(M99)

Having settled the succession of the crown of England upon his eldest son, the king put his second son, Richard, into possession of the Duchy of Aquitaine, and provided for his third son, Geoffrey, by marriage with the heiress of Brittany. There was yet another son, John, who was too young to be provided for just now, and who being without any territory, a.s.signed to him, acquired the name of Lackland. Both Richard and Geoffrey had taken the part of their brother Henry in 1173, and in 1177 the three brothers were again quarrelling with their father and with each other. After the deaths of Henry and Geoffrey, the quarrel was taken up by the surviving brothers, Richard and John.

In all these-more or less-petty wars with his sons, the king had always to deal with the ruler of France. At last, in 1189, the loss of Le Mans-his own birth-place-and the unexpected discovery that his youngest and best beloved son, John, had turned traitor towards him, left the king nothing to live for, and after a few days suffering he died, ill and worn out, at Chinon.

(M100)

Richard had scarcely succeeded to the throne, before he set out on a crusade, leaving the government of his country in the hands of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, as chancellor.(143) With him was a.s.sociated in the government, Hugh de Puiset, or Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, but Longchamp soon got the supreme control of affairs into his own hands, and commenced to act in the most tyrannical fashion. He increased the security of the Tower of London, which had been committed to his charge, by surrounding it with a moat,(144) and having got himself nominated papal legate, made a progress through the country committing the greatest extortion.(145)

(M101) (M102)

Report of the Chancellor's conduct having reached the ears of Richard, he despatched the Archbishop of Rouen to England with a new commission, but the worthy prelate on arrival (April, 1191), was afraid to present the commission, preferring to let matters take their course.(146) Already a fierce rivalry had sprung up between the chancellor and John, the king's brother, who, for purposes of his own, had espoused the cause of the oppressed. Popular feeling at length became so strong, that Longchamp feared to meet John and the bishops, and, instead of going to Reading, where his attendance was required, he hastened to London. Arriving there (7 Oct.), he called the citizens together in the Guildhall, and prayed them to uphold the King against John, whom he denounced as aiming plainly at the Crown. The leading men in the city at the time were Richard Fitz-Reiner and Henry de Cornhill. These took opposite sides, the former favouring John, whilst the latter took the side of the chancellor.(147) John's party proving the stronger of the two, Longchamp thought it safest to seek refuge in the Tower.(148)

(M103)

As soon as John found that the chancellor had gone to London instead of Reading, he too hastened thither. On his arrival he was welcomed and hospitably entertained by Richard Fitz-Reiner who gave him to understand on what terms he might expect the support of the city.(149) As to terms, John was ready to accede to any that might be proposed.

(M104) (M105)

The next day (8 Oct.), a meeting of the barons of the realm, as well as of the citizens of London, was convened in St. Paul's Church, to consider the conduct of the chancellor, and it was thereupon decided that Longchamp should be deposed from office. The story, as told by different chroniclers,(150) varies in some particulars, but the main features are the same in all. The king's minister was set aside, John was recognised as the head of the kingdom, and new appointments made to judicial, fiscal, and military offices. The Archbishop of Rouen, who attended the council, seeing the turn affairs had taken, no longer hesitated to produce the letters under the king's sign manual appointing a new commission for the government of the kingdom.

(M106)

The same day that witnessed the fall of Longchamp was also a memorable one in the annals of the City of London; for immediately after judgment had been pa.s.sed on the chancellor, John and the a.s.sembled barons granted to the citizens "their commune," swearing to preserve untouched the dignities of the city during the king's pleasure. The citizens on their part swore fealty to King Richard, and declared their readiness to accept John as successor to the throne in the event of his brother dying childless.(151)

(M107)

This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words _their_ commune (_communam suam_) imply a commune of which they were _de facto_, if not _de jure_ already in enjoyment. How long the commune may have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined; but that the term _communio_ in connection with the city's organization was known half a century before, we have already seen;(152) and, according to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction between the words _communio_, _communa_ and _communia_.(153) Bishop Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate _communio_ as "commune," the latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of munic.i.p.al government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or "franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization" in Stephen's reign, an idea which became fully developed in the succeeding reign.(154) He is also in favour of dating the foundation of the _communa_ in London from this grant by John and the barons,(155) and in this view he is supported by Richard of Devizes, who distinctly states that the _communia_ of London was inst.i.tuted on that occasion, and that it was of such a character that neither King Richard nor Henry his father would have conceded it for a million marks of silver, and that a _communia_ was in fact everything that was bad. It puffed up the people, it threatened the kingdom, and it emasculated the priesthood.(156)

(M108)

With the change from a shire organization to that of a French _commune_, whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon "port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"(157) occurred, down to the present day, the sheriff's position has always been one of secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor.

(M109)

The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal doc.u.ment is said to occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.(158) The popular opinion, however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a statement to be found in an early ma.n.u.script record still preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and known as the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_.(159) The original portion of this ma.n.u.script purports to be a chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative to the year 1274.

After naming the sheriffs who were appointed at Michaelmas, A.D. 1188, "the first year of the reign of King Richard,"(160) it goes on to say that "in the same year Henry Fitz-Eylwin of Londenestane was made mayor of London, who was the first mayor of the city, and continued to be such mayor to the end of his life, that is to say, for nearly five and twenty years." That Henry Fitz-Eylwin was mayor in the first year of Richard's reign is stated no less than three times in the chronicle.(161)

(M110)

The compiler of the chronicle is supposed to have been Arnald or Arnulf Fitz-Thedmar,(162) an Alderman of London, although it is not known over which ward he presided. Particulars of his life are given in the volume itself, from which we gather that he was a grandson on the mother's side of Arnald de Grevingge(163) a citizen of Cologne; that his father's name was Thedmar, a native of Bremen; that he was born on the vigil of St.

Lawrence [10 August] A.D. 1201, his mother being forewarned of the circ.u.mstances that would attend his birth in a manner familiar to biblical readers; that he was deprived of his aldermanry by the king, but was afterwards restored; that he became supporter of the king against Simon de Montfort and the barons, and that he was among those whom Thomas Fitz-Thomas, the leader of the democratic party and his followers, had "intended to slay" on the very day that news reached London of the battle of Evesham, which crushed the hopes of Montfort and his supporters. The date of his death cannot be precisely determined, but there can be but little doubt that it took place early in the third year of the reign of Edward the First, inasmuch as his will was proved and enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, held on Monday, the morrow of the Feast of St.

Scolastica [10 Feb.] of that year (A.D. 1274-5).(164)

Setting aside the statement-namely that mention is made of a mayor of London, in a doc.u.ment of the reign of Henry II-as wanting corroboration, the first instance known at the present day of any such official being named in a formal doc.u.ment occurs in 1193 when the Mayor of London appears among those who were appointed treasurers of Richard's ransom.(165)

(M111)

Richard's first charter to the City (23 April, 1194)(166) granted a few weeks after his return from abroad makes no mention of a mayor, nor does the t.i.tle occur in any royal charter affecting the City until the year 1202, when John attempted to suppress the guild of weavers "at the request of our mayor and citizens of London." A few years later when John was ready to do anything and everything to avoid signing the Great Charter which the barons were forcing on him, he made a bid for the favour of the citizens by granting them the right to elect annually a mayor, and thus their autonomy was rendered complete.

(M112)

When Richard recovered his liberty and returned to England he was heartily welcomed by all except his brother John. One of his first acts was to visit the City and return thanks for his safety at St. Paul's.(167) The City was on this occasion made to look its brightest, and the display of wealth astonished the foreigners in the King's suite, who had been led to believe that England had been brought to the lowest stage of poverty by payment of the King's ransom.(168)

(M113) (M114)

In order to wipe out the stain of his imprisonment, he thought fit to go through the ceremony of coronation for the second time. His first coronation had taken place at Westminster (3 Sept., 1189,) soon after his accession, and the citizens of London had duly performed a service at the coronation banquet-a service which even in those days was recognised as an "ancient service"-namely, that of a.s.sisting the chief butler, for which the mayor was customarily presented with a gold cup and ewer. The citizens of the rival city of Winchester performed on this occasion the lesser service of attending to the viands.(169)

The second coronation taking place at Winchester 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.(170)

(M115)

Richard was ever in want of money, and cared little by what means it was raised. He declared himself ready to sell London itself if a purchaser could be found.(171) The tax of Danegelt, from which the citizens of London had been specially exempted by charter of Henry I, and which had ceased to be exacted under Henry II, mainly through the interposition of Thomas of London, was practically revived under a new name. The charter already mentioned as having been granted to the citizens by Richard after his return from captivity was probably purchased, for one of the king's regular methods of raising money was a lavish distribution of charters to boroughs, not from any love he had for munic.i.p.al government, but in order to put money in his purse. As soon as Richard had collected all the money he could raise in England, he again left the country, never to return.

(M116)

The pressure of taxation weighed heavily on the poor, and occasioned a rising in the city under the leadership of William Fitz-Osbert. The cry was that the rich were spared whilst the poor were called upon to pay everything.(172) Accounts of the commotion differ according as the writer favoured the autocratic or democratic side. One chronicler, for instance, finds fault with Fitz-Osbert's personal appearance, imputing his inordinate length of beard-he was known as "Longbeard"-to his desire for conspicuousness, and declares him to have been actuated by base motives.(173)

Others describe him as a wealthy citizen of the best family, and yet as one who ever upheld the cause of the poor against the king's extortions.(174) Whatever may have been the true character of the man and the real motive of his action, it is certain that he had a large following. When Hubert Walter, the justiciar, sent to arrest him, "Longbeard" took refuge in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow. Thither he was followed by the king's officers-described by a not impartial chronicler as men devoid of truth and piety and enemies of the poor.(175)-who with the aid of fire and f.a.ggot soon compelled him to surrender. On his way to the Tower, he was struck at and wounded by one whose father (it was said) he had formerly killed;(176) but this again may or may not be the whole truth. A few days later he and a number of his a.s.sociates were hanged.(177)

(M117)

Two years before his death at Chaluz, Richard, with the view of aiding commerce, caused the wears in the Thames to be removed, and forbade his wardens of the Tower to demand any more the toll that had been accustomed.

The writ to this effect was dated from the Island of Andely or Les Andelys on the Seine, the 14th July, 1197, in the neighbourhood of that fortress which Richard had erected, and of which he was so proud-the Chateau Gaillard or "Saucy Castle," as he jestingly called it. The reputation which the castle enjoyed for impregnability under Richard, was lost under his successor on the throne.

(M118)

Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city, and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor."(178) Just as in the const.i.tution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the city-described by Lord c.o.ke as _epitome totius regni_-the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of the common council.

(M119)

When, after thirteen years of misgovernment, during which John had enraged the barons and excited general discontent by endless impositions, matters were brought to a climax by his submission to the pope, it was in the city of London that the first steps were taken by his subjects to recover their lost liberty. On the 25th August, 1213, a meeting of the clergy and barons was held in the church of St. Paul; a memorable meeting, and one that has been described as "a true parliament of the realm, though no king presided in it."(179) Stephen Langton, whose appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury had so raised John's ire, took the lead and produced to the a.s.sembly a copy of the Charter of Liberties, granted by Henry I, when that king undertook to put an end to the tyranny of William Rufus. If the barons so pleased, it might (he said) serve as a precedent. The charter having been then and there deliberately read, the barons unanimously declared that for such liberties they were ready to fight, and, if necessary, to die.(180)

The clergy and people who had hitherto supported the king against the barons, having now engaged themselves to a.s.sist the barons against the tyranny of the king, John found himself with but one friend in the world, and that was the Pope. "Innocent's view of the situation was very simple,"

writes Dr. Gardiner, "John was to obey the Pope, and all John's subjects were to obey John." Within a few weeks of the council being held at St.

Paul's, the same sacred edifice witnessed the formality of affixing a golden _bulla_ to the deed-the detestable deed (_carta detestabilis_)-whereby John had in May last resigned the crown of England to the papal legate, and received it again as the Pope's feudatory.(181)

(M120)

In the following year (1214), whilst the king was abroad, the barons met again at Bury St. Edmunds, and solemnly swore that if John any longer delayed restoring the laws and liberties of Henry the First, they would make war upon him. It was arranged that after Christmas they should go in a body and demand their rights, and that in the meantime they should provide themselves with horses and arms, with the view of bringing force to bear, in case of refusal.(182) The citizens at the same time took the opportunity of strengthening their defences by digging a foss on the further side of the city wall.(183)

(M121)

Christmas came and a meeting between John and the barons took place in London at what was then known as the "New" Temple. The result, however, was unsatisfactory, and both parties prepared for an appeal to force, the barons choosing as their leader Robert Fitz-Walter, whom they dubbed "Marshal of the army of G.o.d and of Holy Church."(184)

(M122)

This Fitz-Walter was Baron of Dunmow in Ess.e.x, the owner of Baynard's Castle in the City of London, and lord of a soke, which embraced the whole of the parish known as St. Andrew Castle Baynard. He moreover enjoyed the dignity of castellain and chief bannerer or banneret of London. The rights and privileges attaching to his soke and to his official position in time of peace were considerable, to judge from a claim to them put forward by his grandson in the year 1303. Upon making his appearance in the Court of Husting at the Guildhall, it was the duty of the Mayor, or other official holding the court, to rise and meet him and place him by his side. Again, if any traitor were taken within his soke or jurisdiction, it was his right to sentence him to death, the manner of death being that the convicted person should be tied to a post in the Thames at the Wood Wharf, and remain there during two tides and two ebbs.(185)