(M266)

The mayor of the city at this time was John de Grantham. His election had taken place but recently, and was the result of a compromise. Chigwell, who had again been chosen mayor at the expiration of Betoyne's year of office in 1327, was a decided favourite with the citizens, notwithstanding a certain want of firmness of character, and he was again put up as a candidate for the mayoralty in October, 1328. He had enemies, of course.

Towards the close of his last mayoralty he was ill-advised enough to sit in judgment upon a brother alderman on a charge of having abused him two years previously. During the troublous times of 1326, John de Cotun, alderman of Walbrook ward, was alleged to have described Chigwell, who was then mayor, as "the vilest worm that had been in the city for twenty years," adding that the city would know no peace so long as Chigwell was alive, and that it would be a blessing if he lost his head.(444) After some hard swearing on both sides, leading to the discovery of bad blood existing between the informer and the alderman, the charge was dismissed.

At the outset it appeared that Chigwell's reelection was a.s.sured; but the city as well as the country was in a disturbed state, and political reasons may have led to an endeavour to force another candidate in the person of Benedict de Fulsham over his head. Be that as it may, it is certain that when Chigwell's name was proposed to the a.s.sembled citizens at the Guildhall, the cry was raised of "Fulsham! Fulsham!" So high did party spirit run, that the election had to be postponed, and eventually it was thought best that both candidates should be withdrawn. This having been done, the choice of the electors fell on John de Grantham, a pepperer.(445)

(M267)

On the 8th November the new mayor despatched a letter to the king, expressing the joy of the city at the news of a proposed visit, and the prospect of the next parliament being held in London. His majesty might be a.s.sured of the city's loyalty.(446) Four days later (12 November), Edward despatched a messenger from Reading with a letter to John de Grantham, bidding him cause a deputation to be nominated for the purpose of proceeding to Windsor. The messenger arrived late on Sunday evening, and the deputation was to be at Windsor on the following Tuesday. A meeting was therefore summoned on Monday, when six aldermen and six commoners were nominated to meet the king. On Thursday the deputation returned and reported the result of the interview. It appears that Edward had complained to the deputation of armed men having left the city to join the earl at Winchester. He was also desirous to know if the city was in a proper state of defence and the king's peace preserved therein. On these points the mayor endeavoured to satisfy him by letter of the 18th November. As to armed men having left the city for Winchester, his majesty was informed that none had so left with the knowledge of the munic.i.p.al authorities, and if any should be found to have done so, they would most a.s.suredly be punished.(447)

(M268)

Early in December the king and queen came to London, accompanied by the queen-mother and Mortimer, and took up their quarters at Westminster. The whole of the city went forth to welcome them, and they were made the recipients of valuable gifts. Their stay, however, lasted but one short week.(448)

(M269)

By the 16th the king was at Gloucester, where he wrote to the Mayor of London, enclosing a copy of particulars of all that had pa.s.sed between himself and the Earl of Lancaster-the charges made by the earl and his own replies-in order, as he said, that the citizens might judge for themselves of the rights of the quarrel between them. These particulars, the mayor was desired to have publicly read at the Guildhall.(449) This was accordingly done (20 Dec.), in the presence of some of the earl's supporters, who took the opportunity of explaining the earl's position.(450)

(M270)

Whilst notifying the king that his wishes had been complied with, the mayor and commonalty besought him that all measures of hostility between himself and the barons might be suspended until parliament should meet.

The city became the headquarters of the dissatisfied bishops and n.o.bles.

The Sunday before Christmas, the pulpit in St. Paul's was occupied by the primate, who was equally anxious with the civic authorities that matters should be left to be adjusted by parliament.(451)

(M271)

The barons in the city, in the meanwhile, awaited the arrival of the Earl of Lancaster. On New Year's day he came, and on the 2nd January (1329) a conference of bishops and barons took place at St. Paul's.(452) The futility of an attempt to form a confederation soon became apparent. The city stood fast to the king; some of the barons wavered, and nothing was left to Lancaster but to make the best terms he could. Edward had already offered pardon to all who should submit before the 7th January, with certain exceptions.(453)

(M272)

Now that the king, or rather, we should say, Mortimer, was once more master of the situation, the citizens who had favoured the const.i.tutional party became the objects of retribution. On Sunday, the 22nd January (1329), the mayor and twenty-four citizens were ordered to meet the king at St. Albans. They returned on the following Thursday with instructions to see if the city was prepared to punish those who had favoured Lancaster. No sooner were the king's wishes made known, than an enquiry was at once set on foot. On Wednesday (1st February), the deputation returned to the king, who was then at Windsor, to report the sense of the city; and on the following Sunday (4th February), the king's justices commenced to sit at the Guildhall for the trial of those implicated in the late abortive attempt to overthrow Mortimer. Three days were consumed in preliminary proceedings; and it was not until Wednesday (8th February) that the real business of the session commenced. By that time the king himself had come to London, and had taken up his headquarters at the Tower, having pa.s.sed through the city accompanied by his consort, the queen-mother, and many of the n.o.bility.(454) It does not appear that Mortimer came with them.

(M273)

Among those who were brought to trial at the Guildhall was Chigwell. He was accused of being implicated in the abduction of the Abbot of Bury St.

Edmunds, and of feloniously receiving two silver basins as his share of the plunder. Being convicted, he claimed the benefit of clergy, and the Bishop of London, after some delay, was allowed to take possession of him on the ground that he was a clerk. His life was thus saved and he was conveyed to the episcopal prison amid general regret, although, as we have already seen, he was not a universal favourite. "Many said, he is a good man; others, nay, but he deceiveth the people."(455) He was kept for some months in honourable confinement at the bishop's manor of Orset, co.

Ess.e.x, and early in 1330 was admitted to purgation. Thus encouraged, he hastened once more to return to the city. He was still popular with a large body of the citizens, who, on hearing of his approach, flocked to meet him, his re-entry into the city being made to resemble a triumphal progress. Both Isabel and her son were seized with alarm; and a writ was forthwith issued for his arrest.(456) He was, however, forewarned, and able to make his escape. Little is known of his subsequent career; Stow places his death in or about 1328, but this must be a mistake. By his will dated 1332, he left some real estate in the city to the dean and chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral for the maintenance of a chantry.(457)

(M274)

Mortimer's vengeance was not confined to a few leading citizens.

Lancaster's life was spared, but he was mulcted in a heavy fine. Many of his a.s.sociates took refuge in flight. The Earl of Kent, the king's uncle, was shortly afterwards charged with treason, into which he had been drawn by the subtlety of Mortimer, and made to pay the penalty with his head.

This, more than anything else, opened the king's eyes to Mortimer's true character, and at length (Oct., 1339,) he caused him to be privily seized in the castle of Nottingham.(458) Thence he was carried to London, and hanged at the Elms in Smithfield.

(M275)

Queen Isabel, who witnessed the seizure of her favourite and whose prayers to spare the "gentle Mortimer" were of no avail, was made to disgorge much of the wealth she had acquired during her supremacy, and was put on an allowance. The rest of her life, a period of nearly thirty years, she spent in retirement. Before her death(459) she gave the sum of forty shillings to the Abbess and Minoresses of Aldgate of the Order of St.

Clare, for the purpose of purchasing for themselves two pittances or doles on the anniversaries of the decease of her husband the late king and of Sir John de Eltham his son.(460) The removal of Mortimer corresponded very closely with the king's coming of age. He was now eighteen years old, and thenceforth he "ruled as well as reigned."

(M276)

The king's marriage with Philippa of Hainault, which had taken place at York on the 30th January, 1328, had been popular with the city(461) as tending to open up trade with Flanders. Hitherto nearly all the wool produced by this country had been sent to Flanders for manufacture, the export trade being so large that the king is said to have received more than 30,000 in a single year from duties levied on this commodity alone.(462) We have already seen how, in order to punish the Countess of Flanders for injuries inflicted upon English merchants, the king's grandfather resorted, in 1270, to the expedient of forbidding all export of wool to her country.(463) The misery which her half-starved people were then compelled to suffer soon induced the Countess to come to terms. It was also in no small measure owing to the fear of a similar stoppage by the intervention of the French fleet, that the Flemings laid aside their neutrality in 1339, and openly a.s.sisted Edward in his war with France.

(M277)

Towards the close of the last reign the "staples" or market towns for the sale of certain commodities, but more especially of wool, had been removed from the continent and established at various places in England, Ireland and Wales.(464) London was one of those places. No wool was to be exported abroad until it had remained at one or another of the staples for a period of forty days. This rule appears however to have been relaxed by Edward II, in favour of all staple towns but London; merchants being allowed to remove their goods from other staples after a stay of only fifteen days.

The London merchants, therefore, were under the disadvantage of finding the market always forestalled. Edward III had not long been on the throne before they took the opportunity of submitting this hardship not only to the king, but also to the queen-mother, and prayed that the relaxation of the rule touching the forty days with respect to other staples might be withdrawn.(465) Their prayer, however, would seem to have had but little effect, for within a week of the pet.i.tion to the king we find that monarch issuing an order to the collector of customs on wool, leather and wool-fells in the port of London, to enforce the delay of forty days before goods could be removed.(466)

(M278)

Nor was this the only grievance that the London merchants had. In order to raise money to put down the rebellion of the Scots which had broken out soon after his accession, he had recourse to an extra tax upon wool, leather, and wool-fells. The money thus raised was to be considered a loan, receipts being given to the merchants under the king's seal, known as "c.o.ket," and the merchants in return were to be allowed absolute free trade from the 2nd July, 1327, the date of the writ, up to the following Christmas.(467) The Londoners objected altogether to this impost, on the grounds that they had never been consulted on the matter, and had never given their a.s.sent.(468)

A compromise was subsequently effected. In consideration of the good service which the citizens of London had already done to the king in times past, and for the good service which they were prepared to render again in the future, they were released of arrears of the tax due from 2nd July to the 23rd September, provided they were willing to pay it for the remainder of the term.(469) After Christmas the restrictions upon free trade were again enforced.(470)

(M279)

On the 11th December (1327), Edward issued a writ(471) to the Sheriffs of London to choose two representatives to attend on behalf of the citizens at a parliament to be held at York, on Sunday next after the Feast of the Purification (2 Feb., 1328). Instead, however, of sending only two members as directed, the citizens appear on this occasion to have sent no less than four, viz.: Richard de Betoyne, Robert de Kelseye, John de Grantham, and John Priour the Younger.(472)

One of the questions to be determined was the advisability of again removing the Staple from England to the continent. On this question, there appears to have arisen some difference of opinion among the city representatives. Betoyne, who had formerly enjoyed the office of Mayor of the Staple beyond the seas, favoured a return to the old order of things, whilst his colleagues were opposed to any such proceeding. Notification of Betoyne's disagreement with his colleagues was made to the mayor and commonalty of the City by letter from the mayor and commonalty of York, to which reply was made that Betoyne's action was entirely unauthorised.(473) A letter was sent the same day to Betoyne himself, enjoining him to do nothing in the matter opposed to the wish of the commonalty of London(474); and another to Betoyne's colleagues informing them of the City's action, and bidding them to exert themselves to the utmost to keep the Staple in England.(475)

The account of Betoyne's difference with his colleagues, as related in the letter from the City of York, was subsequently found to require considerable modification, when a letter was received by the Mayor of London from two of his colleagues, Grantham and Priour.(476) Their account of what had actually taken place was to the effect that Betoyne had been publicly requested by a number of representatives from various towns, a.s.sembled in the Chapter House at York, to resign his mayoralty (of the Staple) and to deliver up the charters which had been acquired at no little expense. Betoyne replied that the charters were in the possession of John de Charleton,(477) who refused to give them up, but that he had himself, four years since, caused a transcript of the charters to be made, which he was prepared to give up to them if they so wished. Thereupon, there suddenly appeared upon the scene the Mayor of York, hand in hand with John de Charleton himself, and followed by a number of burgesses of York. The appearance of John de Charleton was eminently distasteful to Betoyne, and he got up and left the room, declining to take any further part in the discussion so long as Charleton was present. That was practically all that had occurred, and the writers expressed themselves as much hurt if anything more than this had been reported from the mayor and commonalty of York, for in their opinion Betoyne had never shown himself otherwise than diligent in his duty. The letter concluded with a report of general news, the chief item being the announcement of the death of the King of France, and the writers expressed a wish that the same publicity might be given to their letter as was given to the letter received from the Mayor of York.

(M280)

Betoyne on the same day sent home his own account of what had taken place at York.(478) It agrees in the main with the account sent by his colleagues, but contains some particulars of interest not mentioned in the latter. He relates how he had been asked to retire from the Mayoralty of the Staple beyond the seas, and to give up the charters and other muniments which the several towns had obtained at considerable cost. To this he had replied that many charters he had left behind on the continent, but he had brought over with him the charters of the franchises of the staples which had been purchased of the late king. These were in the hands of John de Charleton, who refused to give them up. He had himself, however, gone to Dover in the eighteenth year of Edward II, when the king himself was there, and had caused a duplicate of the charters to be made, which he had expressed his readiness to show them. He encloses a copy. As a proof of the bad feeling (_la malencolye_) which the burgesses of York entertained towards him, he proceeds to relate how the Mayor of York, maliciously and without any warning, had appeared at the a.s.sembly with four or five of his suite, accompanied by John de Charleton, clothed in the mayor's livery, and by a crowd of citizens, to the terror of the a.s.sembled merchants. Thereupon, Bretoyne had declared that he would not sit nor remain where Charleton was, and had left the meeting; for, said he, he would never make peace with Charleton except with the a.s.sent of the Mayor and Commonalty of London. He concluded by asking that his character might not be allowed to suffer by anything which the Mayor of York may have written. By a postscript he informs the Mayor of London, that on the eve of the Purification (the day fixed for the re-a.s.sembly of parliament) the Mayor of York had come to his hostel, accompanied by many others, and had accused him of having come to the city for the express purpose of annoying their fellow-burgess John de Charleton, which he had denied. This insult, he is advised, touches not only himself, but the Corporation of London whose representative he was.

(M281)

Both these letters were laid before the commonalty of London a.s.sembled at the Guildhall on the 19th February, when Betoyne's action was approved, and on the following day a letter was addressed to him to that effect. The Mayor and Commonalty of York received also a missive in which their late conduct to Betoyne was severely criticised.(479) Betoyne's recent services were recognized by the grant, at his own request, of a handsome coverlet furred with minever, in part payment of his expenses incurred in attending the parliament at York.(480)

(M282)

The king, finding that the opposition to the removal of the staple displayed not only by London but by York, Winchester, Bristol and Lincoln was too great to be overcome, abolished staples altogether (August, 1328), and re-established free-trade.(481) He even invited Flemish weavers to settle in England so as to give a stimulus to the manufacture of woollen fabrics. These he took under his special protection,(482) for the native looked askance upon all foreigners, traders or craftsmen.

(M283)

One of the last political acts of Mortimer had been to send Edward over to France to do homage to Philip of Valois, the new king, for his possessions in that country. This homage Edward paid in 1329, but subject to certain reservations.(483) In 1330 he was making preparations for war, and took the opportunity of the presence of Stephen de Abyndone and John de Caustone, the City's representatives in the parliament held that year at Westminster, to ask them what a.s.sistance the City would be likely to afford him. The City members asked leave to consult the commonalty on the matter. Eventually the sum of 1,000 marks was offered, a sum so trifling that Edward consented to accept it only as a free gift, and plainly intimated that he looked for more substantial aid in the future.(484)

In July, he summoned the mayor and twenty-four of the leading citizens to attend him at Woodstock. The mayor (Simon de Swanlonde) would have had them excused on the ground of the disturbed state of the city, but the king was not to be denied. Subst.i.tutes were appointed for the mayor during his absence, and he and seven aldermen and sixteen commoners went to Woodstock, where they gave a.s.surances of the City's loyalty.(485) In 1331, after Mortimer's fall, when Edward was his own master, lie again visited France, and a peace was concluded between the two kings.(486)

(M284)

From 1332 to 1335 the king was chiefly occupied with Scotland. It was part of the policy of Philip of Valois to encourage disturbance in the north of England, as a means of recovering his lost possessions in France.(487) The period of four years during which peace had been a.s.sured by Edward with Scotland by the treaty of Northampton had now elapsed,(488) and active operations on both sides re-commenced. In 1334 the city voted 1,000 marks, afterwards raised to 1,200, for raising 100 hors.e.m.e.n and as many men-at-arms to a.s.sist the king for a period of forty days.(489)

A spy was also despatched to Normandy and Brabant to see how matters were going there, and gifts were made to the courts of Juliers and Namur to secure their favour. The parliament which sat at York in May, 1335,(490) having decided in favour of a fresh expedition to Scotland,(491) the king sent orders to the City to hold its forces in readiness to march under the leadership of two of its aldermen, John de Pulteney and Reginald de Conduit.(492) A commission to seize ships in the port of London to the king's use, resulted in the detention of six ships.(493)

(M285)

At length, the friendly att.i.tude which Philip of Valois had taken up towards Scotland, much to Edward's prejudice, determined the latter to go in person to France for the purpose, not only of defending his possessions there, but also of enforcing his claim to the French crown. The year 1337 was devoted to active preparations for the struggle. The City of London, in spite of its franchise, was called upon to furnish 500 men at arms, and to send them to Portsmouth by Whitsuntide.(494) The date was subsequently altered to Trinity Sunday.(495) The king took occasion to find fault with the city's dilatoriness in executing his demands, as well as with the physique of the men that were being supplied. At the request of the mayor, Sir John de Pulteney (he had recently received the honour of knighthood(496)), the number of men to be furnished was reduced to 200, the rest to be supplied on further notice.(497)