The lord mayor and aldermen of London during the Tudor period

Chapter I. THE CITY

During the Tudor period London attained that definite preeminence, intellectually, commercially, socially, and politically which it has ever since retained. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen are as familiar personages in the Elizabethan drama as they are in the statutes of the realm, in the charters of the commercial companies, in the observation of foreign visitors and in the attention of the sovereign and the privy council. The form of government was by this time definitely established. The city had, however, no especial document which defined its rights and privileges, detenuined its government, or prescribed the manner of election of its ofiicials. Instead, it had a great body of separate charters which had been granted to it from time to time by succeeding sovereigns, around which many traditions and customs had grown. A survey of these charters, from that of the Conqueror with its meager and indefinite grant, to that of Edward VI with its gift of Southwark, shows how, little by little, the constitutional powers of the city had grown.

Besides the promise that the son should succeed to his father's advantages, William I granted to the city the privilege that its burghers, French and English, should be considered law worthy.^ An undated charter granted by Henry I to the city added considerably to the privileges of the Londoners.^ By this document London was recognized as a unity, distinct and separate from the shire in which it was situated, and was placed upon a footing similar to that of the countries of the realm. More privileged than the shires, however, it was given Middlesex to farm, with the privilege of electing its sheriff and justices. It was also declared free from the jurisdiction of all ofiicials

^Historical Charters (ed. Birch), 1.

"Ibid., 3.

except those of its own choice. In addition, the Londoners were exempt from toll throughout England.

Following these grants of Henry, there was no great enlargement of the privileges of the city until the time of John. Except for the grant of the conservancy of the Thames by Richard,^ the charters given by Henry II, without date, and Richard I in 1194,* were in a large measure confirmatory gi*ants of exemption from toll. With the fifth charter given by John in 1115 the citizens were authorized to choose their mayor. They were permitted to keep him in ofiice for as long a period as they desired, removing him at the end of a year if they saw fit, or retaining him for a longer time if they wished. It was necessary, however, that he should be presented to the king, or, in case of his absence, to the justiciar, when the oath of loyalty should be administered to him.^

After this a considerable period of time again elapsed before any marked additions were made to the municipal privileges. It was in 1827, over a century later, that Edward III gave to the city the first of his important charters. While a number of royal grants had been made to the city by intervening sovereigns, they w^ere, on the whole, merely confirmatory. During Henry Ill's long reign nine separate charters were given to the city, five in 1227, and one in 1247, in 1253, in 1266 and in 1268.*' Edward I in 1298, for the greater convenience of the citizens, declared that they might present the mayor and sheriffs to the constable of Tower, in case the king and the barons of the exchequer should be absent from Westminster.'^ The first charter of Edw^ard II in 1319 consisted of a number of articles which had been agreed upon by the citizens, and which, being submitted to the king for confirmation, had been ratified by him. These articles refer to the election and duties of the officers of the city and to the admission to the

*Historiral Charters, 9.

freedom of the city."^ The following year Edward granted a second charter, which declared that the military service rendered by the citizens of London in besieging the castle of Leeds in Kent should not be used as a precedent.^ With the first charter of Edward III the freedom of the city, regarding the non-entrance of crown officials was enhanced by making the mayor not only one of the justices of jail delivery of ISTewgate, but escheator and clerk of the market.

The exemption of the city from the interference of royal officials was not again increased until Edward IV's reign. Prior to this time Edward III had granted five additional charters, in 1327, 1337, 1354, and two in 1376.^« According to the grant of 1327 the citizens were given some slight control over Southwark, but the others, as well as the grants made by Richard II in 1377 and 1383,^^ added but little to the privileges of the citizens. In 1462, however, it was declared that the mayor, recorder, and those aldermen who had served as mayor should be justices of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer for London. ^^ The same charter confirmed the grant of the Borough of Southwark with the right of waifs, strays and treasure trove and the assize of bread and beer. The citizens were also granted the right of holding an annual fair wuthin the borough, with a court of Pie powder. ^^ Yet another privilege was added by Edward's fourth charter, granted in 1478, which declared that no royal coroner might enter the city, as the right of appointing such officers belonged to the mayor and citizens. ^^ At the same time the officers of package, scavage, carriage, portage and garbling were granted to the city.^"^ By the first charter of the same king tronage had been given to London. Henry VII in 1504 added the office of ganger to this list, at the same time

^Historical Chai-tcrs, 45-50. 'IMd., 51.

confirming the mayor's right to exact forfeiture from all merchant strangers trafficking by wholesale within the city with the intention of selling again. -^^

Henry YIII gave two charters to the citizens, in 1518 and 1531.-''^ The first declared that the justices of oyer and terminer should hold their inquisitions in the Guildhall or any other place which the justices should think convenient. The third dealt with the office of tronage. This had been granted to the city by Henry IV, Edward IV, yet in 1521 Henry VIII granted the great beam and common balance to Sir William Sidney, who kept in for ten years. At the end of that time he returned the gift to the king, in order that it might again be given to the city. By the charter of 1531 Henry declared that the office of ancient right belonged to the citizens. This was practically the last grant of privilege prior to the end of the Tudor rule, for the charter of Edward VI, though granting the much needed jurisdiction over Southwark, gave to the city no additional privileges of government. ^^

That the citizens held the charters in great esteem may be readily seen in the energy they displayed in resenting any act which seemed to infringe upon their immunities or rights. The privy council learning, in 1579, that the mayor was not carrying out to its full extent Elizabeth's proclamation against eating of meat during Lent, attempted to send some of the crown officials into London to examine into the matter. They were compelled to retire, however, on account of the great opposition of the citizens. Later the privy council wrote to the mayor that, as the lords were loath to prejudice the Londoners in their government and liberties, they would be satisfied if he would send to them an account of the steps he had taken to prevent the proclamation's being broken. ^^ Again in 1580, when troops were being levied, a commission Avas sent to the city as a town corporate instead of as a shire. The mayor refused to act upon

^^Historical Charters, 05.

^^Acts of the Prill/ Council 1378-1580, 14.

it and sent a letter to the Lord Chancellor urging that a new commission be issued. The next day the mayor wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham that the Lord Chancellor had declared that, in his opinion, a new commission should be issued.^*^

In order to understand the duties and work of the officials of London it is necessary to know something of the city itself; its extent ; its division into wards ; its inhabitants, its citizens and apprentices, and their treatment of the strangers. We are fortunate in having the material for obtaining a good idea of the extent of the city in the Tudor period in Stow's ''Survey" and in a series of contemporary maps. In Agas's and ISTorton'a maps the walls of the city show so plainly that the distinction between "London without the walls and London within the walls"^^ can be easily understood. The latter part of the expression refers to the land outside the walls, which it was necessary for the city to possess for its own protection. By the time of Henry VIII the jurisdiction of the city extended two miles beyond the walls. ^^ The limits were determined in a large measure by the six gates which were still standing at this time. The bars without Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate and Ludgate as well as Temple Bar determined the extent of the city's jurisdiction.^^ Without Cripplegate and Moregate were the posts which marked the limits of the city to the north. ^^ With these marks as guides the extent of the city, except for the part nearest the Tower, was well defined.

The indefinite marking of the city's limits at this place led to frequent strife between the mayor and the lieutenant of the Tower. When these disagreements reached serious proportions, the privy council took control. Thus in 1552 the council appointed a committee to examine into the quarrel and arrange a means of bringing it to a speedy conclusion. ^^ In 1565 an

'^Rcmemhroncia. 231.

"Camden, Britannia, 391.

^Statutes of the Realm, 14, 15, H. VIII, 2.

' 8

extended dispute arose on account of the mayor's order that his sword of state should precede him to the gate of the Tower. As the lieutenant considered the gate within his jurisdiction, he ordered the sword to be lowered. ^"^ The mayor complained to the lords of the council, who directed each of the contestants to respect the other's liberties until the dispute could be satisfactorily arranged.-" The matter could not have been definitely settled, for in 1582 the mayor's sword was again the cause of contention. That year the mayor took his oath of office at the Tower, at the gate of which the wardens compelled the sword bearer to lower the mayor's sign of authority.-*^ The lieutenant must have felt that the lords of the council were looking at the matter from his point of view, for less than a month later he was particularly daring in asserting his claims to the land. At the perambulation which was taken in ils'ovember for the purpose of marking off the limits of the lieutenant's authority, he had pales and rails broken in gardens belonging to Londoners. So incensed were the people that it was with difficulty that a general rising of the citizens against the lieutenant was averted. ^^ In spite of these grievances the question remained unsettled, and the year following the discussion broke out again. At this time it was the lieutenant who felt himself aggrieved. He complained to the council regarding the mayor's act of leasing the land on Tower Hill. He not only claimed that such an act was an infringement upon his jurisdiction, but also complained of the fact that persons to whom the land had been leased had built stables there. This he regarded as dangerous to the imperial ^astle.^*^ Almost ten years after this the old animosity broke out again. The dispute at this time had arisen from the arrest for debt of one of the wardens of the Tower by the sheriffs of London. Immediately after three citizens of London were seized by the lieutenant of the Tower by writ of withernam.

^"Calendar of State Papers, 1581-1590, 218.

The city gained its point at this time, for the privy council ordered the release of the Londoners and the detention of the warden until his debt should be paid.^^ A few years later persons were imprisoned by the officers of both districts on account of the discussion regarding the ownership of the land. As a result of this the pri\^ council took some definite action. The recorder and chamberlain of the city were summoned before them, and the matter was discussed with two members of the council. The result of the conference was that both the mayor and the lords were ordered to free their respective prisoners.^ ^ As there was no further discussion of the question during this period, it is judged that this conference reached satisfactory conclusions.

In addition to the strife over the boundary at this eastern limit of the city, there was occasionally some contest over the mayor's jurisdiction over Southwark. During the later Tudor period the Londoners tried to make that part of Southwark which had been granted to them what Edward had evidently intended by his charter^'^— a corporate part of the city. London bridge offered so easy a means of escape for the criminals that it was imperative that the mayor's power extend into that part of ''the borough"-^^ Avliich was directly connected with the bridge. Hence the citizens were perfectly willing to pay the king the money he asked for the land. ' The charter granting them the land gave them the additional privilege of appointing the coroners and constables for the district, and of imprisoning thieves in ISTewgate. The fact that the borough was located in the county of Surrey gave rise to considerable difiieulty at times when it was necessary to make drafts for service in the army. In January, 1558, letters were sent by the privy council to the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey, stating that complaints were coming from the inhabitants of the borough because, although pressed

^Historical Charters, III.

^In all contemporary records Southwark is spoken of as "The Borough of Southwark."

into service by the Londoners, they were also charged with the levies made by Surrey. The council, accordingly, directed the lieutenant to release all those who, dwelling within the liberties of London, had been appointed to serve by the city.^^

In 1590 the justices of the peace of Surrey and the Lord Mayor of London had an extended argument over land which was claimed by each set of officers as appertaining to its jurisdiction. The justices declared that the Lord Mayor was exceeding the limits of the charter, while the city officials complained that the shire officials had asserted authority over land over which they had no control.^** The committee appointed by the privy council to determine the contest must have reported in favor of London, for a month later the council wrote to the mayor authorizing him to arrest any butchers dwelling in Southwark who w^ere guilty of violating Elizabeth's proclamation regardirg the sale of meat during Lent.^'^ And again a year later the council wrote to the Lord Admiral stating that as the Lord Mayor claimed to have jurisdiction in part of Southwark he was to prevent his officials from proceeding to any executions in that part of the borough which appertained to the city.^^

The question of jurisdiction was not limited to the external boundaries of the city. Within London there were certain places over which the mayor had no control. These districts were either dissolved monasteries and the lands belonging to them, or lands which had come into the possession of the crown in some other way. The inhabitants of these districts jealously guarded their rights, and strife was bound to ensue. For this there were several causes — the escape of prisoners from the arm of municipal justice to the security of the liberties; the calling upon the inhabitants of the privileged districts to contribute td the number of soldiers which London was compelled to raise in time of war; and the conflict of opinion regarding the spot

II wliere the jurisdiction of the head officer of the specified district began and the mayor's ended.

In an undated petition of Elizabeth's reign the Lord Mayor urged the privy council to appoint two chief justices to examine into the rights, the franchises and the liberties of the lately dissolved monasteries of Black Friars, White Friars and Christ Church, as these districts were the resort of criminals and seditious persons. ^^ Several times between 1574 and 1580 the privy council was called upon to settle disputes between White Friars and the city.^^ In order to adjust the matter the lords of the council called representatives of each district before them,'*^ but no conclusion seems to have been reached, for in 1580 the inhabitants refused to admit the mayor's officers, declaring they held directly from the queen.'* ^

Wliile the dissolved monasteries offered themselves as places of refuge to persons desirous of avoiding the municipal officers, it was to "Cold Harbor" that the greatest number of criminils betook themselves in order to escape the jurisdiction of the city courts.^^ This house, coming into the hands of Henry VITI, was given to him by Doctor Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, in exchange for Durham House on the Strand."*^ When the bishop was condemned in Edward's time the land came again into royal hands. The young king gave it to the Earl of Shrewsbury, who with a large following frequently spent several days at the place. The size of the house can be judged by the number of men who accompanied the earl on these visits to his house, in 1554 there were sixscore horse, and thirty men with him, and in 1569 there were a hundred men accompanying him.^^ The house was destroyed by his heir, who built in its place a number of small tenements, which he leased to all sorts and conditions of people. ^^'

'"Historical MSS. Conmiissioners' Report, Salisbury Pai)evs, VII, 005.

"Stow, I. c. 2.37: Wriotliesley Chroiiiclr, II. 65.

*" Hist. MSS. Com., Salisbury Papers, V, 139.

There are frequent references to the district as a place of refuge in the dramas of the period.^'^ In Middleton's play, A Trick to Catch the Old One, Lucre says to his nephew:

'Tear neither beadle nor summoner, an uncle's house A very Cold Harbor I"^«

In 1580 Burghley complained to the alderman of Aldersgate Ward regarding the entrance of his deputy into the lil)erty of Saint Martin le Grand, in order to impress men into sendee in the army. He demanded that steps be taken to prevent such action in the future, as the place was no part of the city liberty.^ ^ But during the war with Spain, when the Lord Mayor was required to raise a large number of men to aid in the defense of of the kingdom, letters were sent by the privy council to the officers of all the privileged districts bidding them contribute to the levy. In 1588, Avhen the Spanish invasion of England seemed imminent, the mayor was ordered to raise 10,000 men.^^ A year later the mayor was again authorized to enter the privileged districts, but was permitted to levy a specified number only from each district. In 1597 the liberty of Saint Katherine's alone w^as called upon to aid the city in obtaining the required number of men for the levy.^^ When great levies of men were made in 1598 for the army to be sent to Ireland it was learned that the privileged districts not only refused to contribute, but they harbored those persons who, seeking to avoid impressment, had had recourse thither. The privy council therefore directed the mayor to require the officers of the liberties not only to supply luen and money, but also to deliver to him any persons who should be hiding themselves there.^^

With regard to the question of ownership of adjacent property there was apt to be considerable bitterness. In 1589 the

*«Jonson. The ^Silent Woman, II, 3; Middleton, A Trick to Catch the Old One, II. 1.

strife between the company of goldsmiths and the Dean of St. Panl's was particnlarly intense. The dispute was due to some land near a stone wall which was claimed by each. When brought up for trial it was decided by the jury that the land belonged to tlie dean and chapter, as they had held it for 400 years.^^

In 1507 Lord Rich in writing to Sir Robert Cecil stated that he had been informed that during his absence the Lord Mayor had made com])laints against certain of his tenants, who had been building in the liberty of St. Bartholomew. He urged that the suit might be delayed .until he could be present to answer for his tenants.^''*

Although the solution of the problem was not reached strictly within the Tudor period, it was in 1608, but a few years after the death of Elizabeth, that James, evidently realizing the anomalous conditions, enlarged the limits of the civio jurisdiction by comprising within it Blackfriars, Whitefriars, Cold Ilarlior, Groat and Little St. Bartholomew, and Duke's Place.

Turning now to that part of London which was under the control of the city, we find that, for municipal purposes, it was divided into twenty-six wards of various sizes and unequal shapes. Prior to the reign of Richard IT there were but twenty-four, bnt in ^^'^\)'^ Farringdon ward was divided into two parts.-"'''' Xo further change took place in the number until 1550, when Southwark was purchased and "Bridge Ward Without" was formed. ^''^ This ward, however, never attained an equal footing with the older districts. Though represented in the court of aldermen, its aldenuan was not elected as were those of the otlier wards. Tn addition to this it was without representation in the court of common council.''*'^

The wards were represented in the general municipal gov-

•■'Hist. :MSS. Com. Rei)t.. Salishury Papers, VIII, 429. "Pnrlianientnr.v Rolls, 17 R. II, 12. ••^'Ilist. Charters, 110. . "Stow, .382.

ernment in two ways. The chamber of aldermen was composed of twenty-six members,^ ^ each representing one of the w^ards. The chamber of common council consisted of 214 members, the representation varying in different wards.^'' 'No ward had less than four representatives, while two had sixteen, and several had six, eight and nine.

In addition to its participation in the general government, each ward had its own set of officials residing in the ward.''*^ Usually there was but one alderman's deputy for each ward, but in Bridge Ward Without there were three, and in Bishopsgate*^^ there were two, one acting for the alderman without and the other acting; for him within the walls. Then there were the constables of the wards, differing greatly in number. ^^ In certain parts of the city there were as many as sixteen or seventeen constables to a ward, while CornhilP^ and Lime Street Ward'^'* had but four each. The number of scavangers differed with each ward, as did also the wardmotemen.^^

At the close of his description of each ward, Stow gives the amount at which it was rated for the collection of the fifteenth. These figures show that some few of the wards were required to advance more when the money was for the use of the city, than they did when a subsidy for the use of the nation was collected. Sometimes the difference was slight, 5, 6 or 10 shillings more being paid to the chamber of London than to the exchequer.^*^ In Cheap Ward, however, there was considerable difference in the amount paid at the two places. It was rated at London for the collection of the fifteenth at £72 16s., while at the exchequer but £52 lls.^'^ The figures also show that there was no connection between the wealth of the ward and its

■^Stow, passim.

'^IMd., passim.

'^Ibid, passim.

representation in the common council. Cordwainer Street Ward, which was rated at £52, had eight common councilmen,^^ while Lime Street Ward, rated at £1 19s. 2d. 3far., had four common councilmen,®'^ and Farringdon Ward Within, rated at £50, had twelve common councilmen,'^*^ and Cripplegate Ward, rated at £40, had eight common councilmen,'^ ^ and Candlewick Street, with the same number of common councilmen, was rated at ^£16.'^^

Of far greater importance than the division of the city into wards was the part played by the companies in the government of the city. Formed originally for the purpose of aiding and protecting their fellow-workmen in the pursuance of their occupations, the companies had assumed much control of municipal affairs. Especially was this true with regard to the "twelve great companies,"''^^ for in order that a man might be eligible to the highest offices the city had to give— that of Lord Mayor — it was necessary for him to be a member of one of these associations.'^^ Then, too, the right of sharing in the privileges of the corporation was directly dependent on membership in the guilds.

The companies had acquired much power through their accumulation of property and money, whicli had come to them through bequests, from rents, from entrance fees,*^^ fines, and fees paid for advanced rank in the company. Above the body of members constituting the bulk of each company there was the smaller group of liverymen, while above these was the body of governers, — in some instances consisting only of the governors or wardens, in others of these men aided by persons who had previously acted as the chief officials of the company."^ To be

"See Cheyney. Iiidii-'^frial Tfi.itnrii of Eiifilaiid. p. 140. for a fnller discussion of this matter.

i6

a member of the livery a certain sum was charged by each company, while to be a Avarden or governor an additional sum was charged.''^''^

With the money so acquired the companies became the great bankers of the city. A^^ien there was need of money at short notice it was to the companies that the city turned. Thus in 1545, when, on account of the great dearth, it was necessary to import 4,000 quarters of com from Dantsig and Bremen, the companies raised the amount of money required to purchase it among themselves, for which the chamberlain agreed to repay them a year later.'^^ Again in 1553, when Mary passed through the city after her coronation, the recorder presented her with a purse containing £500 in gold. This sum had been raised among the crafts, with the understanding that it would be paid a month later by the chamberlain. In 1558, when Elizabeth was hurried into the Scotch war, the companies brought to the mayor and aldermen assembled in the Guildhall what money they could raise to aid the queen in her undertaking."^

The companies frequently spent large sums of money in keeping the city in repair. In 1549 the expenses of cleaning Dut the town ditch between Aldersgate and I^ewgate were shared by the chamber and certain of the companies.^*' It was to the companies, too, that the privy council turned in" 1597 when it was necessary to repair the parish church of Blackfriars, even though that church was in a district over which the city had no control.^ ^ The companies took a large share in any additional work which might be assigned to the city. ^Vlien London or the kingdom was in any immediate danger the C(^mpanies were called upon to take part in the watch. When the Protector Somerset was in the Tower the crafts were commanded to giTard the gates by day.^^ Then, too, when it was

"Manningham, 13.

"Wriothesley. II. 91.

":Maohyn. 108. '"Wriotheslev. II. 20.

"A. P. C 1597. 13. ^^Grey Friars' Chronicle, 71.

necessary to raise troops, the mayor sent precepts to tlie companies to provide equipments as well as men for the levy.^^

In all cases of dispute in which the companies were concerned the Lord Mayor acted as arbiter, whether the contention was between members of the same company which reached proportions too great to be settled by the wardens of the company, or disputes between different companies, or between a company and some other institution.^*

By far the greatest influence which the companies possessed was the control which they exercised over the citizenship of the metropolis. In order that an English bom subject might be recognized as a citizen of London it was necessary for him to be made ''free" of one of the chartered companies.®^ According to a charter granted in 1319 by Edward II, his admittance to the freedom of a company was to be testified to by six honest and sufficient members of the company.^*' This charter further provided that all who had been admitted to the freedom of the city contrary to these provisions since the accession of Edward were to, be deprived of their freedom.^'^ That persons were admitted to the freedom of the city without previous admittance to a company in spite of the stipulations of this charter is evident from the order passed by the court of aldermen a century after the period with which we are dealing. This act of 1687 declared that the warden of the company should appear before the chamberlain and declare the claimant already admitted in the company.^^

There were, however, some exceptions to this rule. In order that an alien might be admitted to the freedom of London he was required to take three steps, tAvo of which were the reverse of those taken by the native Englishman. In the first place, it was necessary for him to be made a "free denizen."

•^Grafton's Chronicle, II, 522; Hist. MSS. Com.. Salisbury Papers, IV. 162 ; Remeni.. 231, 232 ; Wriothesley, I, 142 ; Machyn, 207. '*A. P. C, 1.57.5-1576, 176; il)i(l., 1591, 11; Remem., 92, 179. 182. ^^Lairs and Cvstoms of London, 112. ''Hist. Charters, 46.