 to 1432. The Mayor and Alderman were dressed in Scarlet, and the members of the guilds in white, with the cognizances of their crafts on their sleeves. The figure of a mighty giant with a drawn sword stood at the entrance of the bridge. When the king had passed the first gate and was arrived at the drawbridge,

he found a goodly tower, hung with silk and cloth of arras, out of which suddenly appeared three ladies, clad in gold and silk, with coronets upon their head. Of which the first was Dame Nature, the second Dame Grace and the third Dame Fortune

On each side of these dames were seven virgins All clothed in white Those on the right presented the king With the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost Sapience, Intelligence, Good counsel, strength, cunning, pity And dread of God Those on the left with the seven gifts of grace

The Crown of Glory, the Septuptus, of clemency and pity, the sword of might and victory, the mantle of prudence, the shield of faith, the helmet of health, and the girdle of love and perfect peace. On Cornhill was a tabernacle of curious work, in which stood Dame Sapiens, and around her the seven liberal arts, grammar, logic, rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. At the conduit in Cornhill was set a circular pageant, on the summit whereof was a child of wonderful beauty, apparelled like a king, upon whose right hand sat Lady Mercy, on his left Lady Truth, and over them stood Dame Clemency embracing the king's throne. At the conduit in cheap there were formed several wells, the well of mercy, the well of grace, and the well of pity, and at each a lady standing who administered the water to such as would ask it,

and then the water was turned into good wine. A little further west was a tower ornamented with the arms of England and France. By its side stood two green trees, one bearing the genealogy of St Edward and the other that of St. Louis. On entering St. Paul's churchyard, Henry VI was met by a procession of the dean and cannons, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and six bishops, who conducted him to the cathedral, where he made his oblations. He then took horse at the west door of St. Paul's,

and so rode to Westminster, where he was received by the abbot and taken to St. Edward's shrine. His lords then conveyed him to his palace, and the mayor and citizens returned joyously to London. This was probably the most elaborate and beautiful pageant ever put. performed in the streets of London. The king married Margaret of Anjou in 1445, and on approaching London on the way to her coronation, the Queen was met on Blackheath by the Mayor, Alderman and sheriffs, and the principal members of the guilds attired in brown-blue, with embroidered sleeves and red hoods on their heads, every craft having its cognizance, who brought her with great triumph to Westminster.

There were, on this occasion, several pageants of a similar character to those described before. In 1461, after the Battle of Mortimer Cross and the Second Battle of St. Albans, Edward Earl of March came to London with his forces and was chosen king in St. John's Field, Clarkinwell, on March 2nd. King Edward's title was set forth in the sermon at St. Paul's Cross by the Bishop of Exeter. After the sermon, the king was conveyed in procession to Westminster Abbey, and after having offered at St. Edward's Shrine, he went to Westminster Hall and, sitting in the royal seat, was greeted with shouts of long-lived the king. He then returned to St. Paul's and was lodged in the bishop's palace. On the 26th of June, the mayor and alderman in Scarlet, and the Commons in Green, brought Edward

the fourth from Lambeth to the tower, and on the 28th, Inst, he was crowned with great solemnity at Westminster. Quote, And on the morrow, after the king was crowned again in Westminster Abbey, in the worship of God and St. Peter, and on the next morrow, he went crowned in Paul's Church in London, in the honour of God and St Paul, and there an angel came down and sensed him, at which time was so great a multitude of people in Pauls as ever was seen in any days. End quote. On Whitson Day, 1465, Queen Elizabeth Gray was crowned at Westminster Abbey,

having on the preceding day, ridden in a horse litter through the chief streets of London, preceded by the newly created Knights of the Bath, four of whom were men of London, the mayor, and three others. Shortly after the murder of Henry VI in the Tower, 1471, Edward was met by the mayor, alderman and citizens, about a mile from the city, between Islington and Shoreditch, and in the highway he knighted the mayor, 11 aldermen and the recorder.

Edward V died on April 9, 1483, and his young son, Edward V, was brought from Ludlow by the Grays, his relations on the mother's side. Richard Duke of Gloucester, fearing the action of the Grays, overtook the procession, and sent Earl Rivers and Sir Richard Gray prisoners to Pontifract. Edmund Shah, the mayor, the sheriffs and the aldermen in Scarlet, with 500 horse of the citizens in Violet, met the king and the Duke at Hornsey, and, riding from thence, accompanied them into the city, which was entered on the 4th of May. The king was lodged in the bishop's palace, where a great council was held,

at which the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham and other great lords were sworn. Edward V was deposed soon after this, and on the 5th of July, the day before his coronation, Richard rode from the tower through the city with his son, the Prince of Wales, three dukes, nine earls,

22 Viscounts and barons, 80 knights, esquires and gentlemen not to be numbered, besides the great offices of Starrows. State. After the Battle of Bosworth, Henry the 7th was met at Hornsey on the 28th of August 1485 by the Mayor, Sir Thomas Hill, and the alderman in their scarlet robes, accompanied by a great number of citizens on horseback, in violet-coloured gowns, whence they conducted him to Shoreditch, where he was received by the several companies, and then conducted to St. Paul's,

where he offered three standards, one with the image of St. George. George, another with a red, fiery dragon, and the third with a dun cow. After the singing of the Te deum, he went to the bishop's palace. Less than a month afterwards, Sir Thomas Hill died of the sweating sickness. The coronation of Henry V. 7th in 1485 was hurried over with less ceremonial than usual and without any procession through the city. But that of the Queen, Elizabeth of York, in 1487, was attended with all the pomp customary on similar occasions. On Friday before St. Catherine's Day, the Queen came from Greenwich by water.

The mayor, sheriffs and aldermen with citizens chosen from every craft in their liveries were waiting on the river to receive her and attend her to the tower. On the following day, she went through London to Westminster in a litter. The houses were dressed with clothes of tapestry and arras, and in cheap with rich cloth of gold, velvet and silk. Along the streets, from the tower to St. Paul's, stood in order all the crafts of London in their liveries, and in various places were placed singing children,

some arrayed like angels, to sing sweet songs as the Queen went by. The Battle of Bosworth we have agreed to consider as the period of the breakup of the Middle Ages, but it was many years after this before the shows and amusements of the people exhibited any great change. The Tudors, especially Henry VIII, showed a particular delight in pageantry, and the Stuarts carried on the tradition. In fact, it was in Elizabeth's reign that special attention was given to the arrangement of the Lord Mayor's pageant. George Peel, the dramatist, is the first on the list of the city poets. Although we have already seen that Lydgate was employed to write poetry in honour of King Henry the 6th.

The pageants prepared for the triumphant passage of, quote, King James and Queen Anne, his wife, and Henry Frederick, the Prince, end quote, from the tower through the city on the 15th of March 1603 to 1604, were of a magnificent character. Seven beautiful arches of triumph were designed by Stephen Harrison, Joyner and Architect. These were erected at the expense of the livery companies and the foreign merchants. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the art of pageantry was almost entirely lost. The decoration of our streets on joyful occasions has lately considerably improved,

but there is still room for a more artistic treatment. With our knowledge of the past and the possession of artists who are enthusiastic for the revival of a true taste in pageantry, there ought to be no difficulty in the production of pageants that would do honour to our city. It would be well if the authorities would consult with artists for the improvement of the Lord Mayor's show. We have treated of out-of-door amusements, and must now say a few words on one of those enjoyed indoors. Music and poetry were cultivated by certain foreign merchants in England, who established in London, at the close of the 13th and beginning of the 14th century, a society or brotherhood of the Pui, quote, in honour of God, our Lady St. Mary,

and all saints, both male and female, and in honour of our Lord the King, and all the barons of the country, and for the increasing of loyal love, and to the end that the city of London may be renown for all good things in all places, and to the end that mirthfulness, peace, honesty, joyousness, gaiety and good love with infinity may be maintained. End quote. The majority of the members were foreigners, but Englishmen were not excluded, for we find that John de Chessunt was the third prince or president. Statutes and full particulars of proceedings are given in

Lieber Custamarum, and, curiously enough, no other evidence of the existence of such a fraternity in England is known. From this document, we learned that the Society had received from the city great privileges in respect of the Chapel of St. Mary in Guildhall, which was building towards the close of the reign of Edward I. Hence, the donation in its favour for a chaplain by Sir Henry Loelie's 1299, who had been mayor both of London and Bordeaux, and in the latter capacity, would be likely to feel an additional interest in this musical society of French merchants and their English friends. The regulations are very full and explanatory of the various proceedings at the festival of the Pui, as the following extracts from Mr. Riley's translation of the Latin original will show.

As to the yearly election of a prince. Quote, the prince ought to be chosen as being good and loyal and sufficient upon the oath of eleven companions, or of the twelve, to their knowledge, upon their oath, that the Pui may be promoted thereby, and maintained and upheld, and he who shall be chosen for prince may not refuse it upon his oath. And when the old prince and his companions shall leave to make a new prince, At the great feast, the old prince and his companions shall go through the room from one end to the other, singing. And the old prince shall carry the crown of the puy upon his head, and a gilt cup in his hands, full of wine. And when they shall have gone round, the old prince shall give to drink unto him whom they shall have chosen,

and shall give him the crown, and such person shall be prince. end quote marriage, death, and burial of the members Quote If there be any one of the companions Who marries in the city of London Or who becomes a clerk priest He ought to let the companions know thereof

And each shall be there according to his oath If he have not a proper excuse And the married person ought to give them chaplets All of one kind And all the companions ought to go with the bridegroom to the church, and to make offering, and to return from the church to the house. And if there be any of the companions of the brotherhood who departs this life and dies, all the companions ought to be there, and to carry the body to church, by leave of the kindred,

and to make offering. End quote. Common hutch. Quote, There shall be a common hutch of the company of the Pui, in which the remembrance of and the revised provisions of the company shall be placed in safe keeping, of which Hutch, in the first place, the new prince, each year after he is chosen, shall have one key, and two companions, by assent of the companions, for such custody chosen, each one key, and that this Hutch shall stand in such safe place as the companions shall ordain within the city of London."

end quote. Clark and Chaplain Quote There shall be a clerk, intelligent and residing in London, chosen by the companions, to serve the company, and that he be willing and able

to be attendant upon, and obedient unto the prince, and to the twelve companions, in all matters that concern the company. That there be a chaplain at all times singing mass for the living and the dead of the company, and a chapel, founded in honour of God and Our Lady, so soon as the improved means of the

company, by the aid of God and good folks, may there unto suffice. And if the companions of the Pui who are of sufficient means be pressed by illness, so much as to wish to make their testaments, the prince is to go, with two of the twelve companions with him, to visit the sick persons, and is to remind them of their faith which they have pledged unto the company, and to admonish them to devise somewhat of their property towards supplying the chapel and chaplain aforesaid, and supporting the same. End quote. The Grand Feast

Quote Whereas the royal feast of the Pui is maintained and established principally for crowning a royal song, inasmuch as it is by song that it is honoured and enhanced, all the gentle companions of the Pui by right reason are bound to exalt royal songs to the utmost of their power, and especially the one that is crowned by assent of the companions upon the day of the great feast of the Pui. Wherefore it is here provided, as concerning such songs, that each new prince, the day that he shall wear the crown, and shall govern the feast of the Pui, and so soon as he shall have had the blasen of his arms hung in the room where the feast of the Pui shall be held, shall forthwithal the feast

With caused to be set up beneath his blazon the song that was crowned on the day that he was chosen as the new prince, plainly and correctly written, without default. As to the serving up the feast, it is also ordained that all the companions shall be served amply, as well the poorest as the richest, in this form. That is to say, they shall be served with good bread, good ale, and good wine, and then they shall be served with potter, and then they shall be served with potage and with one course of solid meat, and then after that with double roast in a dish and cheese without more. End quote. No ladies present. Quote, although the becoming pleasance of virtuous ladies is a rightful theme and principal

occasion for royal singing, and for composing and furnishing royal songs, nevertheless it is hereby provided that no lady or other woman ought to be at the great sitting of of the Pui, for the reason that the members ought hereby to take example and rightful warning, to honour, cherish, and commend all ladies at all times in all places, as much in their absence as in their presence." End quote. Costume and procession Quote The Prince ought, at his own cost, to be costumed with coat and surcoat without sleeves,

and mantle of one suit with whatever arms he may please at his own free will, so that at the election of a new prince, at the great feast of the Pui, he give his mantle and his crown to the new prince so soon as he shall be chosen. He who shall be crowned for his song upon that day may ride between the old prince and the new one in the procession on horseback which they shall make throughout the city, after the feast, that they may have knowledge of the one prince and of the other by the suit of the costumes. Fourth with, after they have given the crown to him who shall sing the best,

they shall mount their horses and make their procession through the city, and shall then escort their new prince to his house, and there they shall all alight, and shall have a dance there by way of hearty good-bye, and they shall then take one drink and depart, each to his own house, all on foot. end quote. The fraternity took its name from Le Puy-en-Volet in Overn, the celebrated statue of the Virgin Mary in the cathedral of which place was long a popular object of pilgrimage and devotion during the Middle Ages. Monsieur Eymard, administrator of the city of Le Puy en-Volet,

and the historian of the confrerie de Notre Dame de Puy, is of the opinion that the document in the Lieber Custamarum is at once more full and more ancient by far than any set of regulations of a similar French fraternity which is known to have survived to our times. Societies of the Pui flourished in Normandy and Picardy. The place of the meeting of the companions is not known, but Mr. Riley suggests that it was possibly in the vintry. There is some uncertainty as to how the fraternity came to an end.

Londoners were better supplied with eating houses than their neighbours on the continent, as we learn from the description of the street of cook-shops on the Thames side by Fitz Stephen. Quote, there is also in London, on the bank of the river, amongst the wine shops, which are kept in ships and cellars, a public eating-house. There every day, according to the season, may be found viands of all kind,

roast, fried and boiled, fish, large and small, coarser meat for the poor, and more delicate for the rich, such as venison, fowls, and small birds. If friends, wearied with their journey, should unexpectedly come to a citizen's house, and, being hungry, should not like to wait till fresh meat be bought and cooked. Meanwhile, some run to the riverside, and there everything that they could wish for is instantly procured. However great the number of soldiers and strangers that enters or leaves the city at any hour of the day or night, They may turn in there, if they please, and refresh themselves according to their inclination,

so that the former have no occasion to fast too long, or the latter to leave the city without dining. Those who wish to indulge themselves would not desire a sturgeon, or a bird of Africa, or the godwit of Ionia, when the delicacies that are to be found there are set before them. This, indeed, is the public cookery, and is very convenient to the city, and a distinguishing mark of civilization. End quote. Mr. Riley points out in his introduction to the Lieber customarum that the coquina of Fitz Stephen was in reality a cook's row,

not merely a solitary cook shop. In Fitz Aylwyn's second-a-size, 1212, the cook-shops on the Thames were ordered to be whitewashed and plastered and the inner partitions to be removed, from which it would appear that lots of, lodging rooms had been, quote, constructed for the harboring of guests and travellers in contravention of the city regulations, which at all times during the 13th and two succeeding centuries strictly forbade cooks and pie bakers to keep hostels for the entertainment of guests.

In the 14th century, however, most of these cookshops had made way for genuine hostels and herbergeries, to be kept only by Freeman and on no account by foreigners, though we feel. find mention made of one or two cook-shops lingering on the city margin of the Thames so late as the reign of Edward III. End quote. Mr. Riley adds in his glossary, quote, to the celebrity which London gained at an early period for its cook-shops, its citizens were not improbably indebted for their nickname of Cockney, one which they have retained throughout England to the present day. The earliest recorded instance of its use is probably of this same period. The rhyme uttered, according to Camden, by Hugh Bigot, Earl of Norfolk,

in reference to Henry II, the capital of whose English dominions was London. Were I in my castle of Bungay, upon the river of Weavenay, I would no care for the king of Cockney. Keepers of wine taverns and alehouses and victualers, who merely sold provisions, do not appear to have lodged their guests any more than the cooks. The persons whose business it was to receive guests for profit appeared to have been divided into two classes, the hostilers and the herbageers. The line of distinction between these two classes is not very evident,

but it seems not improbable that it consisted in the fact that the former lodged and fed the servants and horses of their guests, while the latter did not. At all events, hostilers are mentioned as supplying hay and corn for horses, but herbageers never. End quote. Hostilers were also forbidden to sell drink and victuals to any other than their guests. The established charge for a night's lodging about the time of Henry IV was one penny per night. Quote, in the times of our early kings, when they moved from place to place, it devolved upon the marshal of the king's household to find lodgings for the royal retinue and dependence,

which was done by sending a billet and seizing arbitrarily the best houses and mansions of the locality, turning out the inhabitants, and marking the houses so selected with chalk, which latter duty seems to have belonged to the sergeant chamberlain of the king's household. The city of London, fortunately for the comfort and independence of its inhabitants, was exempted by numerous charters from having to endure this most abominable annoyance at such times as it pleased the king to become its near neighbour by taking up his residence in the town. End quote. By an act, 7 Edward VI, 1553, 40 taverns and public houses were allowed in the city, and three in Westminster.

End of Chapter 6. Section 10, Section 11 of the Story of London. This is a Librevox recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravoc.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 7.

Health, Disease and Sanitation, Part 1 When I mentioned to a friend, that I intended to devote one of the chapters of this book to the consideration of sanitation in the Middle Ages. He hinted that, as there was no such thing, this would partake somewhat of the character of the famous chapter on snakes in the history of Ireland. In this opinion, I hope to prove that he is wrong. There are many conflicting accounts of the general sanitary condition of a walled town in the Middle Ages. But although some have painted the condition of early London in a very unfavourable light,

there is sufficient evidence on the other side to induce us, in taking a general survey of so large a subject, to be careful not to use two dark colours for our picture. Probably the town was healthier in ordinary times than in the country, because the regulations were stricter. But in time of pestilence it was doubtless worse, from the confined space and the want of fresh air caused by the closeness of buildings.

We do not hear much of the health of London between the periods of pestilence, but occasional information shows how great was the mortality among infants. The vast disproportion between the births and deaths made the influx of immigrants from the country necessary to keep up the population. As a sign that the general conditions of life were unhealthier then than now, we may note that the expectancy of life in the Middle Ages was much shorter than at present. It is said that as large a number of persons died at 40 years of age has now lived to 70. Queen Elizabeth was the first of the 23 sovereigns of England after the conquest who attained the age of 70,

although Edward I indeed lived to his 69th year. Dr. Jessop gives a vivid picture of the frightful condition of town populations. He writes, quote, The sediment of the town population in the Middle Ages was a dense slough of stagnant misery, squalor, famine, loathsome disease, and dull despair, such as the worst slums of London, Paris or Liverpool know nothing of. End quote.

Dr. Charles Creighton, in his monumental work on epidemics, takes the view that we must receive with some skepticism the extremely unsatisfactory accounts of the conditions of old London. He points out that, while Erasmus gives a most repulsive description of the state of the houses, his contemporary and friend, Sir Thomas Moore, takes a much more flattering view. Dr. Creighton says,

quote, Some part of the rather unfair opinion as to the foulness of English life in former times may be traced to a well-known letter by Erasmus to the physician of Cardinal Woolsey. There are grounds for believing that Erasmus must have judged from somewhat unfavourable instances. End quote. Dr. Creighton further points out that William Harrison, description of England, gives proof enough that the filthy flaws described by Erasmus had no existence two generations later,

even among the poorer classes. Fitz Stephen was quite satisfied with the salubrity of the city, and he becomes enthusiastic over the gardens and clear springs which abounded on all sides, and made the walks of those who took the air in the summer evenings so agreeable. In fine, he says, quote, The city is delightful, indeed, when it has a good governor. End quote.

Sir Thomas More at a later period saw so little amiss that he was content to consider London as a fair sample of what he would wish the capital of Utopia to be, we know at all events that whatever its faults it was in advance of foreign cities. It has been said that the English word, comfort, cannot be translated, and a curious confirmation of this is found in the fact that in the old French contemporary account of what Tyler's rebellion, the word is introduced in a French context as if there was no equivalent in that language. Dr. J. W. Tripe, in 1881, took as the subject of his inaugural address on assuming the presidential chair of the Society of Medical Officers of Health,

the sanitary condition and laws of medieval England. Referring to this, a writer in the Medical Times and Gazette says, quote, his description of the streets and houses of Old London, and of the habits of our forefathers, though most graphic, was not new, But few, we think, have any idea of the antiquity of sanitary, nuisance removal, and river conservancy acts, and Dr. Tripe has therefore done well to again set forth the accounts of them that have been exhumed from the records of the city. Rude as they may seem to modern notions, they ought to have sufficed for the prevention of the epidemics, which, from time to time, decimated the population, if they had not, like so many more recent enactments,

been in advance of the age, and consequently remained, for the most part, dead letters. End quote. Before entering into particulars as to means taken for the protection of the city from disease, and as to those upon whom the duty was laid of carrying them out, it will be necessary to make a few remarks upon the healing art in the Middle Ages. It may be presumed that at all times large numbers suffered from illness and required medical aid, yet none has come down to us relating to the treatment adopted by the doctors. Unfortunately, the medical men of the Middle Ages do not appear to have trusted to themselves

or to their own practical knowledge. Instead, they put their whole trust in the little they knew of Greek practice which they learnt from the Arabs, so that, even when writing on cases that came under their own observation, they give but slight information respecting the clinical treatment they adopted, and were afraid to express an opinion without the authority of a great name. Dr. Norman Moore says, quote, the basis of medicine is the patient, end quote.

This being so, as the patient always exists, the medicine man must always have been required. Those whose duty it was to combat disease among the Saxons seem to have been of little account, if we are to judge from the Reverend Oswald Cockane's collection of leechdoms, Wirt Cunning, and Starcraft of Early England, published in the Master of the Rolls series, 1864, and Dr. J. F. Paine's Fitzpatrick Lectures on the History of Medicine, 1903. The Saxon Leach received a professional education and was often learned,

although he did not advance knowledge. He seems to have placed more reliance upon charms and magic than upon any sensible treatment. He compounded recipes of the most incongruous character and paid special attention to the use of herbs, but few instances of cures performed by him are recorded. It is not until after the conquest that we are able to find the first signs of the noble profession of today.

It is said that medieval medicine first began to emerge from obscurity in the 13th and 14th centuries. The Jews and the clergy were among the first to practice medicine. A noted Jewish physician is recorded by William of Newborough as practicing at King's Lin at the end of the 12th century. But shortly afterwards the Jews were driven out of the country, and we hear no more of them except of an occasional physician who managed to escape the general outlery of his nation. The clergy also, in course of time, largely gave over their noble attempts to heal their fellow citizens, and a medical profession was gradually

formed. John of Salisbury died 1180, the friend and counsellor of Thomas Abackett, who is called by Bishop Stubbs, quote, the central figure of English learning for 30 years, end quote, and may therefore be considered to some extent as an authority on the subject, had a very poor opinion of the medical profession of his day, and rated its members roundly for their ignorance and incompetence. He affirmed that they had two maxims which they never violated. Quote, never mind the poor, never refuse money from the rich, end quote. There was no school of anatomy or surgery throughout England in the age of Chaucer and Whitecliffe, but the medical schools of Salerno, Naples and Montpellier were

attended by Englishmen. St. Luke is usually considered as the patron saint of the medical profession, but in the Middle Ages he was to a great extent dispossessed by St. Cosmos and St. Damien, two brothers who practiced as physicians in Solicia and were martyred in the early part of the 4th century. These were the patron saints of the company of Barber Surgeons, but the fellowship of surgeons, whose history has been written by Mr. Darcy Power, kept St. Luke's Day as well as that of St. Cosmos and St. Damien. Chaucer found room for the Doctor of Physics in his wonderful gallery of medieval portraits, and a very vivid picture he gives of the studies and practice of this worthy.

It is drawn with the poet's tolerant humour, but he ends by saying that the doctor loved his gold, and all accounts appeared to corroborate this opinion. Quote, with us there was a doctor of physics, in all this world, nay was there known him lick, to speak of physic and surgery, for he was grounded in astronomy. He kept his patient a full greet deal,

in hours by his magic natural. Well could he fortune the ascendant of his images for the patient. He knew the cause of Everidge Maladai, were it of hoot or cold or moist or dry, and where they engendered and of what humour he was a very parfit practicer the cause e know and of his harm the root anon he aft the Sikh man his boot full ready had he his apothecaries to send him drugs and his letcheries for each of him made other for to win here friendship was not new to begin well knew he the old esculapius and descoridais and ecrufus Old Ipochras, Haley and Geline, Serapion, Razis and Avicen, Avroa, Damacien and Constantine,

Bernard and Gatine. Of his diet measurable was he, for it was of no superfluity, but of Greek norrassing and digestible. His study was but little on the Bible, insanguine and impurs he clad was all, lined with taffeta and with Sendal, and yet he was but easy of dispense, he kept that he won in pestilence, for gold in physic is accordial, therefore he loved gold in special." Chaucer here shows great learning and knowledge of the history of medicine. He gives a full list of the Greek and Arab authorities, and also of the men living nearer to his own day.

Bernard was Bernardus Gordonius, the professor of medicine at Montpellier in Chaucer's time. Gilbertin was Gilbertus Anglicus, and Gatesdon was John of Gaddersden. Footnote. Dr. Poor has analysed the different points in Chaucer's description, and explained the various allusions of the statement that the doctor's line of study had little to do with the Bible. Dr. Paul writes, quote, this line is frequently quoted to show that the skepticism with which doctors are often charged is of no modern growth. The point of the line is, however, to be found in the fact that Chaucer's doctor was certainly a priest, as were all the physicians of his time, and that the practice of medicine

had drawn him away, somewhat unduly, perhaps, from the clerical profession to which he also belonged. End quote. End of footnote. Gilbertus Anglicus, author of a compendium medicinae, about 1290, is said to have been the first English practical writer on medicine, but as Gilbert quotes a master Richard, there may have been a still earlier English writer on the subject. The book contains the first description of leprosy written by a European. Little is known of the particulars of his life,

but he is said to have been a chancellor at Montpellier. He travelled in the east at the time of the Crusades, probably during the Third Crusade in which Richard I took part. John of Gathersdon, 1280 to 1361, was a Doctor of Physics of Oxford, graduating from Merton College Oxford, who subsequently obtained a large practice in London. He was in priest's orders and held a stall in St. Paul's Cathedral.

His famous medical treaties entitled Rosa Anglico, was written about the year 1305. It treats of fevers and injuries of all parts of the body and soon became a medical textbook throughout Europe. In his book there is an account of his special treatment of smallpox. He wrote, Quote, Let Scarlet Red be taken,

and let him who is suffering smallpox be entirely wrapped in it or in some other red cloth. I did thus, when the son of the illustrious king, of England suffered from smallpox. I took care that everything about his cout should be read, and his cure was perfectly affected, for he was restored to health without a trace of the disease." End quote. Gaddersden was court physician to Edward II and Edward III, and seems to have taken advantage of his position to exact high fees. He recommended his contemporaries to make arrangements about payment before undertaking a case.

The clergy were forbidden by Pope Innocent III, 1215, to undertake any operation involving the shedding of blood, and subsequently they were forbidden to practice surgery in any form. From this cause the practice of surgery largely came into the hands of the barbers. We shall see later how the profession was divided between the military surgeon and the barber surgeon, but here we have only to deal with the physician. We learn from Riley's memorials that Roger Clark of Wandsworth was placed in the pillory in May 1382 for pretending to be a physician. He was brought before the mayor and alderman and charged with deceit and falsehood by Roger At Hash. Quote, whereas no physician or surgeon should intermeddle with any medicines or cures within the liberty of the city aforesaid,

but those who are experienced in the said arts and approved therein, the said Roger Clark knew nothing of either of the arts aforesaid, being neither experienced nor approved therein, nor understood anything of letters. End quote. He pretended to heal Roger at Hash's wife, Joanna, of her bodily infirmities, by making her wear an old parchment leaf of a book,

rolled up in a piece of cloth of gold. this being of no avail, Clark was a judge to be led, quote, through the middle of the city with trumpets and pipes, he riding on a horse without a saddle, the said parchment and a wet stone for his lies being hung about his neck. End quote. This man was evidently an imposter and was properly punished for obtaining money under false pretenses. But many of the recipes adopted by the recognized physicians would probably be as ineffectual as the charm of Roger Clark.

John de Gaddersdon made a disgusting plaster of dung, headless crickets and beetles, which was rubbed over the sick parts to cure the stone, and we are told in the Rosa Anglica that, quote, in three days the pain had disappeared, end quote. It was very long before the doctors gave up the making of extraordinary plasters and decoctions.

Apparently they had the assistance of laymen on occasion. Dr. Fernival has printed in his edition of Vickory's Anatomy of the Body of Man, 1888, a series of ten recipes by Henry VIII and his physicians, Dr. Augustine, Dr. Butts, and Dr. Cromer, taken at random from the Sloan manuscript 104-7 in the British Museum. Among these are, quote, The King's Majesty's Own Plaster, a black plaster devised by the King's Highness,

A plaster devised by the King's Majesty at Greenwich and made at Westminster to take away inflammations and cease pain and heal excoriations. A decoction devised by the King's Majesty, and a cataplasm made ungamate-like of the King's Majesty's device made at Westminster. End quote. A conjoint Faculty of Medicine and Surgery was founded in 1423. On the 15th of May 1423, the May 1423, the May, mayor and alderman were petitioned for this purpose.

Quote, the petition prays that all physicians and surgeons practicing in London may be considered as a single body of men, governed by a rector of medicine, with the assistance of two surveyors of the faculty of physics and two masters of the craft of surgery. There was to be a commonplace of meeting, consisting of at least three separate houses, one fitted with desks for examinations and disputations in philosophy and medicine, as well as for the delivery of lectures. The second house was for the use of the physicians, and the third for the convenience of the surgeons. End quote. The petition was granted, and on the 28th of May 1423, Master Gilbert

Kimer was sworn before the mayor and alderman as rector of the Faculty of Medicine. Dr. Kimer was a graduate of the University of Oxford and physician to the household of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and also an ecclesiastic. Dr. John Somerset and Dr. Thomas Southwell were sworn on the 27th of September to act as supervisors of physics. The former was also a graduate of Oxford University and a physician to Duke Humphrey. Of the latter's history, Mr. Power could find nothing. There is no record, quote, of the swearing-in of a rector of medicine after the 27th of September 1424, nor is there any other indication of the continued existence of a conjoint college after 1425, end quote.

Dr. Kimer went to the west of England in 1428 and became Dean of Salisbury in 1449. He continued, however, to practice medicine. Quote, for in June 1455, he was summoned to Windsor to attend Henry 6th in the fit of imbecility which attacked him after the first battle of St. Albans. End quote. Little is known of the action of the physicians

from 1427 until the College of Physicians was founded by Linneker in 1518. Surgeons Barbers were of old, humble practitioners in the art of surgery and performed minor operations such as bleeding, tooth drawing and cauterization. They largely assisted the clergy, in whose hands the practice of surgery and medicine was almost

wholly confined. The action of the popes, already alluded to, in forbidding the clergy to interfere in any matter connected with the shedding of blood as incompatible with Holy Office, caused the clergy to devote themselves specially to medicine and the duties of the barbers were thereby largely extended. Mr. Darcy Power has drawn attention to a matter which is of the greatest interest in the history of the profession, viz, that two types of surgeons flourished side by side in London during the Middle Ages, the military surgeons who formed the aristocracy of the profession, and the barber surgeons. As early as a Third Crusade, 1189 to 1192, military surgeons, quote, were in attendance upon the kings and nobles, often in a purely personal capacity, but in the

13th century, they had formal gradations of rank and were known as the Royal Surgeon, the common surgeon, etc. End quote. In 1308, Richard Labarber, the first master of the Barber's Guild, who dwelt opposite the Church of All Hallows the Less in Upper Thames Street, was sworn at Guildhall, and in 1310, barbers were appointed to keep strict watch at the city gates, so that no lepers should enter the city. John Ardern was an early surgeon of Mark, who is worthy of special notice as one of the first English writers on surgery.

He had an extensive experience in the treatment of wounds, and it is supposed that at one time he was attached to the English forces during the French wars in the capacity of field surgeon. He was born in 1307 and practiced at Newark from 1349 to 1340, when at the age of 63, years he settled in London.

He was specially famous for his treatment of fistula, and he made his great reputation by curing Sir Adam Everingham of this complaint after his case had been pronounced incurable by the chief doctors in France. Ardenne had many distinguished patients and received very large fees. In his works, he entered very fully into the history of his cases and his mode of treatment, and when describing the manner of the leech, he throws a remarkable light upon the professional ethics and habits of his time. He was by no means reticent as to the best means of getting over his patients and making them pay well. The surgeon is told to, quote, beware of scarce askings, and as an example, Ardern says that, if he had to do with, quote, a worthy man and a great,

end quote, he charged 100 marks or 40 pounds for a cure, quote, with robes and fees of an hundred shillings term of life by year, end quote. Of less men, he would take 40 pounds or 40 marks without fees, but he adds, quote, never in all my life took I less than an hundred shillings for cure of that sickness, end quote. He counsels doctors to be careful in estimating the length of time of a cure, in fact to suggest double the time he expects. If the patient wanders at the rapidity of cure and asks,

Quote, why that he put him so long a time of curing, sith that he held him by the half? Answer he, that it was for that the patient was stony-hearted and suffered well sharp things, and that he was of good complexion, and had able flesh to hail, and feign he other causes pleasable to the patient, for patients of such words are proud and delighted." End quote. Ardern's instructions for the guidance of doctors are very sensible,

and they help us to form a correct estimate of the manners of the public who are patients. Dr. Poor, after giving an analysis of the surgeon's work, writes, quote, it is evident that John of Ardern was a consummate man of the world and knew all the tricks of his trade. His fees seemed to have been enormous, and indeed he is only one out of many examples among our early professional forerunners who made very large professional incomes. End quote. Mr. Anderson, the biographer of Ardern, remarks that although he called himself, quote, Chirogous Intermedicos, there is nothing to show that he possessed a master's degree or any formal license for the exercise of his calling, end quote.

Mr. Anderson adds, however, quote, his writings prove that he was a man of Clarkly attainments, with a good knowledge of Latin and French, and well read in the available literature of his profession, quoting freely from the works of the medieval surgeons, the average. Arabs, and even from the Greeks. End quote. Mr. Anderson notes that there are no less than 22 manuscripts of the works of Ardern in the British Museum, both in the original Latin and in early English translations. Quote, some repeating or overlapping others in matter.

End quote. His book, Dacura Occuli, is dated from London in 1377. It is not until the next century that a surgeon of equal distinction has arisen in England. There must have been many incompetent practitioners in London in the 14th century, an instance of which evil we find in Riley's memorials. John Lespicer of Cornhill in 1354 attended Thomas Dachene, who suffered from a serious wound in the jaw. Certain surgeons sworn before the mayor found that,

quote, enormous and horrible hurt on the right side of the jaw of Thomas DeShine, end quote, was incurable, but they held that if John Lespicer had been expert in his craft, or had called in counsel and assistance to his aid, the injury might have been cured. When the charter was granted to the Barber's Company in the next century, it is expressly stated in the preamble, 1462, that through, quote, the ignorance, negligence and stupidity, end quote, of various barbers and other practitioners in surgery, many of the king's legies had, quote, gone the way of all flesh, end quote.

Mr. Darcy Power states that, quote, a guild of surgeons, distinct from the guild of barbers, existed in London from time immemorial. The guild was always a small body, probably never more than 20 in number, and sometimes dwindling to less than a dozen. It existed and remained unincorporated at a time when many of the other guilds either vanished or were converted into companies. The earliest notice of the Surgeons Guild occurs in 1369.

End quote. This information is obtained from letter book G, translated from the Latin by Riley. Quote, on Monday next, after the feast of the purification of the Blessed Virgin, Mary 2nd of February 1369, Master John Dunhueyd, Master John Hinstoke, and Nicholas Kildesby, surgeons, were admitted in full husting before Simon de Morden, Mayor, and the alderman, and sworn, as master surgeons of the city, that they would well and faithfully serve the people in undertaking their cures, would take reasonably from them, would faithfully follow their calling, and would present to the said mayor and alderman the defaults of others undertaking cures so often as should be necessary,

and that they would be ready at all times when they should be warned to attend the maimed or wounded and other persons, and would give truthful information to the officers of the city aforesaid as to such maimed, wounded and others, whether they be in peril of death or not, and also faithfully to do all things touching their calling. End quote. There is a similar ordinance dated April 1390, in which Master John Hinstock, Master Geoffrey Grace, Master John Bradmore, and Master Henry Sutton, surgeons, were admitted and sworn before the mayor.

Mr. Power points out that this ordinance is specially interesting, because the inspecting Master Surgeons are sworn, quote, faithfully to follow their calling, and faithful scrutiny to make of others, both men and women, undertaking cures, or practicing the art of surgery, and to present their defaults, as well in their practice as in their medicine, to the aforesaid mayor and alderman, so often as need shall be." End quote.

Mr. Powers says, quote, the officers thus put under an obligation to perform certain public duties were the masters or aldermen of the Surgeons Guild, and it is certain that they took so wide a view of their duties as to harass the members of the Barbers Guild who meddled with surgery. Thus, in 1410, certain good and honest folk, barbers of the city, appeared by their council in the private chamber of the aldermen and sheriffs, and demanded that they should forever peaceably enjoy their privileges, without scrutiny of any person of other craft or trade than barbers, and this neither in shaving, cupping, bleeding, nor any other thing in any way pertaining to

barbary or to such practice of surgery as is now used, or in future to be used, within the craft of the said barbers." End quote. In 1417 there is, in the city records, special reference to the wardens of the faculty or craft of surgeons. Security was given by a surgeon to the chamberlain of the city to ensure due care of his patients. John's several love, surgeon, undertook to pay 20 pounds sterling to the Chamberlain if he, quote, should take any man under his care as to whom risk of maiming or of his life might ensue, and within four days should not warn the wardens of the craft of surgery thereof.

End quote. Half of this sum was to go to the city, and the other half to the faculty of surgeons. We now arrive at the time when another great surgeon arose. This was Thomas Morsted, surgeon to Henry V and Henry the 6th, and probably previously to Henry the 4th, who, Mr. Power says,

made the first serious attempt to convert surgery into a profession. When Henry V in the spring of 1415 entered on his campaign in France, which ended with the victory at Agincourt on the 25th of October, the medical arrangements of the army were very complete. Quote, The agreement, dated the 29th of April 1415, is to the effect that Nicholas Colnott was to accompany the king for a year as physician to the forces in Guienne and France. He was to be attended by three archers as a guard, each archer receiving sixpence a day, whilst Colnett drew 12pence for his own pay. Thomas Morsted the surgeon had also three archers assigned to him for protection, and he too received 12 pence a day.

In addition to the usual allowance of 100 marks a quarter, the pay it is stated, for 30 men at arms, with a share of the plunder. Morsted was directed further to take with him twelve of his own craft, each subordinate surgeon to receive the pay of an archer, sixpence a day. The scale of pay here granted is very liberal. The ordinary day's wage of a labourer at this time was one penny. Each archer and each surgeon was considered to be worth the wages. of six-day labourers, and the two chiefs double their assistance.

Yet in spite of these attractions, the service was a perilous one, even though it only lasted a few months. Morse did engage William Bredwardine to act under him, but he had such difficulty in securing the services of the twelve assistants that he prayed the king to grant his letters of privy seal directed to your Chancellor of England, to cause him to deliver to your suppliant letters of commission under your great seal, by force of which he should have power to press 12 persons of his craft, such as he should choose to accompany him, and to serve your most gracious sovereign lord during your campaign. Morsted became a rich and influential London citizen, and served

as sheriff in 1436. He died in 1450 and was buried in the church of St. Olaf Upwell, old jewell, where he had built a fair new aisle. Footnote. William Hobbes, appointed in 1461, was the first sergeant surgeon, a distinguished office which carried with it certain well-defined professional privileges. Thomas Morsted, William Bredwardine, and John Harwer, who attended Henry V in his French campaigns, did not receive this title, but are called simply Surgeons to the King. End of footnote. Dr. Fernival printed in his edition of Thomas Vickory's Anatomy of the Body of Man, a paper from a manuscript in the British Museum containing a statement of the pay of Navy surgeons in the reign of Henry VIII.

The Henry Grace de D'Ure carried two surgeons at 23 shillings and fourpence a month. Also, the Mary Rose and the Great Galley, with two surgeons each at the same pay, and 19 other vessels, each with one surgeon at 10 shillings a month. To return to the Fellowship of Surgeons, Mr. Power tells us that in 1435 the surgeons, then 17 in number, became an established body with a code of laws and regulations which still exist in a small vellum volume, now preserved in Barber's Hall. In 1462, they obtained a charter of incorporation,

and in 1492 were given a grant of arms. In 1493, the guild, quote, was living on friendly terms with the Barber's Company, for in this year the two guilds entered into a composition, dated the 12th of May, and signed by representatives of both bodies. This composition recognised the independence of the two fellowships of surgeons enfranchised within the city of London,

and of barber surgeons and surgeon barbers enfranchised in the said city. It was agreed that neither body should admit anyone except a regular apprentice to practice surgery without the consent and knowledge of the other, and to ensure this being carried into effect every stranger seeking a licence to practice in London was to be presented to the mayor by the four wardens of the two guilds. End quote. The end of the fellowship of surgeons came in 1540. when it was united by Act of Parliament, 32 Henry VIII, with the Company of Barbers.

The granting of the Charter on this occasion was the cause of Holbein's famous picture being painted. This picture still decorates the Barbers' Hall in Monkwell Street. Allusion has already been made to the Barbers Company, to its first master in 1308, and to its incorporation by Royal Charter in 1462 by Edward VIII. In 1376, the Guild elected two masters, and at this time the members were sharply divided between the barbers proper and the barbers exercising the faculty of surgery. In 1390, four masters were sworn in in one year, but these were really only master and wardens, as stated by Mr. Young in his most valuable and exhaustive account of the barber surgeon's company. The relative positions of the city companies has frequently changed. Thus, at one time, the Barber Surgeons were entitled to the 17th place,

but in 1516 they only ranked as the 28th. In 1537, the Barber Surgeons formed the most numerous company in London, the number of Freeman being 185. The next in order of numbers was the Skinners, with 151, then the haberdasher's with 120, the leather sellers with 113, and the fishmongers with 109. The rest of the companies numbered less than 100, the boeers being the lowest with 19. In 1745, the surgeons, who had long chafed under the inconveniences caused by official connection with the barbers, seceded and formed the Surgeons Company under the title of

the masters, governors, and commonality of the art and science of surgery, which was established by active parliament. The surgeons found a temporary home at the stationers hall until 1751, when the premises known as Surgeons Hall in the old Bailey were ready for occupation. The company came to a premature end in 1796, and it was not until 1800 that the Royal College of Surgeons was established. End of Chapter 7, Part 1. End of Section 11.

Section 12 of The Story of London. This is a Libravot's recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravocs.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 7. Health, Disease and Sanitation

Part 2. Hospitals St. Bartholomew's Hospital We are justly proud of the hospitals of the 20th century, but one of them stands out from the rest on account of its early foundation and its enormous influence on the growth of professional feeling. In following the incidents in the history of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, we cannot doubt but that this is one of the most noblest institutions in London. The hospital was founded by Rahir in 1123 and refounded in 1546.

We have little history of the earlier period, but the documents relating to the refoundation evidently echo the sentiments formed during the earlier period. Dr. Norman Moore, in his paper on the Progress of Medicine at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, 1888, writes, quote, we are in the very middle of the sacred land of medicine and many of the great events in the history of medicine are connected with the particular region in which our hospital is

or have occurred in our hospital itself. End quote. Prahir, while building the hospital, continued his labours by founding the Priory, of which all that now remains is the Church of St. Bartholomew the Great. This consists of the quiet and transept of the Church of the Priory, and a part of the site of the close is marked by the present Bartholomew Close. The hospital and the Priory were independent, but connected.

The relations between the two were revised by Richard de Eli, Bishop of London in 1197, by Eustace de Fokkenberg, Bishop of London in 1224, and by Simon of Sudbury, Bishop of London in 1373, and the two foundations were finally separated on the disillusion, of the Priory in 1537. There is in the British Museum, cotton manuscript Vespasian book nine, a life of Rahir written by one who had known those who knew the founder.

The manuscript is a copy of an earlier one written in the reign of Henry II within 50 years of the foundation of the hospital. This work, which is of great value, is described by Dr. Norman Moore and analysed in Mr. Morant Baker's two foundations of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, AD 1123 and AD 1546. Rahair has been described as the king's minstrel or jester, but there is no authority for this.

The writer of his life says that he was a frequenter of the palace and of nobleman's houses, and made himself so agreeable as to be highly esteemed as the leader of tumultuous pleasures. He was, however, converted to a better state of life, but probably, as is the want of those who write about conversions, the author rather darkens the picture of the Courteer's early follies. Rahir determined to go to Rome, and after visiting the shrines of St. Peter and St. Paul, he was taken ill with a grievous sickness.

He feared that God was angry with him for his sins, and he vowed that if God would give him health so that he might return to his own country. Quote, he would make an hospital in recreation of poor men, and to them so there gathered, Necessaries minister after his power. End quote. In the night he saw a vision which filled him with dread.

He seemed to be borne up on high by a beast having four feet and two wings, and set down in a high place. From this great height he looked into a deep pit, and he feared to slide down into it. Then appeared to him a certain man of great beauty and majesty, who fastened his eye upon him and said, O man, what and how much service shouldst thou give to him, that in so great peril hath brought help to thee.

Rahair answered, Whatsoever might be of heart and of might, diligently should I give, in recompense to my deliverer. So the kingly man spoke again. I am Bartholomew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, that came to succour thee in thine anguish, and to open to thee the secret mysteries of heaven. Know me truly by the will and commandment of the Holy Trinity, and the common favour of the celestial court and council, to have chosen a place in the suburbs of London at Smithfield, where in my name thou shalt found a church,

and it shall be the house of God. my part shall be to provide necessaries direct, build, and end this work. And this place to me, except with evident tokens and signs, protect and defend continually it under my wings. And therefore of this work know me the master, and thyself only the minister. Use diligently thy service, and I shall show my lordship. Rahir, when he got back to London, made overtures to the citizens for the purpose obtaining the land he required for building, and the authorities were favourable to his scheme,

but they could not settle the matter until Henry I had been consulted, because the place at Smithfield was within the king's market. When the petitioner applied to the king, his plea was exceeded to, and he was given authority to execute his purpose. It is not quite clear where all the money came from for the carrying out so vast an undertaking, but Rahir had a winning way, and from the king downwards he appears to have obtained liberal help. Before he could build, he had to drain the land, which was nothing but a marsh, and when he went there the only sign of civilization was a gibbet. The hospital which from the first was a hospital for the sick,

and not a mere arms house, had a master, eight brethren, and four sisters. The first master was Alfan, an old man who had previously built the Church of St. Jow's Cripplegate, and Rahir was the first prior. Alphen was also styled hospitaler or proctor of the poor, and the writer of the manuscript, Life of Rahir, tells how it was the custom of Alfan to go about begging for provisions and other necessaries for the poor men that lay in the hospital. He also looked after the welfare of those who were employed in building the church.

Rahir had many troubles in his later life, and a large number of envious enemies spoke evil of him and did him injuries. There was a plot against his life, which failed on account of the confession of a penitent conspirator. He had, however, a good friend in the King, who helped him and confirmed his previous grant by a charter which gave full liberty and great privileges to the Priory Unhospital. When therefore Rahir died, after having been prior for 22 years and six months, he left his great establishment in a prosperous condition. Dr Norman Moore points out that in the life of Rahir

there is an account of the admission of the first patients of which we have any record. This was a man named Adwin, who came up to London from Dunwich in Suffolk in the reign of Henry II. There are many records of people who are supposed to be healed by praying at Raheer's tomb. But this man is described as having been admitted into the hospital, and therefore a genuine patient. He was discharged, cured. but although his condition is described,

no details of his treatment are given. Dr. Moore supposes that by long lying in bed, Adwin's muscles have become anemic and enfeebled. He was encouraged, quote, to move his limbs a little, and he found that he was able to move them much more than he expected. He began to make small objects, commencing with cutting and carving,

and so at last was able to work again and to follow the craft of a carpenter. End quote. John Murfield, a canon of St. Bartholomew's Priory, wrote a general treatise on medicine entitled Breviarium Bartholome, about the year 1380, when Richard Sutton was master of the hospital. This book is of considerable interest,

both as an early medical treatise written at a time when this form of literature was not general, and for its connection with the hospital. Dr. Moore gives a full description of the contents and adds, quote, this picture is complete of the medical and surgical practice in St. Bartholomew's hospital in the reign of Richard II. End quote.

London was doubtless well able to supply the hospital with patients, and the dismounted knights in the jousts at Smithfield must have found it convenient to have their wounds attended to at once. It is recorded that when Watt Tyler fell from his horse, half dead from his wounds, he was dragged within the hospital gate and died in what is now the open space between the church and the outer wall of the great hall.

The body was then laid in the master's chamber. Walworth, however, had the body brought out and beheaded, the head being sent to London Bridge to replace that of Archbishop Sudbury. By a composition dated 1373, the master of the hospital was ordered to be presented to the pry of St. Bartholomew's Priory after election. and previous a presentation to the bishop.

The last master was John Brereton, who subscribed to the king's supremacy in 1534. The last prior, Robert Fuller, surrendered the priory to the king in 1540. About the year 1423, the famous Richard Whittington repaired the hospital at his own expense. Little more than a century after this, it was refounded by Henry VIII,

but with a very little pecuniary help from the king. In 1538, the Mayor, Alderman, and commonality of the City of London petitioned Henry VIII that they might from thenceforth have the order, rule, disposition, and governance of St. Mary's Spittle, St. Bartholomew's Spittle, and St. Thomas's Spittle, and the new Abbey at Tower Hill, with the rents and revenues appertaining to the same, for the only relief of the poor, sick, and needy persons. In 1544, the king confirmed by letters patent, the grant and establishment of St. Bartholomew's hospital to the master and chaplains, but in 1546, a deed of covenant between Henry VIII and the Mayor, commonality and citizens of London respecting the hospital was sealed, by which they came under the rule of the city. It is stated in the deed that,

quote, His Highness of His Bountiful Goodness and Charitable Mind, was moved with great pity for and to the relief, aid, succour and help of the poor, aged, sick, low and impotent people, end quote. Additional letters patent were issued in 1547. In 1552 was published The Order of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew's in West Smithfield in London, with this text on the title. Quote, First Epistle of John, second chapter.

He that saith he walketh in the light, and hateth his brother, came never as zeal in the light, but he that loveth his brother, he dwelleth in the light." We have already seen how the later years of Rahair's life were darkened by the attacks of enemies, and a curious revival of similar slanders appears to have occurred when the hospital was refounded, and so virulent were the slanders that it appears to have been thought that a reply from the governing body was needed, and such a reply is found in the preface to the order. This commences as follows. Quote,

The wickedness of report at this day, good reader, is grown to such rankness that nothing almost is able to defend itself against the venom thereof. But that, either with open slander or privy whispering, it shall be so undermined, that it shall neither have the good success which otherwise it might. might, nay the thanks which for the worthiness it ought." Henry VIII being dead, the governing body appeared to have felt it possible to tell the truth as to the little he had done in endowing the hospital. In fact, both Henry VIII and Edward VIII have gained credit as founders, when they really

did little more than give buildings for public purposes that were of no use to themselves, and then leave others to find the money to support them. The writer of the preface says that the slanderers ought to repent and praise both the deed and the doers so as to wipe away the slander. But forasmuch as it is doubtful whether they will do as they may, and of conscience are bounden, and the slander is so widespread that a narrow remedy cannot amend it. It is thought good to the Lord Mayor of this city of London, as chief patron and governor of this hospital, in the name of the city, to publish at this present

the officers and orders by him appointed, and time to time practiced and used by twelve of the citizens the most ancient in their courses, as at large in the process shall appear, partly for the stay and redress of such slander, and partly for that it might be an open witness and knowledge unto all men

how things are administered there and by whom, wherein, if any man judge more to be set forth in word, then indeed is followed there be means to resolve him." End quote. The case in abstract is as follows. For the relief of the sore and sick of the city of London, Henry VIII was pleased to erect a hospital in West Smithfield for a hundred sore and diseased. He endowed it with 500 marks a year on the condition that the citizens found another 500

marks. The citizens soon discovered that the king's endowment was far under what at first they had hoped. The 500 marks rent was to come from houses in great decay, and some rotten ruinous, so that to make them again worth the wanted revenue was no small charge, and after paying certain pensions, etc., there only remained towards succoring the hundred poor sufficient for the charge of three or four harlots then lying in childbed. The citizens, therefore, to relieve their own poor and others coming daily out of all quarters of the realm, spent above their covenant of 500 marks yearly, not much less than £1,000, which enabled them to receive the number agreed upon. In spite of this, certain busy bodies more ready to aspire occasion to blame others than skilful to redress things blameworthy indeed, rounded into the ears of the preachers their tender consciences.

these preachers took upon them to make known these slanders so that the good citizens for their five years loathsome work done for Christ's sake received only open detraction and the poor a greater hindrance. During these five years, 1547 to 1552, 800 sick folk were healed in the hospital and 92 died. The preface writer ends by saying that if any man spieth ought in the order, worthy to be reformed, he will find those at the hospital glad and willing to reform it, and the city wish, if by any means it is possible, to raise the number of those receiving the

benefits of the hospital from 100 to 1,000. The number of district paid officers is given as seven, in this order. 1. The hospitaler. 2. The renter clerk. 3. The butlers. 4. The porter. 5. The matron. 6. The sisters.

12. 7. The Beatles. 8. Quote, There are also, as in a kind, by themselves, three chirgins in the wages of the hospital, giving daily attendance upon the cures of the poor. End quote.

The charges in this little book of orders are of great interest, and will well repay careful perusal. The surgeons are charged to the uttermost of their knowledge to help cure the diseases of the poor without favouring those with good friends. They are not to admit the incurable's so as to keep out those who are curable. When they dress any diseased person,

they are to advise him to sin no more and be thankful unto God. They are to receive no gift from anyone, and never to burden the house with any sick person, for the curing of which person they have received any money. In conclusion, they are to report any wrongdoing to the almanors. The nurses of the present day would be surprised at the stringency of the instructions in the charge to the sisters.

Mr. Morant Baker specially refers to one command. Quote, And so much as in you shall lie, you shall avoid and shun the conversation and company of all men. end quote And adds Quote An order which, I have no doubt, was as implicitly obeyed then

as any similar command would be now. End quote. At the end of the charges is A daily service for the poor, end quote. And, quote, a thanksgiving unto Almighty God to be said by the poor that are cured in the hospital,

at the time of their delivery from thence, upon their knees in the hall before the hospitaller, and two masters of this house, at the least. And this the hospitaller shall charge them to learn without the book before they be delivered. End quote. Thomas Vickory, Sergeant Surgeon to the King, and the foremost surgeon of his time,

was first appointed governor of St. Bartholomew's on the 29th of September 1548, and in January 1552, he was made governor for life. He was the first medical officer of the hospital. Dr. Norman Moore describes his position as, quote, intermediate between that of the master of older times and that of the surgeons subsequently appointed. For some years, he seems to have had both medical and general charge of the hospital, end quote. At this time, he had long held a distinguished position, although not originally a trained surgeon, and at first in small practice at Maidstone. In 1525, he was junior of the three

wardens of the Barber Surgeons Company. In 1528, he was upper warden, and one of the surgeons to Henry the 8th. On the 29th of April 1530, he was granted the office of Sergeant-surgeon to the king, quote, as soon as Marcellus de la Mour shall die, or resign, or forfeit his post. end quote. And in the same year he became master of the barber surgeon's company. Lamor died or disappeared from England at some time after Easter 1535, when he received his last payment. Vickory received his first quarter's salary as Sergeant Surgeon on the 20th September 1535, and filled this distinguished office under Henry VIII, Edward V. 6th, Mary and Elizabeth. The sergeant surgeons were originally military surgeons, whose first duty was to attend the king upon the battlefield.

John Ranby was the last to perform this duty when he attended George II at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. In 1541, Vickory was appointed first master of the amalgamated company of barbers and surgeons, and in 1548, he is said to have published for the first time his Anatomy of Man. body. This work was reprinted in 1577 by the four surgeons of St. Bartholomew's Hospital of that time, William Close, Will Betton, Richard Storrie, and Edward Bailey, who dedicated it to the president and governors. The book is one of great interest, but Dr. Payne has lately proved that it is not an original work, but merely a reshofe of an anatomical treaties of the 14th century, from which the greater portion has been transcribed word for word.

The first physician of St. Bartholomew's was Dr. Rodrigo Lopus, a Portuguese Jew who was appointed about 1567. St. Thomas's Hospital This hospital is almost of as great antiquity as St. Bartholomew's. The original hospital belonged to the canons of the prairie of St. Mary Overy, and was situated on the west side of the road running south from London Bridge. In 1207, the hospital was destroyed in the fire which devastated the borough of Southwark, but a temporary building was erected on the old site,

now occupied by the Bridgehouse Hotel and the London and Westminster Bank. Peter de Rupibus, Bishop of Winchester, projected a new hospital on a more suitable site on the east side of the road, and appealed for funds for this purpose by means of a charter of indulgence, 1228. quote, "'Behold at Southwark, an ancient hospital built of old "'to entertain the poor,

"'has been entirely reduced to cinders and ashes "'by lamentable fire. "'Moreover, the place wherein the old hospital has been founded "'was less appropriate for entertainment and habitation, "'both by reason of the straightness of the place "'and by reason of the lack of water "'and many other conveniences. "'According to the advice of us,

and of wise men, it is transferred and transplanted to another more commodious site, where the air is more pure and calm, and the supply of water more plentiful. End quote. The new hospital was dedicated to St. Thomas Abackett, the Martyr, and became independent of St. Mary's Priory. It was frequently referred to as Beckett Spittle. The third building was erected about 1507, and in 1535, a short time before the dissolution of the religious houses,

the Custos or Master, the Brethren and the Three Lay Sisters, had the charge of 40 beds for poor and infirm people who were to be supplied with food and firing. The hospital was refounded in 1553 by Edward VIII, and endowed with 4,000 marks a year. It was dedicated to St. Thomas the Apostle, but was often called, in honour of Edward, the King's Hospital.

The parish of St. Thomas Apostle, Southwark, contained within its walls, the two hospitals of St. Thomas and Guy's, and was often called the parish of St. Thomas's Hospital. Thus, the old name remained, but the dedication was changed from that of the famous saint of the Middle Ages to that of the Apostle St. Thomas. Dr. Payne, who wrote an essay, quote, on some old physicians of St. Thomas's Hospital, end quote,

says that in old times the staff was exclusively surgical. Dr. Eliasah Hodson, who was appointed about 1620, was the first named that Dr. Payne could find. But he does not think that Hodson was the first physician. The building, having fallen into disrepair, was entirely rebuilt in 1701 to 1706, and the hospital remained on the same spot from 1228 until 1862 when the property was sold to the South Eastern Railway Company

and a new hospital was opened on the Albert Embankment at the southern end of Westminster Bridge. Leppers There were other medieval hospitals in London besides those now described, which were the two chief ones. Many smaller buildings in the suburbs were devoted to the reception of lepers. Dr. Creighton writes, Quote,

The remarkable ordinance of Edward III in 1346 for the expulsion of lepers from London seems to have been the occasion of the founding of two so-called Lazzar houses, one in Kent Street, Southwark, called the Loke, and the other at Hackney, or Kingsland. These are the only two mentioned in the subsequent orders to the porters of the city gates in 1375,

and as late as the reign of Henry the 6th, they are the only two besides the ancient Matilda's hospital in St. Jow's Fields. Another of the suburban leperspittles was founded at Highgate by a citizen of 1468, and it is not until the reign of Henry VIII that we hear of the spittles at Mile End, Knightbridge and Hammersmith. End quote. Dr. Creighton adds that the lock was doubtless the house of the, quote, Leprosy Apurmansey End quote

who are designated in the Royal Charter of 1 Henry IV 1399 as recipients along with the Leprosy of Westminster St James's of 5 or 6,000 pounds

The village of St. Giles in the Fields is of great interest largely because the place still retains some of its old special features Up to the middle of the 19th century when the rookery of St. Jars was destroyed, and New Oxford Street was built on the site, the lines of its contour were little altered since the hospital was founded at the beginning of the 12th century. The ordinance of Edward III, 1346, and the swearing of the porters of the city gates that they will prevent

lepers from entering the city, are printed in Riley's memorials. Dr. Creighton states that, as far as he knows, the ordinance of 1346 is the only one of the kind in English history, and adds, quote, the statutes of the realm contain no reference to lepers or leprosy from first to last. The references in the roles of Parliament are to the taxing of their houses and lands. The laws which deprive lepers of marital rights and of airship appear to have been wholly foreign,

In England, leprosy as a bar to succession was made a plea in the law courts. End quote. Doubtless there were many cases of true leprosy in the Middle Ages, but there was a great confusion of diseases under this generic term, and we are told that, quote, in some instances of leper hospitals with authentic charters, the provision for the lepros was in the proportion of one to three or four of the non-lepros inmates. End quote.

It was a very terrible fate for a man or woman to be accused of being a leper, for the sufferers were driven from the haunts of men, and being in many cases uncared for, they grew worse and worse. The disease was largely caused by bad food, and this cause was quite neglected in many places. A monstrous ordinance of the Scottish Parliament at Schoon in 1386 is recorded in the ancient laws and customs of the Burrs of Scotland. Quote,

Gif ony man brings to the market corrupt swine or salmon to be sold, they shall be taken by the bailey, and incontinent, without any question, shall be sent to the leperfolk, and if there be now leperfolk, they shall be destroyed all utterly, end quote. The Reverend W. Denton, in quoting this instance of horrible, cruelty writes, Quote, Sir Walter Scott must have had instances of such economy in his mind

when he put into the mouth of John Gerda the directions, quote, Let the house be red up, The broken meat set by, And if there be any thing totally uneatable, Let it be guine to the pure folk. Bride of Lammermu, end quote. Men sometimes took advantage of a charge of leprosy

to injure an enemy. In 1468, Joanna Nightingale of Brentwood in Essex was accused of leprosy. She refused to remove herself to a solitary place, and appealed to Edward VIII, who issued a chancery warrant for her examination by his physicians and certain lawyers to be associated with them. The Court of Inquiry reported that they found the woman to be in no way leprous, nor to have any sign of leprera. This case is recorded in Reimer's feederer.

There was another evil caused by the privilege of begging which was accorded to lepers, for men sometimes pretended to be lepers in order to avail themselves of this privilege. It is worthy of mention, in passing, that the two districts of London which have given their name to the extremes of high and low life, viz, St. James's and St. Giles, both have their origin in the leper hospitals of the Middle Ages. End of Chapter 7 Part 2 End of Section 12 Section 13 of the Story of London

This is a Librevox recording All Librevox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravocs.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B Weekly Chapter 7 Health, Disease and Sanitation

Part 3 The Plague The Greatest Scourge among the epidemics which have devastated the world is the eastern bubonic plague, which entered Europe for the first time in the 14th century. All epidemics, when they find a new field, appear to be specially virulent, and this was the case with the first appearance of the plague,

which so terrified the inhabitants of Europe that they applied to it this ominous name. But the epidemic of 1349 has of late years received the new name of the Black Death, which distinguishes it in the popular mind from the later visitations. The name, which came from Germany, will not be found in the old descriptions

of the plague in England. A writer in the quarterly review says, quote, the term de Schwarzatod may have been used in Germany in the 14th century, but it does not seem to have been current in England before Hecker's work on epidemics was translated into English in 1833. End quote.

The Black Death entered Dorsetshire in August 1348, moving on to Bristol, Gloucester, and Oxford. From Oxford, the infection marched to London, which city it reached at Mickelmus, or November. It soon swept over the whole country. Dr. Creighton writes, Quote, the Black Death may be said to have extended over three seasons in the British Islands, a partial season in the south of England in 1348, a great season all over England,

in Ireland, and in the south of Scotland in 1349, and a late extension in Scotland generally in 1350. The experience of all Europe was similar, the Mediterranean provinces receiving the infection as early as 1347, and the northern countries on the Baltic and North Seas as late as 1350. This plague had the most momentous effect upon the history of England, on account of the fearful mortality that it caused. It paralyzed industry and permanently altered the position of the labourer.

Ineffectual attempts were made to neutralise these effects by the standard, of laborers, and by enactments, quote, that every workman and laborer shall do his work just as he used before the pestilence, that the servants of substantial people shall take no more than they used to take, and that laborers and workmen who will not work shall be arrested and imprisoned. End quote. The effects of the pestilence on the church and on morals is seen in the writings of Wycliffe and Langland. Whitecliffe, who was an Oxford student in 1348 predicted in his book, The Last Age of the Church,

the end of the world in 1400 at latest. The effect upon architecture has been dwelt upon by the antiquaries, upon the growth of the country by political economists, and upon the general health of the country by doctors, so that it is not necessary here to enter into further explanations. The statistics of the writers of the Middle Ages are of little value, and the estimates of those who died are very various, but the statement that half the population of England died from the plague is probably not far from the truth. In East Anglia, which suffered most severely, upwards of 800 parishes lost their parsons, 83 of them twice, and 10 of them three times in a few months. In Norfolk and Suffolk,

19 religious houses were left without abbot or prior. The details of the black death in London are not numerous, but Riley gives some particulars of mortality among the city companies at this time. In the Articles of the Cutlers, 1344,

the names of eight wardens are given, and below it is stated that in the 23rd year of Edward III's reign, five years after, they were all dead, and others chosen in their place. In the Articles of the Hatters, 1347, six wardens are named as being chosen on Tuesday

after the feast of St. Lucy, 13th of December, 21 Edward III. And a note is added that by the Saturday after the translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, 7th of July, 24, Edward III, they had all died. Four wardens of the Goldsmith's Company are recorded to her fallen victims

to the Black Death, and doubtless the other companies suffered in a like manner. The most striking fact in respect to the mortality in London is that recorded by Stowe in his chronicle, of 50,000 persons buried into Walter de Manney's burial place in Spittlecroft, now the Charterhouse. Although doubtless the number is grossly exaggerated, it is certain that it was very great. One of the victims in high places was Dr. Bradwardine, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died at Lambeth on the 26th of August 1349, just one week after he had landed at Dover from Avignon. In January 1349, the meeting of Parliament was proroged because,

quote, a sudden visitation of deadly pestilence had broken out at Westminster and the neighbourhood. End quote. Dr. Creighton writes, quote, For 300 years, Plague was the last. the grand zymotic disease of England. The same type of plague that came from the east in 1347 to 1349 continuously reproduced in a succession of epidemics at one place or another. End quote. He goes on to quote Pinelich's Pest in Steyermark, i.e. Styria, 1877 to 1878, to 1878, to show that similar cases

occurred over Europe. From 1349 to 1716, 70 years are marked in the annals of Styria as plague years. The second great pestilence occurred in 1361, when the number of deaths was about a third of those from the plague of 1349. The mortality was greater among men than women. The third pestilence of 1368 to 1369 is referred to by Langland in Peers Ploughman. The fourth was in 1375 to 1376,

and the fifth in 1390 to 1391. Dr. Crichton describes several other plagues and writes that, quote, in the decade from 1430 to 1440, there were no fewer than four distinct outbreaks of plague, three of them confined to London, and one of them, that of 1439, general throughout the realm.

End quote. The constant recurrence of the plague must have taught the authorities some mode of treatment, but although certain sanitary regulations were made, which will be referred to later on, it is only incidentally that we learn what was done during the earlier visitations. Probably panic reigned generally in the time of the Black Death. Such writings as are left us give this impression, and there is little reason for surprise that it should have been so. Dr. Creighton has entered very fully into the history of the various plagues and the different expedients which were adopted to mitigate their severity.

His valuable work is so thorough in its treatment of the subject that to a great extent I have drawn the following particulars from his luminous pages. The first plague order, of which the full text is extant, was issued in 1543. The following transcript is taken from an abstract of several orders relating to the plague, British Museum Additional Manuscriptment. number 4,376. Quote, 35 Henry the 8th, a precept issued to the alderman,

that they should cause their beedles to set the sign of the cross on every house which should be afflicted with the plague, and there continue for 40 days, that no person who was able to live by himself, and should be afflicted with the plague, should go abroad or into any company for one month after his sickness, and that all others who could not live without their daily labour should, as much as in them lay,

refrain from going abroad and should for forty days after, illegible word, and continually carry a white rod in their hand two foot long. That every person whose house had been infected should, after a visitation, carry all the straw and, illegible word, in the night privately in the fields and burn. they shall also carry clothes of the infected in the fields to be cured. That no housekeeper should put any person diseased out of his house into the street or other place unless they provided housing for them in some other house. That all persons having any dogs in their house,

other than hounds, spaniels, or mastiffs necessary for the custody or safekeeping of their houses, should forthwith convey them out of the city or cause them to be killed and carried out of the city and buried at the common laystall. That such as kept hounds, spaniels or mastiffs should not suffer them to go abroad, but closely confined them. That the churchwardens of every parish should employ somebody to keep out all common beggars out of churches on holy days, and cause them to remain without doors,

that all the streets, lanes, etc., within the wards should be cleansed. that the alderman should cause this precept to be read in the churches." Dr. Creighton says that this order was a development of the measures devised by the king or his minister before 1518, and probably in the plague of 1513. The wisps put out on the infected houses are replaced by crosses, which above are described simply as the sign of the cross. On the 15th of November 1547, it was ordered by the mayor, recorder and alderman,

vice-comites, that, quote, Every householder of their several wards, Which sith the feast of all saints last passed, hath been visited with the plague, shall cause to be fixed upon the uttermost post of their street door, a certain cross of St. Anthony, devised for that purpose. There to remain forty days, after the setting up thereof.

End quote. The cross of St. Anthony was a crutch, such as was used by the crouched friars. It was painted in blue on canvas or board, and the legend under or over the cross was, Lord, have mercy upon us. In the plague of 1563 it was ordered, on the 3rd of July,

that 200 blue headless crosses be made with all convenient speed by the Chamberlain. and again, on the 6th of the same month, 200 more were ordered. On the 8th of July, blue crosses were delivered to the bailiff of Finsbury to be used there. Dr. Creighton says that before the plague of 1603, the colour of the crosses had been changed to red.

The white rod or wand was used in France as well as in England, as we learn from a letter of the Venetian ambassador to France, the 20th November, 1580. quote, This city, Paris, I hear, is in a very fair sanitary condition. Notwithstanding that, as I entered a city gate, which is close to where I resided, I met a man and a woman bearing the white plague wands in their hands and asking arms. But some believe that this was merely an artifice on their part to gain money.

End quote. The white wand was afterwards retained as the peculiar badge of the search of the search of of infected houses and of the bearers of the dead. In 1603 it had become a red wand, just as the Blue Cross had become a red one. The regulation about dogs is of great interest, as it incidentally shows that dogs were commonly kept in London houses for the purpose of protection. It was believed that dogs carried infection in their hair. Brasperidge, in his Poor Man's Jewel, 1578, relates how, quote, Not many years since, I knew a Glover in Oxford who, with his family,

to the number of ten or eleven persons, died of the plague, which was said to have been brought into the house by a dogskin that his wife bought when the disease was in the city. End quote. The plague orders contained the claws against dogs to the last, and thousands of them were killed. A proclamation during the London plague of 1563 was directed against cats as well as dogs. The early literature of the plague is very unsatisfactory,

and we have to come to a time much later than the medieval period for information as to treatment. The main point to the various regulations were isolation of the infected and special attention to sanitation. These in principle are in accord with the best opinion of today, but the way in which they were carried out left much to be desired. Those who were imprisoned in their houses must have felt that they were given over to death. Yet some of these patients did recover, and we naturally ask what was the treatment which caused these cures. Was the cure due to the doctor or to nature alone? The answer is not easy to find.

Dr. Payne, in his inaugural address as president of the Epidemiological Society in 1893, especially alludes to the literature of the plague. of which he says, quote, the number of publications relating to the plague in Europe during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries is very large, those in Germany being probably the most numerous, while those published in England are comparatively few. We might expect, however,

that those works published at the time of great epidemics would furnish us with valuable material for epidemic history. It is very disappointing, therefore, to find how very seldom these writings, whether of continental or English origin, have any historical value. What generally happened was this. When an epidemic broke out or was expected in any particular place, some local physician thought at his business to furnish the public with a tract on the subject, and he accordingly compiled from the best authorities a pamphlet, good or bad, as the case might be. such a physician, if he survived, would no doubt have been able to acquire some experience of the disease during its continuous,

and if he had chosen to put this down in plain words when the epidemic was over, he might have done some service to medical history. But unfortunately, when the disease had once disappeared, the physicians seemed to have lost all interest in the subject, and it is only in rare instances that the medical literature of the plague contained any account of contemporary epidemic. One exception is Gaida Sholiak's well-known account of the Black Death at Avignon. But we have nothing in English literature to compare at all with this till much later. The only medical work on the plague in the Elizabethan times, which has much value is that of Thomas Edge, and this cannot be called original. It is not till after the Great Plague of 1665 that we have, in the well-known work of Nathaniel Hodges,

loymology sieve pestis narratio 1672 Some attempt at a scientific description of the epidemic End quote Dr. Furnival has printed in his edition of Vickory some extracts from the Guildhall Repertories relating to the appointment and payment of surgeons and physicians to attend the plague-stricken folk William King, surgeon to the pest house, petitioned for a pension in 1611. He affirms that he had shown

quote, great care and diligence in curing of such persons as have been sent thither, and by reason of his attendance and employment there, his friends and former acquaintances do utterly refuse to use him in his profession. End quote. On September 10th, the city authorities agreed to give King a stipend of three pounds a year, which does not seem very liberal pay for his onerous services. In the British Museum there is a manuscript of some importance, Sloan manuscript 349, entitled Loemographia, an account of the Great Plague of London

in the Year 1665 by William Boghurst apothecary. This was first referred to by Mr. E. W. Braley in his edition of Defoe's Plague Year, and it was analysed by Dr. Creighton in his work on epidemics. Dr. Payne printed an edition of the tract in 1894. Mr. Brayle. reprinted from the Intelligencer July the 31st, 1665, the following curious advertisement. Quote, whereas William Boghurst, apothecary at the White Heart in St. Giles in the Fields, hath administered a long time to such as have been afflicted with the plague, to the number of 40, 50, or 60 patients a day, with wonderful success, by God's blessing upon certain excellent medicines which he hath,

as a water, a lozinge, etc. Also, an electuary antidote of but eight pence the ounce price. This is to notify that the said Boghurst is willing to attend any person infected and desiring his attendance, either in the city, suburbs, or country, upon reasonable terms, and that the remedies above mentioned are to be had at his house or shop at the White Hart aforesaid. End quote. Boghurst gives a good deal of information in his book regarding the signs of disease and its treatment

and he describes the spread of the disease in London as follows. Quote, The winds blowing westward so long together from before Christmas until July, about seven months, was the cause the plague began first at the west end of the city as at St. Giles, St. Martin's, Westminster. afterwards it gradually insinuated and crept down Holborn and the strand and then into the city and at last to the east of the suburbs so that it was half a year at the west end of the city

before the east end and stepney was infected which was about the middle of july South Suburb, was infected almost as soon as the West End. The disease spread not altogether by contagion at first, nor began at only one place, and spread further as an eating-spreading sore doth all over the body, but fell upon several places of the city and suburbs like rain, even at the first at St. Giles, St. Martins, Chancery Lane, Southwark, and some places within the city as at Procter's house. End quote.

Dr. Payne writes, quote, it has always been a question whether the repeated recurrences of plague in Europe were to be attributed to reintroduction of the virus from the east or to a fresh awakening of a virus already endemic. End quote, and then alludes to Boghurst's local explanation of the origin of the 1665 plague. He concludes his introductory by saying, Quote,

it seems probable that London still contains sufficient plague virus to start a fresh epidemic when the local and temporary conditions were favourable. The only temporary conditions of this kind that we know of are, first, the rapid growth of population in London, which caused terrible overcrowding, and must have overtasked the ordinary measures of sanitation. and, secondly, the long drought in the spring of 1665, which is referred to by Boghurst.

The importance of this latter fact has been explained by Dr. Creighton, in accordance with Pettenkoffers' laws, but, on the other hand, the Great Plague Year of 1625 was remarkably wet. The question is still one for discussion, and it may be left to the judgment of the reader, guided by the valuable materials which Boghurst contributes. End quote. From 1348 to 1665, plague was continually occurring in London, but it has not appeared since the last date on anything but a small scale. It has been supposed that in the Great Fire, the seeds of disease were destroyed, but this is not a conclusive reason, and fears were expressed as to its possible reappearance in London after the plague of Bombay in 1896 to 1897, and the

Plague of Marseilles in the summer of 1720, created a panic throughout Western Europe. Renewed attention was paid to the London Plague of 1665, and in 1722, DeFoe wrote his renowned Journal of the Plague Year. We have no thoroughly trustworthy statistics of the earlier plagues, but Dr. Creighton gives particulars of the visitations in London in 1603, 1625, and 1665 in one table. Year, 1603. Estimated population, 250,000. Total deaths, 42,940. Plague deaths, 33,347. Highest mortality in a week, 3,385. Worst week, 25th of August to the 1st September. Estimated population, 320,000. Total deaths, 63,001. Plague deaths, 41,313. Highest mortality in a week,

5,205. Worst week, 11th to the 18th of August. Year, 1665. Estimated population, 460,000. Total deaths, 97,306. Plague deaths, 68,596. Highest mortality in a week, 8,297. Worst week, 12th to the 19th of September. To these figures may be added that, in 1593, 11,503 persons died of the plague, the figures of 1603 and 1625 in some reports differ from the above. Footnote.

In a broadside referring to the Plague of London, printed by Peter Cole at the printing office in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange 1665, the number of deaths from plague in 1603, 1625 and 1636 are given as follows. 1603, 30, 561 persons, 1625, 35, 403 and 16366, 1003, and 1636 10,400. The numbers in 1593 are given as above. End of footnote. Some of the plagues devastated the whole country, so that there was no place for the Londoners

to fly to for safety. But in others, the danger was. was more generally confined to London. In 1665, there were many places that the Londoner could visit with considerable chance of safety, but Queen Elizabeth, in her reign, would have none of this moving about. Stowe says that in the time of the plague of 1563, quote, a gallows was set up in the marketplace of Windsor to hang all such as should come there from London. No way to be brought to or through or by Windsor.

nor anyone on the river by Windsor to carry wood or other stuff to or from London, upon pain of hanging without any judgment. And such people as received any wares out of London into Windsor were turned out of their houses, and their houses shut up. End quote. Monk, Duke of Albemarle and Samuel Pepes were two of the most prominent public servant who remained in London during the plague of 1665. The clergy and the doctors fled with very much.

very few exceptions, and several of those who stayed in town doing the duty of others, as well as their own, fell victims to the disease. Dr. Hodges, author of Loimelogia, enumerates among those who assisted in the dangerous work of restraining the progress of the infection, the learned Dr. Gibson, Regius Professor at Cambridge, Dr. Francis Glisson, Dr. Nathaniel Paget, Dr. Peter Barwick, Dr. Humphrey Brooks, etc. Of those he mentions, eight or nine fell in their work, among whom was Dr. William Conyers, to whose goodness and humanity he bears the most honorable testimony. Dr. Alexander Burnett of Fenturch Street, one of Peep's friends, was another of the victims. Footnote. Mr. Pierce gives some interesting facts in his Annals of Christ's Hospital,

respecting the effects of the plague in 1603 and 1665 on the condition of the Blue Coat School. During 1665, no more than 32 children of the total number of 260 in the house died of all diseases, although the neighbourhood was severely visited. End of footnote. Sweating sickness The sweating sickness did not appear until the end of the Middle Ages. viz, the year 1485 when the Battle of Bosworth was fought, and there were five outbreaks of the epidemic up to 1551,

after which date it did not appear again in England. Dr. Creighton has taken some pains to trace the origin of the disease. He writes, quote, The history of the English sweat presents to the student of epidemics much that is paradoxical, although not without parallel, and much that his research can never rescue from uncertainty. Where did this hitherto unheard-of disease come from?

Where was it in the intervals from 1485 to 1508, from 1508 to 1517, from 1517 to 1528, and from 1528 to 1551? What became of it after 1551? Why did it fall mostly on the great houses, on the king's court, on the luxurious establishments of prelates and nobles, on the richer citizens, on the lusty and well-fed, for the most part, sparing the poor.

Why did it avoid France when it overran the continent in 1529? No theory of the sweat can be held sufficient which does not afford some kind of answer to each of these questions, and some harmonising of them all, end quote. Those who wish to follow these inquiries, must consult Dr. Creighton's book. Suffice it to say here that the author is of opinion that suspicion falls justly on the foreign mercenaries

who landed with Henry Tudor at Milford Haven on 6th of August 1485, as the carriers of the disease. Dr. Creighton found among the British Museum manuscripts, additional manuscripts numbers 27 and 582, a treatise on the Sudo-Anglicus, or English sweat, dedicated to Henry the 7th by the author Thomas Forrestier, M.D., a native of Normandy,

who lived for a time in London. Stowe says that the sickness began in London on the 21st of September, and continued till the end of October. Quote, of the which a wonderful number died, end quote, but Forrestier gives the date as the 19th. The second sweat was in 1508, when many died in the city. In August, public prayers were made at St. Paul's on account of the plague of sweat. The third epidemic was in 1517, and the fourth in 1528. On the 5th of June of the latter year, Sir Brian Tukh wrote to Bishop Tunstall that he had fled to Stepney,

quote, for fear of the infection, end quote, a servant having died in his house. Anne Boleyn, her brother George and her father, caught the infection and recovered. Her brother-in-law, William Carey, died at Hunsden. A large number of persons caught the disease, but a very considerable proportion recovered. The fifth and last outbreak was in 1551, and it is interesting to note that Dr. John Kias, the famous physician, wrote a treatise on it. Dr Norman Moore describes this as, quote,

the first original treaties published in England, by which I mean the first treaties in which the modern idea of observing the disease and writing a complete account of what was actually seen was carried out. End quote. In Mackin's diary, it is said that, quote, there died in London many merchants, and great rich men and women,

and young men and old of the new sweat. End quote. And Sir Thomas Speak and Sir John Wallop are instanced among others. Hancock, a minister of Poole Dorset, refers to, quote, the posting sweat that posted from town to town through England, and was named Stopgallant, for it spared none, for there was some dancing in the court at nine o'clock that were dead at eleven. End quote.

In taking stock of diseases and epidemics in London, we may note that many of the pestilences previous to the Black Death were due to famine. Dr. Creighton says of the year 1258 that, quote, So great was the pinch in London from the failure of the crops and the want of money, that 15,000 are said to have died of famine and of a grievous and widespread pestilence that broke out about the Feast of the Trinity, 19th of May. The number is given by Matthew Paris, and Dr. Creighton adds,

quote, it suggests a larger population in the capital than we might have been disposed to credit. The same writer says that London was so full of people when the Parliament was sitting in the year before, 1257, that the city could hardly hold them all in her ample bosom. The annals of Chukesbury put the whole mortality from famine and fever in London in 1258 at 20,000, but the whole population did not probably exceed 40,000. End quote. Smallpox and measles were not known to the ancients, and the latter seems to have been the first noted in the 14th century.

Of later diseases, the name of influenza is Italian of the 18th century, but Dr. Creighton refers to several epidemics which may have been the same disease as those of 1173, 1427, 1510, and 1557. The new disease of 1643 was either typhus or influenza. End of Chapter 7, Part 3. End of Section 13. Section 14 of the Story of London. This is a Libravox recording. All Libravot's recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones

The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 7 Health, Disease and Sanitation Part 4 Sanitation Having considered the condition of medical practice at the hospitals and among private patients and having also reviewed the particulars of some of the chief epidemics

we shall now be better able to understand the sanitary condition of medieval London. and the means to keep it clean. There can be little doubt that strenuous attempts were made at different periods to improve its condition. We may allow at once that Old London was not a clean or healthy town, as we understand these words now, but there can be little doubt that it was in advance of most other towns. Dr. Poor is rather severe in his estimate of the health of medieval London.

He considers the situation of the city fairly good from a sanitary point of view. It was not healthy, however, because of its marshy surroundings. Org and dysentery were always present and very fatal. Scurvy was very prevalent before the introduction of the potato by Hawkins. William Klaus, the well-known Elizabethan surgeon of St. Bartholomew's, was also surgeon to Christ's hospital, and in his day, 20 or 30 children had the scurvy at a time in the latter house. a fact due to a diet largely composed of fish and other salted provisions

with a scanty allowance of vegetables. There can be no doubt that down to the commencement of the present century, London was a veritable fever bed, the causes of death being largely malarial fever, spotted o typhus fever, plague, smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, and hooping cough. the two latter being comparatively recent introductions. End quote. Another source of the unhealthiness of London is supposed by Dr. Poor to be due to a soil

soaked with the filth of centuries, by which means the wells were probably infected. Dr. Creighton takes a much more favourable view of the condition of London, and he writes, quote, nuisances certainly existed in medieval London, but it is equally certain that they were not tolerated without limit. End quote. It is also probable that the polluted condition of the soil inside and outside the houses has been greatly exaggerated.

There was overcrowding in some quarters of London, but in most parts there were gardens and plenty of fresh air. Many of the streets were used as markets, and they were mostly left in a very untidy state, but attempts were made to cleanse them. The worst parts of the town were the lanes leading down to the river. The bad state of these places was constantly complained of, but we must always remember that complaints and legal actions

are evidence to some extent that in the end the evils were abated. Very little is recorded when affairs go straight, as all are contented to let them remain as they are. But when things go wrong, we are all anxious to raise complaints, and too much weight must not be given to the supposed universality of these evils. We do not judge of the general manners and morals of the country by the cases in the law courts and the police courts. Some of the evils, of which a description has come down to us,

were doubtless the cause of remedial measures being adopted. The streets, soon after the conquest, must have been in a very rotten condition, if we are to judge from some accounts that have come down to us. Stowe relates in his chronicle that in the Great Tempest of November 17th, 1090, when six hundred and six houses were beaten down by the wind in London, the roof of St. Mary Leboe in Cheapside, quote, being raised with the beams thereof, were carried in the air a great while,

and at the last six of the said beams were driven with their fall so fast in the ground, that there appeared, some of them the seventh, and of some of some, some the eight part to wit, but four foot above the ground, which beams or rafters were seven and twenty or eight and twenty foot long, which was a wonderful to see them so pierced the ground, not paved then with stone, and there to stand in such order as the workmen had placed them on the church, end quote. There these beams remained as obstructions until they were cut even with the ground. Little appears to have been done in general sanitation until the reign of Henry III,

but it has been said that the sanitary reforms of the reign of Edward I were as great as the reforms affected in the law and constitution. It is satisfactory to learn that it was the example of this great king which made the use of the bath popular among his subjects. In Riley's memorials, there are several references to sanitary ordinances at this time. In 1281, regulations were made that no swine and no stand or timber were from henceforth to be found in the streets. The swine were to be killed, and the stands and timber forfeited.

Melters of tallow and lard were turned out of their warehouses in cheapside in 1283. The watercourse of Walbrook was to be made free from dung and other nuisances in 128. Swine still wandered about the streets, and in 1298, and in 1298, four men whose names are given in letterbook C were elected and sworn, quote, to take and kill such swine as should be found wandering in the king's highway, to whomsoever they might belong, within the walls of the city and the suburbs thereof.

End quote. The Earl of Lincoln complained to Parliament in 1307 as to the state of the river fleet, and the gist of his complaint is reported by Stowe. Quote, in times past, the course of water running at London under Holborn Bridge and Fleet Bridge into the Thames had been of such large breadth and depth that ten or twelve ships at once with merchandises were want to come to the foresaid bridge of fleet, and some of them to Holborn Bridge. Now the same course, by filth of the tanners and such other, was sore decayed, also by raising up

of wharfs, but especially by turning of the water, which they of the new temple made to their mills without Barnard Castle, and diverse other perturbations, the said ships now could not enter as they were wont, and as they ought, wherefore he desired that the mayor of London with the sheriffs and certain discreet aldermen might be appointed to see the course of the said water, and that by oath of honest men, all the foresaid hindrances might be removed, and to be made as it was want of old time. End quote. In the second year of Edward II's reign, 1309, a proclamation was issued for cleansing the streets, which were more encumbered with filth than they used to be, and penalties were enforced against those who neglected their duty in this matter. Between 40 and 50 years after this,

we have evidence that one of the main thoroughfares of the city was in a very bad state. On August the 22nd, 1358, Isabella, the widowed queen of Edward II, died at Hartford Castle, and in the following November she was buried in the Church of the Greyfriars. In order that the passage of the body through the city should be carried out with any decency, it was necessary to enact that Bishopsgate Street and Aldgate Street should be cleansed of ordeal and other filth. Dr. Creighton criticises the public regulations and writes, quote, there are several orders of Edward III relating to the removal of lay stalls and to keeping the town ditch clean, which show, of course, that there was neglect, but at the same time disposition to correct it. It is farther obvious that the connection between nuisances and the public health was clearly apprehended.

The sanitary conditions of modern times were undreamt of, nor did the circumstances altogether call for them. The sewers of those days were banked up watercours, or shores, as the word was pronounced, which ran uncovered down the various declivities of the city to the town ditch and to the Thames. They would have sufficed to carry off the refuse of a population of some 40 or 60,000. They were, at all events, freely opened the greatest of all purifying agents, the oxygen of the air, and they poisoned neither the water of the town ditch, which abounds in excellent fish within John Stowe's memory, nor the waters of the Thames, end quote.

This seems exactly to explain the sanitary condition of the city, and we must never forget that the streets were cleared by means of surface drainage, which carried the refuse of the city to the river, to find its way to the sea at last. The streets were evidently fairly well attended to in ordinary times, and it is not for those who have polluted the Thames and made the streams into covered sewers to point the finger of scorn

of the evils allowed by their ancestors who, at all events, kept the Thames pure. The proclamations and ordinances issued for the proper cleansing of the streets of London were very numerous, but the first sanitary act that appears in the statutes of the realm was passed in the 17th year of Richard II, 1388.

the preamble of which, Dr. Creighton Prince. From this and other sources, it appears that one of the chief evils complained of was due to the blood and awful in the shambles of Newgate Street. It is impossible to mention here all the information that has come down to us as to what was done to secure a satisfactory sanitation. But special reference may be made to the useful abstract in Riley's introduction to the Liber Albus. Quote, canals were pretty generally made about a century after the data fits Ayl Windsor size, on either side of the street, leaving a space for the footpath, for the purpose of carrying off the

sewage and rainwater. There were two canals in Cheapside at a period even when nearly the whole of the north side was a vacant space. The canals, too, of Cornhill, are frequently mentioned. By reiterated enactments, it was ordered that the highways should be kept clean from rubbish, hay, straw, sawdust, dung, and other refuse. Each householder was to clear away all dirt from his door, and to be equally careful not to place it before that of his neighbours. No one was to throw water or anything out of the windows, but was to bring the water down and pour it into the street. An exception, however, to this last provision seems to have been made in the case of fishmongers, for we find injunctions frequently issued

that they shall, on no account, throw their dirty water into the streets, but shall have the same carried to the river. End quote. It was the duty of each alderman to cause to be elected in Wardmot, four respectable men to keep the roads clean and free from obstructions. The same duties were carried out at another time by a court of scavengers,

who apparently were originally custom house officers. The scavagers had to see that the work was done, and the labourers who actually cleansed the streets were called rakias. In an ordinance of the time of Edward III, we learned that twelve carts, each with two horses, were kept at the expense of the city for the removal of sewage and refuse. End of Chapter 7. End of Section 14.

Section 15 of the Story of London. This is a Libravoss recording. All Libravos recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravoc.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 8. The Governors of the City, Part 1.

quote, 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, own to the strength of the conflicting elements which so much effect her constitutional progress. End quote.

Stubbs. Constitutional History of England 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 port-reve. 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 Port Reeves until the first appointment of a mayor, but Mr. Round believes that the title of Portreve disappears after the conqueror's charter. In this opinion, he is opposed to the view of both Bishop Stubbs and Mr. Lofty. It is necessary to bear in mind that a Reave 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 Portreve. It might at first sight be supposed to refer to the Port of London, but this is not the received opinion. Bishop Stubbs writes, quote, the word port in Portreve is the Latin porter, 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. End quote. 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' right of this charter of Henry I 1 to the citizens of London quote 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 domain the Londoners were put in possession of the firm or farm of middle sex, 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 misrecordia 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 association in guilds, of their several franchises, of their feudal courts, and of their shire organizations under the sheriff, many elements of strength, consolidation and independence, they have not a compact organization 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 recognized in the reign of Stephen as a communio, did it gain the legal status before the reign of

Richard I. End quote. Mr. Round shows, however, that the city possessed the privilege only for a short time. Quote, we see then that in absolute contradiction of the received belief on the subject, the shrievelty was not in the hands of the citizens during the 12th 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, however, 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 regime 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, insofar 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 shrievelty was restored by John to the Citizens, 1199, the concession had lost its chief importance through the triumph of the communal principle. End quote. 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. Quote, the transient existence of the local justiciarius is a phenomenon of great importance which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandafil Charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage between the essentially local Shireeve and the central justice of the King's Court. The justiciarius for Essex or Hertfordshire, 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 stage 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 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 E.O. Nominee, twice granted to the Earl of Essex, and twice mentioned as held by Jervais, otherwise Jervase of Cornhill. End quote. The question of the date of the Charter of Henry I is discussed in Geoffrey de Mandeville,

and reasons are given for dating it after 1130 instead of 1,100 or 1101. Bishop Stubbs specially refers to the foreign element in London at this time thus. quote Richard, the son of Rainer, the son of Berengar, was very probably a lombard by descent. The influential family of Bukinte, Bukka Uncta, which took the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than Italian.

Gilbert Beckett was a Norman, end quote. And further, in a note he adds, quote, Andrew of London, the leader of the Londoners at Lisbon in 1147, is not improbably the Andrew Bukinte, 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 18th century. End quote.

Andrew, who was present at the transference of the Caniton Guild's land to the Priory of Holy Trinity, 1125 or 1126, was one of the witnesses of the agreement between Ramsey Abbey and Holy Trinity after that date, where his name is written, Bokunte. He was Justicia of London in Stephen's reign. The Buccorelli were another Italian family whose name is said to be preserved in Bucklersbury, and Round also mentions Osbert Octa Dinaria, otherwise Huet de Nia,

a kindman and employer of Beckett. The origin of the commune of London has always been an exceeding the obscure problem, but Mr. Round has succeeded in throwing a flood of light upon the subject. In the 12th 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, quote, 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 Devises.

Moreover, earlier in the same year, April, William of Malmesbury applies to their government the term communio, end quote. Miss Mary Bateson has gone to the manuscript from which Mr. Round obtained the oath of commune, and her conclusion after consideration is that, quote, the collection as a whole leaves the impression that Communio-quomvocant 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 Fokhmuton Husting

gave something substantial whereon the foundations of mayoralty and commune could be laid, end quote. Mr. Round writes, the assumption that the mayoralty of London dates from the accession of Richard I, 1189, is an absolute perversion of history, end quote, and he adds that, quote, there is record evidence which completely confirms the remarkable words of Richard of devices, who declares that, on no terms whatever, would King Richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of the communa in London, end quote.

In October 1191, the conflict between John, the King's brother, and Longchamp, the King's representative, became acute. William of Longsham, Bishop of Ely, 1189, and Chancellor to Richard I, was once described by Henry II as the, quote, son of two traitors, end quote. 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 Hovden, after referring to the negotiations between Longchamp and John,

and describing the hastening of the two parties to London on Monday the 7th of October, when Longchamp met the citizens in Guildhall, writes, quote The magnates of the city were divided Richard Fitz Rainer 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 Berger aristocracy End quote L'Enshant 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 Justiciah and saluted John as regent.

Quote, 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,

and then the two archbishops, the bishops, the bishops, the bishops, and last the burghers, with the express understanding that should the king die without issue, they would receive John as his successor. end quote. Mr. Round writes,

quote, 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 of 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. End quote. Footnote. The befoie of France was a symbol and pledge of independence. So was the belt out of St. Paul's, which is styled in documents, Berefreedom or Campanile. End of footnote. After this, the influence of Longchamp at once faded away. He stood a three-day's 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, quote, 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 pruned. prove 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."

Mr. Round then states very clearly the divergent views of Bishop's Stubbs, Mr. Lofty and Mr. Cout, 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. Cout believed that a charter was granted in 11,000, which has been lost, and Mr. Lofty dates the mayoralty from 1189, and deem 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 meriulty only, Mr. Round writes, quote, We find, however, that on the continent the word commune did not of necessity imply a mare, for Beauvais and Compain, though constituted communes, appeared to have had no mares during most of the 12th 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.

However, this theory rests on the assumption common till now to all historians that the citizens had continuously possessed from the beginning of the 12th century the privilege granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown in my Geoffrey de Manderville that these privileges were not renewed by Henry II or Richard I, and this fact strikingly confirms the explicit words of Richard of Devises when he states that neither the one nor the other, would have allowed the Londoners to form a commune even for a million of marks.

End quote. Of Mr Loftey'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 Guild Merchant. We have now to refer especially 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,

quote, London in 1193, possessed a fully developed commune of the continental pattern, end quote. This discovery not only gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the alderman. From this, we learn that the government of the city

was at that time in the house, hands of a mayor and certain eschavin 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 guild merchant considers these governing officers as a purely continental institution. Twelve years later, 1205 to 1206, we learn from another document, preserved in the same volume, that Aliye Proby-Homenes were associated with the mayor and Eschavan to form a body of 24, that is, 12 Schivini, 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 Aliye Probe-Hominase, 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 24 with that of the Freeman in the present day. 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 Mare and Escheran were French,

thus excluding the aldermen who represented the Saxon element. Still, as time went on, the alderman obtained their natural position in the government of London, and the foreign name of Escherin 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 Guiri's valuable work, Les etablisements 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 Vancatra 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 24 bears a marked resemblance to the oath of the London commune discovered by him. Quote, the three salient features in common are, one, the oath to administer justice fairly,

two, the special provisions against bribery, three, the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe. End quote. Much attention has been given lately to the important question of continental influence on English municipalities, and Miss Mary Bateson has discovered that a consider considerable number of boroughs in England, Wales and Ireland, drew their customs from the little Norman town of Brettee. These are Biddeford, Biddeford, Chipping Sodbury, Herford,

Litchfield, Ludlow, Netherweer, Preston, Royton, Shrewsbury, Clanvillan, Rudlan, Walshport, Droghuda, Dungarvan, Kildare, and Rathmore. Besides these, there are eight suspected cases and a number of derived cases. Footnote. A curious point is that, formerly, the Leges Britolii was supposed to relate to Bristol, and the Great English Port obtained credit which it did not deserve. End of footnote. Although the fact that the Council of 24 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 24, not alderman, was not unusual, and he draws special attention to the case of Winchester. There, the mayor had a council of 24, 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. Ram believes that this was also the case in London. He then quotes from Dean Kitchens' book on Winchester, Historic Towns. where it is said, quote,

the alderman in latter 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 16th century that they were interposed between the mayor and the 24 men. End quote. We learn from Mrs. Green, town life in the 15th century, that there was a council of 24 at Colchurchase.

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 Ailwyn was that. At all events, he seems to have retained the esteem of the city, and he was continued in office, until his death in 1212. Mr. Round wrote the life of Fitz Elwyn 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 Leifston, but he rejects the view that he was the grandson of Leifston, Port Reve of London, before the conquest. Leifston was a common name among the Saxons, and two or three of the same name have been confounded by historians. Fitz Aylwyn 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 Advausen 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 Fitzailwyn 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. 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 Elwyn, King John granted to the barons of the city of London the right of annually electing the mayor.

The role 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, 20 years after the death of Fitz Elwyn, in the reign of Henry III, Hubert DeBur, Chief Justiciere, 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 Souch, and John Adrian and Luke de Batancourt were elected by the citizens' bailiffs of London and Middlesex. Quote, the bailiffs and the whole commune, of the said city, end quote, are mentioned in 1267. In 1268 to 1269, Hugh Fitz Otho was Custos, and then followed some stirring times in London. Sir Walter Harvey, the predecessor of the famous Sir Henry Whaley's in the mayor's chair, was the popular leader against the proceedings of his successor. Sir Henry de Wailies, La Wolles, Le Wolles, or La Gaeles,

for in all these forms does his name appear, was elected sheriff with his distinguished contemporary Gregory de Roaksley in 1270. His first mayoralty was in 1773, and in 175 he was the 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 into conflict with the barons of the Sinkports.

The king sent a mandate to the justices in air at the tower, commanding them not to molest Whaley for his reforms. End of Chapter 8, Part 1. End of Section 15. Section 16 of the Story of London. This is a Librevox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravoc.org.

by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 8 The Governors of the City, Part 2 In the year 1285, the city again lost its franchise. Gregory de Roaksley 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 13 years, London was governed by a warden appointed by the king, in the person of Sir Ralph de Sandwich or John Le Breton. Sir Ralph de Sandwich is described in letterbook A as warden of the city, as well as warden of Corduena 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 alderman and six representatives of each ward, and in their presence to have declared, into 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, Loeleys was again elected to the chair. The Charter of Restitution of the City's Liberties bears date 12th of April, 26 Edward I, 1299, and it is preserved at the Guildhall. 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 of April, and the notification to the citizens took place on the 9th. Loelis was elected and admitted by the King at Fulham on the 16th. The king issued a writ to the barons of the exchequer from York, notifying the restitution of the city's liberties, on the 28th of 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 Betoigne and Geoffrey de Norton. 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 described the struggles between the magnates and the commons, and shows how, Thomas Fitz-Thomas favoured the latter. Quote, 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 communist 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 alderman being excluded. In 1264 to 1265, he obtained a reappointment, but his power came to an end after the Battle of Evesham. End quote.

To pass on to the 14th century, we learned that in 1326, Queen Isabel sent a letter to the citizens, permitting them to elect a mayor, as in the days before the Eater of 1321. They elected Richard de Betoin, whom the barons had that day appointed warden of the tower conjointly with John de Gizor's. 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 de Hansard, a fishmonger, brandishing a drawn sword, seized Aubrey by the throat and offered to strike him,

while John LeBrua wounded one of the city sergeants. 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. Quote, Si you en toravent, trebon-gouet, et votre acceptant, and le ratifion. End quote.

So William Woolworth, 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 to figure he was during what 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 Fishmonger's Isle. Footnote. This church was destroyed in the Great Fire

and rebuilt after the designs of Sir Christopher Wren. It was cleared away in 1831 to make way for the approaches to the New London Bridge. End of footnote. The end of the 14th 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, endured 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 victoriling 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 Bremba and John of Northampton. Doubtless the victorling companies had obtained a preponderating influence, and it is recorded that at one time 16 of the aldermen belonged to,

the grocer's company, of which Bremba was a member. 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, by which it was ordained that, quote, no victualer shall execute a judicial place in a city or town corporate. End quote. He forced Sir John Philippot, a public-spirited man and ex-mare, but a friend of Walworth's and of the Kings, to resign his aldermanry.

On the 7th of November 1382, John Filial, a fishmonger, was brought before the mayor and aldermen on a charge of having, quote, said that John Northampton, the mayor, had falsely and maliciously deprived the fishmongers of their bread, end quote. For this offence, Filial. was a judge to be, quote, imprisoned at Newgate in a place then called Bacardo for one year then next ensuing, unless he should deserve more extended favour in the meantime,

end quote. On the 6th of December, John Filial, quote, was liberated at the instance of his friends on the surety of William Naufferton and others, end quote. When the charge was made against Filial, Richard Fiffide was one of those questioned on the subject, and he, quote, said that he and all the other fishmongers of London were bound to put their

hands beneath the very feet of Nicholas Exstone for his good deeds and words in behalf of the trade aforesaid, end quote. John of Northampton was mayor for two years, and had held the office of Sheriff in 1377, MP for the city 1378. He was head of John of Gaunt supporters, and a prominent follower of Whitecliffe 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 Bremba by force. Bramber 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 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, Brember was one of the two collectors of customs for the port of London, with Chaucer for his controller. He was MP 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 Trisillian in the Tower of London, and was imprisoned in Tintagal Castle, Cornwall. Bremble was also opposed to Nicholas Twyford, who would probably have been elected mayor but for the high-handed proceedings of Bremba. Twyford's party was confident of victory and shouted at the election, Twyford, Twyford. But when the voting commenced,

the soldiers placed by Bremba behind the Arras in the Guildhall rushed out and drove Twyford's followers from the building. Bremba's party were allowed to remain and they carried the election for their candidate. It is worthy of note that during Bremba'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, grossers,

and John Wurzel, 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 behest as to the imprisonment of his follower after arrest. With the fall of the king, Brember also fell, and there was a revolution. in the government of the city as well as that of the country. Northampton was released from Tintagil Castle and restored to his property, and Brember was tried for his life, condemned to death, and executed in the tower in February 1388.

The companies who petitioned for Brember's punishment were Mersersers, Caudwainers, 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 Bremba and his followers. In the 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, where we learn from the petition of the cordwainers against Nicholas Brember and his adherents that in this book of La Jubeel, quote, were comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good governance of the said city, and that Nicholas Exstone, the mayor, and all the aldermen and good commons of the city, had sworn forever to maintain them, to the honour of God,

and the prophet of the common people. But that the said Nicholas Xstone 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, end quote. 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, quote, No person shall speak or give his opinion as to either Nicholas Bramber or John Northampton. End quote. On pain of imprisonment for a year and a day. The preamble is as follows.

Quote, whereas many dissensions, quarrels, and false reports have prevailed in the city of London as between trade and trade, person and person because of diverse controversies lately moved between Nicholas Bramber, Knight, and John Northampton, 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 all of the realm." 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. Sharp thinks that possibly the expression, Domino Mayor, strictly Sir Mayor, may account for the origin of the Lord Mayor's title. A claim has been set up for Thomas Leg, 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.

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. 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.

If this were so, we can scarcely believe that 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 Stubb'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 later as 1565, there is referenced in the Chamberlain's account book, quote, to Mr. John Bean, Mayor, end quote. 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. Shingen Hope of the Society

of antiquaries, who, as a result of a search in the city books, gave some definite information as to the use of the title. Quote, 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 lord mayor, 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 Lord Mayor now being, continues, as well as all other mayors, his successors. After 1540, the use of the term Lord Mayor becomes general, e.g. 1542, every Lord Mayor's house. 1545, the Lord Mayor's of the same city. 1546, the Lord Mayor, etc. End quote.

We have seen how important was the Office of Mayor, in the Office of Mayor, in medieval 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, one, the closing of temple bar to the sovereign. Two, the mayor's position in the city where he is second only to the king. 3. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign. 4. His position of butler at the coronation banquets.

1. 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 libraries were thought of, although no records have come down to us. Stowe's account of the proceedings in his annals is as follows. Quote,

Over the gate of the temple bar were placed the weights of the city, and at the same bar the Lord Mayor and his brethren the alderman in Scarlet received and welcomed her majesty to her city and chamber, delivering to her hands the sceptre, which after certain speeches had, Her Highness redelivered to the Mayor, and he again taking his horse, bear the same before her. The companies of the city in their liveries stood in their rails of timber

covered by blue cloth, all of them saluting her highness, as she proceeded along to Paul's Church. End quote. 2. 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 has 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 Letterbook 1, 1415, which refers to Henry the Fifth 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 notables met together, diligent counsel was held as to the order in which they ought to sit, and, quote, the lords agreed together among themselves to the effect at 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. End quote. The actual right to preeminence 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. Quote, this year, 1465, about midsummer, at the royal fest of the sergeants of the Coif, the mayor of London, Matthew Philip, was desired to be at that fest. And at dinner time, he come to the fest with his officers, agreeing and according unto his degree. For within London, he is next unto the king in all manner thing. And in time of washing, the Earl of Worcester was taken before the mayor and set down in the middice of the high table. And the mayor, seeing that his place was occupied, hilled him content, and went home again without meat or drink or any thunk,

but reward him he did, as his dignity required of the city, and took with him the substance of his brethren the alderman to his place, and was set and served also son as any man couldth devise, both of signet and of other delicacies eno, that all the house marvelled how well all ting was done in so short a time, and prayed all men to be merry and glad it should be amended another time. Then the officers of the fest, full evil ashamed, informed the maesters of the fest of this mishap that is before, and they, considering the great dignity and costus and change that longed unto the city, and anon send unto the mare a present of meat, bread, wine, and many diverse subtleties. but when they that come with the presenties saw all the giftors, and the service that was at the board, he was full-sought ashamed that should do the message, for the present was not better than the service of metis was before the mayor, and throughout the high table, but his demeaning was so that he had love and thunk for his message, and a great reward with all.

And this the worship of the city was kept, and not lost for him. I trust that never hit shall, but he was. by the grace of God. End quote. Another and a later difficulty with the lawyers is recorded by Peeps on March the 3rd, 1668 to 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. Quote, meeting Mr. Bellwood did hear how my lord mayor, Sir William Turner, being invited this day dinner at the readers at the temple, and endeavoring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down,

and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber, until the reader himself could get the young gentleman 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. End quote. 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 by law, and apparently the question remains unsettled to this 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 end of the entry of troops without his sanction. Quote, the third regiment of foot, raised in 1665, known by the ancient title of the old buffs, have the privilege of marching through 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. End quote. Major R. Donkin, military collections.

3. 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 medieval times the support of London was eagerly sought for in cases of disputed succession. During the 19th century, it was the custom to belittle the mayor and corporation, and Lord McCauley 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 the 7th, the respective Lord's 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 colleague's signatures following his lordships.

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. 4. The Mayor's Position at the Coronation Banquets The privilege of assisting the Chief Butler at the Coronations of the Kings of England, according to the citizens of London, appears to date back before the appointment of a mayor.

Dr. Sharp, referring to the double coronation of Richard I, writes, quote, his first coronation had taken place at Westminster, 3rd of September 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 Viance. The second coronation taking place at Winchester, 17th of 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. End quote. Andrew Boccarol, 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. 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, the claim of the mayor and citizens is fully set forth. The king, quote, willed and decreed that the citizens of the said city should serve in the hall of bottlery 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. End quote. End of chapter 8, part 2. End of section 16.

Section 17 of the story of London. This is a Libravoss recording. All Libravoss Accordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 8 The Governors of the City Part 3

At the coronation of Henry 6th, 6th of 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. The latest instance of this jealously guarded privilege occurred at the coronation of George IV, July the 19th, 1821. 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. Quote, 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. End quote.

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 justitia, and the processions then commenced. In 1415, the mayor proceeded to Westminster on horseback, but 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 Shah, Mayor in 1482, was the first to give the annual banquet in the Guildhall. Previously, the feast had taken place either at grocer's 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 mares, namely Sir William

Walworth, 1374, 1380, Sir Henry Pritchard, Picard, 1356, Sir William Sevenoak, 1418, and Sir William White, 1553. Most of the men, 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 chapbook life of Sir Richard Whittington is entirely opposed to the facts of the case. Alderman The consideration of the actual position of the aldermen 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 alderman. Bishop Stubbs writes, quote,

The governing body of London in the 13th century was composed of the main 25 aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs. All these were elective officers. End quote. 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 to 1299, letters were sent from,

quote, the mayor and commune of the city of London, to the Eschavan, Durat's and Commonwealth of the town of Bourges, Bruges, to the provost, bailiffs and community of the town of Kahn, and to the provost, eschavan and community of Comerac, possibly Cambrai, end quote. Although the official form of the mayor and commune was continued until the end of the 13th century, and it was not until early in the 14th century

that the form Mayor Alderman, and Common Council came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Olderman 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 Alderman as assistance of the Mayor as early as 1249. At all events, in the record of the election of Alderman in 1293, they are specially described as elected for the government of the city. In 1299, 27 Edward I. Quote, It was agreed by Henry Legaly's mayor and the alderman that Stregow, the sweeper of litter in the ward of cheap, should be taken and imprisoned until, etc., because he, the said Stregor, had scandalised the alderman by saying that they take the money of the commonality at the Guildhall, under pretext of wardship of orphans, and then waste such money for their own profit.

end quote. In consequence of these unfounded charges, Strago was committed to the ton. There are in Riley's memorials about this date several other references to aldermen acting with the mayor. Thus, on the 14th of September 1301, quote, Walter Swan appeared before Sir Elias Russell, mayor of London, and other aldermen then present.

End quote. And in December 1310, Roger de Jure, having insulted and assaulted Richard de Gloucester, aldermen, the two parties, quote, appeared in the Guildhall before Sir Risha de Rhefam, the mayor and the alderman, end quote. In 1311, 4th Edward II, the form of description of the governors was,

quote, the mayor, alderman, and the common council of the city, end quote. From this time, the general force, was either this or, quote, the mayor, alderman, and commonalty, end quote. It is necessary, however, to mention that a congregation of mayor and alderman is referred to in Fitz Ailwins' Assize of 1189. The title of Eshavan, 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 onto the mayor's council under the title of Eschavans. This, however, is not the opinion of Mr. Round, who is inclined to believe that the body of Eschavans became, in course of time, the court of common counsel. 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 alderman 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, Bassasure and Basing's Hall. There is no evidence of this proprietorship, and it seems improbable on the face. of it. Mr. Raim believes that what an alderman inherited can only have been the aldermanary of his ward, like, he suggests, an hereditary sheriff. Mr. Badley writes that, quote, early in 1276 we find

mention made of the ward of Henry DeFroic within the gate, i.e. Cripplegate, and ten years later, circa 1285, he figures in the earliest list of aldermen extant in the city's records as aldermen of the same ward, end quote. At the election of Alderman in 1291, 19 Edward I, 16 of the wards were named after the aldermen and eight after places. The latter being the boards of cheap, Castle Bainard, Whalebrook, Doogate, Bridge, Portsoaken, Vintry and Bassishore. At the election two years afterwards, 1293, all the wards were named with their proper names, and not after the alderman. The ward of Ludgate and Newgate presented Nicholas Defandon, it being styled in the previous list, quote, the ward of William Defandon, end quote. 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. Quote, be it remembered that on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Botolph, 21 Edward I, in the presence of Sir John Le Breton, Warden of London, the whole commonality 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 goodwill and of their full consent. And the aldermen so elected, they presented to the warden of foresend. said in this form, that all and single of the things which the aforesaid alderman 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 straightly 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 alderman, for whom it would answer as to all his acts affecting the city, the commune, commune, and its estate, end quote. It will be seen from the above that the election of aldermen was only in the hands of a few of the, quote, wealthier and wiser men, end quote, of the wards. But later on the electors were freemen of the city, quote, paying Scott and bearing lot, end quote. There was much difference of practice in the electors.

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 Letterbook H. Quote, 51 Edward III, Precept, Bill, for the men of each ward to meet on Saturday the 7th of March, and elect an alderman other than the sitting alderman, and to have the name of the aldermen so elected endorsed on the bill at the Guildhall on the Feast of St. Gregory next, at 8 o'clock at the latest, under penalty. End quote. This precept was elaborated in an ordinance made on Friday the 6th of March, 51 Edward III, with the assent of the mayor, aldermen, and diverse representations of the livery companies. It was ordered that,

quote, Alderman removed for good and reasonable cause, shall not be open for 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, end quote. 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, letterbook H. In 1394, the ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the king, and alderman were hence forward elected for life. 6th of March, 17 Richard II,

quote, 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, end quote. Shortly after this, an order of the mayor, alderman and commonwealth, was issued which took away the right of the wards of directly electing their alderman. A ward was only allowed to nominate two persons, of whom the mayor and alderman 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. Footnote In 1711, a return was made to the practice of nominating two persons only. followed in 1714 by, quote, an act for reviving the ancient manner of electing alderman, 13 Anne,

which restored to the inhabitants of their ancient rights and privileges of choosing one person only to be their alderman, end quote. End of footnote. Distinct rank was accorded to alderman, thus the common seal of the corporation bears the inscription Sigillum, baronum, Londoniarum, and we are told by John Carpenter in Libre Albus,

quote, 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 Baroneo 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 alderman, and the repeated occurrence of pestilence, this ceremonial in London gradually died out and disappeared. End quote. When the poll tax of 1379 was imposed, the mayor was assessed as an earl, and the alderman as barons. On August the 12th, 1417, a royal mandate, five Henry V, was issued to the mayor in joining that the alderman shall reside within the city. Quote, 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. End quote. This was an irksome regulation, and in the Charter of Edward IV, the aldermen were released from the obligation. Quote, 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 recreation's sake. End quote. 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 alderman. Sir Geoffrey Bolin, mayor in 1457, was great-grandfather to Anne Boleyn,

and therefore ancestor of Queen Elizabeth. Sir Thomas Canning, Mayor in 1456, was ancestor of George Canning, Earl Canning, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Sir William Loke, Sheriff in 155th, 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 Loveless. John Cowper, Alderman in 1551, was the ancestor of Lord Chancellor Calper and the poet William Cowper. Sir Edward Osborne was the ancestor of the Duke of Leeds.

Among other distinguished men descended from Alderman 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 Port Reve. How long before the conquest a Port Reve 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 justicias 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 Lieber albus, quote, the eyes of the mayor, end quote. They often in early times were also called bailiffs. When Middlesex was infirm 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 Anctan de Betville and Walter LeBlond are described as sheriffs of London, and Geraint as Sheriff of Middlesex. Footnote By the Local Government Act of 1888, the citizens of London were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the County of Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various

charters. End of footnote. this anomaly has not been explained, but Dr. Sharp remarks respecting a writ of 1308, quote, the king to the sheriff of Middlesex greeting, end quote, that this was, quote, presumably addressed to, and the return made by the sheriffs of London, acting as a sheriff of middle sex according to custom, end quote. It was ordained and agreed in 1383, 7 Richard II, Quote, 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

attained such a state of the mayoralty. End quote. Mr. Badley has very clearly described the changes made at various times in the election of sheriffs, and I therefore quote from his book, quote, until the commencement of the 14th century, the shepherds, the sheriff's. sheriffs were elected by the mayor, alderman, and commonality of the city. In 1301, an attempt was made to restrict the number of electors to 12 representatives of each ward, but this, like other subsequent attempts, proved unsuccessful. In 1387 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. End quote. This is the mode of election which is described in the Lieber Albus. Quote, 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 firm 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 council and with the ascent of the alderman, 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 answered as to the other half of the firm so due to the king, in case he shall prove not sufficient. And if any of the generality, and if any of the commonalty is bound to be answered, controversy arise between the commons as to the election, the matter is to proceed and be discussed.

End quote. Footnote. Mr. Badley continues the account of the changes in the mode of election up to the present time. Quote, from 1642 to 1651, the mayor's claim to elect a sheriff was always contested. For the year 1652 and for some years afterwards, the mayor neither nominated nor elected a sheriff, but in 1662, when he would have elected one Bloodworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their right, although they accepted the mayor's nominee. The prerogative thus claimed by the mayor, although frequently challenged, was exercised for the most part by subsequent

mayors down to 1674, when exception was taken to William Roberts, whom the mayor had formerly nominated, according to a custom which is said to have arisen in the time of Elizabeth, by drinking to him at a public banquet. In the following year, and for some years later, the mayor exercised his prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition. In 1703, an act was passed declaring the right of election of sheriffs to be in the liverymen of the several companies of the city in Common Hall assembled. End quote. It was, however, lawful for the Lord Mayor to nominate for the office. Quote, by an act of 1748, the Lord Mayor might continue to to nominate to the extent of nine persons in the whole."

End quote. By an act of Common Council in 1878, the right of election to the Office of Sheriff was vested in the liverymen of the several companies of the city in Common Hall assembled. The Lord Mayor nominating one or more freemen, not exceeding three in the whole, for the shrievelty. End of footnote.

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 Eschavans 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 of May, 1840, 3, Victoria, passed to reduce the total number of Common Council, and to apportion more equally the members to the different walls, contains the following statement of its antiquity. Quote, Whereas from time whereof the memory of man runeth not to the contrary,

there hath existed, and still doth exist within the city of London, a common council consisting of the mayor and alderman 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 said city, 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. End quote. The common council were chosen by the wards until 1351, E. Twenty-five Edward III, when certain companies appointed the Common Council. In 1376, 50, Edward III, an ordinance was made by the Mayor and Alderman 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 election of mayors and sheriffs, that the greater

companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four, and the least two. 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 Wolworth killed Watt Tyler. The history of these arms is fully set forth in Deut and Hope's Corporation Plate, and there illustrated with figures of the Old Common Seal of London

and the First and Second Marilty Seals. The facts as they're set forth are shortly stated here. The Old Common Seal is a fine example of the early part of the 13th century. Stowe in his survey dates it in 1224, and Gregory in his chronicle in 1227 to 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. quote, 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. End quote. The legend is Sigillam, Baronum, Londaniarum. The first mayoralty seal bears the figures of of St. Thomas of Canterbury and St. Paul with his sword. The legend is Sigillum, Meiratus, London, and the date circa 1280. The second Merlty seal, which was produced a century after the first one, is a 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, Mayoratus, Civitatus,

London. The record of the making of this seal in 1381 is found in letterbook K, and Mr Hope's remarks on the value of this piece of evidence must be quoted in Tyre. Quote, 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 What Tyler, instead of being, as it undoubtedly is, the sword of St. Paul. What Tyler was killed on June 15, 31, whereas the new seal of the mayoralty had been formally adopted on April 17th, 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." To return to the common seal, it may be noticed here that the original reverse had, quote, in base a view of the city somewhat resembling that on the obverse, surmounted by a segmental arch. On top of the arch, seated on a throne or chair of state, is a figure of St. Thomas of Canterbury with a cross and Paul.

End quote. In accordance with the famous proclamation of Henry VIII, November 16, 1538, which enacted that Thomas Beckett should no longer, quote, be esteemed, named, reputed, nor called a saint, but Bishop Beckett, and that his images and pictures through the whole realm shall be put down, end quote, etc. It was enacted in 1539 that this reverse of the common seal should be destroyed. quote,

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 across Gule, 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 gul. The legend is,

Lundini Defende Tuos, Deiis, Optime, Sivas. End quote. 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. End of Chapter 8. End of Section 17.

Section 18 of the Story of London This is a Libravot's recording All Libravots recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravox.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 9

Officials of the City The Chief of the Officials of the City of London was for many years after the conquest the Castellan and Bannera. When William the Conqueror obtained possession of London, he built a castle on the river at each end of the city to intimidate the Londoners. The tower was at the east end,

and at the west end was what, according to Dougdale, was called at first, the castle. This was placed under the charge of Bainard, one of the conqueror's followers, after whom it came to be known as Bainard's castle. The hereditary office of Castellan was held by the family of Fitzwalter, by virtue of their possession of Bainard's castle, the key of the city. The duties attached to this office are among the most important and interesting in the story of

medieval London, and it is to be presumed that Bainard held the various privileges afterwards possessed by the family of Fitzwalter, but no notice of this is recorded. Robert Fitz Richard was the first Baron by tenure. He is said to have been the younger son of Richard Fitz Gilbert, ancestor of the father of the family. the earls of Clare. He was steward to Henry I, from whom he obtained the barony of Dunmo, and the honour of the soak of Bainard's castle, both which had been forfeited to the crown in 1111 by reason of the felony of William, Baron of Dunmo, son of Ralph Bainard, the Norman associate of William the Conqueror, after whom the castle was named. In connection with this soak,

Robert held the hereditary office of standard bearer of the city. The duties of which which will be stated further on. He died in 1134 and was succeeded by his son, Walter Fitz Robert. The latter's son was Robert Fitzwalter, the most famous member of the family, and the one who transmitted to his descendants

the permanent surname of Fitzwalter. This Fitzwalter was styled, quote, Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church, end quote. He was one of the 25 barons appointed to enforce the observance of Magna Carta obtained from King John. An, quote, agreement dated 15th to the 25th of June

1215, between King John of the one part, and Robert Fitzwalter, Marshal of the Army of God and of Holy Church in England, six earls and six barons named, and other earls, barons and freemen of the other part, end quote, is preserved in the public record office, and the following description of the document is given in the catalogue of manuscripts, etc, in the Museum of the Public Record Office, 1902. Quote, The earls, barons and others shall hold the city of London, saving the royal revenues, and the Archbishop of Canterbury shall hold the Tower of London, saving the liberties of the city, until the feast of the assumption in the 17th year of the reign. In the meanwhile, oaths shall be taken throughout England to 25 barons, as is contained.

in the Charter for the Liberties and Security of the Realm, and all things shall be done according to the said Charter, otherwise the city and the tower shall be held as above until all the said things shall be done." End quote. It is said in a note to this document that, quote, none of the 13 persons who are thus entered into an agreement with the king are mentioned among those upon whose advice he granted the great charter, end quote. The third Baron was himself in and he owned wine ships. He received special privileges from John, and the story of that King's treatment of his daughter Matilda is supposed to be an unfounded tale. In the year 1215, the insurgent barons entered the city at Aldgate, largely owing to the assistance of Robert

Fitzwalter, whose position was of a commanding character. He died in 1235. Walter Fitzwalter succeeded his father Robert and died in 1257. He was succeeded by his son Robert Fitzwalter the fifth baron. It is of the latter's duties and privileges that we possess an account, written by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald in the reign of Elizabeth, extracts from which are given by Dougdale in his baronage of England, 1675. Quote, In time of war he should serve the city in manner following.

Viz. To ride upon a light horse with twenty men at arms on horseback, their horses covered with cloth or harness, unto the great door of St. Paul's Church, with a banner of his arms carried before him. And being come in that manner thither, the mayor of London, together with the sheriffs and aldermen, to issue armed out of the church under the same door on foot,

with a banner in his hand, having the figure of St. Paul depicted with gold thereon, but the feet, hands and head of silver, holding a silver sword in his hand. And as soon as he shall see the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen come on foot out of the church, carrying such a banner, he is to alight from his horse

and salute him as his companion, saying, Sir Mayor, I am obliged to come hither to do my service which I owe to this city. To whom the mayor, sheriffs and aldermen are to answer, we give to you, as our banner-bearer for this city, this banner by inheritance of the city, to bear and carry to the honour and profit thereof to your power. Whereupon the said Robert and his heirs shall receive it into their hands,

and the mayor and sheriffs shall follow him to the door and bring him an horse worth twenty pounds, which horse shall be saddled with a saddle of his arms, and covered with silk depicted likewise with the same arms, and they shall take £20 pounds sterling and deliver it to the Chamberlain of the said Robert for his expenses that day. End quote, etc. There was a vacant ground

opposite the Great West Door of St Paul's where this interesting ceremony took place. The folk moots were held in the churchyard at the east end of the cathedral. In 1275, 3, Edward I, Robert Fitzwalter obtained licence from the Crown to convey Bainard Castle and the Crown, the Tower of Montfichet, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of the foundation of

the House and Church of the Friars Preachers, or Blackfriars. In the following year, Edward I first confirmed the grant of two lanes adjacent to, quote, Castle Bainard and the Tower of Montfichet for the purposes of enlarging the aforesaid place on condition that the said archbishop should provide the citizens with a more convenient way as he had now done, end quote. In 1277 to 1278, an alteration was made in the wall of the friary. When Sir Robert Fitzwalter conveyed Bainard Castle to the Archbishop, he specially reserved all his rights and privileges in the following terms.

Quote, Provided that by reason of this grant, nothing should be extinguished to him and his heirs which did not belong to his barony, but that whatsoever relating thereto as well in rents, landing of vessels and other liberties and privileges in the city of london or elsewhere without diminution which to him the said robert or to that barony had anciently appertained should be thenceforth reserved end quote We know very little of this tower of Montfichet, but it must have been closely connected with Baynard Castle. There is a reference to it and its owner

in the Chronique de la Gere Entre-Hen-Glois and the Ecoso in 1773 and 1714 by Jordan Phantom. Howlett's Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, Role's series. Quote, Gilbert de Montfichet has fortified his castle, and says that the clairs are leagued with him. End quote.

As Mr. Rown points out to me, this reference to the clairs must relate to the proprietors of Bainard's Castle, who, as previously noted, were of the same family as the clairs. Walter Fitz-Rober is also referred to in this metrical chronicle. The barons Fitz-Walter possessed many privileges in time of peace, which are set out by Dougdale, among which was the right of punishing by drowning at Woodworth, persons guilty of treason, but it was as a constable of Barnard Castle that they

enjoyed these privileges as well as the Office of Bannerer to the City of London. A beautiful seal inscribed Sigillum Roberti Filii Walteri was found at Stamford, Lincolnshire in the reign of Charles II, and is the subject of a paper by John Charles Brook of the Herald's College in archaeology. Quote, in this seal we see Fitzwalter's horse and elegantly engraved, and covered with trappings of his arms, so exquisitely represented, that they evidently appear to be of a much finer texture than those commonly used, the muscles of the animal being seen under them, and as much as engraving can represent drapery

appear to be silk, as described by Glover. And what is remarkable, his arms are carved on the rest behind the saddle, which is a rare instance, and evidently allude to that which the mare was to present to him. quote. On the seal are represented the arms of Fitzwalter's second wife, Eleanor, daughter of Robert de Ferrer's Earl of Ferris and Derby. She was married in 1298 and died in 1304, therefore the date of the seal is fixed within six years. Mr. Brooke refers to another seal of Baron Fitzwalter which he used, 28 Edward I, Anno 1300, and in which the dragon occurring in the former seal beneath the horse is used as a supporter.

Robert Fitzwalter died in 1325, and in 1328 the wardship of his son John was granted by the mayor and alderman to his widow Joanna. In 1347, Sir John Fitzwalter still claimed to have franchise in the ward of Castle Bainard, but the city entirely repudiated the claim as, quote, altogether repugnant to the liberties of the city, end quote. He caused stocks to be set up in the ward of Castle Bainard and claimed to make deliverance of men there imprisoned. In consequence of this action, a conference was held by the mayor,

aldermen and commonalty at which, quote, it was agreed that the said Sir John Fitzwalter had no franchise within the liberty of the city aforesaid, nor is he in future to intermeddle with any plea in the Guildhall of London, or with any matters touching the liberties of the city, end quote. The recorder, the chief official of the city, is appointed for life.

He was formally appointed by the city, but since the local government act of 1888, he is nominated by the city and approved by the Lord Chancellor. His duties and his oath are recorded in the Libre Albus. In 1329, Gregory de Norton, the then holder of the office, obtained an increase in salary, 100 shillings yearly. as also his robe of the same pattern as the alderman's robes. The common sergeant was formally appointed by the city, but since 1888 by the Lord Chancellor. He is the recorder's principal assistant.

The next great official is the town clerk, who is appointed by the common council and re-elected annually. John de Batakkel, clerk of the city, is referred to in letterbook A, and this is the first recorded mention of the office afterwards known as the common clerk, and later as town clerk. Next to the recorder, the town clerk was the chief officer in the local courts of law called the Hustings and the mayor's court. Among the distinguished men who have held the office, two names stand out, viz, John Carpenter and William Dunthorne.

Carpenter, town clerk in the reigns of Henry V and Henry V and Henry VI was elected in 1417. He was called also Secretary of the City, a title not applied to any other town clerk. He is best known as the compiler of the Liber Albus and as founder of the City of London School. Dunthorn's name, 1462, is associated with the Liber Dunthorn, which contains transcripts from the Liber Albus,

Lieber customarum, letterbooks, etc. The Chamberlain, or comptroller of the King's Chamber, is appointed by the livery. He was originally a King's officer, and the office was probably instituted soon after the conquest. It is mentioned in document of the 12th century. On June 28, 1232, the office of, quote, King's Chamberlain of London, end quote,

was granted for life to Peter de Rivalis. His duties and privileges, as stated in the grant, are very extensive and important. Quote, He shall have for life, the custody of the king's houses at Southampton, and the King's Prize of Wine there. Custody of the King's Jury

of the Mint of England and, quote, and, quote, all other things pertaining to the Office of Chamberlain of London, end quote. By another grant of the same year, the said Peter, treasurer of Poitier for life, was given the custody of the ports and coasts of England,

saving the port of Dover. When the offices mentioned in 1275, it was combined with the offices of mayor, and coroner. The functions of coroner were often exercised by the chamberlain and sheriffs, and when the chamberlain was called away from the city by the king, he appointed a deputy coroner. The office was sometimes held by the king's butler, to whom appertained the office of coroner. William Trent, a wine merchant of Bergerac, was appointed King's butler on the 25th of November 1301, 30 Edward I. He became also the king's chamberlain of the city and coroner of

London. Andrew Horn, a fishmonger by trade who kept a shop in Bridge Street, held the office of Chamberlain for several years. He was the compiler of Lieber Horn, which contains charters, statutes, grants, etc. To him also has been attributed the authorship of the law treaties of medieval titles entitled The Mirror of Justice. He died in 1328. Many attempts were made by the citizens to get coronership into their own hands, and at last Edward V. Fourth sold the right to appoint a coroner of their own, independent of the King's butler, for £7,000. The Remembrancer, or State Amanuensis, is appointed by the Common Council.

The office was held from 1571 to 1584 by a distinguished man, Thomas Norton, MP, who was joint author with Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset, of the tragedy of Gorboduk. He left a manuscript on the ancient duties of the Lord Mayor and Corporation, an account of which was published by J. Payne Collier in Archaeologia. The Common Hunt was an official mentioned in the Liber Albus, where we learn that John Courtney was appointed to the office in 1417. The office was abolished in the year 1807.

Of officers in immediate attendant on the mayor may be mentioned the sword-bearer and the sergeant at Mace. The first notice of the office of sword-bearer occurs in the Liber Albus, 1419, and the first record in the minute-books of the appointment of a sword-bearer is in 4 Henry VI, 1426. Mr. Hope remarks that, quote, the absence of earlier notices is probably due to the fact that the sword-bearer was appointed, according to the entry in the Libre alas, as proper costage du Mare, and not at the cost of the city, end quote. The sword-bearer is remarkable on account of the distinctive head-covering or cap of maintenance

which is appropriated to his office. It is not known when the city of London first possessed a mace or maces, but Mr. Hope refers to the Lieber customarum to prove that as early as 1252 there were sergeants who carried staves of some kind as emblems of authority. Quote, we know this from the claim put forth on the occasion of the itter of the pleas of the crown held at the Tower in 1321, that the Mayor and Citizens of London should have their own porter and usher and their own sergeants with their staves,

as it was shown that the same claim had been successfully made in 1276 to 1277, and in 1252 it was allowed, end quote. Mr Hope quotes from Letterbook F, a record of the appointment of Robert Flambard as macebearer in 1338, and from this it is clear that the office was not then a new created one. For the due carrying on of the business of the corporation, several new offices

have at various times been established, but the foregoing are the officials who carried on the work of the city during the Middle Ages. Much of interest might have been added of these men, but it is only necessary here to refer to them generally as those to whom so much of the history of London was due. The chief business of the city has been carried on for many centuries in the Guildhall, which is of unknown antiquity. It is almost certain that the building was in existence on the same spot as early as the 12th century. It was rebuilt in 1411, and has been greatly altered at different times since then. The most interesting portion of the old building will be found in the extensive Gothic crypt.

The open timber roof of the hall was not added until the alterations of 1866 to 1870 by the late Saharis Jones. End of Chapter 9 End of Section 18 Section 19 of the Story of London This is a Librevox recording All Librevox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer

Please visit Libravox.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 10 Commerce and Trade Part 1 The earliest trade recorded as carried on in the British Isles considered of the exchange of tin with the Gauls

and perhaps also with Phoenician traders. Under Roman rule, the agricultural and mineral resources of Britain were more fully developed. Julius Caesar praised the Southdown Mutton, and Rome was supplied with oysters which came from Whistible and Reculvers, regulbium, and were carried through the river Stour forming the western boundary of the island of Thanet,

and were exported from Richborough, Routupier. Corn was exported in large quantities, and Lundinium, the principal port for trading with Gaul, was the centre of commerce. There is no notice of commerce during the early Anglo-Saxon period, but Beade, at the beginning of the 8th century, speaks of London as a great market which traders frequented by land or sea. The letter of protection for English pilgrims

given to offer of Mercia by Charlemagne, AD 796, which refers to trade carried on by them, has been called, quote, the first English commercial treaty, end quote. One remarkable fact is that this commerce was mainly in the hands of foreigners. London in the early times was mainly a city of foreigners. Hence the jealousy of the natives which grew in strength,

as time went on. Commerce greatly increased during the reign of Edgar, so that Ethel read his son, deemed it time to draw up a code of laws to regulate the customs to be paid by the merchants of France and Flanders, as well as by the emperor's men. But the promulgation of the laws of Athelstan, AD 925 to 929, which ordained that a merchant who had made three sea voyages should be of right Athane, is proof of the small number as well as, as of the importance of such native traders. We learn from the colloquies of the Abbott Elfrick, 11th century, that most of the commodities imported into England were articles of luxury.

The port of Dowgate was granted to the city of Rouen, as early as Edward the Confessor's reign, and the right was afterwards confirmed. The Confessor also gave a portion of Ware Money Accra within London, quote, with the wharf belonging to it, and with its market rights and places for merchandise, its stalls and shops, its rents and dues and rights,

its toll and wharfage, end quote, to St. Peter's at Ghent, which grant was confirmed by William I, 1081. After the conquest, communication with Normandy naturally increased greatly. Rouen was particularly favoured, and was granted a monopoly of trade with Ireland and freedom of commerce in London. In the 12th century, silver was imported in exchange for meat, fish and wool,

which were all sent to the manufacturing districts of the low countries. Corn was sometimes exported, but not without a license. The house or guild of the merchants of Almain, otherwise called the House of the Teutonics, was formed about the year 1169, though the Germans, under the name of Easterlings, are known to have traded here during the Saxon period. The Guild flourished in London as the merchants of the steel yard till the time of Elizabeth, when their special privileges were abolished by royal decree. Hallam tells us that from the middle of the 12th to the 13th century,

the traders of England became more and more prosperous. The towns on the southern coast exported tin and other metals in exchange for the wines of France. Those on the eastern coast sent corn to Norway, and the sink-ports battered wool against the stuffs of Flanders. The export of wool and the import of cloth were prohibited in 1261, and the prohibition was repeated in 1271. The cause of this prohibition may be illustrated by reference to a particular import, woed, which seems to show that a native woollen manufacture existed, although all the finer cloth came from Flanders.

The restrictions originally imposed upon the woed merchants would not allow them a settlement in the city, nor permit them to store their woad, which they had to sell as best they could on the wharf where it was landed. In 1237, however, the merchants of Amiens, Corby and Nesler were allowed, by special arrangement, greater freedom in the disposal of their woad and other wares. In the end, the woe merchant settled in Cannon Street, Candlewick Street, the very centre of the cloth trade in London,

as Lydgate tells us in his London Lickpenny. Quote, Then I went forth by London Stone, throughout all Canwick Street. Draper's much cloth offered me a known, end quote. Footnote. No woolen cloth was allowed to be dyed black except with woed. The whole history of the cultivation and use of woed is one of great interest. It was cultivated in England from the earliest times,

and the trade was ruined by the indigo growers, as they in turn have been ruined in our own day by the manufacture in Germany of synthetic indigo. End of footnote. London was the seat of trade in eastern luxuries, which became known largely through the influence of the Crusades. Silks, fruits, spices and Greek wines were brought here by the Italian fleet, which, after 1317, regularly visited England.

In the 13th and 14th centuries, the important, importance of our commerce is shown by the appearance of regulations for its promotion in the statute book. The statute of merchants is dated 1283 to 1285, and the Carter Mercatoria 1303. The trade with Bordeaux was very active and largely carried on by English ships from London, Bristol, Dover, and hull. Wool, herrings, lead, copper and tin were taken out in these ships, also pilgrims as passengers. The ships returned to England laden with wine and corn when the home production was short. In 1350, 141 ships carried 13,429 tons of wine from Bordeaux to England. English merchants travelled largely and made their appearance at the Great Continental Fares.

As commerce increased, the enemies of commerce also increased, and we find therefore that the Thames and the Open Sea were infested by bands of pirates. Soon after pirates had made a successful descend upon Scarborough, John Philippot, a prominent Londoner, set himself to break up the conspiracy. He fitted out a fleet at his own expense, and, putting to sea, succeeded in capturing the ringleader, a feat which rendered him so popular as to excite the jealousy of the Duke of Lancaster and other nobles. His fellow citizens showed their appreciation of his character by electing him to succeed Brember in the mayoralty in October 1387.

How serious this danger really was may be seen from the fact that not even the king was safe. When Henry IV, in order to escape the pestilence raging in London, crossed from Queensborough in Shepi to Lee in Essex, on his way to Plashy, though convoyed by Lord Camois with certain ships of war, narrowly escaped capture by pirates. A vessel containing part of his baggage and retinue, together with his vice chamberlain, fell into the hands of the enemy. This scandal naturally created a great stir, and Lord Camois was tried on a charge of correspondence with the enemy. He was acquitted, but his innocence appears to have been considered doubtful. Pirates lurked in the Thames or blockaded the mouth of the river, and to prevent them from

landing within the area of the city, the streets leading to the river were defended by chains. Still further to defend London from privateers, John Philippot offered to build, at his own cost, a stone tower 60 kings' feet in height, near Ratcliffe, provided the corporation of London would levy sixpence in the pound on the rental of the city and build a corresponding tower on the opposite side of the river so that an iron chain might be stretched from one tower to the other to protect the shipping of the river from night attack.

The danger was so imminent that the common council agreed to the proposal, but, as the alarm died away, this scheme of defence was laid aside. In 1370, quote, the mayor, alderman, and commonalty were given to understand that certain galleys, with a multitude of armed men therein, were lying off the foreland of Tannet, fanet, end quote. And it was therefore ordered that, quote, Every night, what shall be kept between the Tower of London and Billingsgate,

with 40 men at arms and 60 archers, end quote. Which watched the men of the trades underwritten, quote, agreed to keep in succession each night in the form as follows. On Tuesday, the drapers and the tailors. On Wednesday, the mercers and the apothecaries. On Thursday, the fishmongers and the butchers. On Friday, the puterers and the vintners. On Saturday, the goldsmiths and the saddlers.

on Sunday the ironmongers, the armourers and the cutlers, on Monday the Taurus, couriers, the spurious, the bowiers and the girdlers, end quote. These pirates gave a great deal of trouble up to a much later date, and the wardenship of the sink ports, then held by Cecil, was a busy post when, as in May 1616, pirate vessels were captured between broadstairs and Margate. In connection with the trade and commerce of London, fairs and markets held a very important position, but here it will only be possible to make a passing allusion to them.

Bartholomew Fair, Smithfield, granted to the prior of St. Bartholomew's by Henry II, 1133, was for several centuries the Great Cloth Fair of England. Its memory is kept alive by the street which is still known as Cloth Fair. After the dissolution of the monasteries, the fair was annually open, by the mayor, attended by the alderman. It long outlived its use and reputation, and was not finally abolished until the 19th century had run its course for some years. In the city letterbooks, there are references to other less important fares, thus a fair then only recently established in Soapelaine, now Queen Street, Cheapside,

and known as Nain, or Noon Fair, was abolished about 1307, owing to its being the resort of thieves and cut-perses. There was also a fair called La Novelle Fair, which was held in the parish of St. Nicholas Acones. Many fairs were held at different times in Southwark, Westminster and other places in the neighbourhood of London. How important the great fairs of the Middle Ages were may be seen in one instance, among others, by the fact that the citizens of London resorted in such numbers to St. Botolph's Fair, annually held at Boston, County Lincoln, on St. Botolph's Day, 17th of London. June, that all business in the court of Husting ceased, and the court was closed for a week. In the fourth book of the Libre Ulbus, there is a list of letters and other documents relating

to markets and fares, several of which relate to St. Botolph's Fair. In Saxon times, buying and selling could only be lawfully carried out before the reave of Fokhmut, a practice which necessitated a gathering in towns at fixed times, from which custom grew up the practice of each town having a market day. As a rule, this was on a Sunday, and the marketplace was often situated in the churchyard, close beneath the sheltering walls of the parish church. By the statute Winton, 13 Edward I, Fares and markets were forbidden to be held in churchyards, and the statute 27 Henry VI was the first enactment intended to enforce a due observance of Sunday. To avoid the scandal of holding fairs and markets on Sundays, and upon high

feast days, it was decreed that, quote, fares and markets shall not be holden on Sundays or on festivals, end quote, with the exception of four Sundays in harvest. There is no public right of holding fairs or markets, and the privilege emanates from the prerogative of the crown. From the earliest times the streets of London were occupied by the various trades who obtained the privilege of using them as marketplaces. The market of West Cheap or Cheapside was the chief of these public places, but almost all the trades had their appointed stations in the different streets, and in many cases the trades were not allowed to sell their wares in other places

than those assigned to them. In the time of Edward I, it was ordered, quote, that all manner of victuals that are sold by persons in cheap upon cornhull and elsewhere in the city such as bread, cheese, poultry, fruit, hides and skins, onions and garlic, and all other small victuals, for sale as well by denizens as by strangers, shall stand midway between the kennels of the streets as to be a nuisance to no one, under pain of forfeiture of the article, end quote. quote, the pavement in cheap, end quote, was a recognised marketplace for corn,

probably situated near the Church of St. Michael Lecern, at the west end of Cheapside. Stocks Market, which stood on the site of the present mansion house, was founded in 1283, and the rents were appropriated to the maintenance of London Bridge. In 1324, the wardens of the bridge made complaint that certain fishmongers and butchers had of late abandoned the market-house, had erected sheds in the King's Highway and other adjoining places, and sold their flesh and fish there, quote, whereby the rents aforesaid, which formed the greater part of the maintenance of the said bridge, had become immensely reduced to the great peril and damage of the bridge and of the city, and of all passing over such bridge,

end quote. Staples were markets where only certain goods called staple goods were allowed to be sold. The company of merchants of the staple had a monopoly of exporting the staple commodities of England, and certain staple towns, which were constantly changed, were appointed as centres of the trade. The chief export was wool, quote, the sovereign treasure, end quote, of England, wherewith she was said to keep the whole world warm. In 1328, and again in 1334, all staples were abolished and trade was free according to the Great Charter. Free trade did not last long, and the staple was fixed at Bruges in 1344.

By the ordinance of Staple, 27 Edward III, 1353, 10 staple towns were appointed in England, Wales, and Ireland, Westminster and London together being considered as one of the ten. The staple of Bruges was removed from Bruges to Westminster by this act. In 1360, part of this act was repealed. Calais remained a staple till it was temporarily suppressed in 1369, Statute 43 Edward III. By this act, the staple of wool was in future to be confined to the following English ports. Newcastle, Hull, Boston, Yarmouth, Queenborough, Westminster, Chichester, Winchester, Exeter and Bristol. The staple towns continued to be changed,

and there were great complaints made by the English in Tudor times that the staple was fixed abroad. We read that, quote, the carriage out of wool to the staple is a great hurt to the people of England, though it be profitable both to the prince and to the merchant also. End quote. The changes in the wool trade in England during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries caused an industrial revolution, the effects of which are well marked in our literature.

The raw material was no longer exported, but in its place the cloth made here was sent to countries which had formerly supplied us with cloth in exchange for our wool. In consequence, the number of wealthy merchants increased. With this prosperity, the country became proud, and the lawgivers did all they could to foster the manufacturers of the country. Footnote. Mr. W. J. Ashley notes that the earliest instance of the prohibition of the export of wool is found in the action of the Oxford Parliament of 1258.

The barons then, quote, decreed that wool of the country should be worked up in England and should not be sold to foreigners, and that everyone should use woolen cloth made within the country, end quote, unless people should be dissatisfied at having to put up

with the rough cloth of England, they bade them, quote, not to seek over-precious raiment, end quote. English Economic History and Theory 1888 to 1893. End of footnote. A statute passed in 1463, 3, Edward V. 4th,

prohibited by enumeration the import of almost all wrought goods in order that, quote, the English artificers may have employment, end quote. A similar act was passed in the reign of Henry VIII, by which foreign books could only be introduced in sheets, so that work could be provided for the English bookbinders. the famous poem written by Adam de Molinue, Mullains or Mullins, Bishop of Chichester and Keeper of the Privy Seal, died 1450, which was entitled The Libele of English Policy, 1437,

contains a full account of commodities exchanged between the countries of Western Europe. The full title of this important libellum shows its object. Quote, here begineth the prologue of the process of the the libel of English policy, exhorting all England to keep the sea environs, and namely the narrow sea, showing what profit cometh thereof, and also worship and salvation to England and to all English men. End quote. The leading idea of the little book, as may be seen from the title, is that which agitates the public mind at the present time, and shows how important it is that England should keep the seas and protect the food and clothing coming to this country.

In connection with the commerce and trade of the country, the official weighing of goods was a matter of great importance. As far back as the Saxon period, standard weights and measures were preserved in the city of London, and with these the weights and measures throughout the kingdom had to conform. The king's great beam or tron was used for weighing coarse goods by the hundredweight, and the small beam or balance for silks, spices and goods sold by the pound weight. The King's Wayhouse in Fish Street Hill, London, and the Tron Church in Edinburgh remind us of the old weighing machines of the country. It was formerly the custom to allow a margin to buyers at the Tron.

According to the Liber de Antiquis, in 1305, the wayer allowed the buyer a draft of four pounds in every hundred weight. At the present day, there is a survival of this custom in the tea trade and some others, for the importer gives a precisely similar draft to the dealer, viz, one pound in every chest of tea of 28 pounds. Foreigners and strangers were not permitted as a rule to take up their residence within the walls of London for a longer period than 40 days, and was subject to several restrictions as to trade.

Exceptions were, however, made from time to time with various foreign towns. Natives of Denmark enjoyed the privilege of sojourning in London all the year through, in addition to which they had a right to all the benefits of, quote, the law of the city of London, end quote. That is, they were entitled to the right of resorting to fair or to market in any place throughout England. Norwegian had the same right of sojourning in London all the year but did not enjoy, quote, the law of the city, end quote, as they were prohibited from

leaving it for the purposes of traffic. In February 1303, the king, by the Carter Mercatoria, granted exceptional privileges to foreign merchants, and these concessions caused great indignation among his subjects at home. A tax was exacted from these foreigners, and in 1309, the Friskabaldi were appointed by the king to receive the new custom, and two years later he ordered their arrest for failing to render an account of the money received under that head. Their detention, however, was of short duration. The act was repealed in 1311, and again enacted in 1322,

but with the accession of Edward III, it was again repealed. Foreign commerce is said to have been better governed than inland trade, for the king had an arbitrary authority in the regulation of trading. In dealing with the trade of London, it is necessary to say something about the origin of guilds, but this is a most difficult question, respecting which very different opinions are held by writers on the subject. It will be impossible to discuss these points at all fully in this chapter,

and therefore a few dates will be found sufficient for the present purpose. Medieval guilds were voluntary associated, established for mutual assistance. It is quite easy to show the likeness between them and the Roman collegia, but to do this is futile, because few now believe in any connection between these two institutions. Similar circumstances often cause similar institutions to arise. In the Middle Ages, few men and women could stand alone, and combination was a positive necessity for existence, and the people soon found that union is strength. The great authority on this subject is Mr. Toulmin Smith's work, entitled English Guilds,

which was edited by his daughter, Miss Tulman Smith, and published by the Early English Text Society in 1880. Prefixed to this great work is Dr. Brentano's valuable essay on the history of guilds, in which he writes, quote, I write to declare here most emphatically that I consider England the birthplace of guilds. End quote. Some writers have fixed upon the second half of the ninth century as the date of the origin of guilds, but Miss Toolman Smith points out that among the laws of Inna, AD 68 to 725, are too touching the liability of the brethren of a guild in the case of slaying a thief. Alfred, AD 871 to 879,

still further recognised the brotherly guild spirit in his laws as to manslaughter by a kinless man, and again where a man who has no relatives is slain. Dr. Brentano writes, quote, An already far advanced development of the guilds is shown by the Judicious Civitatus Londonier, the statutes of the London guilds, which were reduced to writing in the time of King Athelstan. From them, the guilds in and about London appeared to have united into one guild,

and to have framed common regulations for the better maintenance of people. peace, for the suppression of violence, especially of theft and the aggressions of the powerful families, as well as for carrying out rigidly the ordinances enacted by the king for that purpose, end quote. A large division of the old guilds were purely social, and there is no trace of merchant guilds before the Norman conquest, while craft guilds did not come into existence until early in the 12th century. Dr. Brentano writes, quote, the merchant guilds consisted chiefly of merchants, yet, from the first, craftsmen as such, were not excluded from them on principle. If only such craftsmen possessed the full citizenship

of the town, which citizenship, with its further development, depended on the possession of estates of a certain value situated within the territory of the town. The strict separation which existed between the merchants and the crafts probably arose only by degrees. Originally, the craftsman, no doubt, traded in the raw materials which they worked with, end quote. Mr. Ashley is of opinion that Dr. Brentano exaggerated both the independence and the economic importance of the trade guilds. He further writes, quote, We do not know whether there had ever been a guild merchant in London. However, in 1191, by the recognition of its commune, the citizens obtained complete municipal self-government

and, consequently, the recognition of the same right over trade and industry as a guild merchant would have exercised. End quote. Dr. Gross, in his work on the guild merchant, says that he can find no evidence of the existence of a merchant guild in London. Still, there were trade guilds which were aristocratic in origin, and governed by the great merchants who were the chief landowners of London. Mr. C.G. Crump, however, has lately found direct mention of origin.

of the Guild Merchant of London in 1252 in a charter of that date. Charter roll 37 Henry III. While pointing out that this was apparently unknown to Dr. Gross, as he decides against the existence of any such institution, he adds, quote, this charter, while it suggests a doubt on the point, is not conclusive because it is a very exceptional document. There is no other charter of its kind during the whole reign of Henry III.

And a Chancery Clark, endeavouring to draft a charter to convert a Florentine merchant into a citizen of London, might well have thought fit to mention a guild merchant as a matter of common form even if none actually existed. End quote. The year 1180 is an important one in the history of guilds, for then these bodies were required to pay their fines or licenses in token and recognition of their allegiance to the crown. There were 18 of these, which were immersed as,

the golds, the goldsmiths, the pepperers and the butchers being among them. The document containing this list is translated by Herbert in his work on the companies, where it is suggested that the fining of these proves that the guilds must have been numerous because some of them only could have subjected themselves to the penalty. The Mercer's claim an existence at a still earlier date, 1172, and when the Sadlers are mentioned immediately after the conquest, they are said to possess ancient statutes. Gradually the influence of the craftsman made itself felt,

and the craft guilds came into existence, but the aristocratic traders would not recognize them. The craftsman found an enthusiastic patron in Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the popular mayor, 1261 to 1265. His conduct disgusted Arnold Fitzthedmar, the city alderman and chronicler, who complains that, quote, this mayor, during the time of his mayoralty,

had so pampered the city populace that styling themselves the commons of the city, they had obtained the first voice in the city. For the mayor, in doing all that he had to do, acted and determined through them, and would say to them, is it your will that so it shall be? And then if they answered,

yeah, yeah, so it was done. And on the other hand, The alderman or chief citizens were little or not at all consulted on such matter, but were in fact just as though they had not existed. End quote. After the Battle of Evesham, the city was taken into the king's hands, 1265 to 1270, and a very despotic and wicked action was perpetrated. Fitz Thomas and some other prominent citizens were summoned to Windsor,

and there were kept prisoners. Some of these regained their liberty, but nothing more was heard of Fitz Thomas, as Dr. Reginald Sharp writes. Quote, From the time that he entered Windsor Castle, he disappears from public view. That he was alive in May 1266, at least in the belief of his fellow citizens, is shown by their cry for the release of him and his companions, who are at Windle Shores, end quote.

The craftsman lost a valiant friend, but another was raised up in his place. Walter Hervey, who was hated by the alderman for his democratic opinions, but loved by the Commons, was elected mayor in 1272. Fresh ordinances for the regulation of various crafts were drawn up, and to these the mayor, on his own responsibility, attached the city seal. When his year of office expired, these so-called charters were called in question, and in 1274 they were examined in the hustings before all the people and declared void. The craft guilds were supposed to be defeated, but this was not really so, for the merchants found that the struggle between the trade guilds and the craft guilds was an unequal one. They therefore, with much worldly wisdom, joined the latter, and gradually gained an ascendancy in them. Mr. Ashley affirms that from the reign of Edward II, the guild system was no longer merely tolerated,

but it was fostered and extended. The years which followed the peace of Breitigny, until war broke out afresh in 1369, witnessed the reorganisation of many of the trade and craft guilds. In 1376 the guilds rested for a time from the wards, the right of electing members of the city's council. The guilds continued to elect until 1384 when the right of election was again transferred to the wards. The names of the representatives of the guilds forming the first common council of the kind are placed on record in letterbook H. End of Chapter 10 Part 1 End of Section 19

Section 20 of the Story of London This is a Librevox recording All Libravots recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Librevox.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 10, Commerce and Trade Part 2

The year 1388 to 1389 was an important one in the history of guilds. The writs of 12 Richard II had important effects, and the returns form the chief substance of Mr. Toolman-Smith's English guilds. There were two distinct rits. A, the writ for returns from the socialists. guilds. B. The writ for returns from craft guilds. Toolman Smith printed the writs with these side notes. A. Quote, The sheriffs of London, and of every shire in England, shall, by authority of the Parliament

that lately met at Cambridge, make proclamation calling on the master and wardens of all the social guilds, all guilds and brotherhoods whatsoever, to send up returns before the second day of February, AD 1388 to 9. B. The sheriffs of London, and of every shire in England, shall, by authority of the Parliament that lately met at Cambridge, make proclamation calling on the masters, wardens and overlookers of all guilds of crafts holding any charter or letters patent to send up before the second day of February, 1388 to 9, copies of such charters and letters upon penalty of forfeiture, end quote. The original writs were returned by the London sheriffs with this endorsement Quote

When and by whom proclamation was made in London and the suburbs Fleet Street in the suburbs The Standard in West Cheap The Leavenhall, Cornhill St. Magnus Church, Bridge Street St. Martin's Church, Vintry, Southwark End quote In Mr. Toalman-Smith's book

only three of the returns relate to London, and these are not from craft guilds. They are the Guild of Garlic Hithe, the Guild of St. Catherine, Aldersgate, and the Guild of St. Fabian and Sebastian, Aldersgate. It is not necessary to give extracts from these returns, but we can obtain a good idea of the objects of these guilds from Mr. Toolman-Smith's side notes,

which are as follows. Garlic Hithe Quote The Guild was begun in 1375 to nourish good fellowship All brethren must be of good repute Each shall pay six shillings and eight-pence on entry There shall be wardens who shall gather in the payments And yield an account thereof yearly

A livery suit shall be worn The brethren and sisterin shall hold a yearly feast Two shillings a year shall be paid by each. Four meetings touching the guild's welfare shall be held in each year. Free gifts by the brethren. Ill-behaved brethren shall be put out of the guild. No livery suit shall be sold within a year. On death of any, all the rest shall join in the burial service and make offerings under penalty.

In case of quarrel, the matter shall be laid before. for the wardens. Whoever disobeys their award shall be put out of the guild, and the other shall be helped. Weekly help to all seven-year brethren in old age and in sickness, and to those wrongfully imprisoned. Newcomers shall swear to keep the ordinances. Every brother chosen warden must serve, or pay forty shillings, end quote. St. Catherine.

quote These are the ordinances of the Guild Oath on entry and a kiss of love, charity and peace Weekly help in poverty, Old age, sickness or loss by fire or water, etc. Payments by brethren and sister in

Members of the Guild shall go to church and afterwards choose officers. Burials shall be attended. The Guild shall be attended. bear charge of burials. Any brother dying within ten miles round London shall have worshipful burial. All costs thereof shall be made good by the guild. Loans to guild brethren out of the guild stock on pledge or surety. Wax lights to be found and used at times named. Further services after death. Newcomers by assent only. Four men shall keep the goods of the guild and romewomen. And

render an account yearly, assent of all the guild to new ordinances. The goods of the guild are a vestment, a chalice, and a mass book, price of ten marks, end quote. Saints Fabian and Sebastian Quote, Oath on entry and a kiss of love, charity and peace. Weekly help in poverty, old age, sickness or loss by fire or water, etc. The young to be helped to get work. Payments by brethren and sisterin. Four days of meeting in the year when all must attend under penalty.

Burials shall be attended. The guild shall bear charge of burials. Those dying within ten miles round London shall be fetched to London for burial. Loans to guild brethren out of the guild stock on pledge or surety. wax lights to be found and used at times named ill-behaved brethren shall be put out of the guild entry of new brethren four men shall keep the goods of the guild and render an account yearly assent of all the guild to new ordinances grant of a house in aldersgate worth four pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence a year less quit rent of thirteen shillings a year the profits of which are applied in aid of the guild." End quote.

These regulations with their general likeness and slight divergences help us to understand the guild life of the Middle Ages, which, it will be seen, was essentially practical and helpful to the growth of good feeling among those who were brought together in constant intercourse. The rules of the guild were often very strict, and men of evil life were put out of the fraternity. Moreover, idlers and ne'er-do-wells were not to expect to be relieved from the funds of the Guild.

From the ordinances of the Guild of St Anne in the Church of St. Lawrence's Jewry, we learn that, quote, If any man be of good state, and use him to lie long in bed, and at rising of his bed, nay will not work but go to the tavern, and in this manner falleth poor, and trust to be helpen by the fraternity, that man shall never have good, nay help of company,

neither in his life nor at his death, but he shall be put off for ever more of the company. End quote. Mr. Toulman Smith's returns are taken from the originals in the public record office, and, has already been noted, by some fatality there are no records of the craft guilds. The next great point in the history of guilds, is connected with their abolition by the act of First Edward VI, 1547,

a most iniquitous measure. Miss Tulman Smith tells us how her father's indignation was roused by his researches into the story of the fate of the guilds. Quote, in a manuscript note, he remarks that for the abolition of monasteries, there was some colour, and after, professed inquiries as to manners. Moreover, allowances were made to all ranks. But in case of guilds, much wider, no pretense of inquiry or of mischief and no allowance whatsoever. A case of pure wholesale robbery and plunder, done by an unscrupulous faction to satisfy their

personal greed under cover of law. No more gross case of want and plunder is to be found in the history of all Europe, no page so black in English history. End quote. Of course there is another side to the question, and Mr. Ashley, who discusses very fully the consequence of the act of Edward VI, thinks that it has been unfairly condemned. He says that, so far as the companies were concerned,

the bill did not propose to take from them anything more than the revenues actually used for religious purposes. And further, that the statute neither abolished, nor dissolved, nor suppressed, nor destroyed, the companies, but left all their corporate powers and rights intact, except so far as religious usages were concerned. We must remember, however, that Mr. Toolman-Smith's indignation was roused not so much by the forfeiture of certain trusts in the hands of the livery companies,

as by the robbery of the small guilds all over the country. The early history of most of the city companies is rather disconnected, and, owing to the loss and destruction of documents, the mode by which the craft guilds were amalgamated with the livery companies is not very easy to follow. Still, the likeness between the two institutions is so marked, and their duties so similar, that there is no difficulty in acknowledging the fusion. To take a single instance, it may be mentioned that the original guild of goldsmiths had exactly similar public duties to perform that are now performed by the present Goldsmith's company. This connection has usually been taken for granted, but it is necessary to allude to the question

here, because Mr. Loftey, a high authority on the history of London, has strongly disputed this connection. In 1883 Mr. Lofty wrote, quote, the identification of the adulterine guilds with the later companies is scarcely possible, end quote. And again in 1887, quote, The Weaver's Company is not the only one which claims to represent directly an ancient guild, but it is the only one whose claim has anything so like a reasonable foundation. End quote. These are, however, only casual remarks, but in his latest work he has elaborated his attack in the following terms.

Quote, Popular errors are very difficult to deal with effectually. One of the most persistent is that which confounds the city guilds with the city companies. Here, two widely different things are inextricably confused, and that too not in mere catch-penny popular books, but in books pretending to be more or less authority. In the common run of London histories, Guild means company and company means guild.

To begin with, there are now no guilds in London. By an act passed in 1557, all religious guilds were abolished and all guildable property was confiscated. But as there were no guilds not religious, and as the property of guilds was held in trust to provide burials, masses, and sometimes chantries for deceased members, the guilds and their land, and their money and their priestly vestments, and their illuminated manuscripts, all ceased to exist absolutely, and not only so, but it is a became penal to revive them. A city company which calls itself a guild renders itself liable to forfeiture,

a penalty which would, of course, be rather difficult to enforce. End quote. There are two statements here which may be challenged, one that all guilds were religious, and the other that all guilds were abolished by Act of Parliament. Certainly the guilds which were not instituted for purposes of trade protection have often been styled religious. But Mr. Toulman Smith preferred to class them as social guilds,

and I think wisely, as already stated, their objects were entirely practical and social. Mr. Toulman Smith writes, quote, The guilds were lay bodies, and existed for lay purposes, and the better to enable those who belonged to them rightly and understandingly to fulfill their neighbourly duties as freemen in a free state. End quote.

Religious duties were performed, but these were only incidental to the life of the time, and consisted mostly of services connected with the serious occasions in the life of laymen, which were general in the periods that have been stalled, quote, ages of faith, end quote. As to the second point, a reference to the statute of one Edward VIII will show us that the craft guilds are exempted from its operation. In the Statutes of the Realm, one of the side notes to the, quote, act whereby certain chantries, colleges, free chapels, and the possessions of the same, be given to the king's majesty, end quote, runs as follows. Quote, all brotherhoods or guilds and their possessions except companies of trade vested in the king,

end quote. The text is, quote, other than such corporations, guilds, fraternities, companies and fellowships of mysteries or crafts, end quote. I think we must allow that the terms of this act strongly corroborate the general belief that the old craft guilds and the later companies were so closely connected as to be practically the same. Having dealt with the general question of guilds, we can now pass on to consider the influence of the different trades upon London life. The origin of the companies seems to have been largely connected with the result of a combination of the numerous sections of a

particular trade. Some trades were so important that they could stand alone. Thus the Goldsmith's guild became the Goldsmith's company, but most of the other companies were formed by the union of more than one guild. A marked feature of the old trades of London was the minute subdivisions which took place among them. Thus there were hatters, capers, chapplers, mares, makers of caps, and heurers. The latter were makers of hures, or rough, hairy caps. The hurers and cappers were united to the hatters by charter of Henry V the 7th in the 16 year of his reign, and again united in the following year to the haberdashers by the king's license under his great seal. The company subsequently known and chartered as the cloth workers was first incorporated by letters patent

of Edward VIII in 1482 as the, quote, eternity of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Shearman of London." The Fullers were taken into Union in 1528, thereby constituting the cloth-workers' company. A convincing proof of the connection of the guilds with companies, and the natural succession of the latter from the former, is seen in this case of the cloth-workers' company. It appears from a deed dated the 15th of July 1456 that John Badby did remise, etc., unto John Hungerford and others, citizens and sheermen of London, quote, a tenement and mansion house,

shops, sellers, and other the appurtenances, lying in Minchin Lane and their heirs forever, end quote. This is the site of the cloth workers' hall, the cloth workers' company being the natural heirs of the Guild of Shearman. There is much interest connected with the occupation of the sheerman, who sheared the nap of wool. woolen clothes in the Middle Ages were expected to last a lifetime.

When the new nap was very long, and as the clothes became shabby, it was customary to have them shorn, a process which was repeated as long as the stuff would bear it. In the delightful old ballad reprinted in Percy's reliquis, quote, take thy old cloak about thee, end quote. The old cloak that had been in wear for 44 years was likely to be a sorry clout at the end of that time, which would hold out neither wind nor rain. Well might the husband resolve,

quote, For once I'll new apparelled be, Tomorrow I'll to town and spend, For I'll have a new cloak about me, end quote. But the wife's plea for thrift and her statement, Quote, it pride that puts this country down, end quote, succeeds in the end, and the ballad ends

Quote, As we began, we now will leave, and I'll take mine old cloak about me. End quote. The aid of the sherman was not merely called in by the poor, for we learn that the Countess of Leicester, Eleanor, third daughter of King John and wife of Simon De Montfort, in 1265 sent Heek the tailor to London to get her robes re-s shorn.

The date of the ballad was probably early, although the king alluded to in the printed text is King Stephen, in that of the Scotch version Robert, and in the Percy manuscript, a vague King Henry. The ballad must have had a wide popularity, for Shakespeare alludes to it twice. Iago quotes a whole stanza in Act 2 of Othello, and Trinquilo in Act 4 of the Tempest evidently alludes to it when he says,

quote, O King Stefano, O Peer, O Worthy Stefano, look what a wardrobe here is for thee, end quote. The number of trades connected with clothing were singularly numerous. Besides the shearman, or Tondor, there were the Felliper, or Filippa or Friperer, who dealt in second-hand clothes, and the furber, or furbisher of old clothes. Dr. Brentano points out that in all manufacturing countries, in England, Flanders, and Brabant, as well as in the Rhenish towns, the most ancient guilds were those of the weavers. And Mr. Ashley writes that the first craft guilds to come into notice were the weavers and fullers of woolen cloth.

No weaver or fuller might go outside the town to sell his own cloth, and so interfere with the monopoly of the merchants, nor was he allowed to sell his cloth to any save a merchant of the town. The suppression did not continue for long, and in the reign of Henry III we find the feud between the citizens and the guild again in full force. When the authorities of the guild feared that the citizens would overpower them, they delivered their, quote, charter into the exchequer to be kept in the treasury there, and to be delivered to them again when they should want it,

and afterwards to be laid up in the treasury, end quote. Mr. Green says that in 1300 the mayor had gained the right to preside in the weaver's court if he chose, and to nominate the wardens of the guild, In the 14th year of Edward II, AD 1320 to 1321, the privileges of the weavers came before a court of law. In spite of the distinguished position that the Guild of Weavers held in its early days, the present Weavers' company only stands 42nd in the order of the livery companies. Many of the old trades of London have been entirely lost sight of,

and their names only exist among the patronymics of the people. The great feud between the victualing and clothing trades of London was one of the most remarkable features of the 14th century. Some allusion has been made to this in Chapter 8 on the governors of the city, but a reference must also be made here in connection with the history of the London companies. After the Peasants' Revolt, London was the battlefield of rival factions. The Friends of the King, Richard II, were found among the great merchants of the victualling trades. In one year, 16 of the 25 aldermen were grossers, and Nicholas Brember was chief of them. The fishmongers, of whom Sir William Walworth was the leader, were scarcely less powerful.

The victualers were very unpopular, and the public have always specially resented any advance in the price of food. Complaints were rife in the chief cities of the country of the abuses of the victualers, and an act, 12 Edward II, was passed to the effect of the fact that the fact that the fact that the fact that that, quote, no officer of a city or borough shall sell wine or victuals during his office. End quote. This act was frequently evaded, and another act was passed in 1382. In the end, the Act of Edward II was repealed. 3. Henry VIII, 1511 to 1512.

Footnote. The reason given for the repeal of the Act of Edward II excluding vitualers from the Office of Mayor is that, that, quote, since the making of the statute, many and the most part of all cities, boroughs, and towns corporate be fallen in ruin and decay, and not inhabited with merchants and men of such substance as they were at the time of making the statute. For at this day, the dwellers and inhabitants of the same cities and boroughs be most commonly bakers, brewers, vintners, fishmongers, and other victualers, and few or none other persons of substance.

end quote. Mr. W. J. Ashley in his introduction to English economic history and theory observes that, quote, without further proof, it were hardly safe to build on the wide language of the preamble of a statute, a conclusion which seems in obvious conflict with what we know of the generic course of events. End quote. In London, evidently, little or no attention was paid to the original active ed with the second, but in other places,

this was not the case. The statute of Henry VIII provided that when the mayor was a victualer, two honest and discreet persons, not being victualers, should be chosen to assist him in settling prices of victuals. End of footnote. John of Northampton, when he became mayor, took advantage of this act and began a policy of aggression directed against the victualing interest. He turned all his enemies off the governing body, and victualers were forbidden to hold office in the city. These feuds were very serious, and the two leaders were unfortunate in their ends. Brember was executed in 1388, and John of Northampton was sent to the tower and imprisoned in Tintagel Castle. A few words may be said here about the classes of trades represented by the

guilds and companies commencing with the bakers. The price of bread was regulated by law, according to the price of wheat, and the mayor had the right to levy a half-pence for every quarter of corn sent to the mill. This tax was called Pessage, from Pisa, a corruption of medieval Latin pencer, a weight.

The right was called in question at the eater held in the tower in 1321, but the matter was adjourned for the consideration of the king and his council. The fraudulent baker had a bad time, for he was sometimes carried about in a tumbril, and at other times he was put in the pillory. For his first offence, the culprit was drawn upon a hurdle from Guildhall

through the most populous and most dirty streets, with a defective loaf hanging from his neck. On a second occasion he was drawn from the Guildhall, quote, through the great streets of cheap, end quote, to the pillory which was usually erected in cheap or cheapside, and there he was exposed for one hour. For the third offence he was again drawn on the hurdle, his oven was pulled down and he was compelled to forswear the trade in London forever. The use of the hurdle was discontinued in favour of the pillory in the reign of Edward II. Another offence punished by exposure in the pillory, besides short weight and bad quality, was the putting of iron in a loaf of bread to increase its weight. In the famine of 1258,

when the Earl of Cornwall's 60 cargoes of grain arrived, the first thing the king had to do was to issue an ordinance against the greed of the middlemen, known as forestallers and regrators. No words appeared to have been found too strong to hurl at these unfortunate middlemen, but the regrettresses, or female retailers who bought bread at the markets and delivered it from house to house, were contented with a small profit. These dealers were privileged by law to receive 13 batches for 12, hence the expression a baker's dozen. This seems to have been the extent of their profits. It was once the practice

of a baker to give each regrettress who dealt with him six pence on Monday morning by way of estrine or present, and three pence on Friday as courtesy money. But this was forbidden by public ordinance, and the bakers were ordered to let all such payments in future go towards increasing the size of the loaf, quote, to the profit of the people, end quote. Corn used to be stored by the city and the companies against times of scarcity, but the origin of the practice is obscure, and no obligation to provide corn appears to have been imposed upon any of the companies by the terms of their charters. Sir Simon Eyre, mayor in 1435, formed a public granary in Lednor. Stowe and Fuller eulogized Sir Stephen Brown, who, in 1438, was energetic in his

endeavours to get corn stored in the city granaries. In 1578, the farmers of the bridgehouse divided the store into 12 equal parts, and the same by lots were appropriated to the 12 companies, to each of them an equal part for the bestowing and keeping of the said corn. Pannier, or Panya, Ali, leading from Newgate Street to Patinosteroe, was once the standing place for bakers with their bread paniers. The bakers of London were divided into white bakers and brown or tort bakers, Tertorarii, who made a coarse bread of unbolted meal. No maker of white bread was allowed to make tort, nor a tort baker to make white bread. House bread was prepared by the bakers of household bread, while hostilers, by whom it was exclusively used, were forbidden to make it.

Similar trades were the pastilers, who made pies and other kinds of pastry, pie bakers and cooks. Butchers The sale of butcher's meat seems to have been somewhat limited during the Middle Ages in comparison with the population, although the number of butchers within the city walls were quite sufficient to create a considerable nuisance. Smithfield was then the great cattle market,

as it remained until our own time. Lean swine was sold there, probably with the purpose of fattening them in the town. The chief meat markets within the city walls were Stocks Market and the flesh shambles of St. Nicholas in Newgate Street and its vicinity. A lease of the latter place to the butchers in 1343 is recorded in Riley's memorials. The shocking condition of Newgate Street is, indicated by such names as

Stinking Lane, St. Nicholas's Shambles, and Blowbladder Street. There was a butcher's bridge on the Thames side, near Bainard's Castle, to which the offal was brought from Newgate Street through the streets and lanes of the city, by which, quote, grievous corruption

and filth have been generated, end quote. The evil, in fact, was so great that a royal order was issued in 1369 for the removal of Butcher's Bridge. The foreign butchers, or those who did not possess the freedom of the city, brought their meat to shambles just outside the civic boundary. On the west, near St. Clement's Church in the Strand, there was a butcher row, and in the east, immediately beyond Aldgate was another butcher row.

This last still exists as Aldgate Market, and consists of a row of butcher shops on the south side of the High Street. Formerly imported animals were killed behind the shops. The unfortunate tradesmen had to submit to public enactment, by which the exact price of the commodities they sold was fixed. In the reign of Edward I, the carcass of the best ox was sold for 13 shillings and fourpence, of the best pig for four shillings, of the best sheep for two shillings. The ill-treated butcher had no redress, for a provision was added to the order that if any person should withdraw himself from the trade by reason of the said ordinance, he should lose the freedom of the city, and be compelled to forswear the trade forever. These instances of interference with trade

continued for centuries, and we learned that in 1533 it was enacted that butcher should sell their beef and mutton by weight, beef for half a pence a pound, and mutton for three-quarters of a pence. Stowe, in relating this, adds that at this time and not before, foreign butchers were allowed to sell their flesh in leadenal market. Fishmongers The information relating to the sale of fish in the city records proves how largely the population of London in the Middle Ages depended upon its ample supply. There was great variety, and a large number of enactments were made as to the sale.

The fish mentioned in the Leibald. Albus as being sold in the London market are sturgeon, cod, ray, herring, bass, conga, sole, mackerel, surmullet, turbot, porpoise, haddock, sealing, sprats, salmon, shad, eels, pike, barble, roach, dais, dabs, flounders, lampreys, smelts, sticklings, oysters, oysters, Muscles, cockles, welks, scallops and stockfish imported from Prussia. Of these, sprats, herrings, mussels, welks and oysters are most often mentioned, but lobsters, crabs and

shrimps are not alluded to. Fish was not allowed to be sold retail upon the keys. The stalls in stock's market were occupied by the fishmongers on fish days and by the butchers on flesh days. Other retail markets for fish were held by the Wall of St Margaret's Church, New Fish Street, by the Wall of St. Mary Magdalens in Old Fish Street, and in West Cheap. Stowe Wrights are the first of these places. Quote, in this Old Fish Street is one row of small houses, placed along in the midst of Night Rider Street, which row is also off Bread Street Ward. These houses, now possessed by fishmongers, were at the first but moved.

boards or stalls set out on market days to show their fish there to be sold. But procuring license to set up sheds, they grew to shops, and by little and little to tall houses of three or four stories in height. End quote. Salmon, cod, and herrings are mentioned in the Libre albus as being sold in the shops in the neighbourhood of Queen Hithe. Old Fish Street and Old Fish Street Hill, which run from it to the Thames, with Queen Hithe as their landing key, formed the chief fish market of London before Billings Gates are planted Queen Hithe. A curious regulation is found in a royal ordinance in existence as early as the reign of Henry III, by which the first boat in the season with fresh herrings from Yarmouth was forced to pay double custom at the key.

Fishmongers selling fish in large quantities to their customers were to sell by the basket, such basket to be capable of containing one bushel of oats, and, if found efficient, to be burnt in open market. Each basket was also to contain one kind of seafish and the fishmongers were warned not to colour their baskets, or, in other words, not to put good fish on the top and inferior beneath. Very stringent regulations were also made with respect to the size of nets used for fishing in the Thames,

and any such which were contrary to these regulations were ruthlessly destroyed. The trade of the stock fishmonger was, quite distinct from that of the ordinary fishmonger, and these belonged respectively to two separate companies. They were united in 1537. TEM Street was formerly known as Stock Fishmonger Row. The abbot of St. Albans enjoyed the privilege of buying fish directly of the fishermen, for which he paid the bailiff of the market a fee of one mark per annum. The monks, however, appeared to have taken an undue advantage of their privilege, and an order was issued by the hallmote of the fishmonger, quote, that good care be taken that the buyers of the abbey take out of the city fish for the use of

the abbot and convent only, end quote. Poulterers Many of the streets of London must have been almost impassable from the stalls of the traders and the chaffering of the buyers and sellers. This evil grew and the complaints of obstruction were great. Endeavours were made to provide covered markets, but so many of the trades had special standards. appropriated to them, as we see on all sides by the names of the streets, that it was impossible to dislodge them. Free poultryers had several special localities appropriated to their use.

One was Cornhill. They were ordered to stand at the west side of St. Michael's Church, and were strictly forbidden to sail to the east of the town, the site of which and the conduit are now marked by an unused pump, nearly facing No. 30 Cornhill. Another stander is a place of the road to standing was close by and still retains the name of the poultry. Stowe tells that it was once known as scolding alley because the poultry which the poultry was sold was scolded there. Still another standing was in Newgate Street, close by the butcher's shambles.

Foreign poulterers were ordered to sell their wares at the corner of leadenal, known as the Carfewks or Carfax. The articles dealt in by palturers were rabbits, game, eggs and poultry. Eggs were brought to market in baskets on men's backs, and poultry upon horses. The prices of poultry, like those of other food, were assessed by the mare from time to time, and duly proclaimed. In the reign of Edward I, the best hen was sold for threepence,

the best rabbit with the skin for fivepence, and without for fourpence. 100 eggs, 120 to the 100, for 8 pence, a partridge for threepence, a plover for tuppence, and 8 larks for 1 pence. Footnote These prices obtained from the Libre Albus are of great interest. Of course, it is necessary to bear in mind the great difference in the value of money. It is impossible to fix a uniform standard of comparison, but we may put the present value broadly at between 12 and 20 times that of the reign of Edward I, the latter being more likely to be a true one. It will thus be seen that much food was dearer in the Middle Ages than at

present. A rabbit and its skin are considerably less valuable now, as also a partridge. End of footnote. The body of London citizens suffered from one great evil in marketing, and that was that lords and great people were allowed the pick of the market. It was a common practice for the purveyors and servants of these great people to visit the various markets between midnight and Prime, 6am, after which hour the poorer classes were allowed to market. It is thus ordered by a proclamation of Edward I that no polterer, fishmonger, or regrator shall buy any kind of victuals for resale until Prime has been run out at St. Paul's, quote, so that the buyers for the king

and the great lords of the land and the good people of the city may make good their purchases so far as they shall need." End of Chapter 10 Part 2. End of Section 20. Section 21 of The Story of London. This is a Librevox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Weekly Chapter 10 Commerce and Trade Part 3

Grocers The grocers, properly grocers or wholesale sellers in gross were for some time the chief of the victual in companies. They were originally known as the pepperers of Soapalane and the apothecaries were associated with the grocers until they were incorporated as a distinct company in 1617. By various charters and ordinances, the company of grocers was entrusted with the examining, sorting and passing of spices and drugs.

They were empowered to enter the shops of grocers, drugists, confectioners, tobacco cutters within the city and three miles around it, to seize and confiscate adulterated and unwholesome goods, and to fine and, in default of payment, imprison delinquent dealers. Brewers and Vintners A passing allusion must be made to the sale of drink in London, which has always been very considerable. Mr Riley tells us that there is no mention of milk as an article of sale or otherwise in the Libre Albus, and butter must have been a very inferior quality,

for it was sold by liquid measure. The ale tavern or alehouse was a distinct establishment from the wine tavern. In 1309, the number of taverns in London was 354, whilst the number of brewers amounted to no less than 1,334. The ale brewed was a very different product from what we understand by the term now, as malt liquor was not hopped in those days. Hops were not used in the making of beer until the early years of the 16th century. Mr. Riley says that the best ale was no better than sweet wart,

and so thin that it might be drunk in potations, potal deep, without danger to the head. The smallest measure mentioned in the Libre Albus is the quart, so that it was evidently drunk in large quantities. It was used immediately after being made, as may be inferred from the fact that, according to the doomsday of St. Paul's, the brewings at the Cathedral Brewery took place twice a week throughout the year.

Immediately after a brewing was finished, it was the duty of the brewer, or rather brewster, for the business was almost entirely in the hands of women until the beginning of the 16th century, to send for the ale, Conner of the ward, in order to taste the ale. If this officer was not satisfied with its quality, he, with the ascent of his alderman, set a lower price upon it, which, upon sale thereof, was not to be exceeded. Fine, imprisonment, and even punishment by pillory was the result of reiterated breach. of the Assize. The Assize's price of ale varied at different periods. At one time, it was three-quarters of a penny per gallon and no more, but later the price was one and a half-pence for the best,

and three-quarters of a penny to one penny for the second quality. The Vintners were an important body, and were mostly located in the vintry, a district which has kept its name to the present time. The Vintners company consisted of Vinatarii, or Wine Importers and Merceres. merchants, and tabernarii, tavernkeepers, or retailers of wine. The public taste in wine was not a very refined one in the Middle Ages, or possibly the liquor did not keep very well, as new wine was preferred to old. It was enacted that after the arrival of new wine at a tavern, none of it should be sold before the old was disposed of. There is no illusion in the Libre albus to bottles or flasks, and all the wine seems to have been drawn from the wood. Taverners who sold sweet wines were forbidden to

deal in other kinds. The sweet wine denumerated, on Malvesy, a modern-day Malmsey, a Greek wine sold in the reign of Richard II at 16 pence per gallon. Vernage, Venetia, a red Tuscan wine sold at two shillings, Crete sold at one shilling, and wine of Provence sold at the same price, probably a kind of roussion. By Royal Rit of 39 Edward III, only three taverns for the sale of sweet wines were in future to be permitted within the city, in Cheap, Walbrook and Lombard Street.

In the class of non-sweet wines were Rennish, sold in the reign of Richard II at eight pence per gallon, and red, Vermeigh, at sixpence. Other wines came from Gascany, Burgundy, Rochelle, and Spain. No wine was permitted to be sold till it had been submitted to a scrutiny and been duly gauged. In the reign of Edward III, four vintners were chosen yearly to assess the prices of wine. King's pricage, or custom, was taken according to a certain scale on all imported wines. The wine taverns were furnished with a pole projecting from the gable of the house

and supporting a sign or a bunch of leaves at the end. The bush of the proverb, Good wine needs no one. bush. In one ordinance it is stated that the poles of the taverns of cheapside and elsewhere were of such a length as to be in the way of persons on horseback, and so heavy as to cause the risk of greatly damaging the houses. In consequence of this, it was enacted that from thence forth no sign poles should be more than seven feet in length. No ale or wine tavern was allowed to remain open after curfew. The clothing trades are well represented among the city companies. The Mercer's head the list of the 12, and the Freeman were originally, quote,

Chapman in small or mixed wares, end quote. That is, those articles which were sold retail by the little balance or small scale, in contradistinction to those things sold by the beam, or in gross, as they did business in the Mercery, cheapside. Wadmull, a coarse woollen stuff, lake or fine linen, fustian, felt, etc, were among these small wares. Gradually the Mercers of Cheap extended their dealings, became vendors of silks and velvets in the reign of Henry VI, and formed a mixed body of merchants and shopkeepers, leaving the small wares, or Mercery proper, to the haberdashes. Sir William Stone held the position of Mercer to Queen Elizabeth, and supplied her with her wardrobe.

The haberdasher's imported a cloth at first styled Halberject, and in the 14th century, hapitas, from which, as Mr. Riley suggests, the term haberdasher probably originated. Subsequently, the heurers and the hatters joined them. The merchant tailors and linen armourers are, in some documents styled Mercatores Cizores, scissors of London, scissors and fraternity of St. John Baptist, titles alike pointing to their being anciently both tailors and cutters, and also making the padding and interior lining of armour, as well as manufacturing garments. Tailors made dresses for both sexes, their prices, as usual, being regulated by public enactment. By ordinance of the reign of Edward III, it is declared that,

quote, Taylor's shall henceforth take for a robe, garnished with silk, 18 pence. For a man's robe, garnished with thread and buckram, 14 pence. Also a coat and hood, ten pence. Also for a lady's long dress, garnished with silk and sandale, two shillings and sixpence.

Also for a pair of sleeves for changing, fourpence. End quote. The Draper's Company is the third on the list of the twelve great companies, and the second of the clothing companies, the Mercer's being the first. Henry Fitz Aylwyn, the first mayor of London, was a freeman of the Draper's Guild, to which he left by will an inn called the Checker in the parish of St. Mary Bothor. The skinners represented the trade that dealt with furs. The furs mentioned in the Libre Albus as imported are

Martin skins, rabbit skins, dressed wolfels, Spanish squirrel skins, and grace of or grey work. In the reign of Edward I, an enactment was made that, quote, No woman, except a lady who is in the habit of using furs, shall have a hood furred with dressed wilfell, pellure, end quote. Women of ill fame were forbidden at one period to wear Minerva or other furs, though at a later date they were permitted to use lambswool and rabbit skin.

No mixed work, formed of different kinds of skins, was allowed to be made, and no new fur was to be worked up with the old. Quote, The skinner unto the field moot also, His house in London is to strait and scars, To doon his craft, Some time it was not so. O lords, yev unto your men here pars,

That so doone, and acquaint him bet with Mars. God of battle, he loieth non-array, That hurteth manhood at pre-for-ess-s-a-say. The raiment of princes, by Thomas Hockleave. End quote. The Cloth Workers Company, formed by a junction of the guilds

of Shearman and Fullers, has already been alluded to. The minor companies connected with the clothing trades require some notice here. The corduainers held a prominent position, but in the reign of Edward I, 1st, 1303, there were public complaints of frauds

and irregularities brought against them, and charges were made that they mixed inferior with the superior leather. They were continually at feud with the cobblers, and every endeavour was made to keep the two trades distinct. The cord-wainers were forbidden to mend shoes, and the cobblers to make them. Moreover, throughout the 13th and 14th and 15th centuries, there were fixed regulations not only that cordwainers should use new leather in making shoes, but that cobblers should be restricted wholly to the use of old leather in mending them. The latter were even punished for having new leather in their possession.

In the reign of Edward III, the prices fixed for boots and shoes were, a pair of shoes made of cordwain, sixpence, made of cow leather, fivepence, a pair of boots made of cordwain, three shillings and sixpence, made of cow leather, three shillings. This shows that boots were then very dear. In Edward Vorth's reign, the Cordwainers stood up for the defence of their trade against the decree of the Pope. They were decidedly in the wrong, but one cannot but admire their pluckiness. The story is told in William Gregory's Chronicle of London, which is thus paraphrased by Dr. James Gardner, the editor.

Quote, The Pope issued a bull that no corduainer should make any pikes, at the toes of the shoes, more than two inches long. or sell shoes on Sunday, or even fit a shoe upon a man's foot on Sunday, on pain of excommunication. Neither was the Cordwainer to attend fares on a Sunday under the same penalty. For not only were fairs held on that day, but the Cordwainer's services, it must be supposed, were required at the fairs to adjust the dandy's chasseur, just as much as, in a later age, the barber's aid was necessary to dress his wig. The papal bull was approved by the king's council and confirmed by act of parliament, and proclamation was consequently made at Paul's cross that it should be put in execution.

Yet, with all this weight of authority against a silly fashion, the dandy world had its own ideas upon the subject, and some men ventured to say they would wear long pikes in spite of the Pope, for the Pope's curse would not kill a fly. The Cordwainers too had a vested interest in the extravagant, though some of their own body had been instrumental in getting the Pope's interference. They obtained privy seals and protections from the king to exempt them from the operation of the law, which soon became a dead letter,

and those who had applied to the Pope to restrain their practices were subjected to much trouble and persecution. End quote. The leather cellars had still more to do with leather than the corduainers, and the same complaints were made against them for passing off inferior for superior leather. In the 14th and 15th centuries, several ordinances were issued regulating the trade of the leather sellers in the city of London, and for the prevention of deceit in the manufacture and sale of their wares. Persers or glovers were incorporated with the leather sellers in 1502,

but in 1638, a new company of glovers was formed. The girdlers made belts or girdles for men and women. They were also called Centurias and Zer. Donars. In 1217, one Henry III, Benedict Saint-Turer was one of the sheriffs of London. The company still exists, although it cannot be said that the calling survived the reign of Charles II. The goldsmith's company stands almost alone, on account of the great services to the state which it performs in connection with the important trade it represents, and also in connection with the trial of the gold and silver coined in the picks of His Majesty's Mint.

a service which has been performed without intermission, at any rate, since the year 1281. This history also contains a strong argument in favour of the received opinion that the companies are the lineal descendants of the guilds. For the craft of goldsmiths performed by statute the same duties of assaying vessels of gold and silver that the present company does. The Act, 28 Edward I, recites that, quote, the wardens of the craft shall go from shop to shop among the goldsmiths to essay if their gold be of the same touch that is spoken of before, end quote.

According to Stowe's Chronicle, a variance fell between the fellowships of goldsmiths and tailors in 1268, quote, causing great ruffling in the city and many men to be slain, for which riot 13 of the captains were hanged, end quote. by the first charter won edward the third thirteen twenty seven quote the company were allowed to elect honest lawful and sufficient men but skilled in the trade to inquire of any matters of complaint and who might in consideration of the craft reform what defects they should find therein and punish offenders It states that it had been theretofore ordained that all those who were of the goldsmith's trade should sit in their shops in the high street of cheap, and that no silver or plate ought to be sold in the city of London, except at the King's Exchange, or in the said street of cheap amongst the goldsmiths,

and that publicly, to the end that the persons of the said trade might inform themselves whether the sellers came lawfully by such vessels or not. whereas of late, not only the merchants and strangers bought counterfeit sterling in the realm, and also many of the trade of goldsmiths kept shops in obscure turnings and by-lains and streets, but did buy vessels of gold and silver secretly, without inquiring whether such vessels were stolen or lawfully come by, and melting it down, did make it into plate, and sell it to merchants travelling beyond seas, that it might be exported.

And so they made false work of gold and silver, which they sold to those who had no skill in such things. These abuses and deceptions this charter provides against by ordaining that no gold or silver shall be manufactured to be sent abroad but what shall be sold at the king's exchange, or openly amongst the goldsmiths, and that none, pretending to be goldsmiths, shall keep any shops but in cheap.

End quote. The king's exchange for the receipt of bullion was situated in the street leading from cheap side to nightriders. Street, known from the early part of the 17th century as Old Change. The London Goldsmith's chiefly inhabited Cheapside, Old Change, Lombard Street, Foster Lane, St. Martin's La Grande, Silver Street, Goldsmith Street, and the lanes about Goldsmith's Hall. That part of the south side of Cheapside from Bred Street to the Cross was called Goldsmith's Row. It was described in enthusiastic terms by Sturhamstead.

as, quote, the most beautiful frame of fair houses and shops that be within the walls of London or elsewhere in England. The same was rebuilt by Thomas Wood, Goldsmith, one of the sheriffs of London in the year 1491. It containeth in number ten fair dwelling houses and 14 shops, all in one frame, uniformly built four stories high, beautified towards the street with the Goldsmith's arms and the likeness of Woodman, in memory of his name, riding on monstrous beasts, all which is cast in lead, richly painted over, and gilt. These he gave to the goldsmiths, with stocks of money, to be lent to young men having those shops. This said front was again new-painted and gilt over in the year 1594. Sir Richard Martin, being then mayor, and keeping his mayoralty in one of them.

end quote. Sir Walter Pridot, in his valuable memorials of the goldsmiths company, says that the native and the foreign goldsmiths appear to have been divided into classes, and to have enjoyed different privileges. First, there were the members of the company who were chiefly, but not exclusively, Englishmen. Their shops were subject to the control of the company. They had the advantages conferred by the company on its members, and they made certain payments for the support of the fellowship.

The second division comprised the non-freemen, who were called allows, that is to say, allowed or licensed. There were allows English, allows alacant, alacant strangers, Dutchmen, men of the fraternity of St. Louis, etc. All these paid tribute to the company and were also subject to their control. All the livery companies possessed a class of young unmarried members called The Bachelors, and in the Goldsmith's company a special place was reserved for their lodging. This was known as Bachelors' Alley or Court, and was situated between Foster Lane and Gutter Lane.

The lodgings were supplied at, quote, very small and easy rents, end quote, the greatest not to exceed eight shillings per annum. The tenants could continue as long as they were unmarried, but difficulties arose by reason of attempts at underletting without authority, and disorderly persons gave much trouble. In 1595, an order was promulgated, quote, that from henceforth, no goldsmith shall have his dwelling in any of the tenements in bachelor's alley before he be admitted by the wardens for the time being,

and that everyone so admitted shall forthwith enter into a bond to deliver to the wardens at his departure, the key of his tenement, and quietly to quit possession of the same." Sir Walter Pridot states that at the early period of the first charter, the goldsmiths acted as bankers and pawnbrokers. They received pledges not only of plate, but of other articles, such as cloth of gold and pieces of napery. St. Dunstam was the patron saint of the company, and feasts were held on his day,

when also bells were set ringing. This saint's likeness in wood, guilt, formed the figurehead of the company's barge. There was also a chapel of St Dunstan in St. Paul's Cathedral which was attached to the company. In the foregoing remarks, there are some references to the livery companies, but these are introduced more particularly

on account of the light thrown by them upon the trade of London. The work of the guilds was devoted to the trades which they represented, but in course of time many of the companies lost touch with the trades whose names they bore. This largely came about in a quite natural way, and the privilege of introduction to a company by patrimony calls the addition to the list of freemen of a large number of those who were engaged in other occupations. The relative position in precedence of the various companies have continually altered, and there is no information to show how the 12 chief companies have attained that commanding position.

The feuds between the trades continued to comparatively late times. Peep's relates, in 1664, how there was a fray in more fields between the butchers and the weavers, between whom there had ever been a competition for mastery. At first, the butchers knocked down all the weavers that had green or blue aprons, but at last the butchers were fain to pull off their sleeves that they might not be known, and were soundly beaten out of the field. Some note must be made here of the Jews and of the Italian moneylenders, who for so long carried on the financial business of the country.

One of the many hardships which the Jews suffered in this country was that wherever they might dwell, they were compelled to bury their dead in London. This regulation was abolished by Henry II in 1777. The cruel calumny that the Jews at Lincoln crucified a Christian child brought them into great trouble, and in 1256, 1002 Jews, were brought from Lincoln to Westminster charged with this crime. Eighteen of them were hanged, and the remainder lay in prison for a long time. Clipping of money became very general about 1278, and the Jews were supposed to be the chief

culprits. Those who were suspected, with their Christian accomplices, were arrested, and at the end of the trial 300 Jews were condemned to be hanged, as well as three Christians. Nearly all the goldsmiths and money has escaped the death penalty. In 1290 came the final blow when every Jew was expelled from England. It is difficult to understand Edward I's motive in banishing a class of men who were so useful to him. In Stowe's Chronicle, it is said that as their houses were sold, quote, the king made a mighty mass of money, end quote, but the action certainly added to his difficulties and drove him to

resort to the Italian financiers who were no more popular with the citizens than the Jews. The expulsion was ascribed to the instigation of the king's mother, Eleanor, widow of Henry III, but it certainly expressed the will of the nation. Stowe gives the number of Jews banished as 15,060, but this is probably an exaggeration. The number of London Jews is estimated at 2000. The old Jewry was originally the ghetto of London. and the burial place of the Jews was on the site of Jewin Street. Mr. Joseph Jacobs, who compiled a valuable account of the old jury,

is of the opinion that the Jews no longer lived in this place at the time of the expulsion. There was a jury within the liberty of the tower in the 13th century, and there is still a jury street, Altgate. The republics of Italy during the Middle Ages were the home of finance, and had advanced far before the other states of Europe in wealth and civilization, The necessities of the great countries of Europe, caused by the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries, were the opportunity of companies of moneylenders

who acted as the Pope's collectors. Before the close of the reign of Henry III, the Italians had gained a firm footing in England as merchants and moneylenders. Citizens of Siena, Luca, and Florence came here and fought with the Jews for the financial control of the country. Matthew Paris relates that Roger, Bishop of London, anathematize the Caorsi and banished them from his diocese in 1235, in spite of the support of,

quote, judges that were servants, familiaribus, to the Coorsi, whom they had elected for their will, end quote. In the early years of Edward I's reign, there were four companies of merchants of Siena acting under the title of Camsore's Pape. In his ninth year, the keepers of the exchange delivered £10,000 to Lombard merchants, as they are styled in the record, in part payment of sums they had lent to the king. It is recorded that between the 23rd and 27th years of his reign, Edward I contracted a debt to the Friscobaldi alone of not less than £15,800.

The king wanted much money for his wars, and, as he could no longer look to the Jews, he was forced to apply for aid to the Italians. These loans grew so formidable that they caused considerable financial embarrassments in the reign of Edward II. There were a large number of companies such as the Ricciardi, the Bardi, the Peruzzi and the Spini, but the Frisgobaldi, of which family there were several companies,

occur most frequently in London history. Amarigo de Friscabaldi was constable of Bordeaux in the first year of Edward II's reign. Here are two entries from the city records. Quote, 14th of February, 1299 to 1300. Thursday after the feast of St. Valentine came John de Pontes, Goldsmith,

and acknowledged himself bound to Faldo Yamiano of the Society of Frescobaldi in the sum of 8 pounds and 45 pence sterling to be paid at Easter next. 2nd of February 1305 to 6. Andrew La Marischal acknowledged himself indebted to Bettinas Friskabaldi and his partners, merchants of the company of Frisgobaldi,

in the sum of £102,13 shillings and fourpence. End quote. The loans in the reign of Edward III were very considerable, and the unpopularity of the Italians was great. In 1376, a petition was presented to the king by the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London against usurious foreign moneylenders dwelling in London, asking that the Lombards might be forbidden from dwelling in the city,

or acting as brokers and buying and selling by retail, which they alleged to be against their ancient franchises. The king answered the petition to the effect that if the citizens would put the city under good government for the future, no foreigner should be allowed to dwell, act as broker, or sell by retail in London or the suburbs, save and accept the merchants of the Hans towns. On the whole, we must extend our sympathy to the attention,

Italians, for the king was not very prompt in paying his debts, and he considered it immoral to have promised any interest. The effect was that he ruined many of these unfortunate foreigners. The name of Lombard Street occurs in the city books in 1382, and was in common use at the beginning of the 14th century. It is a remarkable fact that the locality in which the Italian financiers first settled in London should obtain a name which has continued to the present day as a synonym of finance, and was used by the late Mr. Badgett as the title of his great work. Matthew Paris tells us that the houses which the Italian moneylenders built for themselves were so costly that, although at one period the Italians were anxious to leave the kingdom

to escape the persecutions they suffered from, they were constrained to remain by the loss they feared to incur by deserting their houses. In 1456, a serious attack was made upon the houses of the Lombards by the Merces and other craft, led by William Cantalo, Alderman and Mercer, who was summoned before the king's council and imprisoned. We learn also from the Pastern letters that two of the men who joined in the attack were hanged. In Gregory's Chronicle,

it is said that the Lombards were compelled to quit London and take up their residence in Southampton and Winchester. Dr James Gardner writes of this outbreak, quote, The withdrawal of the Lombard merchants, in all probability, produced a sensible effect upon the commerce of the city, for they made a bylaw among themselves that no individual merchant of northern Italy should henceforth go to London and trade there."

This ordinance, the signory of Venice ratified by a decree of the Senate, and prohibited, under a heavy fine, all Venetian vessels from visiting the port of London. In spite of all this turmoil, affairs settled down again, and the foreigners appeared to have returned to their London houses. In connection with the introduction of Italian bankers into London, the popular derivation of bankrupt from a broken bench is naturally called to mind, and I have tried to find some allusion in the city records to a broken bench in Lombard Street, but without success.

In Florio's A New World of Words, or Dictionary in Italian and English, 1598, we find the following entries. Quote, banker, a bench or a form, bankerota, a bankrupt, end quote. In Toriano's edition of Florio, 1650, we come upon these amplified entries. Quote, Bankerota, a bankrupt merchant, one that hath broken his credit. Banka Falito, a bank broken, a merchant's credit cracked.

This is the explanation that commends it. itself to Dr. Murray, New English Dictionary, who writes that he cannot trace the reference to a broken bench earlier than that of Dr. Johnson, who introduced the suggestion with the formula, quote, it is said, end quote. There is, however, an early note bearing on this derivation in Sir John Skeen's remarkable little book, Devorbarum Significatione, 1641, where we read, under the words Dior, Dior, Divore, this expert. In Latin, Sedere Bonus, Wilk is most commonly used amongst merchants to make bankrupt, or bankrupt, because the door thereof, as it were, break is his bank, stall, or seat,

where he used his traffic of before, end quote. No earlier date for the use of the word than the reign of Henry VIII has been found by Professor Skiy or Dr. Murray. But surely an earlier reference must be lurking somewhere. In the first folio of Shakespeare, the word is printed, bancorote, pronounced as four syllables, but this was altered in later editions to bankrupt. There can be no doubt that the word is directly derived from bankerota, and that the form bankrupt is an afterthought of the learned to connect it with the Latin language. The point that has to be accounted for is the strange approach. The point that has to be accounted for is the strange appropriation of an expression meaning broken bench or broken bank to the individual

whose credit is broken. This one would naturally expect to be a secondary meaning. In concluding this chapter, it is necessary to make an allusion to the statute merchant, 11, Edward I, for the recovery of debts. The first two letterbooks of the City of London are chiefly concerned with recognisances of debts, and they are of great value as illustrating the commercial intercourse of the citizens of London in the 13th and 14th centuries with Gascany and Spain, more especially in connection with wine and leather. By the statute of Acton-Burnau, 11th, it was enacted that recognisances of debts should be taken before the mayor and a clerk appointed by the king. Nevertheless, within a very short while after the passing of this statute,

and notwithstanding its express provision to the contrary, we find the mayor, sheriffs and alderman declaring that such recognisances should be made before the city chamberlain, who might, if he liked, receive, as he frequently did, the recognisances at his own house instead of at the Guildhall. It was ordered that the recognisances should bear, quote, the debtor's seal and also the king's seal, end quote, to be provided for the purpose. This latter seal appears to be no longer in existence. From impressions of it preserved at King's, College, Cambridge, and elsewhere, it is found to have been circular, and nearly three-quarters of an inch in diameter, with the king's bust between two castles with the line of England in

base. The following entry from Letterbook A forms an interesting illustration of the contents of these books. Quote, Lawrence de Gisorz acknowledged before Henry LaGalais, the mayor, that he owed Sir Philip LaTayle a cask of wine to be delivered on a certain love day, Diem Amorale. because the said Lawrence killed a dog belonging to him. End quote. End of Chapter 10. End of Section 21. Section 22 of the Story of London.

This is a Librevox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravoc.org. Read by Paul Lawley-Jones. The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley. Chapter 11 The Church and Education Part 1 The influence of the church during the medieval period was great.

In London, the dean and chapter of St. Paul's, secular canons, held the first place after the bishop. Then came other bodies of secular and regular canons, followed by the monks and friars and officers of the hospitals, etc. Last in rank, but most esteemed by the people, came the rectors and vicars of the various parishes. Here was a large army of persons forming the officials of the church, and the buildings of the church occupied a very large portion of the city and of the land beyond its walls. Between the secular and the regular clergy, a great feud always existed. During the Saxon period the number of religious houses was few,

but a great increase occurred almost immediately after the conquest. Monastries grew in number rapidly during the Norman period, but in time, the monks having grown rich and lazy, the need of a revival became evident. The great movement of evangelization which took place during the early Plantagenet period when the friars came from Italy to England, caused a religious revolution. Poverty and humility were the great principles of the friars, but these were soon forgotten, and in the 14th and 15th centuries, all the regulars became equally obnoxious to the reformers.

Wycliffe and his followers preached against them, and writers with such different views as Langland and Chaucer had little but evil to say of them. Chaucer condemns monks and friars alike, and reserves his praise for the poor parish priest. We must first deal with the bishop and the secular clergy and then consider the conditions relative to the establishment of the regulars, ending with a note on education in London during the Middle Ages. The Cathedral Church of St. Paul's is of great antiquity, and was established in the first period of Saxon Christianity.

There have been three buildings on the same site, and the first was erected in the earliest years of the 7th century by Meletus, the missionary bishop, and Ethelbert, King of Kent. Although this church existed for nearly five centuries, no record whatever remains of it. Sir Gilbert Scott wrote, quote, I am not aware that we have any information as to the cathedral

built by the companions of Augustine, Meletus and Justice, at London and Rochester. Curiously enough, there continues to this day at Rochester and continue to the 17th century in our own St. Paul's, equally as at Canterbury, a crypt beneath the elevated sanctuary, no doubt the lineal successor and representative of those erected by the missionary bishops, in imitation of the great

basilica at Rome, whence they had been sent to evangelise this distant region. End quote. Urquanwald, whose shrine stood at the back of the high altar in the oldest church, was the fourth Bishop, AD 675 to 693, and it was at his house in London that Archbishop Theodore, the organiser of the Church of England, was reconciled to Bishop Wilfred after their long estrangement. Elphun, or Alhunus, was Bishop of London in 1012, and performed the burial service over Elfa, or Alphage, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was murdered by the Danes and buried in St. Paul's. William, the chaplain of Edward the Confessor, was consecrated in 1051.

He was driven from England with the other foreign prelates in the following year, but returned to his sea and died in 1075. It was he who was addressed as William Bishop, in William the Conqueror's Charter to the Citizens of London. The first Church of St. Paul's was destroyed by fire at the end of the 11th century, but the exact time is not certain, as Matthew of Westminster and Roger of Wendover give conflicting dates for the rebuilding.

There seems to be no doubt that the second cathedral was commenced by Bishop Morris and as he was not consecrated until 1085, the date given by Dougdale, 1083, must be wrong. Probably the received date of 1087, the last year of William the Conqueror's reign, is more correct. Fire again did great damage in the year 1136,

but the work of rebuilding proceeded slowly and in 1221 the steeple was finished. The choir was rebuilt and the whole building was nearly completed by 1283. Old St Paul's was a very grand building which took a prominent position amongst the cathedrals of the country. It was longer than Winchester and the height of the choir was the same as Westminster. That of the nave was rather less. The crowning glory of Old St. Paul's was its eleanor. elegant spire, but the building itself had many beauties, the magnificent rose window at the east end of the Lady Chapel, with a beautiful seven-light window beneath, being among these.

This grand building, therefore, standing on a hill in the most prominent position of the city, was, for several centuries, the great ornament of London, bringing in harmony all the picturesque elements of the medieval town. In the year 1314 the cross fell and the steeple of wood being ruinous, was taken down and rebuilt with a new gilt ball. Many relics were found in the cross, which were replaced in the new cross, and the new pommel or ball was made of sufficient size to contain ten bushels of corn. A chronicle in Lambeth Palace Library contains an account of the solemn dedication of those relics, which is quoted by Canon Benham.

Quote, On the tenth of the Callens of June 1314, Gilbert, Bishop of London, dedicated altars, namely those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of St. Thomas the Martyr, and of the Blessed Dunstan, in the new buildings of the Church of St. Paul, London. In the same year, the cross and the ball with great part of the Campanile of the Church of St. Paul, were taken down because they were decayed and dangerous, and a new cross, with a ball well gilt, was erected, and many relics of diverse saints were, for the protection of the aforesaid Campanil, and of the whole structure beneath, placed within the cross, with a great procession,

and with due solemnity, by Gilbert the Bishop, on the fourth of the nones of October, in order that the omnipotent God and the glorious merits of his saints, whose relics are contained within the cross, might deign to protect from all danger of storms. End quote. In 1444, the spire was nearly destroyed by lightning and was not repaired until 1462. In the severe fire of 1561, the spy was destroyed and never rebuilt, although the rest of the cathedral was restored in 1566. The great height of the steeple gave point to many a proverb,

and in Lodges Wounds of Civil War 1594, a clown talks of the, quote, Paul's Steeple of Honor, end quote, meaning by that phrase the highest point that could be attained. The choristers ascended the spire to a great height on certain saints' days and chanting prayers and anthems, a custom still observed in the Tower of Magdalene College Oxford on May Day. The last observance of the custom at St Paul's is said to have taken place in the reign of Mary the First. The Western Front was originally a plain Norman façade of great size, which was flanked by two strong stone towers.

the one on the north was connected with the bishop's palace, while that on the south was called the Lollards Tower, and was used as the bishop's prison, quote, for such as were detected for opinions in religion contrary to the faith of the church. End quote. Stowe's survey.

Footnote. In 1633, Inigo Jones designed, at the expense of Charles I, a classic portico of some beauty in itself, but quite incongruous to the Gothic design of the rest of the building. The king, however, is said to have intended to rebuild the church, and of this scheme the portico was an instalment, but political events effectually prevented this from being carried out.

After the restoration, but before the fire of London, it was proposed to rebuild the cathedral in the style of the Renaissance, under the direction of Wren, who had no more liking for Gothic than Inigo Jones had. End of footnote. St. Paul's churchyard was formerly an enclosure and not a thoroughfare. The public route to cheapside from Ludgate Hill passed up the old Bailey and along Newgate Street. The cathedral close is thus described by the late Dr. Sparrow Simpson.

Quote, The wall erected about 1109 and, by letters patent of Edward I, greatly strengthened in 1285, extends from the northeast court. corner of Ave Maria Lane, runs eastward along Patinoster Row to the north end of old change in Cheapside, thence southward to Carter Lane, and on the north of Carter Lane to Creed Lane, back to the Great Western Gate. There are six entrances to the enclosure. The first is the Great Western Gate by which we have just entered. The second, in Paul's Alley in Patinoster Row, leading to the Posterne Gate of the Cathedral. The third at Cannon Alley.

the fourth, or Little Gate, where St. Paul's Churchyard and Cheapside now unite, the fifth, St. Augustine's Gate, at the west end of Watling Street, the sixth at Paul's Chain, end quote. The Great Western Gate spanned the street towards the ends of Creed Lane and Ave Maria Lane. When entering the gate, the west front of the cathedral came in view. The old church of St. Gregory adjoined the main building at the southwest corner. It stood in the same position to the first cathedral, and within its walls the body of St. Edmund, king and martyr, was preserved for a time before it was carried to bury St. Edmund's for honourable burial. The early history of this church is lost, and it is not known whether it was

destroyed with the first cathedral and rose again from its ashes like the second cathedral, or whether it continued for a time in its original state. It was pulled down before 1645 and not rebuilt, on the northern side of the nave of the cathedral stood the bishop's palace, a large and gloomy building. Still further to the north, past the palace and its grounds, was the cemetery called Pardon Church Haw. Here was a cloister painted with the subjects of the dance macabre, or dance of death, commonly known as the Dance of St. Paul's. John Lydgate translated out of French the old verses that explained these paintings. Over the the east quadrant of the cloister was the cathedral library, built by Walter Sherrington,

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Henry the Sixth's time, and Cannon Residentiary. At one time the library was, quote, well furnished with fair written books in Vellum. End quote. In the midst of the churchyard was a chapel, first founded by Gilbert, the father of Thomas Abackett, and rebuilt by Dean Moore in the reign of Henry V. Nearby was Minor Canons Hall and the College of Minor Canons or Peter's College. The charnel house, with a chapel over it, stood at the northeast, not far from Paul's Cross. Footnote. Paul's Cross was pulled down in 1642, but its site was long marked by a tall elm tree.

This mark passed away and the exact position was forgotten. In 1879, however, Mr. F. C. Penry found the remains of the octagonal base, which are now to be seen at the northeast angle of the choir of the present cathedral. End of footnote. This building existed in the reign of Edward I, and the chapel contained some monuments and alabaster figures. Among the historians of St. Paul's, there is some little confusion respecting these various chapels. Paul's Cross holds a very prominent position in the history of the religious life of the Middle Ages, and for many years after. In ages when the voice of the people was largely inarticulate, the preacher has often been the man to make it heard. Stowe describes the cross as having, quote, being for many ages,

the most solemn place in this nation, for the greatest divines and most eminent scholars to preach at, end quote, and Carlisle calls it a kind of Times newspaper. It is worthy of remark that the position of Paul's cross was near the place where the ancient folk moots were held, and the former continued the traditions of the latter. At the east end of the cathedral was St. Paul's school, founded by Dean Collett and the famous bell tower, formed of wood covered with lead, and containing the common bell, which called the people to their folkmoots, and afterwards four bells, known as the Jesus bells, because they specially belong to Jesus Chapel in the crypt of the cathedral. As the open space at the east end was claimed by the citizens as a place

for their assemblies in folk moots, so the space at the west end was reserved for the military displays in connection with the appearance of Fitzwalter as banner of the city. On the south side of the close and to the west of the transept was the old octagonal chapter house, with its own two-storied cloister built in 1332. This was a small but beautiful building. Footnote. During the Commonwealth, it was proposed to turn the so-called Convocation House into a meeting place for Mr. John Simpson's congregation. A plan, dated 1657, in the Public Records Office, shows the remains of the pillars of the cloisters as they were then. End of footnote. Close by stood the House of the Chancellor. On the south-west is the deanery,

first built by Ralph de Dicito, and more westward, various houses for the use of the cannons. On the south side of the cathedral also stood the dormitory, refectory, kitchen, bakehouse, and brewery of the college. The brewhouse became subsequently the Paul's Head Tavern. This brief list of the buildings in the old cathedral close will give some idea of the arrangement of the College of Secular Canons and the houses which they occupied. Having walked round the close, we may now enter the Cathedral Church at the western end where were three gates or entries. The middle gate had a massive pillar of brass, to which the leaves of the great door were fastened.

In the nave were twelve noble Norman bays with Norman triforium and pointed clarestery windows. It is probable that originally the roof of the nave was a flat painted ceiling, but Mr. Ferry supposes that a vaulted roof was added in 1255. Apparently, this was originally of wood, but that stone vaulting was intended may be inferred from the flying buttresses in some of the pictures of the cathedral. The view along the nave, as represented in Hollar's engraving, is very fine, and reminds one of the noble knave at Eli.

Both the nave and the choir had twelve bays counting from, the west door. The second bay of the north side contained the court of convocation, and close by was the font near which Sir John Montecute desired in his will, 1388, to be buried. Quote, if I die in London, then I desire that my body may be buried in St. Paul's, near to the font wherein I was baptized. End quote. In the tenth bay was the Chantry Chapel of Thomas Kemp, Bishop of the Diocese, 1448 to 1489, and Rebuilder of Paul's Cross. In the 11th Bay, on the south side was the tomb of Sir John Beauchon, Knight of the Garter, died, 1358, Constable of Dover Castle, and son to Guy Beauchon, Earl of Warwick.

This tomb was commonly called after Duke Humphrey, and the knave of the church from this misnomer went by the name of Duke Humphrey's Walk. On May Day, Waterman and Tankard Bearers came to the tomb early in the morning, strewed herbs upon it, and sprinkled it with water. At the foot of this tomb was the image of the Virgin, before which a lamp was kept perpetually burning,

and every morning after Matanz, a short office was said before it. A taper was also kept burning before the Great Crucifix, near to the north door, fabulously said to have been discovered by King Lucius, AD 140. Richard Martin, Bishop of St. David's in the reign of Edward IV, had a special veneration for this crucifix, and left an annual gift to the choristers that they might sing before it,

Sancteus Fortis. Footnote. The amount of the offerings at St. Paul's during the Middle Ages must have been enormous. For instance, the receipts at the Great Crucifix in May 1344 amounted to no less than 50 pounds in the money of that day. End of footnote. In the North Isle was the famous sequist door, on which notices were fixed. Originally, these were probably purely ecclesiastical, but in course of time all classes made

their wants known there. Decker writes, quote, The first time that you venture into St. Paul's, passed through the body of the church like a porter, yet presume not to fetch so much as one whole turn in the middle aisle, no, nor to cast an eye to sequest door, pasted and plastered up with serving men's supplications, before you have paid tribute to the top of Paul's steeple with a single penny. End quote. Bishop Hall, in his satires, shows that churchmen could be hired there too.

Quote, "'Sourced thou ever sequest patched on Paul's church door, "'to seek some vacant vicarage before?' "'End quote. "'This practice is elusive. to by Chaucer. Quote, He set not his benefice to hire,

and leaped his sheep encumbered in the mire, and ran to London unto St. Paul's, to seek an him a chauntry for souls. Prologue to Canterbury Tales. End quote. Passing from the nave to the transept, we noticed that the central tower was treated as a lantern internally, and was open to the base of the spire.

The choir was cut off by a screen, with a central archway. On each side of the entrance were four canopies with figures beneath them. An ascent of twelve steps took the worshipper to the level of the choir pavement. The choir was naturally the most gorgeous portion of the cathedral. The architecture was pure and noble, and the carved woodwork of the cannon stalls was famous for its beauty. The Riados and high altar, dedicated in honour of St Paul, formed the chief attraction of the choir. There was also an altar to the north, dedicated in honour of St. Ethelbert, King and Confessor, and one to the south, dedicated to St. Meletus. Six more steps led to the sanctuary, from which the worshipper could pass behind the altar screen.

Eastward of the screen was the famous shrine of St. Erkenwald. Mention has already been made of the original tomb in the first cathedral. Legend reports that in the fire of the 11th century, the saint's resting place alone remained unharmed. On the 14th of November 1148, his bones were transferred to a more noble tomb. Gilbert de Seagrave laid the first stone of a still more magnificent shrine in 1314, in which the body of the saint was placed on the 1st of February 1326. This was, for a long period, the most famous of the tombs of Old St. Paul's, to which pilgrims flocked from distant parts, and riches of all kinds were lavished upon it.

A canon of the church, Walter de Thorpe, gave to it all his gold rings and jewels. The dean and chapter in 18 Edward II presented a rich store of gold and silver and precious stones. In the 31st of Edward III, three goldsmiths were engaged upon it for a whole year at wages of eight shillings a week for one and five shillings a week for each of the others. King John of France, when he was a prisoner in England, made an offering of 12 notes. and Richard de Preston, Citizen and Grosser, presented a remarkable sapphire in the reign of Richard the Second. This stone was supposed to cure infirmities of the eyes, and the donor directed proclamation to be made of its great virtues. Dean Evere, in 1407, provided an endowment for

the lights which burned before the shrine. The choir was full of tombs and brasses, many of them of great importance. On the north side stood the stately tomb of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, died, 1399, with recumbent figures of the Duke and his second wife, Constance of Castile. Special offices were performed at several of the shrines, especially those of St. Erkenwald and St. Thomas of Lancaster, as the grandson of Henry III was popularly styled, although he was never canonised. On the 28th of June 1323, Edward II sent a letter to Stephen Gravesend, Bishop of London,

commanding him to prohibit the reverence pay to Thomas of Lancaster in the cathedral. The High Altar was the scene twice a year of a strange custom, which was kept up for several centuries. Sir William LeBand, in 1275, commenced to give yearly a dough in winter and a fat buck in summer to be offered at the altar and then distributed to the resident canons. These were given in lieu of 22 acres of land lying within the lordship of Wesley in Essex, to be enclosed within his park of Torringham,

so that the knight appears to have made a very good bargain. The reception of the buck and doe was, quote, till Queen Elizabeth's days, solemnly performed at the steps of the choir by the canons of this cathedral, attired in sacred vestments, and wearing garlands of flowers on their, heads, and the horns of the buck carried on the top of a spear in procession roundabout within the body of the church, with a great noise of hornblowers. End quote. As already stated, the choir was

rebuilt early in the 13th century, and in 1255 it was considerably extended. Previously, a street ran close to the east end, from Watling Street to Cheapside, and here stood the old church of St. Faith. The exact site of the houses was marked by nine wells in a row which were found by Wren. When this street was built over and the church pulled down, the parishioners were provided with the church in the crypt. About the middle of the north side of the choir was a low arched door, and from this six and twenty steps led down to St. Faith's, at the eastern end of which was the Jesus Chapel. We have now traced the principal features of the exterior and interior of Old St. Paul's, and a few words may be said of the body who governed the cathedral.

Bishop Stubbs in the remarkable preface which he added to the Master of the Rolls edition of the Historical Works of Ralph the Dicito, Dean of London, at the end of the 12th century, has given a vivid picture of the ecclesiastical greatness of London during the reigns of Henry II and Richard I. Ralph was the friend of Fitz Stephen, the biographer of Beckett, and before he became Dean, he had held the office of our first. Archdeacon. Stubbs writes, quote,

the fact that the Cathedral of Canterbury was in the hands of a monastic chapter left St. Paul's at the head of the secular clergy of southern England. It was an educational centre, too, where young statesmen spent their leisure in something like self-culture. London, with its 40,000 inhabitants, had 120 churches all looking to the cathedral as their mother. The resident cannons had to exercise a magnificent hospitality, carefully prescribed in ancient statutes.

Twice a year, each of them had to entertain the whole staff of the cathedral and to invite the bishop, the mayor, the sheriffs, aldermen, justices and great men of the court. End quote. The dean was a capable head, and his government stands out in history as one of the most successful during a very difficult period. Quote,

early in 1187, Ralph lost his old friend patron, Bishop Foliow, and the Sea of London was not filled up for nearly three years. Within a few weeks after Follio's death, he had to receive the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin, who visited the church on mid-Lent Sunday, and he took advantage of the opportunity to obtain from him an injunction forbidding the persons who were in charge of the temporalities of the sea to interfere with the spiritual officers in the discharge of their duties. End quote. How important a body the chapter of St Paul's really was

may be inferred from the remarkable fact stated by Sergeant Pulling in his work on the Order of the Coiff that among the canons in the reign of Henry III were as many as ten of the judges at Westminster Hall. The early history of the parishes of London is one of great difficulty and complexity. Although some of the parishes must be of great antiquity, we have little authentic information respecting them,

before the conquest. The dedications of many of the churches indicate their great age, but the constant fires in London not only destroyed the buildings, but also the records within the buildings. The original churches appear to have been very small, as may be judged from their number. It is not easy, however, to understand how it was that when the parishes were first formed, so small an area was attached to each. Mr. Lofty is of opinion that there is no proof that London was divided into more than three or four parishes until the time of Alfred, or indeed till much later. He has written a very instructive chapter on the church in London, in his London historic towns, 1887, but he is not able to give any very definite information.

Moreover, he doubts whether it is wise to take for granted the early dedications of, for instance, such churches as are named in honour of saints Alphidg, Magnus, and Olev, or of Saints Ethelberger and Osith. The parish church of which we have the most authentic notice before the conquest is St. Helens Bishop's Gate, in existence many years before the prairie of the nuns of St. Helens was founded. In Ten Ten, the remains of St Edmund, King and Marta, were removed from Edmundsbury in order that they might not fall into the hands of the Danes, and deposited in the Church of St. Helen where they remained for three years.

Many of the London churches were small, but some were of considerable size. When the religious houses were dissolved, the churches of some of these became the most important of the parish churches. The Church of St. Mary Le Bo in Cheapside, better known as Boe Church, is named from having been the first in London built on arches of stone, and the Norman crypt is of great interest. When Wren built his church, he used these arches of the old churches to support. his own superstructure. This crypt also gives its name to the court of arches which was held here.

In the Libre Albus, there is a chapter on the periodical visits of the mayor to various churches on certain saints, such as to St. Thomas's at the Feast of All Saints, November 1st, to St. Peter's on Cornhill on the Monday in the Feast of Pentecost, and to St. Bartholomew's and St. Michael Le Cairn on other occasions. The position of the parish priest was a good one in the eyes of the parishioners, who looked up to him as a friend and resented the interference with his duties by monks and chantry priests. Among the parish priests, the highest rank was conceded to the rector of St. Peter's Cornhill.

The medieval writers who are mostly vituperative when speaking of monks and friars have little but good to say of the parson. The great evil of lay rectorship, which has done so much to be so much to bellows, to injure the church was largely introduced by the monasteries. Bishop Stubbs, in his introduction to the historical works of Ralph de Dicito, writes, quote, St. Paul stood at the head of the religious life of London, and by its side, at some considerable interval, however, St. Martins-Lagrand, St. Bartholomew's Smithfield,

and the great and ancient foundation of Trinity, Aldgate. End quote. Besides the chapter of St. Paul's, there were several other bodies of secular canons. One of these was at the Collegiate Church of St. Martin-Lagrand within Aldersgate, which church was founded about AD 1056, and its privileges confirmed by William the Conqueror. It had special rights as a royal free chapel, and its privileges of sanctuary were given by Henry the 8th to the abbot and convent of Westminster. Others were the College of St Michael Crooked Lane, founded by William Walworth in 1380,

Barking College, Holmes College, and several other colleges in London, besides the Collegiate Chapel of St. Stephen, Westminster. The Canons regular of the Order of St. Austin occupied the Priory of Christ Church or Holy Trinity, the Priory of St. Bartholomew in Smithfield, the Priory of St. Mary Overy and Southwark, and many hospitals. These cannons were less strict than monks, but lived under one roof and had a common dormitory and refectory. They were well-shod, well-clothed, and well-fed. Monks always shaved, but cannons wore beards and caps on their heads. The chief rule of the cannons regular was that of St. Augustine, or Austin, Bishop of Hippo, AD 395. The order was little known until the 10th or 11th centuries, and was not brought to the first of

to England until after the Norman conquest, and the designation of Austin canons was not adopted until some years afterwards. The Priory of Christ Church, or the Holy Trinity within Aldgate, was a house of the first importance in London, and the Pope absolved it from all jurisdiction. Norman, the first prior, was the first canon regular of his order in England. The priory was founded in 1108 by Queen Maud, and in 1125 of the first canon regular of his order in England. The priory was founded in 1108 by Queen Maud, and in 1125 the land and soak of Knikn Guild, now Port Soak and Ward, were assigned to it. The Pryor became an alderman of London by reason of possessing the Soak without the port or gates

called Aldgate, an honour continued to his successes till the dissolution of the religious houses, when the church was surrendered and the site of the Priory granted by Henry VIII to Sir Thomas Ordley, Lord Chancellor. End of Chapter 11 Part 1 End of Section 22 Section 23 of the Story of London This is a Librevox recording All Librevox recordings are in the public domain

For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravox.org Read by Paul Lawley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley Chapter 11 The Church and Education Part 2 The Great Benedictine Monastery of Black Monks

was situated at Westminster, away from the city as was usual. This was the only monastic house subject to the rule of St. Benedict in the neighbourhood of London, but the houses of nuns, of which there were many dotted over the suburbs of London, were governed by the rule of St. Benedict.

Among these may be mentioned the nunneries of Barking, Clarkenwell, Halliwell at the eastern extremity of Finsbury Fields, St. Helens, Bishopsgate, Kilburn, and Stratford at Bow. As time proceeded, there was a widespread desire for a stricter rule among the monks, and reforms of the Benedictine rule were instituted at Clooney, AD 910, Chartreau, about 1080,

and CETO, 1098. All these reforms were represented in London. Cluniac Order This reform was begun by Vernon, Abbott of Guinea in Burgundy, and perfected by Odo, abbot of Clooney. The first charter of the order was dated AD 910. The order was first brought to England by William Earl of Warren, son-in-law to William the Conqueror, who built the first house at Lewis in Sussex about 1077. The Priory of Bermansy in Surrey was founded by Alewin Child, citizen of London,

about 1082. The manner of Bermondsey and other revenues were granted by William Rufus. The original priories were subject to the heads of the parent foreign houses, but John Attlebur, prior of Bermansy, having procured the erection of his priory into an abyssey, himself became the first of the abbots in 1399. If we are to believe the word of the satirists, we may judge that the rule of the Clooneyic order was hard, for we are told that, quote, when you wish to sleep, they awake you, end quote, and, quote, when you wish to eat, they make you fast, end quote. There were cells attached to the Cluniac House of Bermenzy at Aldersgate, Cripplegate, and Holborn.

Carthusians Bruno first instituted the order at Chartreux in the Diocese in Greno in France, about 1080. The rule was confirmed by Pope Alexander III about 1174. This was the most strict of any of the religious orders. The monks never ate flesh, and were obliged to fast on bread, water and salt one day in every week. No one was permitted to go out of the bounds of the monastery except the prize and procurators or proctors, and they only upon the necessary affairs of their houses. When the order was brought to England in 1178, the first house was started at Wittham in Somersetshire.

In all there were nine houses of the order in England. One of these was the Charter House of London, which was not founded until 1371 by Sir Walter Manny, Knight of the Garter. Until Henry II founded the Carthusian house at Wittham, it is said that there was no such thing known in England as a monk's cell, as we unlawed. understand the term. It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was first introduced, it was regarded as a startling novelty for any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour in England. Cistercians

The Cistercian Order was named after Cistertium, or Cetot, in the Bishopric of Chalon in Burgundy, where it was founded in 1098 by Robert, Abbot of Molem, in that province. St. Bernard was a great promoter of the Order, and founded an Abbey at Claervaux about 1116, and after him the members of the Order were sometimes named Bernardines. It was usual to plant these monasteries in solitary and uncultivated places, and no other house, even of their own order, was allowed to be built within a certain distance of the original establishment.

This makes it surprising to learn that there were two separate houses of this order in the near neighbourhood of London. A branch of the order came to England about 1128, and their first house was founded at Waverley in Surrey. Very shortly after, about 1134, the Abbey of Stratford-Langthorn in Essex was founded by William de Montfichet, who endowed it with all his lordship in West Ham. It was not until two centuries afterwards that the second of the second time of the second year to the second of course of the second time. Cistercian House in the immediate neighbourhood of London was founded. This was the Abbey of St. Mary Grace's, Eastminster, or New Abbey, without the walls of London, which Edward III instituted in 1350 after a severe scourge of plague, the so-called Black Death. The two great military orders, the Knights Hospitlers of St. John of Jerusalem and the Templars,

followed the Augustinian rule, and both were settled in London. The Knights Hospitals were founded about 1092 by the merchants of Amalfi in Italy for the purpose of affording hospitality to pilgrims in the Holy Land. The hospital, or prairie of St John, was founded in 1,100, by Jordan Brissett and his wife Muriel outside the northern wall of London, and the original village of Clarkenwell grew up around the buildings of the Knights. A few years after this, the Brethren of the Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem or Knights of the Temple, came into being at the Holy City, and they settled first on the south side of Holborn near Southampton buildings.

They removed to Fleet Street, or the new temple, in 1184, where, as Spencer terms it, quote, they decayed through pride, end quote, and the order after much persecution was suppressed in England, as it had been in other countries, by command of the Pope. The house in Flea Street was given in 13.5. by Edward II to Ema de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, at whose death in 1323, the property passed to the Knights of St. John, who leased the new temple to the lawyers, still the occupants of the district. The Templars wore a long, flowing white mantle with a red cross on the left breast.

The Knights Hospitlers originally wore a black robe with a cross, but subsequently when the order was reconstructed on the model of the Templars, they wore a red mantle. with a white cross on the shoulder. After Palestine was lost, the original body passed one to Accra, two to Cyprus, three to Rhodes,

and four to Malta. The Templars left their beautiful church, to continue for centuries one of the most interesting architectural relics of a past age. The buildings of the Knights' Hospitals at Clarkinwell passed through more vicissitudes and when the religious houses were suppressed,

by Henry VIII, these were mostly destroyed. The gateway which was completed in 54 by Priyadocra still stands, but no portion of the church or other building remains above ground. Friars The enthusiasm which brought the great religious movement after the conquest and produced the numerous monastic institutions of the country had cooled by the beginning of the 13th century when the remarkable evangelical revival instituted almost similar simultaneously by St. Dominic and St. Francis swept over Europe. The distinctive characteristics which at first marked them off from the monks were poverty and care for others.

The monks lived apart from the world in order to attend first to their own souls, while the friars placed care for others first of all duties. They preached to and visited the masses. Hence, instead of living in retired spots, they settled in the heart of the cities. In their humility they called themselves brothers rather than fathers, but in course of time they fell far short of the ideals of their founders. Their property increased, and their houses grew to be as rich as those of the monks, and in consequence they became singularly unpopular.

Mr Trevelyan writes in his Age of Wycliffe, that while the monks were despised by the reformer, the friars were hated. Black Friars The Spaniard, St. Dominic, founded the order of preaching friars at the beginning of the 13th century. Their rule, which was chiefly that of St. Augustine, was approved of by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council, AD 1215, by word of mouth and by the bull of Pope Honorius, AD 1216. They were called Dominicans from their founder, preaching friars from their office to preach and convert heretics, and black friars from their garments.

In France, they were known as Jacobins from having their first house in the Rouss-San-Jacques in Paris. This name gained a portentous meaning in the 18th century from the French revolutionists who met in the disused friary. At first, the friars used the same habit as the Austin Canons, but about the year 1219 they took another, viz, a white cassock with a white hood over it, and when they went abroad, a black cloak with a black hood over their white vestments. They came to England in 1221, and their first house was at Oxford. Shortly after this, they came to London, settled in Holborn near Lincoln's Inn,

where they remained for more than 50 years. In 1276 they removed to the neighbourhood of Bainard Castle, where they erected a magnificent house with the help of royal, clerical, and other noble benefactors, which has given a name to a London district, but it still retains. The place is thus described by Stevens, the monastic historian. Quote, The monastery enjoyed all the privileges and immunities that any religious house had, and having a very large extent of ground within its liberty,

the same was shut up with four gates, and all the inhabitants within it were subject to none but the king, the superior of the monasteries and justices of that precinct. so that neither the mayor nor the sheriffs nor any other officers of the city of London had the least jurisdiction or authority therein. All which liberties the inhabitants preserved sometime after the suppression of the monastery, end quote. Thomas Lord Wake is said to have intended to bring Dominican nuns into England,

and he had the king's license for this purpose, but he does not appear to have carried out his intention. The nuns of Dartford in Kent are supposed to have been of this order at one time. Greyfriars The Italian St Francis was the founder of this order, whose rule he drew up in 1209. It was approved of by Pope Innocent III in 1210, and by the Lateran Council in 1215. His followers were called Franciscans from their founder, grey friars from their clothing, and minor friars from their humility.

Nine grey fries landed at Dover in the eighth year of Henry III, 1223 to 1224. Five of them settled at Canterbury, and there founded the first house of the order in England. The remaining four established themselves in London, lodging for 15 days with the Dominicans in Holborn. These four, we learn from a Cotonian manuscript, were, one, Richard Pugworth, an Englishman, priest and preacher. 2. Richard Sennonoff. English. Clark Acolyte. A youth. 3. Henry Detruz, by nation a Lombard. Lay brother.

4. Monocetus, also a laybrother. These four men founded the Great London House of Greyfriars. They removed to Cornhill where they erected cells, made converts, and acquired the goodwill of the mayor and citizens. John Ewan, Mercer, appropriated to the use of the Friars a piece of ground within Newgate. Here a noble building was erected by the help of numerous distinguished persons, which contained a church, a chapter house, a dormitory, a refectory, an infirmatory, etc. The district was long known as Greyfries,

and afterwards as Christ Church or Christ's Hospital. The habit of the Fries was a loose garment of a grey, color reaching down to their ankles, with a cowl of the same, and a cloak over it when they went abroad. They girded themselves with cords and went barefoot. In connection with the Franciscans were the nuns of the Order of St. Clair, founded Atta Sisi by St. Clair about 1212. The nuns observed St. Francis's rule and wore the same colored habit as the Franciscan friars. They were called poor clairs and also minareces. About the year 1293, Blanche, Queen of Navarre, Wife to Edward, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby,

found that a house for the minareces on the east side of the street leading from the tower to Aldgate without the walls of the city. This street is still known as the minarees. There were only three other houses of this order in England, viz, at Water Beach and Denny in Cambridgeshire, and Brousiard in Suffolk. Austin Friars The history of the foundation of the Friars-Ehramites of the Order of St. Augustine has not been given with any fullness, and its origin is somewhat uncertain.

They came to England from Italy about 1250, and a house in Broad Street Ward was founded by Humphrey Bowen, Earl of Hereford and Essex, in the year 1253. The habit of the Austin Friars was a white garment and scapulery when they were in the house, but in the choir and when they went abroad they had over the former a sort of cowl and a large hood, both black. Round their waist

they had a black leather girdle fastened with an ivory bone. Footnote. In connection with the history of the Austin Friars, the fact that the Church of the friary still exists is one of great interest. At the dissolution, a large portion of the friary

was given to Lord St. John, afterwards, Marquess of Winchester and Lord Treasurer. The church was reserved by the king, and the knave still remains. End of footnote. White Friars The origin of the Friars of the Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel is not very clear. Their rule, which was chiefly that of St. Basil, is said to have been given to them by Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem about 1205, and to have been confirmed by Pope Honorius in 1224.

They were driven out of Palestine by the Saracens about 1205. 1238, and they then sought refuge in Europe. They were brought into England by John Vassie and Richard Gray, and had their first houses at Holm in Northumberland and Aylesford in Kent. At the latter place, they held their first European charter, AD 1245. The London House of the Carmelites, or White Friars, was founded in 1241 by Sir Richard Gray on land situated between Fleet Street and the Thames, which was given by Edward I.

The garments of the Friars at first were white, but having been obliged by the infidels to change them to party-coloured ones, they continued these for 50 years after they're coming to England, but about the year 1290 they returned to the use of white again. Footnote. Dougdale says that the patriarch Albert prescribed for the Carmelite Fries a party-coloured mantle of white and red, and that Pope Honorius III, disliking this, appointed in 1285, that it should be a party-coloured mantle of white and red, and that Pope Honorius III, disliking this, appointed in 1285, that it should be a be all white. End of footnote. Of the four chief orders of mendicant friars, the Carmelites ranked last, and in official processions had to give place to the Dominicans, Franciscans and Austin Friars. The district which originally contained the house of the white friars continues still to be known by the old name. After the dissolution of the religious houses, the privileges of sanctuary was still allowed to the inhabitants, and in consequence the place, generally known as Alsatia, gained a most unenviable notoriety. Other places in London obtained an evil repute from the same

cause, but Whitefriars was far beyond all others in disgraceful associations. It is known from old records that the bad repute of the district dates back to a period long before the suppression of the friary. From a close roll of the 20th Edward III, it appears that the bad repute of the district It appears that persons of ill repute had, for a considerable time, made their abode so close to the friary that the friars could not celebrate divine service in their church in consequence of the continual clamours and outcries by which the district was disturbed, and the mayor and alderman of London were ordered, in the king's name,

for the tranquility of the prior and brethren to remove the nuisance. Mr. Trevelyan writes, Quote, 20 years before Whitecliff's attack was made, Fitz Ralph, Bishop of Armagh, had laid a famous indictment against the four orders before the Pope at Avignon.

It made a great stir at the time but came to nothing for the Friars were under the Pope's special protection. The bishop chiefly complained of their competition with his secular clergy in the matter of confession and absolution. End quote. Besides the four chief orders,

several other orders of Friars were settled in London. First, in importance of these, were the crutched friars from the cross-forming part of the staff carried by them, which was styled a crutch. This was afterwards given up, and a cross of red cloth was placed upon the breast of the gown. The order is said to have been instituted by Gerard, prior of St. Mary of Morella at Bologna,

and confirmed in 1169 by Pope Alexander III, who brought them under St. Austin's rule. They came to England in 1244, and had their first house at Colchester. It was not until about 1298 that these friars came to London, and the house in the parish of St. Olav, Hart Street, was founded by Ralph Hosea and William Saberns. The memory of the friary is kept alive in the name of the street that marks its site.

Other orders in London were the Friars of the Penance of Jesus Christ, or De Sacco, and the Friars di Areno. The Fries of the Sack, according to Stowe, first settled in a house near Alders Gate, outside the gate. This was about the year 1257. When the Jews were banished from England by Edward I, these friars were given the synagogue on the south side of Lothbury at the north corner of the old jury.

The tenements which the priors held in the street, quote, called Culture District, end quote, were in the parishes of St. Olaf in the jury and of St. Margaret de Lothbury. The friars of the Order of St. Mary di Arrano were settled at Westminster at Westminster at a church's of St. a house near Charing Cross, given to them by Sir William de Arno, or Amman, 51 Henry III, and here the small house remained until the death of Huda Ebor, the last friar, 10, Edward

II. Bishop Stubbs refers to a cemetery near St. Clement Danes, which once belonged to the Pied Friars, a small order of mendicants which had been suppressed in 1278. In the revised edition of Dougdale's Monasticon by Cayley Ellis. and Bandanol, there is a notice of the house of the Fratres to Pica, or Pied Friars at Norwich, from Bloomfield's History of Norfolk, but no mention is made of any house in London. Tanner says that there is no mention of these fries in any public record, and Taylor, in his Index Monasticus, gives no new information concerning them. Blumfield says that the friars were

called from their outward garment, which was black and white like a magpie. At Hounslow there was a house of Trinitarian or Maturine Fries for the redemption of captives. The earliest record known of this priory is a charter dated 1296. Besides the religious houses, there were, during the Middle Ages, many hermitages over the country, and several of these were to be found in London. One was in Monquell Street, Cripplegate, which was founded by the widow of Sir Amor de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, who was killed in a tournament in 1324. This was Mary de Castion, daughter of Guy, Count of Saint Paul,

third wife of the Earl and the founders of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, who established the hermitage for the good of the soul of her husband. London was so full of religious houses, both within and without the walls, that when the great dissolution took place in Henry VIII's reign, large portions of the town were left desolate. doubtless the time had come for this great revolution or otherwise even that king could never have carried it through. The popular feeling which held these great establishments in disfavor had gradually grown. Still, the number of those who were dependent upon the religious houses was very

considerable, and great evils followed the dissolution. Multitudes were thrown out of their regular employment, and the poor who were dependent upon the arms bestowed upon them at the gates of the monasteries, had to be considered and provided for in some other way. The difficulties of this position certainly formed one of the causes of the institution of the poor law in the reign of Henry's daughter Elizabeth. Most of the relics of the various religious houses which occupied so large a portion of London and its environs have been entirely swept away. In the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries, many remains existed.

There were then vestiges of St. Helen's Priory, and the old hall of the nunnery was not pulled down until 1799. Relics of Bermondsey Abbey were standing in 1807. The Grand Cript built soon after the foundation of the house of the Priory of St. John at Clarkhamwell, which was added to and afterwards made to form an undercroft to the choir, is now one of the most interesting of the remains of medieval buildings in London. It is below the Church of St. John, Clarkhamwell, and has been restored with loving care to much of its original beauty.

Other portions of the old buildings of the prairie are to be seen in the cellars of some of the houses round about. The position of the old charterhouse buildings can still be traced, although little of the old monastery exists, but the east and south walls of the chapel and washhouse court can be seen. The latter was built by the monks to accommodate the lay brothers who acted as servants to the convent. The walls of the monastic refactories surround the present brothers' library. Beneath this is the monk's cellar. The friaries situated within the walls of Old London have left little but their names to tell the Londoner of today of their existence. Still, even here, something of the past remains.

The Church of Austin Friars is left to us, and the position of the choir of the Great Franciscan House of Grey Fries is marked by the present Christchurch, Newgate Street. Some traces of the buildings of the White Fries have also been found underground. Sanctuary One of the privileges of the Middle Ages which continued on into comparatively modern times was that of sanctuary, and in its belated form this caused many gross scandals. There are numerous stories connected with the College of St. Martins-Lagrand, which was under the jurisdiction of the abbot of Westminster. One of these relates to Richard III and Lady Anne.

When the Duke of Gloucester desired to marry Anne, the betrothed of the late Edward Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI, Her brother-in-law Clarence objected and hid her away. Richard discovered her in London, disguised as a kitchen-maid, and placed her in sanctuary at St. Martins-Lagrand. In 1416, a man was sentenced to the pillory for slandering an alderman, but he escaped and found sanctuary at the monastery of St. Peter's Westminster. Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, in his work on the Age of Wycliffe,

gives a full account of the great scandal which occurred in 1378, when two prisoners escaped from the tower and sought sanctuary in Westminster Abbey. The governor of the tower, with his soldiers, entered the nave and attempted to drag one of the prisoners who was attending mass out of sanctuary. He fled for his life, and his pursuers chased him twice round the choir. He was stamped to death, and one of the attendants of the church interfering to save him

was killed in the scuffle. Archbishop Sudbury excommunicated the governor of the tower, Sir Alan Bouchal, and all his aiders and the betters. Richard II ordered the reading of the excommunication to be stopped and the church to be reconsecrated. The abbot refused to allow the place to be hallowed, and the services ceased for a while. There was now an open quarrel between church and state,

which continued till the Parliament met at Gloucester in October, quote, when the whole question of sanctuary was brought up in all its issues, end quote. Mr Trevelyan sums up the case in these words. Quote, In vain, Whiteliff argued, in vain the commons petitioned, and the lords hectored.

From all the mountains of talk in the discussion at Gloucester, there came forth the most absurd legislative mouse in the shape of a statute passed at Westminster by the next parliament in the spring of 1379. By this act, the fraudulent debtor taking sanctuary was to be summoned at the door of the church once a week for 31 days. If at the end of that time he refused to appear,

judgment was to go against him by default, and his goods, even if they had been given away by collusion, might be seized by his creditors. This mild measure, which was scarcely in interference with the right of sanctuary itself, was accepted even by the staunchest adherents of the church. End quote. If a felon succeeded in taking sanctuary in a church or other, privileged place before capture, he was free from the clutches of the law for the space of 40 days.

He was allowed to be supplied with food, but he was sufficiently guarded to prevent his escape. If he elected to abjure the realm, an oath was administered to him. There seemed to have been special privileges of sanctuary in the city, for we learned that at the end of the 13th century it was ordered by the alderman that no robber, homicide, nor other fugitive in the churches should be watched. This ordinance was for the purpose of giving a fugitive a chance of escape out of sanctuary. In 1321, a royal pardon was granted to the city for neglecting to keep watch on those who had fled for sanctuary to the city churches. This was granted, however, on the distinct understanding that in future a watch was to be kept on such fugitives in the same manner as in other parts of the realm.

In 1334, the mayor was roundly taken to task and made to do penance by the Archbishop for allowing a felon to escape from the Church of All Hallows, Grace Church. The sanctuary men were marked by a badge representing cross keys. Education Medieval London was well supplied with facilities for education. We know that there were many schools in various parts of the city, although we still require more definite information.

The church supplied the public well with schools, although for a time these fell into decay, and then it was that lay schools came into existence. Bishop Stubbs writes, Quote, Over against the many grievances which modern thought has alleged against the unlearned ages which passed before the invention of printing, it ought to be set to the credit of medieval society that clerkship was never despised or made unnecessarily difficult of acquisition.

The sneer of Walter Mapp, who declared that in his days the villains were attempting to educate their ignoble and degenerate offspring in the liberal arts, proves that even in the 12th century the way was open. Richard II rejected the proposition that the villains should be forbidden to send their children to the schools to learn clergy. And even at a time when the supply of labour ran so low that no man who was not worth 20 shillings a year in land or rent was allowed to apprentice his child to a craft. A full and liberal exception was made in favour of learning. Every man or woman, the words occur in the petition and the statute of artificers passed in 1406. Of what state or condition that he be shall be free to set their son or daughter

to take learning at any school that pleaseth them within the realm. End quote. Again, schools were by no means uncommon things. There were schools. There were schools, in all cathedrals. Monastries and colleges were everywhere, and wherever there was a monastery or a college, there was a school. Towards the close of the Middle Ages, notwithstanding many causes for depression, there was much vitality in the schools. End quote. The larger English abbeys about the country not only had schools within their own precincts, but others dependent upon them in the neighboring towns. Fitz Stephen, in his description of London as preserved in the city's Lieber Customarum, particularizes the Church of St. Martin

LeGrand as one of the principal churches of London which had ancient and prerogative schools, the others being St. Paul's and Holy Trinity, Altgate. In other texts of Fitz Stephen's work, the names of the churches are not mentioned, and Stowe, overlooking the text in the city archives, gives the three schools as attached to St. Paul's, St. Peter's Westminster, and St. Saviars. Fitz-Steven's patron, St. Thomas of Canterbury, received his early education at one of the London schools after leaving the school of the Cannons regular at Merton and before proceeding to the university. In 1447, four parish priests in a petition to Parliament begged the Commons to consider the great number of grammar schools, quote, that some time were in diverse parts of the realm beside those that were in London, and how few there be in these. days." End quote. They asked leave to appoint schoolmasters in their parishes to be removed at their

discretion. King Henry VI granted the petition, but subjected the priest's discretion to the advice of the ordinary. During this king's reign, nine grammar schools were opened in London alone. End of Chapter 11. End of Section 23. Section 24 of the Story of London. This is a Libravox recording. All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Paul Lorley Jones The Story of London by Henry B. Wheatley

Chapter 12 London from medieval to modern times. Medieval London was almost entirely within the walls. But outside the walls to the west, there was a connecting line of mansions on the riverfront leading to the village of Charing and onto Westminster, which is almost of equal antiquity with London itself. When the body of Queen Eleanor arrived at its last stage, the funeral procession stopped a fair way from Westminster Abbey.

One might have expected that the body would have remained under the shadow of its last resting place, and we are, therefore, led to inquire why the village of Charing was chosen. The only answer to this question that can be given is that here, on the site of Northumberland House, now occupied by Northumberland Avenue, there then stood a hospital and chapel of St. Mary belonging to the prairie of Roncesval, Roncesval, or de Rousse de Valle, in the Diocese of Pampelon in Navarre. At the death of Eleanor, this house was a comparatively recent establishment, having been founded by William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, in the reign of Henry III.

but it probably afforded sufficient accommodation for the funeral procession for one night. The house was suppressed as an alien priory in the reign of Henry V, but restored in that of Edward IV for a fraternity. In the yearbooks of Henry the 7th, the master, wardens, brethren and sisters of Roncesval are mentioned, and these continued until the general suppression. The cross, which gives its name to the place, was erected in the year's 1299. to 1294, and is supposed to have been the handsomest of the series. As good a copy of the original as our imperfect information allows is to be seen within the

railings of the southeastern railway terminus. Westminster is of unknown antiquity, and was long known, from its wild growth of Underwood, as thorny, before the abbey and the palace arose to give the place a name which marked its position in relation to London and St. Paul's. There is but little authoritative history before Edward the Confessor and the consecration of the Abbey Church in 1065, but the history since that time is so considerable, and of so important a character, that it is impossible to do more than refer in these few words to what is universally acknowledged by all Englishmen to be the most hallowed building in the country. On the opposite shore of the Thames is Lambeth, where is situated

the manor-house of the Archbishops of Canterbury, now called Lambeth Palace. The site was originally given to the Sea of Rochester by the Countess Gouda, sister of Edward the Confess and wife of Eustace, Count of Boulogne. But in the year 1197, the Bishop of Rochester made an exchange with the Archbishop of Canterbury for this place for other property, and Lambeth has ever since been the London residents of the Archbishops. From here we pass over Lambeth Marsh to Southwark, a place whose history has been intimately associated with that of the city of London, and is now an integral part of the county. The chief glory of the borough is the Grand Church of the Augustinian Priory of St. Mary Overy,

dating from the beginning of the 12th century, and now known as St. Saviars. Southwark has been, from the earliest times, the chief thoroughfare to and from London and the southern counties and towns, and the cities of the continent. From this cause, it was for centuries the quarter for famous old inns, beginning in order of importance with the bear at the Bridgefoot, the tabard of Chaucer, and following on with the king's head, the White Heart, and the George,

a portion of the latter hostelry only remaining to the present day. Southwark was also notorious for its prisons, the King's Bench, the Marshalsey, the White Lion, the Burra Comptor, and the Clink. The last-named was on the bankside, so intimately associated from the earliest times with the rough sports of the Londoners, and in Elizabeth's reign, the chief home of the dramatic displays of that great period. The bank was then a long straggling street, extending from the

manner of Paris Garden on the west to the liberty of the clink on the east. Near Paris Garden was the Falcon Inn, which was once supposed to have been the resort of Shakespeare. This apparently is an error, for at the time of the great dramatist's death there appears to have been no inns on the bankside. Little or nothing actually exists now that was there in the 16th century, but the contour of the street, and nearly every name, have lasted in their integrity, and probably will last for many a long year more. Although during the reigns of the Tudor sovereigns, the Renaissance became triumphant,

the men and women of London still continued to live in a town which retained its medieval characteristics. Two striking scenes in the history of London during the reign of Mary the First may be alluded to here. When the Queen made known her intention of marrying Philip of Spain, the discontent of the nation found vent in the rising of Sir Thomas Wyatt, and the city had to prepare itself against attack. Wyatt took possession of Southwark, and expected to have been admitted into London, but finding the gate of the bridge closed against him and the drawbridge cut down, he marched to Kingston.

Having restored the bridge there, which had been destroyed, he proceeded towards London. In consequence of the breakdown of some of his guns, he imprudently halted at Turnham Green. Had he not done this, he might have obtained possession of the city. He planted his ordinance on Hay Hill, and then marched by St. James's Palace and Charing Cross. Here he was attacked by Sir John Gage with a thousand men, but he repulsed them, and reached Ludgate without further opposition. He was disappointed at the resistance which was made, and after musing a while, quote, upon a stall over against the Bell Savage Gate, end quote, he turned back. His retreat was cut off and he surrendered to Samoris Barclay.

To picture another striking scene, we must move from the west side of London to the north. Outside Cripplegate was built a barbican or watchtower as an outwork for observance, and the little village, with its four street, which grew up outside the walls, was sheltered behind it. The care of this important position was naturally given to trustworthy persons. Edward III appointed Robert Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, keeper of the Barbican, and from him it descended, in course of time, to Catherine, daughter of William Lord Willoughby de Ayersby, who married, firstly Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk,

and secondly Richard Bertie. Bertie and his wife were Protestants, and in Queen Mary's reign their lives were in such danger that they were forced to arrange in secrecy for their flight. Between four and five o'clock in the morning of the 1st of January 1554 to 1555, the Duchess began her adventurous journey in a thick fog. She could place no confidence in the bulk of her dependence, and there was great difficulty in arranging for company and baggage. As she was leaving, one Atkinson, a herald, issued from the house bearing a torch in his hand, and evidently bent on discovering the cause of the

unusual bustle at this early hour. Fearing to be discovered, as she stood up under a gateway, she moved on quietly and left her baggage at the gatehouse. Finding that the herald still followed, she bade her servants to hasten onwards to lie in key, where she proposed to embark. Taking with her only two servants and her child, quote, she stepped into Garterhouse hard by, end quote. She dared not pass into the city through Cripplegate, but walked on to Moorgate. Thence she proceeded across town to the port of embarkation. Eventually she joined a husband who had preceded her in Flanders. Soon after her escape, she gave birth to a son at Vesel.

He was named Peregrine, from the circumstance of his being born in a foreign land and during the wandering of his parents. This name was long continued in the family. The child grew up to be one of Queen Elizabeth's greatest generals, popularly known as Brave Lord Willoughby. Quote, But the bravest man in battle was brave Lord Willoughby. End quote.

There is a special fascination to us now in a picture of Elizabeth in London, for with its history abound up some of the most interesting incidents in the lives of the statesmen and other great men of the spacious days of the great queen. And have we not Shakespeare and Ben Johnson among those who have portrayed the various places for us? London has always appealed to the imagination of the adventurous country youth to be the home of Golden Promise. If he can only get there, he believes that his successful career has commenced. But it appears that in Elizabeth's reign, there was pretty much the same difficulty in obtaining employment as there is now. This is illustrated by a curious account of the early life of John Sadler, a native of Stratford-on-Avon,

and one of Shakespeare's contemporaries which has come down to us. He joined himself to the carrier and came to London, where he had never been before, and sold his horse in Smithfield, and having no acquaintance in London to recommend him or assist him, he went from street to street and house to house, asking if they wanted an apprentice. And though he met with many discouraging scorns and a thousand denials, he went on till he lighted on one Mr. Brokesbank, a grocer in Bucklersbury, who, though he long denied him for want of sureties of his fiducius, and because the money he had, but ten pounds, was so disproportionate to what he used to receive

with apprentices, yet upon his discreet account he gave of himself and the motives which put him upon that course, and promised to compensate with diligent and faithful service whatever else was short of his expectation, he ventured to receive him upon trial, in which he so well approved himself that he accepted him into his service, to which he bound him for eight years. end quote. The outdoor life of this time, with the men and women who frequented the streets, is brought vividly before our eyes in Ben Johnson's plays. The useful and useless members of society pass across the stage.

The water carriers who congregate around the conduits are represented by Cobb in Every Man in His Humour. Before Sir Hugh Middleton made the new river and brought to men's houses, all water that was wanted had to be fetched from the conduit. The men who supplied the town drew off the water into large wooden tankards, broad at the bottom, but narrow at the top, which held about three gallons. This vessel was borne upon the shoulder, and to keep the carrier dry, two towels were fastened over him, one to fall in front and the other to cover his back.

The narrowness of the Old London streets is strikingly shown in, The Devil is an ass, where the lady and her lover speak gentle nothings to each other from the windows of two contiguous buildings. All the fashions of this time, the rapier fighting of the gallants, the smoking madness of all classes at a time when tobacco was supposed to be the panacea for all the ills of human nature, the custom of garnishing conversation with oaths, are introduced in the books of Ben Johnson. The poet's love of good liquor and social intercourse made him a frequenter of inns, his acquaintance with the two rival taverns of Cheapside, the mermaid and the

mitre must have commenced early, because the names of both occur in the first quarto of Every Man in His Humour, 1601. In the later folio edition, the mitre is changed to the star and the mermaid to the windmill. The ever-memorable mermaid was situated on the south side of Cheapside, between Bread Street and Friday Street. From the mention of this tavern in the first draft of Every Man in His Humour, it may be inferred that Johnson was a frequenter before the famous club, consisting of Shakespeare, Johnson, Beaumont, Fletcher, Caroo, Don, Selden and others, was established by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603. The mitre was a rival house, and some writers tried to write it up at the expense of the mermaid.

Thus, Middleton has the following dialogue in his comedy, Your Five Gallants, 1608. Quote, Goldston, Where's up we, gallants? Personet. At Mermaid. Goldston. Sup there who list, I have foresworn the house. Personet. Faith, I'm indifferent.

Bungler. So are we, gentlemen. Personet. Name the place, Master Goldston. Goldston. Why, the mitre, in my mind, for neat attendance, diligent boys, and, push, excels it far. All.

Agreed, the mitre then. End quote. The windmill in the old jury, which occupy so prominent position in the revised edition of Every Man in His Humour, was a house with a long history. It was first of all a synagogue for the Jews of the neighbourhood. Then it was granted by Henry III to the Pryor and Brethren of the Order of Friars called the Fratres de Saka, and in 1439 it was occupied by Lord Mayor Robert Large. In 1492, Sir Hugh Clopton, the worthy who built Clopton Broughton. bridge at Stratford-on-Avon, kept his mayoralty in the mansion, which, a hundred years afterwards,

was turned into a tavern. The Devil in Fleet Street was one of the most famous of the places of entertainment of the time. It is not known when Ben Johnson started the Apollo Club here, but it was probably not long before 1616 when the Devil is an ass was acted. Herrick, in his well-known ode, mentioned several other taverns to which Ben and his sons resorted. Quote, "'Ah, Ben, say how or when, Shall we thy guests meet at those lyric feasts,

Made at the sun, the dog, the triple ton, Where we such clusters had, Has made us nobly wild, not mad, And yet each verse of thine, Out did the meal, out did the frolic wine, End quote. It was in Johnson's day that the suburbs, Which, as previously referred to,

had long been treated with disfavor, were gradually asserting themselves, and the poet was particularly at home in the understanding of their peculiarities. Of the northern suburbs, the fullest mention is to be found in A Tale of a Tub, where we read of Tottencourt, Kentish Town, Maribone, Kilbourne, Islington, and Belsize, and the fields near Pancras. If we look for Hoxton in a modern map of London, we shall find it near Old Street, St. Luke's, not far from the centre of the present London, but in Johnson's time it was a country place, cut off from the city by Moorfields. Noel's house, every man in his humour, was at Hogsdon,

which was then, according to Stowe, quote, a large street with houses on both sides, end quote. Master Stephen describes his uncle's property as, quote, middle-sex land, end quote, and he himself is called a country gull, in opposition to Master Matthew, the town gull. Ben had reason to remember Hoxton, for it was in the fields close by that he fought and nearly killed Gabriel Spencer. More fields remained for several years in an almost impassable condition, but in 1511, regular dikes and bridges of communication over them were made in order partially to drain the rotten ground. In the play so frequently referred to, we find Turnbull mentioned by Bobadill, among other

disreputable places, as one of the quote, skirts of the town, end quote. Turnbull, or more properly, Turnmill Street, was situated near Clark and Well Green, and was known as the haunt of ruffians, thieves, and disorderly persons.

Justice Shallow boasted to Falstaff of the wildness of his youth and the feats he had done in Turnbull Street. On the west, the Oxford Road, commencing at the village of St. Giles, was in the country. and where Stratford Place now stands was a cottage among trees and hedges called the Lord Mayor's Banqueting House,

which was used by the city magnates when they hunted at Bayswater and Hyde Park. This is alluded to in the devil isn't ass. Quote, But we got the gentleman to go with me and carry her bedding to a conduit head, hard by the place towards Tyburn which they call my Lord Mayor's Banqueting House. End quote. Eastwood for Ratcliffe is a cry in the alchemist. Ratcliffe, which Stowe remembered as a highway, with fair elm trees on each side,

in later times became the synonym of all that is dangerous and disreputable in London streets. The actor William Kemp, in describing his remarkable Morris dance from London to Norwich, 1600, writes, quote, Being past Whitechapel and having left Fair London, multitudes of Londoners left not me, either to keep a custom which many hold, that mile-end is no walk without a recreation at Stratford Bow with cream and cakes, or else for love they bear towards me, or perhaps to make themselves merry if I should chance, as many thought, to give over my

Morris within a mile of mile end." End quote. Shakespeare lived outside the city walls, and although we cannot exactly tell the position of his houses, it is pretty certain that lived both in the parish of St. Helen, Bishop's Gate, and in the clink on the bankside. Stuart London followed Tudor London, but with the death of James I in 1625, the older history may be said to close, for there was a considerable change during the reign of Charles I. The upper classes moved westward to Lincoln's Inn and Great Queen Street and Covent Garden. The great architect Inigo Jones built houses for them in both these districts. There was a certain stagnation in the movements of the population during the period of the Commonwealth,

but at the restoration of Charles II, a new life came into existence. The exiled cavaliers returned to their country and found their father's houses in the city of London either occupied by others or unfitted for their reception. In consequence, they migrated to a district far from the city. The builders were busy in covering fields with houses, and Palmao, where the game of that name had been played, was planned out as a fine street, which remains to the present day. Lord's Clarendon, Burlington and Barclay erected mansions in Piccadilly, and Lord St. Albans created St. James's Square. Many others followed the example of these leaders of society,

and the upper classes were completely cut off from the city. The contemptuous references to the traders of London which our first notice in Elizabeth's reign became common. The sits were laughed at, and the courtiers poured out a torrent of abuse upon all those who lived in the East. The Great Fire of London of 1666 made an enormous change in the topography of London, and caused great misery, but it is supposed to have been a blessing in disguise as it cleared out many a centre of plague and disease. When we read of the heroism of the homeless Londoner, we must feel proud of our ancestors. They had lost everything, but they did not sit down and wring their hands.

When the streets were destroyed by fire, the river became more than ever a highway, and boats filled with the goods of the sufferers covered the waters. Moorfields formed a handy open space, and soon streets of huts were raised to shelter the homeless families. Wren, England's greatest architect, John Evelyn, the most accomplished man of his time and the model of a royalist gentleman, and Robert Hook, the great philosopher, were all three ready within a few hours of a fire with plans for the revolution. building of the city, but none of the plans were adopted, although all had their good points,

and Wren's especially would certainly have given us fine avenues and convenient thoroughfares. The difficulties in carrying out these schemes would no doubt have been very great, and it is useless now to regret that a great opportunity was lost. Wren and Hook were appointed to superintend the progress of the work of making London arise anew out of its ashes. The Act of Parliament passed to regulate the work of rebuilding was a very practical and altogether excellent statute. In fact, the way in which all concerned in the complicated business of raising a new city worked in unison is worthy of every praise. At the same time that they proceeded with their labours, they did not allow the trade and business of a country's centre

to fall out of gear, and this does the greatest credit to all concerned, both governors and governed. While the burnt town remained a waste, there must have been overwhelming inconveniences, but no time was allowed to be lost, and in the end a new city arose infinitely superior in comfort and convenience to that which had gone before, although certainly it was not so picturesque. Before passing on to take a rapid view of the later periods of London life, some mention may be made of a few of the interesting buildings that escaped the fire and have not previously been alluded to in these pages.

Outside the confines of the city to the west, grew up from early times a district with many various associations. Curious traditions and odd customs gather round the history of the parish of St Clement Danes, where Westminster and London met, which still suggest many points of special interest well-worthy of fuller investigation than they have as yet received. The accompanying view shows Temple Bar and the Old World Houses of Butcher Row. The first mention of Temple Bar is in a grant of land, quote, Extra Baram Novi Temple, end quote, in 1301. At that time there was no building but merely posts, rails and chain, to mark the extent of the liberties of London.

In course of time, a gate was erected, and the one which existed at the time of the Great Fire was pulled down, and a new gate was erected in 1670 to 1672 from the designs of Sir Christopher Wren. This, after existing for two centuries as one of the best-known objects in London, was removed in the winter of 1878 to 1879. The stones remained exposed to the weather for ten years before Temple Bar was re-erected at the entrance to the late Sir Henry Moe's private grounds at Theobald's Waltham Cross. The erection was completed on the 3rd of December 1888, and the gate in its new position and restored condition presents a very handsome appearance, showing it to be worthy, of its great architect. The history of Butcher Row is crowded with incidents in the lives of authors and the unfortunate

hangers-on to literature. The timber-framed house with projecting upper stories and barge-boarded gables, the front decorated with fleur-de-lie-in coronets, was known as Beaumont House, and it is said that Sully, then Marquis of Rosny, supped and slept there on his arrival in London, 1603, as ambassador to James I. Butcher Row was pulled down in 1813, and Pickett Street was erected in its place. This street was pulled down to make way for the new law courts, and now nearly the whole northern portion of St Clement's Parish has been cleared away. A great improvement has been made, but in order to obtain this, many picturesque houses of interest

have had to be destroyed. Returning within the bar to the city, and walking up Chancery Lane, we come to Lincoln's in Gateway, one of the three historical gateways of importance in London, the other two being St John's Gate Clarkhamwell and the entrance to St. James's Palace. This gatehouse of brick was built by Sir Thomas Lovell, Knight of the Garter, son of the executor of Henry the 7th, and bears the date upon it of 1518. This interesting building, although perfectly sound and in good condition, was shored up a few years ago when old chambers by the side of it were pulled down and rebuilt. and it then narrowly escaped destruction.

Efforts were successfully made to save the gate, and it is to be hoped that it may remain to give distinction to Chancery Lane for many years. Returning to Chancery Lane and crossing Holborn, we come to graze in. The fine hall which is full of associations of the deepest interest was built between the year 1555 and 1560. Of the hall which it replaced there is no record,

say that in five Edward VIII, 1551, it, quote, was sealed with 54 yards of Wainscutt at two shillings a yard, end quote. The present hall has the great distinction, according to Mr. Halliwell Phillips, of being, quote, one of the only two buildings now remaining in London in which, so far as we know, any of the plays of Shakespeare were performed in his own time, end quote. The other, of course, being the Middle Temple Hall, where 12th night was acted on February 2nd, 1601 to 2. The Comedy of Errors was played on the evening of Innocence Day, December the 28th, 1594,

in the hall before a crowded audience. Some of the guests from the Inner Temple created a disturbance because they were not properly accommodated, and this led to an official inquiry. Mr. Sidney Lee thinks it probable that Shakespeare himself was not present, as he was acting on the same day before the Queen at Greenwich. Another performance of the play was given in the hall by the Elizabethan Stage Society on December 6, 1895. George Gascoigne's Jocaster, adapted from the Phoenise of Euripides, was acted in the refectory in 1566. Grey's Inn was famous for its masks and revels, and on July the 7th, 1887, in honour of Queen Victoria's Jubilee,

the benches of Grey's Inn presented in the hall to a distinguished audience, the mask of flowers, which had been performed before James I on 12th night, 264 years before. Graze Inn had a brilliant role of members in the 16th and 17th centuries, but it is Bacon's spirit that seems to haunt the whole place. He helped the students in preparing their revels, probably wrote a mask or masks, and planted trees in the gardens, the arrangement of which he is believed to have superintended. His name remains in Verrolam buildings.

Returning to Holborn and walking a little to the west, we come to the impressive front of Staple Inn, the most remarkable street front of old houses still in existence in London. The origin of the place is unknown, and nothing satisfactory has been discovered respecting the meaning of the name, or as to what it was before it came into the occupation of the Inn of Chancery. There is a tradition that it originally belonged to the merchants of the staple. It was purchased by the benches of Grays Inn in 1529, and in Elizabeth's reign there were 154 students in term and 69 out of term.

It was bought in 1884 by the Prudential Assurance Company for 68,000 pounds, and the Holborn Front was restored and cleared from plaster covering the timber beams. There are now very few old street fronts of interest in London, one or two in the Strand, and some in the Great Roads out of London, but a few years ago there were many still remaining in the Whitechapel and Mile End Roads, and in Bishop's Gate Street without. In the latter street, number 169, there was, until lately, the remained of the mansion of Sir Paul Pindar, an eminent English merchant, who died in 1650, distinguished for the last year. his love of architecture and the magnificent sums he gave towards the restoration of old St. Paul's Cathedral. In 1617 to 1618, the house was occupied by the Venetian embassy. In its last days,

it was used as a public house with the sign of Sir Paul Pindar's head. When it was pulled down, the front was obtained for the South Kensington Museum, where it was re-erected. The London of Johnson and Hogarth was not a handsome city, but it was a social one, and we owe to these two men many vivid pictures of the life lived in it. They were both true Londoners, but they were not alone in their love for their city. For a marked feature in the character of the 18th century Londoner was his intense feeling that here only was life to be lived with true enjoyment. Much of the life was frivolous, and some of it worse than that.

But among the respectable classes, the opportunities for social intercourse were greater than now, when large numbers of the workers live out of London, some in the north and some in the south, and it takes as long to get from Hampstead to Croydon as to travel 100 miles into the country. During the 18th century, London continued to grow, but it became uglier every day. The original growth was along the course of the river,

but near the middle of the century a little building was commenced to the north of Oxford Street, when Cavendish Square and the surrounding streets were laid out. soon afterwards the new road from the Angel at Islington to the Edgeware Road, now renamed Pentonville, Euston and Marlabone roads, was planned. The opening of this road greatly facilitated the locomotion of the town, but it was disliked by the dwellers in what was then thought to be the north of London, who had their view of the country cut off.

When Queen Square was built in the reign of Queen Anne, it was left open to the north, as it has remained to this day, in order to enable the inhabitants to have a view of Hampstead and Highgate. The Gardens of Bedford House, which stood on the north side of Bloomsbury Square, had an uninterrupted view of the country, and the Duke of Bedford strongly opposed in the House of Lords the bill for making the new road.

On this opposition, Horace Walpole cynically remarked to Conway, March the 25th, 1756, quote, A new road through Paddington has been proposed to avoid the stones. The Duke of Bedford, who is never in town in summer, objects to the dust it will make behind Bedford House and to some buildings proposed, though, if he was in town, he is too short-sighted to see the prospect.

End quote. The gardens of Bedford House were famous for their beauty and for the trees which flourished there, the ancient stems of the light and graceful Acacia being specially mentioned by Walpole. Behind Montague House, now the British Museum, was Kappa's Farm, which extended to Tottenham Court Road. The old farmhouse still exists behind Messrs. Heel and Sons Shop,

number 195 Tottenham Court Road. Near where University College in Gower Street now stands was a wild district known as the field of 40 footsteps, which had a bad repute as the scene of a sanguinary duel about the time of the Monmouth Rebellion between two brothers who were both killed. No grass would grow over the footsteps trodden by the dunes, trodden by the duelists, which were said to be recognisable until the year 1800 when the ground was built over. A little further east, where Cromer Street now stands, was a wayside inn named

the Boot, which is made by Dickens in his Barnaby Rudge, the meeting place of the Gordon rioters of 1780. The site of this inn is still occupied by a public house with the same sign. Even after these fields were built upon, the air continued so good that the guard, gardens round about produced excellent fruit. When Lord Eldon lived at number 42 Gower Street at the beginning of the 19th century, his peaches and vegetables were famous. Nectarines were grown at six Upper Gower Street in 1800, and grapes were also successfully cultivated there. The district north of the new road is of a clayey soil and without a sufficient water supply, so that the ground remained unbuilt upon until, at the beginning of the 19th century, several new water companies came

into existence, and the building operations were commenced. Since that time, the suburbs have continued to increase, and a great start was given to the increased growth of the town after the holding of the Great Exhibition of 1841. Before the middle of the 19th century, the growth of London had been continually increasing, but it was not until after 1851 that the abnormal growth set in. The commissioners of the exhibition of 1851 bought a large property at Brompton and the District of South Kensington sprang into existence. The glass and iron forming the exhibition buildings were transferred to Sydenham and the Crystal Palace was erected there.

Soon, this rural district, where Gypsies once told fortunes was covered with houses. This was the beginning of the onward march of bricks and mortar, which is going on still so rapidly that on all sides we have to travel by rail for miles before we get out of the labyrinth of buildings. When we see on all sides of us modern buildings where interesting old buildings once stood, we are apt to jump to the conclusion that all signs and relics of medieval London have passed away. But this is not so, for there is still much to see in out-of-the-way places if we go about the

search with intelligence. From what we see, we may reconstruct much of the old topography in our mind's eye. The first thing to do is to follow the course of the wall and mark out the position of the gates. This can easily be done by studying an old map. Some remains of the wall are still to be seen. Many most interesting remains of Roman London will be found in the Guildhall Museum. There are few remains left of the Saxon period, but some bits are to be seen at Westminster. Of Norman buildings, we have portions of the tower, of Great St. Bartholol,

Colomew's Church, the Round of the Temple Church, and the Cript of Bow Church, Cheapside. Of later ages, there are a few relics of the religious houses which have already been referred to. All the churches which escape the ravages of the Great Fire have their points of interest. Lambeth Palace, although much of it comparatively modern, has a most venerable appearance and is certainly one of the most important relics of past ages that the present London has to boast. Westminster Hall, Abbey, Church and School are of transcendent interest and some relics of the old Abbey buildings still exist in connection with the school. Of secular buildings there are Crosby Hall, Middle Temple, Grays Inn Hall and some others.

It is impossible to print a detailed list of all the places that should be visited, but these few notes will give some slight indication of what little is left of medieval London. End of Chapter 12 End of Section 24 End of the Story of London by Henry B. Weekly