The civic authorities were naturally anxious as to what the king might say and do in consequence of the outbreak, and desired an interview in order to explain matters. Lancaster was opposed to any such interview taking place. The London mob had seized upon an escutcheon of the duke, displayed in some public thoroughfare, and had reversed it by way of signifying that it was the escutcheon of a traitor.(610) This had particularly raised his anger. Nevertheless, in spite of his efforts to prevent it, an interview was accorded to a deputation from the city, of which John Philipot acted as spokesman. After drawing the king's attention to the threatened attack on the privileges of the city, and the proposed subst.i.tution of a "captain" for a mayor, Philipot offered an apology for the late riot. It had taken place, he said, without the cognisance of the civic authorities.

Among a large population there were sure to be some bad characters whom it was difficult to restrain, even by the authority of the mayor, when once excited. A mob acted after the manner of a tornado, flying hither and thither, bent on committing havoc at anybody's expense, even its own, but, thank G.o.d! the duke had suffered no harm nor had any of his retinue been hurt. The king having listened to the deputation, a.s.sured them in reply, that so far from wishing to lessen the privileges of the city, he had a mind to enlarge them. They were not to alarm themselves, but to go home and endeavour to preserve peace. On leaving the presence the deputation met the duke, with whom they interchanged courtesies.(611) In the meanwhile lampoons on the duke were posted in the city. The duke became furious and demanded the excommunication of the authors. The bishops hesitated through fear of the mob, but at last the Bishop of Bangor was induced by representations made to him by leading citizens, who wished it to be known that they did not approve of such libels, to execute the duke's wishes.(612)

(M332)

The duke was determined to have his revenge, and again the citizens were summoned to appear before the king, who was lying at Shene. This time they did not get off so easily. The mayor, Adam Stable, was removed, and Nicholas Brembre appointed in his place. A fresh election of aldermen took place,(613) and the City did penance for the recent insult to the duke's escutcheon by offering, at the king's confidential suggestion, a wax taper bearing the duke's arms in St. Paul's. Even that did not satisfy him; nay, it was adding insult to injury (he said), for such an act was an honour usually paid to one who was dead! The citizens were in despair, and doubted if anything would satisfy him, short of proclaiming him king.(614)

(M333)

One of the last acts of Edward was to restore the Bishop of Winchester to the temporalities of which he had been deprived by the duke, and this rest.i.tution was made at the instance and by the influence of Alice Perers,(615) who within a few weeks robbed her dying paramour of his finger rings and fled.(616)

CHAPTER IX.

(M334)

Shortly after Edward had breathed his last, a deputation from the City waited upon the Prince of Wales at Kennington. John Philipot again acted as spokesman, and after alluding to the loss which the country had recently sustained, and recommending the City of London-the "king's chamber"-to the prince's favour, begged him to a.s.sist in effecting a reconciliation with Lancaster. This Richard promised to do, and a few days later the deputation again waited on the young king-this time at Shene, where preparations were being made for the late king's obsequies-and a reconciliation took place, the king kissing each member of the deputation, and promising to be their friend, and to look after the City's interests as if they were his own.(617) Formal announcement of the reconciliation was afterwards made at Westminster, and Peter de la Mare, long a prisoner in Nottingham Castle, was set free, to the great joy of the citizens.(618)

(M335)

At the express wish of the citizens, Richard-the "Londoners' king," as the n.o.bles were in the habit of cynically styling the new sovereign, for the reason that he had ascended the throne more by the a.s.sistance of the _bourgeois_ Londoner than of the n.o.bility(619)-took up his quarters at the Tower, whence he proceeded in state to Westminster for his coronation.

Great preparations were made in the city to tender his progress through the streets one of exceptional splendour. The claim of the mayor and citizens to a.s.sist the chief butler at the banquet was discourteously refused by Robert Belknap, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who bluntly told them that they might be of service in washing up the pots and pans.

The citizens had their revenge, however. They set up an effigy of the man at a conspicuous arch or tower in Cheapside, in which he appeared to the whole of the procession as it pa.s.sed on its way to Westminster, in the ignominious att.i.tude of vomiting wine.(620) This was enough; the Londoners gained the day, and were allowed to perform their customary services at the banquet, and the mayor got his gold cup.(621)

(M336)

Richard was only eleven years of age when raised to the throne. A council was therefore appointed to govern in his name. Neither the Duke of Lancaster nor any other of the king's uncles were elected councillors, and, for a time, John of Gaunt retired into comparative privacy. The task of the council was not easy. The French plundered the coast,(622) and the Scots plundered the borders. Money was sorely needed. The City consented to advance the sum of 5,000 upon the security of the customs of the Port of London and of certain plate and jewels,(623) and when parliament met (13 Oct., 1377) it made a liberal grant of two tenths and two fifteenths, which was to be collected without delay, on the understanding that two treasurers should be appointed to superintend the due application of the money.(624) The two treasurers appointed for this purpose were two citizens of note, namely, William Walworth and John Philipot, of whose financial capability mention has already been made.

(M337)

Before parliament broke up it gave its a.s.sent to a new charter to the City.(625) Foreigners (_i.e._ non-freemen) were again forbidden to traffic in the city among themselves by retail, and the City's franchises were confirmed and enlarged. So much importance was attached to this charter that Brembre, the mayor, caused its main provisions to be published throughout the city.(626)

(M338)

Lancaster soon became tired of playing a subordinate part in the government of the kingdom. As a preliminary step to higher aims, he contrived, after some little opposition, to obtain the removal of the subsidy granted by the last parliament, out of the hands of Walworth and Philipot into his own, although these men had given no cause for suspicion of dishonourable conduct in the execution of their public trust.(627)

(M339)

The energetic John Philipot soon found other work to do. The English coast had recently become infested with a band of pirates, who, having already made a successful descent upon Scarborough, were now seeking fresh adventures. Philipot fitted out a fleet at his own expense, and putting to sea succeeded in capturing the ringleader,(628) a feat which rendered him so popular as to excite the jealousy of the Duke of Lancaster and other n.o.bles. His fellow citizens showed their appreciation of his character by electing him to succeed Brembre in the mayoralty in October (1378).(629)

(M340)

The citizens were, however, split up into factions, one party, with Philipot and Brembre at his head, maintaining a stubborn opposition to Lancaster, whilst another, under the leadership of Walworth and John de Northampton, favoured the duke. These factions were continually plotting and counter-plotting one against the other. At Gloucester, to which the duke had brought the parliament in 1378, in the hope of escaping from the interference of the "ribald" Londoners,(630) Brembre was arraigned on a charge of having connived during his recent mayoralty at an attack made on the house of the duke's younger brother, Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, and although he succeeded in proving his innocence, the earl and his party continued to use threats, and Brembre, in order to smooth matters over, consented to be mulcted in 100 marks. When the matter was reported to the Common Council at home (25 Nov.), that body not only signified its approval of his conduct-"knowing for certain that it was for no demerits of his own, but for the preservation of the liberties of the city, and for the extreme love which he bore it, that he had undergone such labours and expenses,"-but recouped him what he had disbursed.(631)

(M341)

In course of time the earl and his followers succeeded in persecuting Brembre to a disgraceful death. At present they contented themselves with damaging the trade of the city, so far as they could, by leaving the city _en ma.s.se_ and withdrawing their custom. The result was so disastrous to the citizens, more especially to the hostel keepers and victuallers, that the civic authorities resolved to win the n.o.bles back to the city by wholesale bribery, and, as the city's "chamber" was empty, a subscription list was set on foot to raise a fund for the purpose. Philipot, the mayor, headed the list with 10, a sum just double that of any other subscriber.

Six others, among them being Brembre (the earl's particular enemy) and Walworth, subscribed respectively 5; whilst the rest contributed sums varying from 4 down to five marks, the last mentioned sum being subscribed by Richard "Whytyngdon" of famous memory.(632)

(M342)

The grants made to the king by the parliament at Gloucester were soon exhausted by the war, and recourse was had, as usual, to the City. In February, 1379, the mayor and aldermen were sent for to Westminster. They were told that the king's necessities demanded an immediate supply of money, and that the Duke of Lancaster and the rest of the n.o.bility had consented to contribute. What would the City do? After a brief consultation apart, the mayor and aldermen suggested that the usual course should be followed and that they should be allowed to consult the general body of the citizens in the Guildhall. Eventually the City consented to advance another sum of 5,000 on the same security as before, but any tax imposed by parliament at its next session was to be taken as a set off.(633)

(M343)

At the session of parliament held in April and May (1379), the demand for further supply became so urgent that a poll-tax was imposed on a graduated scale according to a man's dignity, ranging from ten marks or 6 1_s._ 4_d._ imposed on a duke, to a groat or four pence which the poorest peasant was called upon to pay. The mayor of London, a.s.sessed as an earl, was to pay 4; and the aldermen, a.s.sessed as barons, 2. The sum thus furnished by the city amounted to less than 700,(634) and the whole amount levied on the country did not exceed 22,000, a sum far short of what had been antic.i.p.ated.

(M344)

In the following year (1380) there was a recurrence to the old method of raising money, but this proving still insufficient a poll-tax was again resorted to. This time, the smallest sum exacted was not less than three groats, and was payable on everyman, woman and unmarried child, above the age of fifteen, throughout the country. The amount thus raised in the city and liberties was just over 1000.(635) The tax was especially irritating from its inquisitorial character, and led to serious consequences.

(M345)

The country was already suffering under a general discontent, when a certain Wat Tyler in Kent struck down a collector of the poll-tax, who attempted in an indecent manner to discover his daughter's age. This was the signal for a revolt of the peasants from one end of England to the other, not only against payment of this particular tax, but against taxes and landlords generally. The men of Ess.e.x joined forces with those of Kent on Blackheath, and thence marched on London. With the aid of sympathisers within the City's gates, the effected an entrance on the night of the 12th of June, and made free with the wine cellars of the wealthier cla.s.s. The next day, the rebels, more mad than drunk (_non tam ebrii quam dementes_), stirred up the populace to make a raid upon the Duke of Lancaster's palace of the Savoy. This they sacked and burnt to the ground. They next vented their wrath upon the Temple, and afterwards upon the house of the Knight's Hospitallers at Clerkenwell. In the meantime reinforcements were gathering in Ess.e.x under the leadership of one known as "Jack Straw," and were hurrying to London. At Mile End they were met (14 June) by the young king himself, who set out from the Tower for that purpose, accompanied by a retinue of knights and esquires on horseback, as well as by his mother in a drawn vehicle. The rebels demanded the surrender of all traitors to the king. To this Richard gave his a.s.sent, and having done so returned to the city to take up his quarters at the Wardrobe, near Castle Baynard, whilst the rebels, availing themselves of the king's word, hurried off to the Tower. There they found Simon of Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, and he and others were beheaded on Tower Hill. The rest of the day and the whole of the next were given up to plunder and ma.s.sacre, so that the narrow streets were choked with corpses. Among those who perished at the hands of the rebels was Richard Lyons, the deposed alderman. At length, on the evening of Sat.u.r.day, the 15th, when the king had ridden to Smithfield accompanied by Walworth, the mayor, and a large retinue in order to discuss matters with Wat Tyler (the Ess.e.x men had for the most part returned home), an altercation happened to arise between Tyler and one of the royal suite. Words were about to lead to blows when the mayor himself interposed, and summarily executed the king's order to arrest Tyler by bringing him to the ground by a fatal blow of his dagger. Deprived of their leader the mob became furious, and demanded Walworth's head; the mayor, however, contrived to slip back into the City, whence he quickly returned with such a force that the rioters were surrounded and compelled to submit. The king intervened to prevent further bloodshed, and knighted on the field not only Walworth, but also Nicholas Brembre, John Philipot and Robert Launde.(636) The same day a royal commission was issued to enquire into the late riot and to bring the offenders to account.(637)

(M346)

Orders were given on the 20th June to each alderman to provide men-at-arms and archers to guard in turns the city's gates, and to see that no armed person entered the city, except those who declared on oath that they were about to join the king's expedition against the rebels. In the meantime, the aldermen were to make returns of all who kept hostels in their several wards.(638) In a list, containing nearly 200 names of divers persons of bad character, who had left the city by reason of the insurrection,(639) there appear the names of two servants of Henry "Grenecobbe." The name is far from common, and we shall not perhaps be far wrong in conjecturing that the owner of it was a relation of William "Gryndecobbe," who led the insurgents against the abbey of St. Albans and compelled the abbot to surrender its charter.(640)

(M347)

"Jack Straw," on being brought before the mayor, was induced by promises of ma.s.ses for the good of his soul, to confess the nature of the intentions of the rioters, which were to use the king's person as a stalking horse for drawing people to their side, and eventually to kill him and all in authority throughout the kingdom. The mendicant friars, who were believed to be at the bottom of the insurrection,(641) were alone to be spared. Wat Tyler was to be made king of Kent, whilst others were to be placed in similar positions over the rest of the counties. The mayor sentenced him to be beheaded. This done, his head was set up on London Bridge, where Wat Tyler's already figured.(642)

(M348)

The discontent which had given rise to the peasants' revolt, had been fanned by the attacks made by Wycliffe's "simple priests" upon the rich and idle clergy. The revolt occasioned a bitter feeling among the landlord cla.s.s against Wycliffe and his followers, and after its suppression the Lollards were made the object of much animadversion. Their preaching was forbidden,(643) and Wycliffe was obliged to retire to his country parsonage, where he continued to labour with his pen for the cause he had so much at heart, until his death in 1384.

(M349)

The majority of the citizens favoured the doctrines of Wycliffe and his followers and endeavoured to carry them out. The Duke of Lancaster had no real sympathy with the Lollards; he only wished to make use of them for a political purpose. It was otherwise with the Londoners, and with John de Northampton, a supporter of the duke, who succeeded to the mayoralty soon after the suppression of the revolt. Under Northampton-a man whom even his enemies allowed to be of stern purpose, not truckling to those above him, nor bending to his inferiors,(644)-many reforms were carried out, ecclesiastical as well as civil.

The ecclesiastical courts having grossly failed in their duty, the citizens themselves, fearful of G.o.d's vengeance if matters were allowed to continue as they were, undertook the work of reform within the city's walls. The fees of the city parsons were cut down. The fee for baptism was not to exceed forty pence, whilst that for marriage was not as a general rule to be more than half a mark. One farthing was all that could be demanded for a ma.s.s for the dead, and the priest was bound to give change for a half-penny when requested or forego his fee.(645) Steps were taken at the same time to improve the morality of the city by ridding the streets of lewd women and licentious men. On the occasion of a first offence, culprits of either s.e.x were subjected to the ignominy of having their hair cropt for future identification, and then conducted with rough music through the public thoroughfares, the men to the pillory and the women to the "thewe." After a third conviction, they were made to abjure the City altogether.(646) It was during Northampton's first year of the mayoralty that the citizens succeeded in breaking down the monopoly of the free fish-mongers. A number of "dossers" or baskets for carrying fish were also seized because they were deficient in holding capacity, and on that account were calculated to defraud the purchaser.(647) But, although a mayor in those days exercised, no doubt, greater power in the munic.i.p.al government than now, we must be careful to avoid the common mistake of attributing to the individuality of the mayor for the time being what was really the action of the citizens as a body corporate.

(M350)

In October, 1382, Northampton was elected mayor for the second time, and Philipot, his rival, either resigned or was deprived of his aldermancy.(648) His re-election was at the king's express wish. On the 6th he wrote to the sheriffs, aldermen and commons of the city intimating that, whilst anxious to leave the citizens free choice in the matter of election of their mayor, he would be personally gratified if their choice fell upon the outgoing mayor. At first Northampton declined re-election, but he afterwards consented to serve another year on receiving a written request from the king.(649) His hesitation was probably due to the factious state of the city. Brembre and Philipot were not his only enemies. Another alderman, Nicholas Exton, of Queenhithe Ward, had recently been removed from his aldermancy for opprobrious words used to Northampton during his first mayoralty. A pet.i.tion had been laid before the Court of Common Council in August, 1382, when Exton himself being present, and seeing the turn affairs were taking, endeavoured to antic.i.p.ate the judgment of the court, by himself asking to be exonerated from his office, declaring at the same time that he had offered a large sum of money to be released at his election in the first instance. The court wishing for further time to consider the matter adjourned. At its next meeting a similar pet.i.tion was again presented, but the court hesitated to p.r.o.nounce judgment in the absence of Exton, who was summoned to appear at the next Common Council. When the court met again, it was found that Exton had ignored the summons. Judgment was, therefore, p.r.o.nounced in his absence and he was deprived of his aldermancy.(650)

(M351)

At the close of Northampton's second mayoralty (Oct., 1383), his place was taken by his rival, Nicholas Brembre,(651) and a general reversal of the order of things took place. The free-fishmongers recovered their ancient privileges,(652) and the judgment pa.s.sed upon Exton as well as a similar judgment pa.s.sed upon another alderman, Adam Carlile, were reversed.(653)

(M352)