There is in all the history of London no more important  period than   that   covered   by   the reigns of Henry III. and the Edwards.    Under* Henry II. and his sons London acquired con-ji stitutional   machinery;   under their immediate successors I motive forces were adjusted.

It has been seen that the rising of FitzOsbert had causesI economic and social, those which indeed exist inevitably inii a growing community.    Ruling power was retained excluP sively by men established in the foremost place after other had come to share the capacity to wield it. The governor of London were an official class, few in number, wealthy not  only  merchants  but  also  holders of landed propert within and without the walls. They were connected by the closest of all the ties which can bind together a caste, that of   kinship, for they consisted of several families  who, frequently intermarried, and who, in view of London's small population, must have lived in  much intimacy. But the trade and the  industry  of  the  city,  more  than  ever an;: " emporium of many peoples," could not  be  appropriated to the advantage of any narrow oligarchy. A middle class had all the intelligence   and   the   independence   of  the erous, and> as ever, they did not lack the oppression of their superiors to excite them to action.

They were moreover no disorganised bo<33y. It is a fact iversal history that when important classes have had no means of necessarily influencing their { governors, they h ve formed voluntary associations  capable of great consistency  and strength. This is the  significance of gilds and fraternities and companies: they have covered ground as yet unreached  by the  government. Irm the thirteenth century the middle class of London were ' the members of the crafts or mysteries, the tradesmen distributed in groups of those who followed the  same  calling.

Some of their trades were those also of the aldermanic class, who were especially goldsmiths, mercers, fishmongers  and vintners, but who were  apt to pursue  composite ^avocations, to be interested in more trades than one.

The crafts have left an abiding mark Cton London place names, for they came to be associated with   certain localities. Their organisation was helped by  the circumstance  that members of one craft usually lived near tQo each other. In the thirteenth century the streets of London followed much their present lines. If in a modern map of the city King Street and Queen Street and Queen Victoria Street  be blotted out, if the courses of the Fleet and . of the Walbrook be traced, if the lesser streets be multipolied, and if it be remembered that some of them were as ; yet private ways, while others were in the transitionary stageie between private and public ownership, a fairly accurate representation of London in the reign of Henry III. is obtaiAaed. The mercers lived in Cheap, near their existing hall;     the ironmongers and cutlers, as well as some of the armotfUrers and members other allied trades, in and near Ironmonger Lane; the pepperers, afterwards the grocers, were in Soper Lane, which', has been included in Queen Street; the vintners named' Vintry, the cordwainers, Cordwainer Ward. Pancras Lane; was Needlers Lane; Goldsmith Row was at the west end} of Cheap; the fishmongers were in Old Fish Street, now a part of Knightrider Street; the drapers were to the east ofl Walbrook, near Cannon, then Candlewick Street. Th"] saddlery was at the west end of Cheap, close to the present! Saddlers' Hall.

There were bakers, brewers, fleshers,^ tailors, fripperers or vendors of old clothes, haberdashers^ girdlers, weavers, fullers, dyers, tapicers, carpenters, pewJ terers, braziers, bowyers, lorimers, chandlers, hattersj cofferers and others. The list gives some notion of the state| of civilisation.
It was these men who, in the reign of Henry III., formed an opposition to the class who held sway in the city. The parties in London and the parties in England sought mutually to derive power from their respective divisions; king and! barons attempted to attach to themselves the oligarchy of^j the craftsmen.

The king, on his accession, could not be crowned at West-; minster, for that place, like the city, was held for the dauphin. And when, in 1217, Louis left for France, the Londoners! gave him 5,000 silver marks.    It would appear that after he; had made his peace with the English king there was still a. French party in the city, and it was evidently in order toj suppress it that in 1222 a great persecution was undertaken by Walter Bukerel.    Of this the culminating act was the,; hanging,  without  a  trial,  of   Constantine  FitzAlulf,  who must have led the French faction.    It may be that on this, as on later occasions, the aldermanic class supported the; crown, while the discontented craftsmen naturally adhered to Bukerels were indeed  a leading  family  of the  oligarchy,¦ ,ut on the other hand, Constantine himself and others of his surname had held the office of sheriff. \ The king when, in 1227, he attained his majority, made the Londoners' farewell gift to Louis an excuse for his exaction from the city, as from the remainder of his realm, of one-fifteenth of all movables. There followed a royal grant of several charters by which the citizens received once more the shrievalty of London and Middlesex to be held for a rent, together with the power of themselves choosing sheriffs, and the right annually to elect a mayor, who must be presented to the king or justices and swear fealty to the king. The liberties bestowed by Henry II. were regranted, and a new benefit was a prohibition against all wears in the Thames and Medway, presumably because they interfered with trade.
Since the grant of the Conqueror's charter the principle of the dependence of civic liberties on the crown had become well established. By each regrant the privileges of the city were better established, yet the king retained the right of suspending their exercise. Such a suspension had been the omission in the charter of Henry II. of the right to elect sheriffs; and such power was the weapon of Henry III. in his dealings with the city.

In 1233 a certain Simon FitzMary was superseded in the shrievalty by the citizens because he had misspent the public money. He, in 1239, obtained royal letters which ordered that he should again be admitted to the office; and the zens considered that  their liberties had been infringed
efused to comply. For this disobedience the mayors deposed, and for some time his office was vacant.    In 1240 Gerard Bat was elected mayor, but when he went "Westminster to be presented to the king he offended by h'freedom of speech. Henry swore an oath on St. Stephen altar, " Thou shalt not be mayor this year, and for a lit. I would say that thou shouldst never be mayor. Go now.

Gerard was frightened into resignation, and one Regini de Bungaye filled his place.    In this instance Henry would appear to have acted again the whole body of the citizens. Yet he was sensible no 1 than his predecessors of their importance. In 1246, befo he went to Gascony, he summoned all the Londoners to t" cross in St. Paul's churchyard, and asked their leave for expedition.

From the morrow of the feast of Holy Trinity in 12 until St. Luke's day in the next year, the city was in t king's hands and without mayor or sheriffs. On a slig pretext he had committed its custody to his nominees.    H' real  motive appears in 1244, when he received from t': citizens £1,000 as the price of their restored independence.

In this year a further development in the situation can ? perceived: the king had become  allied  to  the  oligarchy Simon FitzMary was still a royal favourite, but he was n supported by the magnates of London. In the week befo: Michaelmas the citizens were gathered at the Guildhall f the business of electing the sheriffs. There was a propositi to choose for another year an existing holder of the ofBc Nicholas Bat, and to this continued tenure Simon FitzMa objected. He declared, with truth, that it would transgre a former resolution of the aldermen, made with the asse of all the citizens. Yet on Michaelmas eve Nicholas v elected  sheriff  by the  mayor, Michael Tovy, and cert described as " men of the crowd " ; and the aldermen, af had obtained the other sheriff's place for Adam de Be^etleye, goldsmith, left the Guildhall protesting. The kin" however ordered the deposition of Nicholas, and on the°presentation to him of Michael Tovy, refused to admit , o . to the mayoralty, because he had assented to the lection. Two men of ancient magisterial families filled the vacant places, and in 1246 Simon FitzMary was one of the sheriffs.

The craftsmen had undergone a reverse but one that was only temporary. An appeal on the question of the legality of a will gave the king an occasion to take the city into his own hands in 1246. His action was probably a mere exhibition of power, for he rendered their functions very soon to the mayor and sheriffs, yet its unpopularity would appear again to have given ascendancy to the more democratic party. In 1247 Michael Tovy was once more elected mayor, and he deprived Simon FitzMary of his aldermanry, on the plea that as sheriff he had acted against the interests of the city in the matter of the appeal.

There are other like indications of two parties in civic politics, balanced against each other and allowing to the king the profit of one who could turn the scales. The city was again in royal custody in 1254 and 1255, and was subject to more royal exactions. In 1252, before Henry went to Gascony, he once more summoned all the citizens to St. Paul's churchyard, and there they swore fealty to Prince Edward.

On I257 the king was giving his support to the craftsmen. The story goes that before the feast of Purification a roll, sealed with green wax, was found in the royal wardrobe at est minster. None knew who had placed it there, but it ontained accusations against the mayor, Ralph Hardel, a wealthy and influential wine merchant who had held office! for three consecutive years. He and his advisers were stated 1 in the roll to have levied the tallage unfairly and otherwise! to have acted oppressively. Thereupon, on a Sunday late! in January, Henry caused the folkmoot to be summoned;* and John Mansel, the Earl of Gloucester, and others of the! royal council, informed the assembled people that the king! would not suffer his city to be oppressed, that the burden ofl paying tallage would not be allowed to fall heavily on the1! poor while the rich escaped from it. An enquiry was* ordered to be made on the morrow in each ward into the* alleged injustice, and in every ward accordingly the citizens,* in the absence of the aldermen, chose to represent them* thirty-six of their number who had paid tallage, and sent" them to report to the king's councillors. But a difficulty! arose because an enquiry on oath was projected, and byB their laws the citizens might not swear in any inquisitionM in which life or limb was not at stake, and which did notB concern the ownership of land. The oath of fealty which! all had taken to the king, and the faith which bound to" God and to the sovereign, were declared to be sufficient* guarantees of the true report of the representatives ofB wards. A meeting in the bishop's hall, and another in the! Guildhall, were entirely occupied by altercations on this i point.

On Wednesday before the feast of Purification the kings was on the road to Westminster, and, according to their! custom, the mayor and citizens set out to meet him atB Knightsbridge, and there to salute him. But he sent anfl esquire to forbid them to come into his sight, and they werel obliged to ride home again, sensible that they had incurred 1 his wrath.    It is evident that the point of the illegality of J, enquiry by oath had been brought forward by the alder-ic class, who always were jealous guardians of civic and who had, in this instance, a motive for obstructing , :ness. Now the king had indicated to them that in further V istence ^gy must reckon with him. There was a crowded meeting at the Guildhall on the morrow, and thither Henry sent the champion of the craftsmen, Michael Tovy, with Adam de Basing. They brought a royal message : the king wished all liberties of the city to be conserved inviolate, but he desired also that an enquiry on oath should be made into the grievances. None but offenders would be punished, and the commune would suffer no loss. These words were confirmed by John Mansel and other royal councillors, who added to them, according to the aldermanic chronicler, alluring promises to the populace. And then the proposal to hold an inquisition by sworn witnesses was carried by popular acclamation; the people, in the ancient English manner, responded to it by shouts of " Ya, ya." John Mansel, in the king's name, removed the mayor and sheriffs, the king's chamberlain, and the constable of the Tower, and one of the new sheriffs who were appointed was Michael Tovy.

A prolonged enquiry into the alleged oppressions ensued, and resulted in the temporary degradation of a number of aldermen. These had again sought protection from the customs of the city, and to defeat such plea the folkmoot was, at a certain point in the proceedings, summoned to the cross in St. Paul's churchyard. John Mansel and other royal emissaries then asked the Londoners whether it were ed trleu" law that an officer accused of bringing evil on Clty and on citizens should be quit, if he defended himself he accused aldermen had succeeded in doing. And the Pe°ple replied by shouts of " Nay, nay, nay."

In the contemporary account of these incidents they are described as an attempt to bring in a new order. Previously' great questions had been determined by a conference of the " discreet men of the city " ; now the decision was by the] voice of men of various birth, some born without the walls,) some of lowly estate. It does indeed seem that for a time, and to suit the purpose of Henry III., there was a reign o£| the mob. But in this mob the leading element, and thafi which found expression, was constituted by the men of the middle class, the craftsmen.

The Provisions of Oxford received the assent of the mayor: and aldermen and other chief citizens. In 1261 the king again assembled the Londoners beneath St. Paul's cross id order to obtain their leave to cross the sea to France, anj at Mid-Lent in the next year they repeated their oath ofj fealty to Prince Edward.

These appeals to the citizens, which were made by Henry, in the weakness of his position, combined with the events! of 1257 to revive the importance of the folkmoot. And>j the king was to regret that he had helped in such revival.

In 1262, the year of the outbreak of war, he was with the queen, his brother Richard, and Prince Edward, at the'J Tower. The aldermanic party were not revolutionary;' they consented to unite with the barons for the maintenance!! of laws only when they had protected by a saving clause; their fidelity to the king, and they refused to allow within! their walls any fighting men. But the barons entered, London; the royal party were forced to remove to West minster, and the Tower was occupied by the rebels.

It is at this moment that the craftsmen became supreme. The mayor was their champion and leader, a certain Thomas FitzThomas, who acted on the maxim that the first voice belonged to the people, that they were the commune. He eht for his measures not the authority of the aldermen, but the sanction conveyed by the " Ya, ya," of the folkmoot. The time was one of many events. It is evident that the craftsmen were actuated by strong feeling ;  they took the attitude so frequent among oppressed classes, that of men robbed of their  birthright. The  commune  was  theirs, it had been stolen from them by the aldermen. In the narrow streets of the city men led stirring and dangerous lives.   The aldermen were intriguing with the court party outside the walls, but the craftsmen were strong in the support of the barons who held the Tower, and who assured them that they would extract from the king the restoration of all their rights. Some members of magisterial families became their leaders.    Thus Stephen Bukerel was chosen marshal, and he led the people, when St. Paul's bell had summoned them, to attack Richard Plantagenet's manor at Isleworth.    They were joined by Hugh le Despenser, who kept the Tower, and Richard's property was burnt, plundered, and laid waste. The obstruction for their own convenience of certain public ways had been an offence of the richest citizens, and these lanes were now forcibly cleared by the Londoners.

There is one among their revolutionary acts which stands out because it was an outcome of real tendencies and therefore anticipated later conditions. At a certain meeting of all the citizens Thomas FitzThomas told them " that the men 01 each craft should make such provisions as would be useful them, and he himself would cause these to be proclaimed in the city and firmly observed." This was to incorporate : crafts in the constitution, to give them as well as influence dlrect political power.
e rule of the craftsmen, their constitutional power, and the mayoralty of Thomas FitzThomas ended alike with the'; defeat of Simon de Montfort in 1265. After that event thei Londoners found, in the words of a chronicler, that "it is evil to fall into the hands of a king." Henry threatened; to besiege the city, and there were some determined menj who wished to hold out against him. But his success in thei field had given the ascendancy to the court party. Messengers were sent to implore his forgiveness, and he was received'; within the walls. Already he had imprisoned Thomas] FitzThomas, Michael Tovy, Stephen Bukerel, and two? others. These he presented to Prince Edward ; there werd further imprisonments ; more than six hundred citizens wera forfeited; and the city was given into the keeping of royafl nominees. At last by a fine of 20,000 marks the Londoners bought forgiveness: it is said that to pay it a quarter of all the rents due to clerics and laymen for one year werfil collected. Liberties were restored which included the righfl of electing sheriffs but not a mayor, and all prisoners exceptj those given to Prince Edward were set free.

But the apparent submission of London was in fact nffl more than another party victory. The craftsmen were nojfl subdued. When an election of sheriffs was held in 1266 thei poorer citizens protested against it. " We will have no! mayor but Thomas FitzThomas," they cried, " and w* will that he and his fellows be set free from prison." The] king, in fear of a rising, sent a company of men-at-armS who made more than twenty arrests. When the earl on Gloucester again raised the banner of revolt the lessel citizens once more proclaimed themselves the commune, and assumed the ruling place. The Londoners were included in the peace made between the king and the earl. There was  in  1267  a dispute  between the  goldsmiths  and the tailors which caused a battle to be waged for three nights .althe streets, and which was punished by many executions, A the chronicler who gives an account of the affair comments on the powerlessness of repeated precepts of the king to prevent the sworn associations of the people, the redoubtable crafts.

At the very end of the reign the craftsmen renewed their old claims. It was only in 1269 that Londoners received back from the king their right to elect a mayor, and two years later a determined struggle was made to secure the office for the new leader of the popular party, Walter Hervey. FitzThomas, although released from prison in 1268, had been banished from the city.

The citizens were gathered at the Guildhall to elect a mayor for the ensuing year. The choice of the aldermen fell on Philip le Tayllur, one of the wealthiest of their number, but the crowd who filled the hall cried out " Nay, nay, nay, we will have no mayor but Walter Hervey," and the aldermanic party could not prevail against their numbers and their energy. They betook themselves to the king at Westminster, and thither Walter Hervey followed them at the head of a mob to whom he had promised a lightening of burdens and an improvement in the conduct of civic finance.

The royal council heard from the aldermen of the manner in which the election had been impeded, and were besought to prevent such disaster as had followed on the supremacy of the people under Thomas FitzThomas. But the people meanwhile had penetrated into the royal hall, and their noise could be heard even by the old king as he lay dying ln ls Ded- They were crying, "We are the commune of city, and to us belongs the election of the mayor of the :*y, and we will that Walter Hervey be our elected mayor."

The council were unwilling to affront either party, and the king was ill and must not be disturbed. The representa.; tives of both sides were asked to return on the morrow, ana Walter was told to bring with him no more than ten o"| dozen men.

He came again however at the head of all his adherents,! an innumerable company on horse and on foot, who again] entered the royal hall and repeated their tumultous demanJ that he should be their mayor; and they came thus dal after day, from the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude until) Martinmas.    The aldermen also visited Westminster daily. I At last the council announced its decision ; the city was taken into royal custody until the citizens could agree upoi| a mayor. Some fruitless negotiations occupied the end o| Henry's reign. After his death the Earl of Gloucester caused the folkmoot to be convened in St. Paul's churchyard! In the chapter house of the cathedral the aldermen werl won over by Gloucester and other magnates of the realm! and then the assembled people heard it proclaimed thaa Walter should be mayor.