The Granting Of The Commune

Henry II., before 1161, granted a charter to the citizens which was mainly a confirmation of I that of his grandfather, but which lacked; several clauses of the earlier instrument. It;1 had no reference to the justiciarship of London, which appears;! at this time to have become extinct. It did not grant again >, the right of election to the shrievalty; that office had been I given by Stephen and Matilda to Geoffrey de Mandeville, and^ appointments to it continued under Henry II. and Richard I.] to be by the Crown. Both these omissions tended to| increase the power of the king to the detriment of civic independence. A third difference must have been a result of changed conditions.

The charter of Henry II. has nol mention of the private jurisdictions within the city ofl churches, barons and citizens, for these, while in the' country they still were important, had, owing to a greater intensity of public life, become comparatively negligible in London.

While their independence was thus to some extent impaired, Londoners during the reigns of the early Angevin kings were struggling to acquire greater facilities for corporate action than were afforded by the loose machinery of shire government. On the continent the period is that in which communes were granted to towns, in which, in other words, townsmen were permitted to form sworn associations, organised under officials and capable of independent action ; and the trade of London brought it into close connection with continental places. It was especially liable to influence from Rouen, which city received a commune probably from Henry II. But a chronicler states that neither that king nor Richard I. would, even for a million marks, allow a sworn union of the citizens of London. They learnt abroad the danger of independent municipalities.

Their government however maintained loyalty. It is related that when the bishop of Winchester, in 1174, brought to Henry in Normandy the news of the Scottish invasion and the attendant rebellion, '"Fair lord,' said the king, 1 tell me the truth. How are the brave men of my city of London acting ?' And the bishop replied, ' So may the Lord God who rules in Trinity help me, they are the most loyal people of all your kingdom. There is no one in the town of an age to bear arms who is not well-armed. You would wrongly believe any evil of them.' "

At the coronation feast of Richard I. the office of the butlery was performed by the citizens of London. In 1188 a tenth of their property was exacted from the two hundred richest Londoners for the furtherance of the Crusade. Nor was it only with their wealth that the townsmen upheld the wars of the Cross. In September 1189 men of London were among those who besieged the Saracen city of Silvia in Spain. A ship of the Londoners, in which were more than eighty well-armed youths, was overtaken by a storm in the Bay of Biscay; but St. Thomas of Canterbury appeared to three persons on board and assured them that he, St. Edmund the Martyr, and St. Nicholas the Confessor had especial charge of the king's fleet, The tempest ceased, and

the ship arrived at Silvia, where it was hospitably received § by the bishop, clergy and people. It carried William FitzOsbert.
Meanwhile events prepared for the citizens at home an opportunity to gain constitutional independence. Kingi Richard, before his departure for the East, had granted the! Tower of London, no longer held by hereditary keepers, to; his chancellor William Longchamp, who in the next year surrounded it with a moat. In October 1191, when his struggle with John had paralysed the administration, Long-; champ shut himself up in the Tower. On the 7th of the] month John arrived in London. Once more, as in 1135 andi in 1141, the support of the citizens might turn the scalesj that were balanced between the rival parties, and thereforej London could again name her price. A meeting was held at St. Paul's on the 8th. The Chancellor was deposed, and a commune was conceded to London, which all the magnates! of the kingdom and bishops of the provinces swore td'i maintain. Immediately afterwards Longchamp agreed to| surrender the Tower to John.

Mr. Round has discovered the oath which, as a consequence of the grant of the commune, became obligatory fori citizens. They swore loyalty to the king, faithfulness to the commune, obedience to the mayor, his eschevins and the other' honest men who should be with him, and incorruptibility by bribes.

Thus we know the import of the concession of 1191. In the first place it bound the citizens together with the force and the distinction of a common obligation, and thus gave; them a collective personality. Secondly it endowed them with a new machinery of government, continental and essen-; tially municipal in character. Henceforth their presiding official was the mayor, who, from the time when particulars of his election are known, was chosen from the number of the aldermen, and who eventually held his place for one year only. The word eschevin has in old French the significance of a holder of municipal office, and is often used in connection with mayor; sometimes the personality of a town is expressed in the term "li maire, li escheviz, et li commune." From the form of the oath it appears that by the charter of 1191 authority in London was given to the mayor, his eschevins and the honest men who should be with him ; and it seems likely that this phrase corresponds to that later one which was the usual official style of the city, "the mayor, aldermen and commonalty." If it be supposed that the aldermen were the eschevins, it may be concluded that the honest men were the commonalty, and that they had acquired some governing power. Thence may be deduced that already there was in existence a germ of the Common Council, that the city was ruled by the mayor and aldermen in conjunction with some of the commons.

The new institutions did not supersede the older ones ; the folkmoot, the hustings court, the wardmoots and the parochial constitutions, the ancient officials of the city, subsisted, but in varying degrees they lost importance.

In 1193 the mayor of London was appointed one of the five keepers of the king's ransom. Richard, after his release from captivity, entered London on the 16th of March, 1194. He was received " with greatest pomp of rejoicing," and the whole city was decorated in honour of his advent. On the 23rd of April he granted a charter to the citizens which was mainly a confirmation of that of his father.

Certain events of importance occurred in 1196. It is related that the people of London had suffered by the imposition of taxes for the levy of the king's ransom, and'' that these fell more heavily on the poor than the rich : classes. The iniquities of the civic administration thus! became apparent, and a certain William FitzOsbert or| Longbeard, probably identical with the crusader, constituted! himself champion of the oppressed. He originated a sworn,] association against the richer classes in which fifty-two! thousand poorer citizens are said to have been enrolled.! Their methods were doubtless those common to rioters; butt there is special mention of their collection of instruments foq the breaking down of houses. FitzOsbert, " Saviour of thai Poor," harangued like any popular orator. He crossed the| Channel to obtain the king's support, and on his returnl acted as one who enjoyed royal favour. To procure peace] the Justiciar, Hubert Walter, exacted hostages, and thia may explain the fact that at Stamford Fair, which was held in Mid-Lent, he caused the arrest of certain of the pooreq London merchants. FitzOsbert was summoned to tha courts of justice, but appeared in the company of a mob J and when two citizens with an armed band were sent tq capture him, be and a few followers took refuge in Bovq Church. Eventually, in despite of all privileges of sanctuaryJ the Justiciar ordered him to be smoked out of the buildingi He was taken to the Tower, condemned to be hanged, and] then dragged through the streets to the gallows, where th sentence was executed on him and eight associates.

It is impossible to disconnect this sedition of the poore Londoners, which was evidently important and general, from* the grant of the commune five years previously. That event had conferred great powers on the aldermanic ciass; this rising must have been on the part of those who had received from it no benefits. It evidently was not a movement of the unpropertied rabble, for its professed cause was the unequal distribution of burdens. The discontented were taxable; of them are called merchants; their leader is said to have held an office in the city's government. Clearly there was already a middle class within the city, a cleavage between the greatest and the less wealthy citizens. The conclusion is that the concession of the commune had in practice confirmed the arrogation to themselves of all power by the richest class: it had favoured a civic oligarchy.

The questionable right of John to succeed his brother to the throne was favourable to the liberty of
London. In June 1199, some three weeks after his coronation, the king regranted the rights conferred by Richard and by Henry II. On the 5th of July a far more important charter restored to the citizens the concession of Henry I., the right to hold Middlesex at farm and themselves to elect to the shrievalty.

The great fire of 1212, which was very destructive to London, arose at the church of St. Mary Southwark, on the site of St. Saviour's cathedral. Londoners in great numbers set out to watch its progress and to help in its extinction, and at a moment when London Bridge was crowded the fire broke out on the north bank and caught the bridge itself, so that many persons were entrapped between two flames, and were burnt or drowned.

He crossed th Channel to obtain the king's support, and on his retur acted as one who enjoyed royal favour. To procure peai the Justiciar, Hubert Walter, exacted hostages, and thi may explain the fact that at Stamford Fair, which was hel in Mid-Lent, he caused the arrest of certain of the poore London merchants. FitzOsbert was summoned to th'' courts of justice, but appeared in the company of a mob and when two citizens with an armed band were sent t capture him, he and a few followers took refuge in Bo Church. Eventually, in despite of all privileges of sanctuary the Justiciar ordered him to be smoked out of the building He was taken to the Tower, condemned to be hanged, an then dragged through the streets to the gallows, where th sentence was executed on him and eight associates.

It is impossible to disconnect this sedition of the poore Londoners, which was evidently important and general, from the grant of the commune five years previously. That event had conferred great powers on the aldermanic class; thid rising must have been on the part of those who had received from it no benefits. It evidently was not a movement of the ropertied rabble> for its professed cause was the unequal distribution of burdens. The discontented were taxable; some of them are called merchants; their leader is said to have held an office in the city's government. Clearly there was already a middle class within the city, a cleavage between the greatest and the less wealthy citizens. The conclusion is that the concession of the commune had in practice confirmed the arrogation to themselves of all power by the richest class : it had favoured a civic oligarchy.

The questionable right of John to succeed his brother to the throne was favourable to the liberty of London. In June 1199, some three weeks after his coronation, the king regranted the rights conferred by Richard and by Henry II. On the 5th of July a far more important charter restored to the citizens the concession of Henry I., the right to hold Middlesex at farm and themselves to elect to the shrievalty.

In 1215 Londoners were on the side of the barons; but the king's forces held the Tower. John, on the 9th of May, ought to conciliate the citizens by a charter which confirmed to them the right to choose annually a mayor who must take m oath of allegiance to the king, and might hold office for a year or longer at the pleasure of his electors. Yet on: i7th of the month the barons entered the city, and subsequently they besieged the Tower. On the 15th of June! the mayor of London was a signatory of Magna Carta. In; accordance with its provisions the king surrendered thej Tower; its hereditary custody was claimed by Geoffrey de| Mandeville, a descendant of the notorious keeper, but it was temporarily delivered to Stephen Langton. The barongj returned to London after the signing of the charter. Inl September the ban of excommunication was incurred by the| citizens together with the other opposers of the king. OnJ the 26th of October the barons issued from London in a vain attempt to relieve Rochester, whence they returned toa the city. It received many fugitives after the fall off Rochester before John's forces. Before Christmas thai marshal of France and a garrison occupied London on behala of the dauphin Louis, and in the ensuing spring the city] was the chief place of refuge for those who fled before John's^ army. Louis was received in London with much rejoicings on the 2nd of June, and the barons and the mayor there did* him homage. He left soon afterwards to pursue his?' campaign, and the allegiance of London was, like that of the barons, continued to him little longer than the period o John's life.

It is possible to visualise to some extent the London in; which these men lived. The houses were almost all of themj made of wood; but after the fire of Stephen's reign, and; again after that which occurred in 1212, the administrators encouraged building in stone. At the same time they tried; to procure the substitution of tiled for thatched roofs: inj 1212 it was ordered that the roofs should be covered not with reeds, rushes, straw or stubble, but with tiles, shingles, boards, or lead. Many of the buildings were only one storey ' high; but some of them had an upper chamber, called a This in some cases overhung the streets, when it was af.' J *L f its heieht should allow a man to ride underneath required that its neigut ot Buildings were often or usually whitewashed as a pre-caution against fire. The slightness of the structures is ¦ 'dl illustrated by the fact that each alderman was obliged \ have a crook or a cord, evidently for the demolition of houses which transgressed the rules laid down for building. The shops were stalls attached to the houses, and might not exceed two and a half feet in breadth. Signposts marked the taverns. The rearing of swine, oxen, and cows within houses was forbidden, and pigs and cows might not be kept at all to the annoyance of the neighbours.

Doubtless these regulations were necessary because pigs and cattle were suffered too freely to roam in the narrow streets. Scavengers appointed in each ward kept the roads clean ; and the deposit of dirt and refuse in public ways was forbidden.

A citizen of the time, William FitzStephen, has described London as it appeared to him. He speaks of the thirteen religious houses and the hundred and twenty-six parish churches, the Tower and its walls, the great river full of fish, Westminster Palace on the west side of the city, and the spacious gardens, planted with trees, of the citizens who lived in the suburbs. He brings before us a picture of a city bounded by massive walls and by a river as yet unpolluted, in which many towers rose high above a mean level of whitewashed gabled houses. He does not mention another fortress of London, Castle Baynard, which stood on the river nk near St. Paul's and was held by Robert FitzWalter, 0"in 1212 plotted against the king and forfeited his castle to the crown.

The city contained at this time three schools, the school of St. Mary-le-Bow, and two schools attached to religioujB houses, those ot St. Paul's and St. Martin's le Grand, an" the pupils sometimes held public disputations. By ttJH riverside, not far from the present site of Southwark Bridgel were cook shops in which a meal might at any time bei obtained. Ships " of every nation under the sun " brougbjB traders up the Thames to London.

On the outside of the town were fields, grazing lands, ail a great plain of meadow-land watered by streams whicl turned the wheels of mills; and near it was a forest in whicl were deer, boars and bulls. To the north were excellent wells, Holywell, Clerkenwell and St. Clement's Well. NeJ| Smithneld, also outside the wall, a horse fair took place, ana earls, barons, knights and citizens came thither to buy nobB steeds and to witness their trials.

The citizens are described as warlike, virtuous and welB dressed; and their amusements certainly testify to tastes id keeping with the bold part which London played in politic! They show too how the mediaeval towndweller, whom onB a wall separated from the country, shared many of the pul suits of the rural population. The schoolboys of the city o| Shrove Tuesday held cockfights and games of ball whij
were watched by the older inhabitants. After supper o\ Sundays in Lent the youths, armed with lances and shielJ or with spears, engaged in tilting matches the courtiers, ti members of the bishop's household, or the nobles, in knightj sports which are a token of rank. In the Easter holidaj
the young men tilted from boats at a shield hung above t| river; and in summer they exercised themselves in archer running, leaping, stone-throwing and the hurling of othl missiles, while the maidens danced until the moon came uj In winter, when the great marsh to the north of the city wj
there were many games. Some made slides, others Redrawn on sledges, and yet others skated. They "tie o their feet and under their heels," says FitzStephen, J°^ shoving themselves by a little picked staff, do slide as a bird flieth in the air, or an arrow out of a cross bow."

But most of all the citizens loved to hunt with their hounds or their hawks in the woods; and they had hunting rights in Middlesex, Hertfordshire, the Chiltern Hills, and Kent as far as the Cray.
Their amusements, other than athletic, were supplied by the pageants which accompanied state ceremonials, municipal usage, and the rites of the church. Moreover there were already not only dramatic representations of " miracles which holy martyrs have wrought" and of "torments wherein the constancy of martyrs appeared," but also other " shows upon theatres " described as " comical pastimes."

The biographers of Thomas a Becket give a vivid glimpse of a Londoner's life. They relate that after the Norman Conquest many natives of Rouen and Caen emigrated to London, attracted by its commercial advantages. Of their number was Gilbert, surnamed Becket, a citizen of Rouen, distinguished by his industry and his powers. He came of an honourable but a burgher family, and was a man diligent in business, who ruled his household in a manner appropriate to his station in life. He lived without quarrel among his neighbours and all spoke well of him. His wife, Roesia, was a native of Caen, of a burgher family, in body seemly and in conduct even more praiseworthy. She was well placed over her house, and, under the fear of God, was faithfully subject to her husband. Gilbert is known to have sen a portreeve of the city, and to have founded a chantry at St. Paul's. His house stood in Cheapside, on the sit now occupied by the Mercers' Hall. After the birth o Thomas his mother, that she might have leisure for praye and works of piety, had the assistance of a nurse.

The child was dedicated in infancy to the service of th church, and was sent for his education to the canons ofl Merton. His parents, who were impoverished by tha| frequent fires of the city, died within a short time of eactf other while he was yet young. There is record of his friend ship with the " rich and noble " Richard de l'Aigle, in whose company he made riding and hawking expeditions. I Gilbert Becket is an instance of a Norman who attained to full citizenship of London, even to a magistracy. Th population of the city was indeed largely cosmopolitan. In the twelfth century the leading families were the Bucuintes and the Bokerels from whom Bucklersbury was named: Both were probably of Italian origin, and bore name' corrupted from " Bucca Uncta," or " oily mouth " and fro Bokerelli. The accession of Henry II. brought Londo into connection with his dominions in southern Franc Especially Gascon wine merchants came in large number to the city and were many of them absorbed in its popula tion. The town of La Reole in Gascony gave its nam to the church of St. Michael Paternoster Royal and t Tower Royal in Vintry ward.

The church bound together these men of varied natio alities who became the citizens of London. St. Martin w the patron of the vintners of Bordeaux as of those who ha vineyards in Essex, and was worshipped by all alike in th church of St. Martin Vintry in Thames Street. But ther lived also in London members of another and a truly alie people.

Tewry in London was to the north of Cheapside and, A A rr,iio-hIv bv Wood Street on the west and Old
bounded, rougniy, uy a, Tewry on the east. The Jews lived around Gresham Street, then Catteaton Street, and in Wood Street, Milk Street, St. Lawrence Lane, Ironmonger Lane, and Old Jewry. They were outside all the ordinary arrangements of state and city because they were the king's chattels, whose every right depended on his grace. Their very tenure of their property was by his sufferance; they were subjected to frequent, heavy and unregulated taxations for his convenience. In London, as elsewhere, they observed the ritual of their faith, but the existence of synagogues recurrently presented itself to the citizens as a scandal. A chief rabbi was appointed by the crown. Socially Jews and Christians were entirely separate; their intermarriage, the employment by Christians of Jewish servants, were forbidden. The two races were held apart moreover by a different outlook on life, different culture, different customs, dress and food. Therefore the race of the Londoners acquired no Jewish element. The one important relation between the members of the two faiths was financial; the business of money lending was practised by the Jews to such an extent that they were able to undermine the property rights of very many citizens. Resentment of the yoke thus incurred by the Christian Londoner did much to fan the ardour of his religious zeal against the unbelievers.

On the occasion of the coronation of Richard I. the feeling ainst the Jews broke the bounds of restraint. An excuse WaS provide<i by a rumour that the king had ordered the extwminahonof therace; and "then the Jewish citizens, with th"1 a muldtude is known to dwell in London, together e who had flocked together from all parts, withdrew into their own houses. These were surrounded by a clamour-; ing multitude and stoutly besieged from nine o'clock until sunset. As, owing to their stout build, an entrance could; not be forced into the houses, and the madmen had no tools, fire was thrown on the thatched roofs, and there arose quickly] a terrible conflagration, fatal to the Jews as they strove toj extinguish it, and a light to the raging Christians at their i night work. And the fire kindled against the Jews did nora hurt them alone, but caught hold likewise of the neighbouring] houses of Christians. But the Jews were either roasted in] their houses or, if they came out of them, were received with] swords. Much blood was shed in a short space. But SOOIH avarice got the better of cruelty. Thereupon they left their] butchery, and their greedy rage betook itself to stripping thd houses and snatching their riches. But this in turn made] Christians oppose Christians . . . and they forgot alfl natural ties and spared neither friend nor comrade." It is? said that almost all the citizens, as well as nearly the whola number of the nobles who had attended the coronation anji were not present at the royal banquet, took part in thiffl massacre and plundering. Its history shows the superioa culture of the Jews, who appear to have dwelt in stona houses, and whose treasures evoked such ungovernablj rapacity.

The Romance tongue, Norman French, was probabll spoken by mediaeval Londoners as commonly as Englishl and there is evidence that it was the language of the Jews.l
From Richard of Devizes we have an account of Londoffl in the twelfth century which mitigates the rosy impression conveyed by FitzStephen. A Jew is represented as advisina a French serving lad to seek his fortune in wealthy England! "When thou enterest England," he says, "if thou com*
to London thou wilt quickly pass through it, for that metroes displeaseth me much. All kinds of men flow into it from every nation under the sky. Every nation brings its n vices and its own customs into the city. None lives o it free from crime, not a citizen that does not abound in sad obscenities; a man is there to be reckoned the better, the deeper he is in crime. I know whom I am talking to ; thou hast beyond thy age a fervid intellect and a cold memory, things contrary to one another, and a temperate reason. I have no fears for thee unless thou dwell with evil livers, for manners are formed by communication. Well, well, thou wilt come to London. So I forewarn thee that whatever ill or malice is in all and each part of the world thou shalt find in that single city. Avoid the band of pimps, mix not with the crowd of gamesters, avoid the dice and the gaming table, the theatre and the tavern. Thou wilt come across more bullies than are in all France; the number of parasites is infinite. Actors, buffoons, eunuchs, garamanters, flatterers, pages, cowards, effeminates, dancing girls, apothecaries, favourites, witches, vultures, owls, magicians, mimes, mendicants, dancers and other such fill every house. Therefore, unless thou wilt live with the wicked thou shalt not inhabit London. I am not speaking against the learned, whether clergy or Jews, although from their communion with the wicked I should think them less perfect there than elsewhere."

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm.
Categories: Books.

No Comments, Comment or Ping

Reply to “The Granting Of The Commune”

You must be logged in to post a comment.