The Lord. Mayor

a

Aldermen of^London
during tlje
Tudor Period

A THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Philosophy of the University
of Pennsylvania, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

':¦¦¦

MARGARET R. KOLLOCK, A. B.
PHILADELPHIA
1906

PHILADELPHIA
THE JOHN C. WINSTON CO
1906

-¥^LH«¥Mir¥IEI^SIir¥- iLniBiaaiHrar

The Lord Mayor
and
Aldermen of London
during the
Tudor Period

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Philosophy of the University
of Pennsylvania, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

BY
MARGARET R. KOLLOCK, A. B.
PHILADELPHIA 1906

PHILADELPHIA
THE JOHN C. WINSTON CO
1906

Chaptek I.
THE CITY.
During the Tudor period London attained that definite
preeminence, intellectually, commercially, socially, and polit
ically 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, determined its government, or prescribed the
manner of election of its officials. 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, Erench and English, should be considered law
worthy.1 An undated charter granted by Henry I to the city
added considerably to the privileges of the Londoners.2 By this
document London was recognized as a unity, distinct and sepa
rate 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 Middle
sex to farm, with the privilege of electing its sheriff and justices.
It was also declared free from the jurisdiction of all officials
^Historical Charters (ed. Birch), 1.
HUch, 3. (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 en
largement of the privileges of the city until the time of John.
Except for the grant of the conservancy of the Thames by
Eichard,3 the charters given by Henry II, without date, and
Eichard I in 119 4,4 were in a large measure confirmatory grants
of exemption from toll. With the fifth charter given by John
in 13(15 the citizens were authorized to choose their mayor.
They were permitted to keep him in office 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.5
After this a considerable period of time again elapsed
before any marked additions were made to the municipal
privileges. It was in 1327, 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 inter
vening sovereigns, they were, 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 124.7, in 1253, in
1266 and in 1268.6 Edward I in 1298, for the greater con
venience 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 West
minster.7 The first charter of Edward 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
'Historical Charters, 9.
'IMd., 4-10.
UMd., 19.
'IMd., 21-30, 32, 34, 36, 38.
UHd., 43.

freedom of the city.8 The following year Edward granted a
second charter, which declared that the military service ren
dered by the citizens of London in besieging the castle of Leeds
in Kent should not be used as a precedent.9 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 Newgate,
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 1376.10 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 Eichard
II in 1377 and 1383,11 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.12 The same charter confirmed the grant of the Bor
ough 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 within the borough,
with a court of Pie powder.13 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 ap
pointing such officers belonged to the mayor and citizens.14 At
the same time the officers of package, scavage, carriage, portage
and garbling were granted to the city.15 By the first charter of
the same king tronage had been given to London. Henry VII in
1504 added the office of gauger to this list, at the same time
'Historical Charters, 45-50.
'Ibid., 51.
"Ibid., 59, 61, 63. 65.
"Ibid., 69, 71.
"Ibid., 75.
"Ibid., 80, 82.
"Ibid., 92.
"Ibid., 91.

confirming the mayor's right to exact forfeiture from all mer
chant strangers trafficking by wholesale within the city with the
intention of selling again.18
Henry VIII gave two charters to the citizens, in 1518 and
1 531.17 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.18
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 carry
ing 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,
is the lords were loath to prejudice the Londoners in their gov
ernment 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.19 Again in 1580, when troops
were being levied, a commission was sent to the city as a town
corporate instead of as a shire. The mayor refused to act upon
"Historical Charters, 95.
"Ibid., 97, 99.
"Ibid., 111-127.
"Arts of the Privy Council, 1578-1580, 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.20
In order to understand the duties and work of the officiala
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 Norton's
maps the walls of the city show so plainly that the distinction
between "London without the walls and London within the
walls"21 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.22 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.23 Without Cripplegate and Moregate were
the posts which marked the limits of the city to the north.24
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.25 In 1565 an
"Remembrancia, 231.
zlCamden, Britannia, 391.
^Statutes of the Realm, 14, 15, H. VIII, 2.
^Stow, Survey of London, 145, 179, 291, 344.
"Ibid., 281, 280.
KA. P. C, 1552-1554, 88, 115.

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.26 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 satisfac
torily arranged.27 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.28 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 November 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.29 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
eastle.30 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.
"A. P. C, 1558-1570, 266.
"Ibid., 1558-1570, 309.
J8Remem., 429.
"Ibid., 434.
""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.31 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 privy 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.32
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 charter33 — 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"34 which 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 Newgate. The fact that the borough was located in
the county of Surrey gave rise to considerable difficulty 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
81A. P. O, 1596-1597, 413.
'"Ibid.'"Historical Charters, III.
Mln all contemporary records Southwark is spoken of as "The Bor
ough of Southwark."

10

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.35
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 juris
diction. The justices declared that the Lord Mayor was exceed
ing 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.36 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 were guilty of violating Elizabeth's proclamation regardirg
the sale of meat during Lent.37 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.38
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

"A. P. C, 1556-1558, 241.
"Ibid., 1589-1590, 370.
"Ibid., 1590-1591, 322.
"Ibid., 1590-1591, 307.

II
where 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.39 Several times between 1574 and 1580 the
privy council was called upon to settle disputes between White
Friars and the city.40 In order to adjust the matter the lords of
the council called representatives of each district before them,41
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.42
While 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 criminals
betook themselves in order to escape the jurisdiction of the city
courts.43 This house, coming into the hands of Henry VIII,
was given to him by Doctor Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, in
exchange for Durham House on the Strand.44 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.45 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.46
39Historical MSS. Commissioners' Report, Salisbury Papers, VII, 665.
"A. P. C, 1571-1575, 240, 257.
"Ibid.', 1577-1578, 429.
"Ibid., 1580-1581, 19.
"Ibid., 1597-1598, 424, 410.
"Stow, I. c, 237 ; Wriothesley Chronicle, II, 65.
"Machyn's Diary, 74, 224, 258, 300.
10 Hist. MSS. Com., Salisbury Papers, V, 139.

12
There are frequent references to the district as a place of refuge
in the dramas of the period.47 In Middleton's play, A Trick to
Catch the Old One, Lucre says to his nephew:
"Fear neither beadle nor summoner, an uncle's house
A very Cold Harbor!"48
In 1580 Burghley complained to the alderman of Aldersgate
Ward regarding the entrance of his deputy into the liberty of
Saint Martin le Grand, in order to impress men into service 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.49
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, when the Spanish invasion of England
seemed imminent, the mayor was ordered to raise 10,000 men.50
A year later the mayor was again authorized to enter the privi
leged districts, but was permitted to levy a specified number only
from each district. In 1597 the liberty of Saint Katherine's
alone was called upon to aid the city in obtaining the required
number of men for the levy.51 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 impress
ment, had had recourse thither. The privy council therefore
directed the mayor to require the officers of the liberties not only
to supply men and money, but also to deliver to him any persons
who should be hiding themselves there.52
With regard to the question of ownership of adjacent prop
erty there was apt to be considerable bitterness. In 1589 the
"Stow (ed. 1633), 80.
4sJonson, The Silent Woman, II, 3 ; Middleton, A Trick to Catch the
Old One, II, 1.
"Remem., 458.
°°A. P. C, 1587-1588, 428.
'Hbid., 1588-1589, 118.
™IMd., 1598-1599, 414, 415.

13
strife between the company of goldsmiths and the Dean of St.
Paul's was particularly 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 the dean and chapter, as they had held it for 400
years.53 In 1597 Lord Rich in writing to Sir Robert Cecil stated
that he had been informed that during his absence the Lord
Mayor had made complaints 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.54
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 real
izing the anomalous conditions, enlarged the limits of the civic
jurisdiction by comprising within it Blackfriars, Whitefriars,
Cold Harbor, Great 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 Eichard II there were but
twenty-four, but in 1393 Farringdon ward was divided into two
parts.55 No further change took place in the number until
1550, when Southwark was purchased and "Bridge Ward
Without" was formed.56 This ward, however, never attained
an equal footing with the older districts. Though represented
in the court of aldermen, its alderman was not elected as were
those of the other wards. In addition to this it was without
representation in the court of common council.57
The wards were represented in the general municipal gov-
raA. P. C, 1588-1589, 130.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Salisbury Papers, VIII, 429.
"Parliamentary Rolls, 17 R. II, 12.
MHist. Charters, 110.
"'Stow, 382.

14
ernment in two ways. The chamber of aldermen was composed
of twenty-six members,58 each representing one of the wards.
The chamber of common council consisted of 214 members, the
representation varying in different wards.59 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.60
Usually there was but one alderman's deputy for each ward, but
in Bridge Ward Without there were three, and in Bishopsgate6 1
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.62 In
certain parts of the city there were as many as sixteen or seven
teen constables to a ward, while Cornhill03 and Lime Street
Ward64 had but four each. The number of scavangers differed
with each ward, as did also the wardmotemen.65
At the close of his description of each ward, Stow gives
the amount at which it was rated for the collection of the fif
teenth. 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.66 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 lis.67 The figures also show that there
was no connection between the wealth of the ward and its
MStow, passim.
"Ibid."Ibid., 382.
KIbid., 188.
**Ibid., passim.
"BIbid., 208.
"Ibid., 179.
"Ibid, passim.
'"Ibid., 197, 217, 255, 269, 296, 329, 337, 344.
"Ibid., 269.

15
representation in the common council. Cordwainer Street
Ward, which was rated at £52, had eight common council-
men,68 while Lime Street Ward, rated at £1 19s. 2d. 3far.,
had four common councilmen,67 and Farringdon Ward Within,
rated at £50, had twelve common councilmen,70 and Cripple-
gate Ward, rated at £40, had eight common councilmen,71 and
Candlewick Street, with the same number of common council-
men, was rated at £16. 72
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 occu
pations, the companies had assumed much control of municipal
affairs. Especially was this true with regard to the "twelve
great companies,"73 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 associa
tions.74 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, which had come to them
through bequests, from rents, from entrance fees,75 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.76 To be
""Stow, 255.
"Ibid., 179.
"Ibid., 322.
71Ibid., 290.
72Ibid., 226.
,sThe twelve Great Companies : Mercers, Grocers, Drapers. Fish
mongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters,
Ironmongers. Vintners, Clothworkers.
"Stow (1633 ed.), 199.
"Manningham, Diary. 12: Statutes of the Realm, 22, H. VIII, 4.
"See Cheyney, Industrial History of England, p. 149, for a fuller
discussion of this matter.

a member of the livery a certain sum was charged by each
company, while to be a warden or governor an additional sum
was charged.77 With the money so acquired the companies became the
great bankers of the city. When 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 corn 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.78 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.79
The companies frequently spent large sums of money in
keeping the city in repair. In 1549 the expenses of cleaning
out the town ditch between Aldersgate and Newgate were
•shared by the chamber and certain of the companies.80 It was
to the companies, too, that the privy council turned in 1597
when it was necessary to repair the parish church of Black-
friars, even though that church was in a district over which the
city had no control.81 The companies took a large share in any
additional work which might be assigned to the city. When
London or the kingdom was in any immediate danger the com
panies were called upon to take part in the watch. When the
Protector Somerset was in the Tower the crafts were com
manded to guard the gates by day.82 Then, too, when it was
"Manningham, 13.
"Wriothesley. II, 91.
"Maohyn. 168.
80Wriothesley. II, 20.
"A. P. C. 1597. 13.
,2Grcti Friars' Chronicle, 71.

17
necessary to raise troops, the mayor sent precepts to the com
panies to provide equipments as well as men for the levy.83
In all cases of dispute in which the companies were con
cerned the Lord Mayor acted as arbiter, whether the contention
was between members of the same company which reached pro
portions too great to be settled by the wardens of the company,
or disputes between different companies, or between a company
and some other institution.84
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 born subject might be
recognized as a citizen of London it was necessary for him to
be made "free" of one of the chartered companies.85 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.86 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.87 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.88 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, two 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 ; Remem., 231, 232 ; Wriothesley, I, 142 ; Machyn, 207.
"A. P. C, 1575-1576, 176 ; ibid., 1591, 11 ; Remem., 92, 179, 182.
mLaws and Customs of London, 112.
"Hist Charters, 46.
"Ibid., 47.
""Municipal Corporations Report, 61.

i8
This consisted in his taking a corporal oath of loyalty to the
crown in the Common Hall.89 This body consisted of masters,
wardens and liverymen of the companies of London, assembled
in the Guildhall. Being thus naturalized, the person was
permitted to carry on his work unmolested,90 to meet with other
members of the occupation he practiced in the hall belonging to
the company,91 and to possess property within the city.92 For
these privileges he was expected to contribute with the company
that admitted him to its hall, in any demand for money which
was made by the city or by the crown.93 If he proved worthy
of such an honor, he was then admitted to the freedom of the city
by vote of the common council at the suggestion of members of
the company.94 Some few persons, too, were admitted by the
chief men of London at their installation into office. When
the oath of office was administered to an alderman he might
enfranchise one man, each sheriff two men, and the mayor
four.95 The alien on being admitted to the freedom of the city
received two more privileges. He enjoyed the right of the
London citizen to be exempt from toll throughout the realm,96
and he had the privilege of holding any of the lesser offices at
the disposal of the city.97 It was not until he had taken the
final step in his enfranchisement that he was entitled to all the
privileges of a London citizen. After his admittance to the city
freedom, he might be made a member of one of the companies.
Then it was that he might share in the election of some of the
city officials. After this he might purchase his admittance to
the livery, when he would be privileged to sit in Common Hall.
'"C. S. P., Foreign, 1558-1559, 574; Statutes of the Realm, 32 H.
VIII, 16 ; A. P. C, 1577-1578, 252.
"Ibid., 1587-1588, 416 ; Remem., 256.
•"Statutes of the Realm, 32 H. VIII, 16.
02A. P C 1590 459
mIbid., 1577-1578, 252; ibid., 1587-1588, 235.
"Ibid., 1577-1578, 333; ibid., 1597-1598, 290; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept,
Salisbury Papers, VIII, 257 ; Remem., 155.
05Manningbam, 12.
B6Bohun, Privilegia Londini, 52 ; Letters, Foreign and Domestic,
Henry VIII, V, 202.
"A. P. C, 1577-1578, 168; Remem., 276; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.,
Salisbury Papers, V, 80.

19
and take part in the election of the Lord Mayor and some other
officers of London.98
The great body of citizens of London, however, became
such through their membership in a company. This was effected
in three ways. The person might be made free by serving as
an apprentice, or by showing that he was the son of a freeman
of London, or by receiving the privilege through purchase or
by gift.99 By far the greater number of freemen were admitted
through service. So great was the number that acts regu
lating apprenticeship were passed not only by the city in the
court of common council,100 but also by the central govern
ment.101 According to these acts the earliest age at which a
person might be bound was fourteen. It was further required
that a child so bound should serve a freeman of London for
seven years. This latter requirement was insured in the first
place by the oath which every freeman was required to take at
his admittance in the chamberlain's court, agreeing to take no
apprentice for a shorter period than seven years.102 In addition
to this, it was necessary that the indenture of each apprentice
be enrolled in the chamberlain's office in the presence of the
apprentice within a year. Moreover, it was required that the
apprentice be again presented to the chamberlain before he
could be admitted to a company. Again, in order to prevent
fraud on the part of the master or servant, stringent rules were
enacted by the common council. If a master allowed his servant
his liberty before the expiration of his time and at the end of
the seven years presented him to the chamberlain as having
served, or if he hired him to a non-freeman, he should be dis
franchised and his servant not admitted. The same ..punish
ment was administered if the master permitted the apprentice
98 A. P. G, 1597-1598, 290 ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers,
VIII, 257.
"Holinsbed, Chronicle II, 207; Manningham, 12; A. P. C. 1591-
1592. 51.
1MAct of Common Council, 28 H. VIII. in Stow (1033 ed.), 090.
"'Statutes of the Realm, 5 Bliz., 4.
MHolinshed II, 207.

20
to buy or sell foreign goods.103 This act regulated the daily life
of an apprentice. He was forbidden to marry on the pain of
losing his freedom. A woman who married lost her freedom,
but was permitted to leave her employment, while a man not
only forfeited his freedom but was also compelled to serve out
his time!104 Many persons were admitted to the freedom by birthright.
A man twenty-one years of age, whose father had been a member
of a company prior to the applicant's birth, was admitted fr?e
to a company "by his father's copy."105 But frequently men
so entitled to freedom served out apprenticeships, for, besides
learning the trade, in some of the companies higher offices were
open to those who had gained their freedom through apprentice
ship.106 Admittance by redemption consisted either in the grant
by the wardens and the livery of a company to a prominent
individual, or in the purchase of his freedom by an Englishman
desiring to become affiliated with a company.107
Besides the citizens there were a number of "strangers"
living within London. These, including both aliens and Eng
lishmen, were expected to contribute with the citizens to any
subsidy that was levied for the defense of the realm. Though
this brought forth much complaint from the strangers, the privy
council always upheld the mayor and aldermen in their efforts
to obtain money from all inhabitants of the city.108 In 1596,
October 6, when the Lord Mayor complained that many, espe
cially doctors of law and gentlemen, had refused to aid in the
contribution, the lords of the council declared, "We think it
reasonable and requisite that all such as keep any dwelling
houses in the city should be charged to contribute."109 In the
MSAct of Common Council. 28 H. VIII, 'loc cit.
M4Manningham, 12 ; Green's Tu Quoque, Act I, Sc. I.
1MA. F. C, 1591-1592, 51.
1MBesfint's Tudor London contains a good chapter dealing with the
life of tbe Txindon apprentices.
""The Duke of Wurtemberg, in Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners, 7.
™A. P. r... 1558-1570 320; Ibid.. 1592-1593, 441; Ibid., 1595-L596, 153.
"'Ibid,, 1596-1597, 228.

21
same way all dwelling within the city were charged to aid in the
levying of soldiers and in equipping ships of war.110
The strangers also contributed to the loans, those not
inconsiderable services which the city rendered to the crown.
The Tudor sovereigns, looking upon London as a collateral
factor of great value, did not hesitate to make use of it in times
of financial embarrassment. As in the case of the subsidy,
whenever money was to be used for the general defense of the
realm, all residents of the city were called upon to contribute.
In 1598, on account of the great expenditure of money con
sequent upon the disorder in Ireland, thu queen asked the city
for a loan of £20,000.111 The mayor was then authorized to
ascertain the wealth of the strangers and to assess them
accordingly.112 Besides the money which the citizens might actually lend,
there was another way in which the crown realized out of the
wealth of London. The sovereign might borrow money from
the foreign countries on the security of bonds issued by the city,
in which it agreed to assume the payment of the debt in case
the crown failed to do so.113 This seems to have been a favorite
device of the early Tudors, for the acts of the privy council
give proof of many instances when Sir Thomas Gresham, the
agent successively for Edward, Mary and Elizabeth in the Low
Countries, raised money on the strength of two bonds, one signed
by the sovereign, the other by the city.114 Elizabeth used this
means of raising the money which she lent to the Netherlands
in 1577-78. Of the £160,000 which she promised the States.
£20.000 were lent by the city, which was sent directly to the
Netherlands.115 The remainder was raised by Davison from
merchants in the Low Countries and in High Germany, on the
queen's and the city's bonds. Some £30,000 had been obtained
110A. P. G, 1587-1588, 429 ; ibid., 1595-1596, 153.
'"Ibid., 1598-1599, 40.
wIUd., 1598-1599, 376.
mIHd., 1556-1558, 348 ; ibid., 1558-1560, 101.
MIUd., 1552-1554, 376 ; ibid., 1556-1558, 23.
1,5C. S. P. Foreign, 1577-1578, 707, 928.

22

from two Italian bankers.110 Somewhat later one of these,
Horatio Palavicino, must have bought out the share of the other
in the matter, for in 1583 we find him holding both bonds for
the entire amount.117 At this time the principal and interest
amounted to £33,374, 4s., 4d. From that time on till 1602
Palavicino repeatedly appealed to the privy council for payment
of either the principal or the interest.118 As the States had
regularly paid the annuity and by 1598 had paid their entire
debt, the Italian requested that his accounts with the queen be
adjusted. On December 21, 1598, Palavicino wrote to Sir
Eobert Cecil, declaring that Elizabeth's loss of credit was due
to the fact that she failed to refund his money.119 He also
appealed frequently to the mayor and aldermen, on account of
their bonds, to urge the crown to pay the amount owing to
him.120 They in turn urged the privy council to pay Pala
vicino and other creditors. This non-payment of debts may
have had much to do with the action of the city in 1598 and
1602, in demanding security before lending money to Eliza
beth. Although in the early days of her reign they advanced
money readily, at these later dates they demanded security in
lands and the customs of the city for a loan of £150,000 at one
time, and at another the security of carrack goods for £6,000.121
This study of the conditions of London has shown that the
municipal life was regulated by a body of charters, granted by
various sovereigns, and to some extent by a few statutes passed
during the period under consideration. It is also apparent that
the most influential bodies within the metropolis were the trading
companies, for it was only through connection with them that
citizenship was determined, and the election of the principal
officials consummated. It is seen, too, that aliens, under certain
circumstances, might be admitted to full municipal privileges,
"•Remem., 185, 180.
mHist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers, VI, 170, 241.
'"Ibid., VIII. 111.
'"Ibid., 185.
mRemem., 186. 187.
121C. S. P. Foreign, 1577-1578. 418 ; A. P. C, 1554-1556, 321 ; Remem.,
187 ; Chamberlain's Letters, 31 ; Maehyn, 108.

23

and that all foreigners living within the city were expected to
contribute with the citizens in all levies of men or money for
the general protection of the kingdom. Finally, it is seen that
the city greatly aided the crown in financial matters by either
advancing money directly or by giving bonds to secure the
payment of money advanced elsewhere.

Chapter II.

QUALIFICATIONS AND ELECTION OF
• LOED MAYOE.
Of the officials of London the most important was tho
Lord Mayor. The dignity of his position gave him a certain
amount of prestige not only while he was the head of the city,1
but during his subsequent service as alderman he took prece
dence of the recorder, the sheriffs and other aldermen, being
one of the justices of the peace of London.2 The title "Lord"
which appertained to the office was jealously guarded, as were
also all those brilliant devices which tended to make the position
conspicuous in an age dominated by a love of pageantry and
show.3 There were certain requirements to be satisfied before one
might be eligible to the office. The candidate must have served
as alderman for a considerable length of time. When Henry
sent word to the city in 1537 that he wished Sir Thomas
Gresham to be elected mayor, it was with great reluctance that
the commons acquiesced, because he had been alderman for one
year only.4 In addition to holding the office of alderman the
'Relation of England, 43.
'Charter Ed. Ill, in Hist. Charters, 53.
'A. P. G, 1558-1590, 266.
'Wriothesley, 67.

24
aspirant must also be a member of one of the twelve leading
companies.5 And, though each of these companies nominally
had a right equal to every other one, in the period of years
covered by the Tudor rule 24 per cent of the mayors were
mercers, while not quite 2 per cent were vintners.6
An act of common council passed in the seventeenth year
of Richard II declared "that no person shall from henceforth
be mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff of the
said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and
bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty."7 This
act was not strictly adhered to, for in 1520 Sir John Brage was
elected mayor, although he had not previously served as sheriff.
The same thing is true with regard to Sir John Langley, mayor
in 15749, and Sir Cuthbert Buckle, mayor in 1593.10
There was another condition necessary for a man to hold
the office of mayor, which was as imperative as those established
by custom or law. It was impossible for a person to act as the
chief official of London unless he were wealthy, as the expenses
arising from the position were many, while for his services he
received no compensation.11 Besides the great feast which he
was compelled to give on the day he was sworn into office, the.
mayor was supposed to give additional banquets at various
seasons of the year. Moreover, he was expected to entertain
any foreigners of rank, or any official of the English crown
who happened to visit London. These smaller feasts were held
at the Guildhall, at the hall of the mayor's company or in the
mayor's house.12 During the time of his service he was obliged
to live "so magnificently that foreigner or native, without any
expense, was free if he could find a chair empty to dine at his
table, where there was always a great plenty."13
"Stow (ed. 1633), 573-593.
'Ibid.
1 Liber Albus, 399.
'Grafton's Chronicle.
'Stow's Annals, 320.
"Ibid-., 309.
"Remem., 365.
"Wriothesley. II, 25.
18Paul Hentzner, Travels in England in Rye, 107.

25
A supply of ready money was further required by the
splendor which the mayor was compelled to maintain. Some
of the display attendant upon the office and its following was,
however, not chargeable to the mayor — the scepter, sword and
cap which were carried before him On ceremonial occasions
belonged to the corporation. The chain of gold, too, which
each mayor wore on special occasions, was owned by the city,
and was presented to each incumbent as he was installed into
office. It had been given to the city by Sir John Allen, mayor,
with the stipulation that each succeeding mayor should wear it
on state occasions.14 It seems to have attracted the attention of
the foreigners, who confused it with the collar worn by the
Knights of the Garter.15 Even though these articles were sup
plied by the city, the garments which the Lord Mayor had to
provide for himself and his suite must have drawn a large
amount of money from his purse. Of the thirty-one members
of the official household of the mayor, nine were supplied with
livery by him, the others being provided for by the city.16 In
case there was a death in his family, the mayor supplied mourn
ing garments for the household. It was necessary for him to
provide himself with gowns and cloaks of three colors ; on cer
tain days he wore a black gown and cloak, on other days a
violet and on still other days a scarlet cloak and gown.17
It was not within the city only that the position of the
mayor was regarded with respect. Whenever the officials of the
crown wrote to the mayor, they addressed him as "Lord."18 At
the coronations, too, the Lord Mayor had special duties to
perform. At Henry VIII's coronation the mayor, who had been
dubbed knight by the king prior to his sitting down to dinner,
rose from his place and served the king with hyppocras from a
golden cup. As a reward for the services, Henry presented him
with the cup and its cover of gold.19 A similar ceremony was
".Wriothesley, I, 161.
15PauI Hentzner, I. c, 107.
16Stow (ed. 1633). 441.
"Paul Hentzner, I. c, 107 ; Wriothesley, I, 106.
18C. S. P., A. P. C, and Remem. passim.
"Hall's Chronicle, 510.

26
performed at the coronation of Anne Boleyn, when the mayor,
attended by twelve citizens, served the queen from a cup of
assay and from a cup of gold.20 Both of these cups were given
to him as a reward for his service. The respect felt by the
crown for the city's officials is also apparent in the gifts of
bucks and does which were made to the mayor, in addition to
the annual grants of venison given to the city. Mary issued
several warrants to deliver game to the mayor from Nonesuch.21
The knighting of the mayor, too, at his presentations testifies to
the esteem in which the position was held by the crown.
The election of the mayor was held annually in the Guild
hall. Prior to 1546 the elections took place on St. Edward's
Day (October 13), but on account of the expenses of the feasts,
an act of common council of that year changed *he date to
Michaelmas, on which day the sheriffs took their oaths.22 This
alteration in the election day necessitated but one feast, as the
banquet provided by the sheriffs for the aldermen sufficed for
the mayor's election banquet.23 Before this time each mayor
had been compelled to give a feast in October, consequently this
change saved him about £40. 24
The year 1546 witnessed two other important acts of the
common council relative to the election of the city's executive.
These provided that any person who, on being elected to the
office, refused to serve should pay a fine of £1,000, but that
previous sendee should form an exemption.25 Later it was
provided that no person should be eligible to office for a second
time. The mode of proceeding with an election was well regulated
by custom. At eight o'clock in the morning, all the aldermen
met the Lord Mayor and sheriffs in the Guildhall, wearing their
scarlet gowns.26 Going to the chapel, they heard a sermon,
'"Han, 805.
"Letter from Lord Mayor to Burghley. in Ellis Letters, Second
Series, III, 51 ; Hist. MSS. Com. VII Report, Appendix I, 612.
22Grey Friars' Chronicle, 52.
"Wriothesley, I, 175.
"Ibid., 171.
"Acts of Common Council, in Municipal Corporation Reports, 29
'"Stow (ed. 1633). 652.

27
which was followed by the communion service. After the service
was completed they proceeded to the court of Hustings, where
the commons were assembled. This assembly seems to have
been composed of the common councilmen and the livery of the
principal companies.27 After all were seated the recorder arose
and addressed the meeting, repeating what had been said to the
smaller assembly by the preacher, and calling attention to their
duty of choosing wisely.28 When the recorder had finished his
speech, he, the Lord Mayor and the aldermen returned to the
council chamber, leaving the two new sheriffs with the common
sergeant to speak to the commons. The sergeant then addressed
the people, during which time one sheriff stood on each side of
him, with the town clerk beside one and the chamberlain beside
the other, regarding their duty of choosing wisely.29 After
three or four aldermen had been nominated by the commons,
and the vote had been taken by show of hands, the two aldermen
receiving the greatest number of votes were announced as the
choice of the commons by the common sergeant, who acted as
the election officer.30 During this time the commons were
required to refrain from speaking. These names were then
sent to the Lord Mayor and aldermen in the council chamber by
the common sergeant, where the next step in the election took
place. The recorder, standing by the window, took a poll of
the aldermen, beginning with the youngest, each alderman in
turn giving his vote. They then returned to the Hustings
Court, with the man elected on the left of the recorder,31 who
again addressed the commons, asking if they approved of the
choice. After they had signified their approval the swordbearer
took the tippet from the neck of the newly chosen mayor and in
its stead placed the chain of gold.32 This done, the mayor
advanced to the place of the recorder and "disabled himself"
"Stow (ed. 1633), 632; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers,
II, 117. "Ibid. ¦
'"Stow (Ed. 1033), 652.
3»Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers, II, 117.
31Stow (ed. 1633), 652.
s*Ibid.

28
according to the custom, saying that he was unworthy to fill so
high an office, then gave thanks for the choice. After another
speech from the old Lord Mayor, the two mayors, putting off
their cloaks, rode together to the oldest sheriff's house to dinner,
followed by many of the aldermen.33
At these elections, in addition to the common councilmen
and livery, some of the citizens and foreigners of rank were
permitted to be present as spectators.34
Notwithstanding all the ceremony which accompanied the
election, it seems in some instances that the procedure was little
more than mere formality, with the result known long before
hand. It cannot be that a mere spirit of prophesying caused
Henry Machyn, in commenting on the deaths of various alder
men, to say that if each had lived he would have become mayor
the year following.35 The fact that the course of the elec
tion was known beforehand is also brought out in the election of
1537, when Henry desired that Thomas Gresham be made
mayor.36 The chronicler remarks that the commons would
have had Mr. Holes, who by the king's letter was put off three
years.37 In rare instances there was some confusion at the elections.
In 1526 the commons refused to elect Thomas Seymer, because
he had been sheriff in 1516 and with the other officials of the
Tlist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers, II, 117; Nichols, Pro
gresses of Elizabeth, III, 259.
MSamuel Kiechel, Merchant of Swabia, in Rye, 88.
""Machyn, 116, 170, 213.
""Wriothesley, I, 67.
"That tbe senior sheriff was not always chosen as mayor is shown
by the following tables:
Sheriffs.
1571 Henry Miles John Branch
1572 Richard Pipe Nicholas Woodruff
1573 James Harvey Thomas Pullison
1574 Thomas Blanke
1575 Edward Osborne
Mayors.
1578 Sir Rich. Pipe 1582 Sir Thos. Blanke
1579 Sir Nich. Woodruff 1583 Sir Ed. Osborne
1580 Sir John Branch 1584 Sir. Thos. Pullison
1581 Sir James Harvey

29
city aided Wolsey to suppress the riots of "Evil May Day."
Eventually, however, he was chosen.38 There was some little
commotion, too, when Mr. George Monop refused to accept the
office after his election. No one was elected in his place until
October 28, when Mr. Thomas Baldey agreed to accept it.39
Any intrusion of the crown into the rights and privileges
of the city regarding the election was bitterly resented by the
commons. While Elizabeth interfered but once in the city's
election, Henry VIII seems frequently to have desired to regu
late the choice of mayor. In 1535, when the crown feared some
papel and French intrigue, Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor, was
sent to the city several days before the election took place to see
that the commons should choose some one of authority, influence
and experience to fill the position. On the eve of St. Edward's
day, at the time of the election, the king sent a letter to the
recorder declaring that it was his pleasure that Sir John Allen
be elected mayor.40 Though the commons agreed, it was said
that Sir John himself, not wishing the office, had spent upwards
of 100m. to prevent the election.41 Although the commons
yielded in this instance, two years later they were not so willing
to grant his majesty's requests.42 Four years after that the
royal interference is again apparent, but the suit is milder. On
September 16 the lords of the privy council asked the lords of
the council who were living in London to ascertain whether the
report that had reached the king's ears, that the Lord Mayor and
citizens of London had determined to elect a certain Mr. Denman
as mayor for the ensuing year, were correct.43 If they found it
to be true, they were then to send for the mayor, recorder and
such other aldermen as they should think fit, and should require
them to use all the means they could to bring about the election
of some other person for the office.44 If they had intended to
"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 33.
"Ibid., 31.
"C. S. P. Spanish, 1534-1535, 552 ; L. F. & D., H VIII, 9, 594.
"Wriothesley, I, 31.
42L. F. & D.. H. VIII, 12, Pt. II, 576 ; Wriothesley, I, 67.
"A. P. G, VII. 243.
"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 16, 1184.

30
choose Mr. Denman, the city officials must have yielded again,
for Michael Dormar was mayor for that year.45 It was in 1574
that Elizabeth undertook to alter an election. On October 15,
before the Lord Mayor had taken his oath of office, the privy
council appointed five men to examine into the objections against
Mr. Hayes, lately elected to be Lord Mayor of London.46 At
whatever results the investigators arrived, Alderman Howes
became mayor.47 On account of the plague he did not hold the
annual banquet in Guildhall; instead he gave a feast to the
aldermen only at his house, while the companies dined at their
respective halls.48
The banquet which each of the mayors gave one month
after his election was held on St. Simon and Jude's day, after
the mayor had been sworn into office at the Guildhall, and had
been presented to the king or his representative at the exchequer,
and had been conducted back in triumph to the Guildhall. The
administration of the oath was conducted with great ceremony,
in honor of the old mayor as well as of the new. The ceremony
of the meeting at Cresar's house, which the conspirators planned
as a decoy in Shakespeare's great play, must have called up in
the minds of the Elizabethans the picture of the honor paid to
the departing mayor. All the aldermen who were to dine with
the new mayor met at the house of the retiring official at eight
in the morning, wearing their fur-trimmed violet gowns and
cloaks. There they awaited the sheriffs, who conducted them to
the Guildhall, where they received the new mayor, escorted by his
company. Then they passed into the court of Hustings, where
the assembled freemen witnessed the taking of the oath. For
eigners of rank were sometimes through courtesy admitted.49
Silence being commanded by the common crier, the town clerk
administered the oath. The old Lord Mayor then arose from his
place and took the seat that had been occupied by the mayor.
1=Grafton, Chronicle (list of mayors).
46A. P. C, 1571-1575, 300.
"Stow, Abridgement of Chronicles, 315.
MA. P. C, 1571-1575, 303.
"Samuel Kiechel, 1. c, 88.

3i
Then, after many courtesies, the chamberlain delivered the
scepter, the keys of the common seal and the seal of mayoralty to
the mayor. The swordbearer then presented the sword, likewise
after much ceremonial bowing. After this the new Lord Mayor
was conducted by the retiring officer to his own home, where he
gave a small dinner to a few of the aldermen.50
The day following was the Lord Mayor's great day. Then
occurred the elaborate trip to Westminster with the presenta
tion, followed by the return trip with its pageant, culminating
in the banquet at the Guildhall.51 Early in the morning the
sheriffs and aldermen met at the Lord Mayor's house, wearing
their scarlet gowns and cloaks furred, accompanied by the livery
and bachelors of the Lord Mayor's company.52 The bachelors
were those members of the Lord Mayor's company below the
rank of livery who were chosen by the mayor to act as his
serving gentlemen on all feast days during the year. There
were from sixty to one hundred bachelors, according to the size
of the company, from which the Lord Mayor was chosen.53 In
procession they went to the Thames, where they took barges for
Westminster. The mayor's barge, decorated with the arms of
the city, was accompanied by a boat of the sovereign rigged up
like a ship of war. The livery of each company had their barge
decorated with the arms of the company.54 The mayor's bach
elors were the only citizens below the rank of livery who were
permitted to accompany the mayor. They had a barge of their
own, which preceded that of the livery of the mayor's company.
This was immediately in front of the mayor's barge, in which
were the aldermen, sheriffs and recorder. Landing at West
minster, they were conducted to the exchequer,55 where the oath
was given to the Lord Mayor, after which he was presented to
the sovereign by the recorder. The mayor was then dubbed

"Stow (ed. 1633), 656.
"Machyn, 224.
"'Stow (ed. 1633), 650.
"sWm. Smith in Drake, Shakespeare and his Time. 1P3.
Mlbid., 162.
"Machyn, 47, 72, 117.

32
knight by the Lord Chamberlain, acting as the sovereign's rep
resentative. Before returning to the city some time was spent
in and about the cathedral.56
The trip from Westminster back to the city was taken in
opposite order from the way in which they went to the exchequer,
the lesser crafts leading the way. At Paul's wharf the proces
sion landed and proceeded to Paul's churchyard, where the
children and men who were to take part in the march through
the city were awaiting the mayor and his escort.57 Those who
took part in the pageant proper were dressed in various kinds of
suits prepared for the occasion. Some were arrayed in bright-
hued gowns of uniform color and cut, others were arranged in
groups to represent some allegorical device, and still others im
personated the figures prominent in the old morality plays. The
figures most frequently used were the wild men, the devils, the
dragons and St. Paul. T^hese pageants had been carefully
executed, all tending to glorify the city and the new mayor.
Many of the well known poets and dramatists of the period had
planned elaborate devices for these shows. Such names as Peele,
Munday, Dekker and Jonson are associated with these city
pageants.58 A new procession was then formed, consisting of the
mayor and aldermen on. their horses, that had been brought to
the churchyard, the livery of the various crafts and the bach
elors of the mayor's company and preceded by the pageants, in
front of which were borne two great standards, one bearing the
arms of the city, the other the arms of the mayor's company.59
After each person had taken his proper place the great proces
sion through Cheapside to Guildhall began.
At this hall was held the mayor's feast, to which were
invited all persons of rank in the city, the wardens with the
""Stow (1633 ed.), 656; Ellis's Letters, II, 1, 173; Hist MSS. Com.
Rept, Salisbury Papers, II, 117; Grafton, Chronicle, II, 301; Nichols,
II,' 399. "Machyn, 72, 155, 270.
"Lord Mayor's Pageants, Percy Society, Vol. X.
mGreen's Tu Quoque.

33
prominent members of the livery of each company, and the lords
of the privy council and ambassadors of all the foreign coun
tries.60 In order to provide food for the guests, as their numbers
reached far up into the hundreds,61 the sovereign sometimes
sent game from the royal parks to the Lord Mayor.62
The guests were placed at different tables in various parts
of the great hall, the women and persons of highest rank sitting
with the mayor and aldermen at the upper tables. The feast
lasted many hours, during which time several courses were
served.63 While it was necessary to cut down the number of
courses when the Lord Mayor's day came on Friday, the feast
was almost as elaborate as in other years.64
During plague years, when it seemed unwise to hold the
accustomed festivities, permission was granted to the Lord
Mayor and aldermen to postpone the feast,65 or to abolish it for
the year, provided the money which would have been expended
for that purpose would be used for the relief of the suffering.66
Though it had been customary, when contagion was feared, to
appeal to the privy council for permission to omit the feast, the
city regarded the giving of the banquet as its prerogative, and
refused to permit outside interference. In 1580 the Lord
Mayor's day came on a Friday, and as the mayor, Sir John
Branch, was in such poor health that he could not eat fish, the
"Stow, 443; Relation of England, 44; C. S. P., Foreign, 1564-1565,
251 ; L. F. & D., H. VIII, 9, 732.
"Besides officers of the city, there were present representatives from
each of the sixty companies. In all cases these included the wardens
and some of the principal members of the livery. The number of livery
men coming from different companies varied from one to seventeen.
From the twelve great companies there were usually eight members,
while the most frequent number from the lesser companies was two. In
addition to these, the mayor was permitted to invite anyone he wished.
Usually he asked the ambassadors from all the foreign countries and
foreigners of note, members of the privy council, and members of the
nobility and the wives of the city officers. Wriothesley, I, 16, 176;
L. F. & D., H. VIII, 16, 1540.
"'Stow, 443 ; E. F. & D., H. VIII, 12, 940.
"Relation of England, 44 ; Wriothesley, II, 208.
"Ibid., 176.
""Remem., 207.
""A. P. C, 1571-1575, 303.

34
city officials decided to omit the feast.67 The following day the
members of the privy council wrote to the Lord Mayor, stating
that the queen considered the city's action in not holding the
feast as_so very singular that she desired to know the cause.68
In order that the explanation might be accurate, Elizabeth de
manded that some person qualified to answer should be sent
immediately to the members of the council. Sir John Branch
at once responded by writing to the council that his feeble health
was the cause of the omission. He added that it was his
intention to invite them all at some more convenient day.69 The
day following he wrote to Lord Burghley requesting him to
explain to Elizabeth the reason for postponing the feast.70
When the banquet was concluded the procession formed
again and marched to St. Paul's, where divine service was held;
after which the mayor was escorted to his home.71
In case of the death of the mayor during the term of his
service, a new officer was immediately elected in the court of
Hustings according to the prescribed form.72 The procession to
Westminster, or, in case of the king's absence, to the Tower, was
held as well as the banquet to the Guildhall.73 The act of com
mon council declaring that a man might not be elected twice as
mayor, does not seem to have been applied in such places. In
i'544, April 17, Sir Ralph Warren was elected to complete the
term of Sir William Bowyer, although he had served as mayor
in 1536. And again in 1588, Richard Martin, who was elected
at the death of Sir Martin Colthrop, was again elected in 1593
to serve out the year of Sir Cuthbert Buckle. Sir Rowland
Hayward in 1590 completed the term of Sir John Allad,
although twenty years before he had been Lord Mayor.74
"Remem., 206.
mIbid., 205.
"°A. P. C, 1580-1581, 245.
"Remem., 206.
71Machyn, 155.
"Wriothesley, I, 146.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Mrs. Falkland-Russell-Astley's Papers, 5.
"Stow's Annals; Grafton's Chronicle.

35
Chapter III.
THE MAYOR AS A ROYAL OFFICIAL. '
The most important part of the mayor's duties was per
formed only with the advice and consent of the aldermen.1
Consequently to a certain extent were checked those evils which
must necessarily have arisen from the frequent change in the
principal office. Especially in his judicial capacity, was the
mayor expected to act only with advice. As justice of the peace
he acted with the aldermen who had "passed the chair," that is
with those aldermen who had served as mayor, as judge of oyei
and terminer with the recorder and national justices. In his
own court he heard pleas when assisted by the recorder and a
few of the aldermen. In other cases, however, he fulfilled his
duties unaided. With regard to those functions which ordi
narily appertained to the crown officials, the mayor acted singly.
These were privileges that had been granted from time to time
by different sovereigns. Among them were his duties as clerk
of the market, escheator, lord lieutenant, coroner and collector
of the subsidy.
As clerk of the market, the mayor regulated the prices of
food and the assize of bread and beer, and inspected the weights
and measures used in the city. When the prices of wheat rose
or fell, the mayor ordered a corresponding change in the size of
the loaf of bread. Thus in 1553, when the price of wheat began
to fall, the penny loaf of wheaten bread was increased from 20
to 34 ounces.2 In 1579 the lords of the council commended the
Lord Mayor for his zeal in lowering the price of bread3 and
increasing its size when wheat had become cheaper.4 If a baker
were found guilty of making bread contrary to the mayor's
instructions he was imprisoned. Burghley wrote to the Lord
'Norton in Collier's Reprints, III, 10.
'Wriothesley, I, 81.
"Remem., 32.
«A. P. C, 1578-1588, 269.

36
Mayor in 1581, asking him to release a certain man who had
been imprisoned on account of making undersized loaves, as the
bread had been made not for the purpose of sale, but for Lord
Dudley's household.5 In 1592 the mayor wrote to the Lord
Treasurer that the bakers of the city complained that, in alter
ing the size of the loaf according to the fall in the price of corn,
he had made the size of the loaf of the city bakers exceed that of
the bakers outside the city's limits.6 It was evidently the
mayor's intention to bring pressure to bear upon the bakers
outside of the city, so that the loaves might be equal in weight.
A few years later, when the size of the loaf had been very small
on account of the scarcity of grain, the mayor neglected to cause
the size to be increased after a particularly good harvest. The
privy council accordingly wrote to him that unless the abuse
were instantly remedied, great blame would be ascribed by the
queen to him.7
When the harvest had been particularly poor, the mayor
gave directions for the importation of wheat and rye in order
that prices might be kept within bounds.8 In 1523, because a
poor harvest was feared, the Lord Mayor made provision for
the importation of fifteen quarters of wheat. But when it
arrived the bakers, who wished to sell their own, refused to use
it, declaring that it was musty. When Wolsey heard of this, he
ordered the bakers to prove their assertion. As they were unable
to do this, he commanded that they buy the wheat that the
mayor had ordered.9 In 1546, and again in 1549, the mayor
made bargains with certain merchants of the Steelyard for the
importation of wheat from Bremen and Dantsig.10 With the
same object in view, no great quantity of wheat might be
exported without special license from the mayor, who in case
of particularly large shipments received permission from the
"Remem., 33.
"Ibid.'A. P. C, 1598-1599, 142.
8G S. P., 1547-1580, 268 ; L. F. & D., H. VIII, 9, 614.
•Hall's Chronicle, 650 ; A. P. G, 1542-1547, 362.
"Wriothesley, II, 30.

37
Lord Chancellor.11 The people were usually opposed to having
great quantities of grain exported, alleging that it always caused
a rise in prices. Hence they frequently urged the mayor to
limit the number of licenses.12 In 1597 Sir Robert Cecil asked
the mayor to give license for 200 quarters of wheat to be shipped
to the western part of England. The mayor replied that he
would be glad to satisfy his request, but he feared the people
might object.13
The prices of beer and ale fluctuated at about the same time
and according to the same scale as that of the bread, being
dependent upon the harvests. In 1579, when the mayor was
praised for increasing the size of the loaf of bread, he was urged
to call before him the wardens and the officers of the beer
brewers, in order to ascertain from them what alterations in
prices they had made.14 The retail price of wines, too, was
regulated by a conference held between the mayor and the chief
merchants.15 During the Lenten season it was the custom for the mayor
to issue licenses to certain butchers, giving them permission to
sell meat during the weeks of fasting. Not only was the number
of licenses limited, but each person receiving one was required
to give bond that he would sell no meat except to those who were
sick or otherwise unfitted for the fast, and to those ambassadors
who ate meat during Lent.16
At the time of the troubles in Ireland, when the queen's
navy was being equipped for the expedition there was a surplus
of salt meat. The mayor was commanded to give orders that no
butchers should sell any salt meat to merchants supplying their
ships until this surplus be first expended.17
As the people blamed the Lord Mayor for the high prices
of meat at the Easter season of 1551, he attempted to remedy
the matter, but was unsuccessful, for the cattle were sold at
"C. S. P.. 1547-1580. 622, 637.
"Ibid., 1581-1590, 909.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Salisbury Papers, VII, 148.
"A. P. G, 1578-1580. 269.
"C. S. P., 1547-1580, 525, 532.
"A. P. G, 1552-1554. 222 ; ibid., 1558-1570, 205.
,7C. S. P., 1595-1597. 2-17.

38
such high prices that the butchers were unable to sell at a lower
figure. On account of these high rates, a royal proclamation
was issued demanding that meat be sold at a lower price.18 To
secure its enforcement, it was further commanded that the cattle
merchants sell their wares at reasonable rates.19
In the late winter and early spring of 1553 the mayor took
full control of the herring trade. All merchants of the city were
forbidden to take any fish from the landing at Rye until the
city had first been supplied.20 When some French merchants
wished to purchase thirty lasts of herring, they applied to the
council, who in turn wrote to the mayor, giving order that the
goods be delivered.21 In the same way a certain fish merchant
asked the lords of the council to use their influence in causing
the mayor to grant him permission to export some lasts of
herring that he had bought in Zealand and wished to take to
France to exchange for wines.22
In 1541, when determining the price of sugar, the mayor
was limited by order from the council. In order to ascertain
the highest price at which sugar might be sold, he was required
to send for five or six experienced merchants to inquire of them
the prices of sugar and spices in Luxembourg and Antwerp.
He was then to report this to the privy council, so that the
London prices corresponded with those abroad.23 A few days
later the mayor was commanded to make proclamation that no
merchant should sell the best sugar above 8d. a pound and the
poorer sort at a correspondingly lower figure.24
The mayor was responsible to the crown for the behavior
of the city, regarding the royal edicts determining the valuation
of coins. Following Edward's proclamation of 1551, by which
the value of the coins was diminished, there was much discon-
18Wriothesley, II, 47.
"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 6, 341.
"A. P. C. 1552-1554, 206.
"Ibid., 229.
"Ibid., 232. 235.
"A. P. C. VII, 104 : L. F. & D., H. VIII, 16, 420.
"Ibid., 447 ; A. P. C, VII, 113.

39
tent in the city. The council consequently sent for the Lord
Mayor to appear before the court at Greenwich. There, as a
representative of the people, he was severely reprimanded for
the disobedience of the city in murmuring against the proclama
tion, and was. commanded to see that no merchant raised the
prices of his wares according to the depreciation of the coins.
To assist him in this undertaking, the mayor called the wardens
of the various crafts and trades to meet him and the common
council in the Guildhall. There it was determined that the
members of the companies be warned to report to the mayor
any infringement of the proclamation. Besides this, each alder
man was ordered to repair to his own ward to see that abuses
were corrected.25 A few months later a letter of admonition was
sent by the privy council to the Lord Mayor on account of his
slackness in punishing the offenders'.26 In 1556 the mayor was
directed to send spies into all the wards to arrest every person
refusing to accept the established currency for his wares.27
When Elizabeth was endeavoring to reform the currency, the
mayor was commanded to affix the mark of the greyhound and
portcullis to certain coins in order to distinguish the poorer
from the better ones.28
The mayor had also charge of the prices of wood and coal
within the city. In 1543 he was directed to see that fuel was
sold for a more reasonable price.29 Owing to the scarcity of
wood and coal the prices were excessively high in 1553. The
mayor, therefore, caused sea coals to be sold at the markets at
Billingsgate and Queenhithe for 4d. a bushel. This relieved the
suffering of the poor, for which the mayor was greatly praised.30
The office of escheator, which had been granted to the
mayor by Edward III for London, and by Edward VI for
Southwark, must have brought the mayor into close connection
"Wriothesley, II, 48.
"A. P. C, 1550-1552, 272, 352.
"76id., 1554-1556, 358.
MC. S. P., 1547-1580, 160.
"A. P. G, I, 76.
""Wriothesley, 105.

40
with the people.31 Acting in this capacity, the mayor was
required to look after the lands which came into the king's
hands through forfeiture or other cause. To vouch for his
service the mayor was required to take an oath at the exchequer,
at the close of his term of service, at the same time the new
mayor was taking32 his oath, that he had lawfully served the
king in this position. At the death of an abbot in the early
years of the period under consideration, the temporalities belong
ing to an abbey were seized by the escheators. In 1519, 1525
and 1528, on the election of new abbots to Reading Abbey, St.
Saviour's, Bermondsey and Lincoln, respectively, the mayor
received a writ, with the other escheators of the realm, to restore
the lands to the abbots.33 In 1532 certain tenements in the
parish of West Chepe came into the king's hand through an
inquisition held before the Lord Mayor as escheator, proving
that the company of goldsmiths had acquired possession of the
lands without a license.34 When acting as escheator it was the
mayor's duty to determine the nearest heir of the deceased,35
for which service he received some fees from the estate as
recompense. In 1528, for finding offices for Sir William
Compton's heir, the Lord Mayor received 40 shillings.36 As
escheator of Southwark, the mayor had power to direct writs
and precepts to the sheriffs of Surrey.37
As lord lieutenant of the city of London, the mayor received
a commission for the mustering and training of troops at times
when the realm was in need of armed forces. His commission
was usiially sent at the same time as those of the lords lieuten
ants of the counties. In this capacity it was his duty to ascertain
the number of able-bodied men and the quantity of arms that
the city could furnish, to oversee the training of the men, to
31Hist. Charters, 55, 122.
32IAber Albvs. 23.
""L. F. & D., H. VIII, 3, 123 ; ibid., 4, 1680 ; ibid., 4, 4143.
"Ibid., 5, 1499 (25).
™C. S. P., Addenda, 1566-1579, 477.
ML. F. & D., H. VIII, 4, 5017.
"'Camden, Britannia, 394.

41
inspect the uniforms provided by the city, and in case of
insubordination to see that the culprits were properly punished.38
The number of men furnished by the city varied according
to the undertaking for which they were levied. In 1539 the
commission sent to the Lord Mayor directed him to certify the
names of all men living within the city between the ages of 16
and 60. 39 In order to hasten the inquiry the aldermen and
mayor repaired to their respective wards and, with the aid of
the constables, took the accounts.40 Under ordinary ciraim-
stances the city was required to furnish about 500 or 600 men.41
In 1601, however, on account of the Irish war and the fear of
invasion, the city was asked to raise 1,000 men.42 Two years
previous to that, when the danger had seemed more imminent,
the mayor had levied 3,000 soldiers.43 This same number had
also been raised in the early part of the century, when Henry's
continental troubles had demanded an unusually large army. In
1545 there were two levies made in the city, one of 2,000 men44
and the other of 1,000.45 The year of the Armada naturally
saw the greatest muster of forces. To meet the demands the
city was asked to contribute 10,000 men. Of these 6,000 men
were to be enrolled under certain captains and ensigns to be
especially trained.46
The levying of the men for the wars was, except in rare
cases, facilitated by the co-operation of the companies. The
Lord Mayor summoned the wardens, who apportioned the num
ber to be raised among themselves. The men were then mus
tered before the mayor and aldermen.47
In addition to levying the men, the Lord Mayor had to
oversee the arming, the providing with uniforms, and the train-
""Hall, Chronicle, 829.
3"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 14, I, 946.
"Hall, Chronicle. 829 ; L. F. & D., H. VIII, 14, I, 940.
"A. P. G, 1558-1570, 120 ; 0. S. P., 1547-1580, 224.
tsIbid., 1601-1603, 61.
43Hist MSS. Com., XV Rept., Appendix V, 71.
"A. P. C, I, 214.
"Ibid., 218.
*>Hist MSS. Com., XV Report, Appendix V, 32.
"Machyn, 162, 164.

42
ing of the soldiers. In 1538, in order to keep the city well
supplied with arms, the Lord Mayor devised a scheme which
he hoped would be incorporated into an act by the common
council. According to it every alderman was to have in his
possession twenty sets of harness, the sheriffs ten, the wardens
of the companies four, the liverymen two, and householders one
set. To see that this was followed, the wardens of the com
panies were to hold yearly inspections for the purpose of view
ing the armor.48 Evidently his plan did not materialize, for
in 1548 word was sent to the mayor to find men provided with
armor and horses, some with six axes, some with four and some
three, according to their assessment rates.49 Again in 1579
the mayor was commanded to provide armor for the men who
had been levied. The armorers hearing that their wares were
likely to be sold in large quantities, began to increase their
prices. To remedy this the privy coimcil instructed the mayor
to send for the armorers to induce them to return to the reason
able prices they had been accustomed to ask.50
The city's part in providing for the defense of the realm
extended to preparing ships of war with men, armor and food.
It is only in the last decade of the century, however, that we
find any reference to this. In 1591, 1596 and 1599 the Lon
doners furnished ships of war.51 In 1591 they prepared six,
in 1596 ten, and in 1599 twelve ships. In the last case food
was furnished by the city for the crew for two months.52
When the mayor was directed to provide the soldiers with
uniforms, it was usually specified what kind of suits the men
were to be given. In January, 1558, the mayor was directed to
prepare 500 men, ready in harness, with white coats welted,
with green and red crosses.53 In 1562, though the style of the
garments was prescribed, the mayor was free to choose the
,8L. F. & D„ H. VIII, 13, II, 72.
"Wriothesley, I, 3.
""Hist. MSS. Com., XV Report, Appendix V, 89.
">C. S. P., 1591-1594, 55, 57 ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers,
' °2C. S. P., 1598-1601, 312.
""Machyn, 162.

43
color, provided all the suits were to be alike.54 Sometimes
money spent by the city in this regard was refunded by the
council, after the mayor had sent an account of this coat and
conduct money.55
The time intervening between the levying of the men and
their actual service or embarkment for service was spent in the
practice of the arts of war. In 1578 the mayor was directed to
have 2,000 men trained, so that they should be in readiness at
short notice.56 In 1580 the same number was being trained,
when the plague stopped short the work. With the cessation
of the sickness the mayor was commanded to renew the work of
training the soldiers in the use of their weapons.57 That the
work might be better arranged, the mayor and aldermen were
asked to confer with Sir Francis Knolles and Sir John Norris.58
Late in 1588 articles were drawn up by certain experienced
commanders for the purpose of training a number of citizens
in the military art. These were submitted by the privy council
to the Lord Mayor for consideration.59
Not only did the city furnish men for the wars, but it also
provided quarterage for many of the companies from the north
and central part of England that passed through London prior
to their embarkation. In 1574 the mayor was directed to find
provisions and lodgings for 300 soldiers who had lately come
out of Holland, and were resting in England, before being sent
to Ireland.60 Again in 1592 Burghley sent word to the mayor
to provide for 300 soldiers coming from certain counties to
London.61 A short time after the order was rescinded on
account of the plague which was then attacking London.
Because of the dread of infection, the soldiers were not shipped
"4A. P. G, 1558-1560, 122.
""C. S. P.. 1591-1594, 26.
"Ibid., 1547-1580, 586.
"Remem.. 230.
""Hist MSS. Com., Report XV, Appendix V, 33.
"9C. S. P., 1581-1590, 565.
"A. P. C, 1571-1575, 177.
"C. S. P., 1591-1594, 211.

44
from London, but marched by land to avoid going near the
city.62 When the men levied by the city became unruly during their
service they were punished after their return by the mayor. In
1587 the privy- council directed the mayor to punish those sol
diers that, levied for service in the Low Countries, had mutinied
against Captain Simpson. The lords specified that the punish
ment should be severe and extraordinary, that after the men
had been tied to carts and flogged through Chepeside to Tower
Hill, they should be placed in a pillory and their ears cut.63
The mayor's duties as lord lieutenant were most apparent
when Wyatt had entered Southwark and the fear that the rebel
lion would spread was rife in the city. The mayor gave orders
that the drawbridge be cut and thrown in the Thames, for fear
some of the citizens might join the traitor.64 He gave further
orders that the aldermen and sheriffs should wear their armor,
and that the shop windows be closed, and that citizens stand
within doors, armed, ready to take part if there should be any
need.65 In addition to executing the functions of escheator and
lord lieutenant, the mayor of London performed the duties of
another county official in his capacity of coroner.66 Technically
it was the Lord Mayor who fulfilled the duties of this position,
but on account of the exigencies of the municipal affairs the
office was delegated to some appointee of the mayor and alder
men. The coroner's court might, however, be called before
either the mayor or this deputy.67 In 1515 Mr. Barnewell, who
had been appointed coroner of London, held an inquest with
twelve jurymen over the body of Richard Hun's son.68 It was
the mayor, however, who in 1537 took charge of the case of
8'C. S. P., 1591-1594, 266.
""C. S. P., 1581-1590, 415.
"Grafton's Chronicle, II, 541.
•"Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary, 40-43.
""Charter, 4 Ed. IV, in Hist. Charters, 92.
"Coke, Fourth Institute, 250.
"Hall, Chronicle, 573.

45
Robert Packenton, mercer, whose murdered body had been
found by the great conduit in Chepe.69
A question regarding the authority of the city's coroner
was raised in 1597, when that official was about to take view
of a body slain in East Smithfield. The Lord Treasurer had
written to the mayor to forbear to proceed in the matter, and
had directed the recorder and some members of the common
council to ascertain the jurisdiction of the city in that place. He
asked that this "stay" might not be used as a precedent to the
injury of the city.70 A few months later the privy council wrote
to the coroner directing him to make known to the recorder and
Justice Southcote the time he intended holding inquiry over the
body of one Bullinger, that they might assist him and advise
him in the matter.71 In 1592 Elizabeth again interfered in
the execution of the coronor's duties. In November of that year
a letter was sent to the Lord Mayor regarding one Herick, a
goldsmith, who was supposed to have committed suicide by
throwing himself from a great height.72 It appears that some
persons had declared that the fall was accidental. If this were
true, the queen's almoner would be deprived of some goods
which otherwise would have gone to him. Elizabeth therefore
required the mayor to summon before him the coroner and
charge him to receive no verdict by inquisition until the evidence
that the almoner had, be thoroughly known and given him.
According to the charter of Edward VI, which gave Southwark
to the city, the mayor, commonalty and citizens were privileged
to appoint two coroners for the borough, and were to have all
waifs and estrays, treasure trove and deodands.73
London was again treated as a shire in the appointment of
the mayor as chief of the collectors of money for the crown.
In 1524, however, when the most prominent men of every shire
were appointed to give orders to the people that one-sixth of
""Grey Friars' Chronicle, 39.
"Remem., 426.
"A. P. C, 1578-1580, 128.
"Ibid., 1592, 289.
'"Historical Charters, 117.

46
every man's substance be given to the king, Wolsey was made
principal officer of the commission for London.74 Accordingly
the cardinal sent for the mayor and certain aldermen and
demanded that the money be paid. So great was the murmuring
of the people, however, that this order was withdrawn and the
people were given the privilege of offering what they wished.
In 1540 the mayor, with the Earl of Sussex, the Lord Admiral,
the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London, was a com
missioner in London for the collection of the subsidy,75 while
certain aldermen were appointed as assessors in their wards.
At this collection foreign merchants residing in , London were
assessed with the citizens,76 but the privy council directed the
mayor to forbear collecting the sums levied on four French
merchants until they should hear again from the king.77 A short
time after this he was directed to excuse three other foreigners.78
In 1558 the mayor was directed to call all the collectors of the
subsidy before him in order to charge them to make immediate
payment to the exchequer of the sums collected.79
The mayor was authorized to imprison any citizen who
refused or neglected to pay his share of the subsidy. In 1595
and 1596 there were several persons imprisoned in the Counters
for refusing to pay their assessments.80 In 1600 arose the
question whether English subjects holding houses in the city,
but not citizens of London, ought to be taxed with the Londoners
where the subsidy was collected. The mayor wrote to the privy
council asking for advice regarding officers of the Court of
Chancery, Court of Wards, King's Bench and Common Pleas
who, living within the city, had refused to pay the fifteenth
levied upon them for service of the queen.81
In the case of loans, also, it was to the mayor that the
"Hall, Chronicle, 694.
'"A. P. C, VII, 48.
,eL. F. & D„ H. VIII, 16, 112.
'"Ibid., 361.
reA. P. C, VII, 101. 109 : L. F. & D., H. VIII, 16, 435.
,BA. P. C, 1556-1558. 366.
""Remem., 24, 25.
"Ibid., 25.

47
crown appealed. In 1522 the king, wishing to borrow £20,000,
sent to the city for the sum. The mayor requested this money
of none but the wealthy citizens, who though protesting, agreed
to give the required sum.82 In 1577 the mayor was asked to use
all the influence he could command to induce the wealthy men
of the city to contribute money for the expedition that was being
planned for Cathay, in which the queen and many of the nobles
were interested.83
It is evident that in carrying out this part of his many
duties the mayor was brought into close contact with the lords
of the council. These functions of a royal official, which had
been granted, one by one, to the city, may have served to exalt
the office in the eyes of the statesmen and other prominent
personages of the realm. At any rate, the mayor was treated
with great respect by the officials of the crown. As has been
said at the coronation banquet of the sovereign, the mayor
claimed the privilege of serving as a steward, and as such sat
at one of the principal tables in Westminster.84 The Lord
Mayor was present at the court in 1533, when he and the alder
men, the heads of the guilds and the French ambassadors were
invited to be present at the christening of Elizabeth.85 Three
days after the death of Henry VIII the Lord Mayor was sent
for to attend the parliament chamber at Westminster, where the
Lord Chancellor declared the death of the sovereign and charged
the mayor to look after the safeguard of London.86 Again, in
1553, the Lord Mayor was invited to attend court at Greenwich-
and to bring with him six aldermen and six merchants of the
staple and six merchant adventurers. Edward's death was then
declared to them, while at the same time it was announced that
the successions of the crown had been determined upon by letters
patent, to which they were sworn and charged to keep secret.87
"'Hall, Chronicle, 642.
"A. P. C, 1575-1577, 391.
"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 5. 584 : Wriothesley, 21.
8"C. S. P., Spanish. 1531-1533, 789.
""Wriothesley. I, 178.
"Chronicle History of Queen Jane and Queen Mary, 2.

48
How great was the respect in which the office was held is
shown by a statement contained in a diary kept by one of Eliza
beth's contemporaries, to the effect that the Lord Mayor is the
greatest magistrate in the realm at the death of a king or queen
of England.88

Chaptee IV.
THE MAYOR AS A CITY OFFICIAL.
The mayor was also brought more or less in touch with the
crown officials in carrying out those duties which pertained
directly to the city. This was especially true with regard to
his functions as dispenser of the hospitality of the city. When
any members of the royal family or nobility passed through
London, it was the Lord Mayor who met them at the limits of
his jurisdiction and conducted them in state through the city.
At such times an address of welcome was usually made by the
recorder,1 although in 1522, when Charles V, accompanied by
Henry, rode through the city, it was "one Sir Thomas More"
who addressed them.2 After Anne Boleyn was proclaimed
queen she rode through the city. At Chepeside the mayor and
aldermen drew up in line while the recorder welcomed her in
behalf of the city, and the Lord Mayor presented her with a
purse of 1,000 angels.3 At the reception given to Anne of
Cleves, 1540, the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by six men
of each of the twelve principal companies, rode with the queen
to Greenwich, while the remainder of the crafts went by water
to the castle.4 In 1549, when Edward VI rode from South-
""Manningham, 148.
1Wriothesley, I, 19.
'Hall, 631.
"Wriothesley, 18.
*Grey Friars' Chronicle, 43.

49
wark, the mayor and aldermen met him at St. Margaret's
Church, Southwark, and rode before him to Charing Cross.
There the aldermen stood in line until the king passed them,
while the mayor continued his ride in front of the king to
Westminster. In 1553, August 3, at the time of Wyatt's rebel
lion, the liverymen of all the companies were commanded to
assemble in the Guildhall, as Mary had planned to speak to
them.5 The mayor and aldermen met her at the outskirts of
the city and conducted her to the hall. The former carrying his
mace, rode beside the Earl of Arundel, who bore the city's
sword.6 He had presented the sword to Mary, who had given
it to the earl to carry through the city. At the time of the
procession in honor of her marriage with Philip, the mayor
presented the queen with his mace, signifying that he delivered
his authority to her. As she redelivered it to him he caried it
in front of her, while in front of him were borne the two
swords.7 Again, two years later, when Philip and Mary passed
through the city, the mayor bore the scepter in front of them.8
At Elizabeth's accession to the throne, too, the mayor carried the
scepter before her.9 Many pageants were arranged for her, and
at Charing Cross the recorder presented her with a heavy purse
of gold.10 A year later, when she passed from Westminster to
the Tower, although the journey was by water, she was con
ducted by the mayor, aldermen and liverymen of the com
panies.11 In her progress of 156112 and again towards the end
of her reign, the Lord Mayor, accompanied by the livery of the
different companies, preceded her through London.13
In the same way the Lord Mayor was brought into close
contact with the different ambassadors, as it was his duty to find

81.

"Grafton, II, 539.
"Chronicle Queen Jane and Queen Mary, 14 ; Grey Friars' Chronicle,
''Chronicle Queen Jane and Queen Mary, 146, 151.
"Machyn, 129.
"Hayward, Annals of Elizabeth, 10.
"Nichols, Progresses of Elisabeth, 38.
"Hayward, Annals of Elizabeth, 14.
"Machyn, 263.
"Chamberlain's Letters, 29, 162.

50
accommodations for these representatives of foreign countries.
In 1550 the privy council reprimanded the mayor for neglecting
to provide the French ambassador with suitable lodgings, and
ordered him to obtain a certain house immediately.14 In 1580
Sir Francis Walsingham wrote to the Lord Mayor requesting
that a particular house be given the Spanish ambassador. But
the Spaniard disliked the house offered and wished to obtain
one outside of Temple Bar. This being beyond the city's juris
diction, it was impossible for the mayor to obtain it for him.10
Three years later Elizabeth's secretary again wrote, requesting
that the mayor provide the Swedish ambassador with "a fair
and convenient house," as well as three handsomely furnished
lodgings for members of his suite.16 In 1597 Elizabeth sent word
to the mayor to have prepared for the- Polish ambassador some
well furnished house belonging to a citizen of London.17 In
the same year the mayor was directed to have prepared one of
two specified houses for the Danish ambassador. He was
urged to have the house well furnished with hangings, beds and
all necessary provisions of household stuffs.18 And again the
next year the mayor was directed to provide lodgings for the
deputies of the states of the United Provinces fitted out with all
household necessities.19
Besides receiving and providing for the ambassadors the
mayor also received all foreigners of note who came to the city.
In 1520 the lords of the council sent word to Henry that the
three gentlemen from France had been well received by the city
officials.20 When the Lord Admiral of France visited England,
in 1535, he was received in the city with great solemnity by
the mayor, aldermen and crafts.21 When peace had been
declared between England and France, in 1546, the ambassador
"A. P. C, 1550-1552, 106.
"Remem., 10.
"Ibid., 11.
"A. P. G, 1597, 302.
"Ibid., 363.
"A. P. G, 1597-1598, 448.
ML. F. & D., H. VIII, 7, 896.
2'Grey Friars' Chronicle, 37.

5i
and his following rode in triumph through London, after having
been welcomed by the chief officers of the city.22 The form of
welcome which the city had planned for the French representa
tives, together with the address written in French, was sub
mitted by the mayor to the privy council for correction.23
When the admiral arrived the mayor, in behalf of the city, gave
him a present consisting of flagons of wine and boxes of wafers,
and wax torches and candles.24 At the time of Philip's arrival
in England the mayor gave order that bonfires be built in every
street as a sign of welcome.25 Usually the mayor met these
foreigners at the limit of the city's jurisdiction, on rare occa
sions, however, he went outside the limits to greet noted per
sons.26 One of the most important of his duties regarding the wel
fare of the metropolis was the mayor's oversight of the public
health. As a health officer he had charge of the sanitary condi
tions of the houses, streets and lanes. In this he was aided by
some minor officials of the city, the scavengers and the rakers,
who were elected for this purpose in each ward. Any house
holder who neglected to keep his pavement in good repair or
free from filth was reported. Because it was seen that the
welfare of the people was endangered by the crowding of build
ings in certain parts of the city, the mayor was directed to send
a list of foreigners residing in the city, for it had been reported
that they dwelt "pestered up in one place."27 If it were found
that such was the case, he was directed to separate them and to
allow no more to reside in one place than he felt would be for
the good of the city.28 In order to lessen this congestion Eliza
beth had issued a proclamation that no more buildings be
erected in the city's limits. Hearing, however, that new build-
"Hall, 867.
""A. P. C. 1542-1547. 494.
"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 51.
""Wriothesley, 172 ; Machyn, 66.
'"Wriothesley, 124.
"Stow (ed. 1033). 057: Coke, Fourth Institute. 249.
"A. P. C, 1571-1575. 130. 190.

52
ings were nevertheless being constructed, the privy council
ordered the mayor to send the names of all violators of this
edict.29 In 1590 another proclamation was issued which re
quired the observance of the statute declaring against the placing
of filth within a certain number of miles of the city. By it the
mayor was directed to give special commands to the sheriffs of
Middlesex that all deposits of refuse be instantly reported.30
In order to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, the
city's executives effected a quarantine by marking the infected
houses. Sometimes this was accomplished by painting crosses
on the doors, but, as these were easily erased by unscrupulous
persons, the privy council directed that red crosses be nailed on
the doors,31 and watches placed before the houses to prevent the
departure of any one from the contaminated house.32 With the
same end in view, the mayor endeavored to keep all public
places clean and wholesome, and to prevent the gathering of
large crowds to witness the performance of dramas and shows.33
That the disease might not spread beyond the city in times of
plague, no one was permitted to leave London without permis
sion from the mayor.34 At the time of the christening of
Edward, in 1537, Henry sent word to the mayor to make
proclamation forbidding anyone to attend the ceremony with
out the king's express invitation.3,3 In 1582 the mayor of
Oxford sent word to the mayor of London to restrain not only
the merchants dwelling in infected houses from attending the
annual fair, but as well all merchandise that had been kept in
Such houses.36
In 1593, when it seemed as if the city officials were lax in
their attempts to check the disease, the privy council com
manded the mayor with six of the aldermen to appear before
"C. S. P., 1581-1590, 29.
"A. P. G. 1590, 430.
"'Ibid., 1592-1593, 374.
"Remem., 331.
""Norton, in Collier's Reprints, III, 14.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Papers, IT, 224
3"E. F. & D.. H. VIII, 12, II, 894.
""Remem., 332.

53
the Court of Star Chamber to render an account of his actions
with regard to the plague.37
During term time, when the city was accustomed to have a
larger population than at other seasons of the year, additional
precautions were taken. At such times it was the custom of the
mayor to make a list of those places where lodging might be
had. The houses that had contained any cases of infection
during the two months previous to this were marked in such a
way that no one would lodge or take meals therein. In making
these catalogues the mayor endeavored to have the accounts
written in so condensed a form that each one might -be easily
contained on one face of a sheet of paper, so that they might be
hung in convenient and conspicuous places.38
In the early summer of 1580, when the plague was known
to be raging in Lisbon, the mayor wrote to Burghley requesting
that he might be empowered to take such precautions upon the
arrival of the ships from the port that the disease might not
spread through the city.39 A week later the mayor received a
letter from the court authorizing him to take measures to pre
vent the merchants or mariners from lodging in the city or
suburbs. The mayor was further authorized to direct the mer
chants not to discharge their merchandise until the goods had
had time to be completely aired. Burghley also suggested that
the mayor confer with the officers of the port regarding the best
means to prevent infection.40
After the dissolution of the monasteries the hospitals of the
city were placed in charge of the mayor.41 So early as 1538 Sir
Thomas Gresham, then mayor, wrote to the king asking that
the mayor and aldermen might have rule of the three hospitals
near London. A few years after this privilege was granted by
Henry.42 In order then that a person might be admitted to
37 A. P. G, 1592-1593, 23.
"Wright, Queen Elizabeth and her Times, II, 183.
""Remem., 330.
"Ibid.
"An account of the hospitals of London will be found in Leonard,
English Poor Relief, p. 26, seq.
4-L. F. & D., H. VIII, 2, 492.

54
Bethlehem, it was necessary to apply to the mayor. In 1550
the privy council requested that two demented women be
received into the hospital.43 Again one Hawkins was sent by
the lords of the council to be admitted to either Little St. Bar
tholomew or Bethlehem, according as the mayor should decide
which hospital would be the better one.44 In 1557 the mayor
was directed not only to have one Thomas Barrow committed
to Bethlehem, but also to ascertain the whereabouts of his friends
in order that they might be notified to look after him.45
A list of the lands belonging to the hospital in Southwark
was given to the Lord Mayor shortly after the borough was
granted to the city, with the amount of allowances due to the
poor.46 The attitude which the mayors of London assumed with
regard to dramatic performances within the city was consistent
with their policy as health officers. The dread of contagion and
the dislike of crowds had early led the mayors to refuse the
liberty of acting to dramatic companies. So early as 1543
certain players belonging to the Lord Warden were sent to the
Counter for acting against the mayor's order.47 From that
time on there were a number of persons imprisoned for like
offenses, some of whom were released by order of the privy coun
cil, on condition that bonds were given that they would desist
from further acting until especially licensed by the council.48
Similar orders, combined with the request that all actors who
had been directed to play before the queen be granted the oppor
tunity of practising in the city, constitute a large part of the
correspondence between the mayor and the lords of the council.49
In 1584 the Lord Mayor sent two aldermen to the court to
confer with the privy council concerning the suppression and
demolition of the Theatre and the Curtain. Except for the
'"A. P. G, 1550-1552. 124.
"Ibid., 1552-1554, 72.
"Ibid., 1550-1558, 68.
"Ibid., 1550-1552, 242.
"Ibid., 1543, 109.
"Ibid., 1546, 407.
"Ibid., 1571-1575, 373 ; ibid., 1577-1578, 144, 436 ; Remem., 352.

55
Lord Chamberlain and the Vice-Chamberlain, all of the lords
agreed to the project.50 In 1589 the Bishop of London was
directed to confer with the Master of the Revels and one ap
pointed by the mayor of London for the purpose of examining
plays.51 Closely connected with his duties as health officer was the
mayor's work with the poor of London. In 1595, on account
of the great suffering in the city, the Mayor not only gave orders
that no corn was to be shipped by London merchants, but he also
wrote to the Lord Treasurer begging him to intercede for the
release of corn ships detained at Sandwich. He also asked the
Lord Treasurer to urge the queen not to issue any licenses for
the exportation of corn, on account of the great scarcity of grain
throughout the realm.52 The next year, as the famine had not
abated, the council ordered the mayor to see that the wheat
contained in certain vessels from the eastern counties be used
for the poor and not engrossed by persons who wished to buy
great quantities to sell again at high prices.53
Besides preventing the exportation of grains, the mayor
endeavored to facilitate the importation of wheat and rye. In
1596 the queen was informed by the mayor that the London
merchants would earnestly strive to obtain wheat and rye from
foreign countries, provided the vessels might enter port free of
all duties. In order to relieve the stress, Elizabeth sent word
to Burghley that the discharge of customs should date from
October 25, and should continue during her pleasure.54
The mayors further tried to relieve the suffering of the
poor by having alms given discriminately.55 To prevent
promiscuous giving, "whereby those who were more deserving
""Wright, Queen Elizabeth and her Times, II, 228.
51A. P. G. 1589-1590, 214. For a fuller discussion of this matter see
Collier, Annals of the Stage.
"'Remem., 378.
^Ibid 376.
"Hist' MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers, VI, 507.
""This was prior to the poor law of 39 Elizabeth. Miss Leonard,
English Poor Relief, p. 22 seq., has shown that the municipalities were
the first secular institutions engaged in a systematic care of the poor.

56
of prison than of alms" received a great share, the mayor gave
directions that collection for the poor should be taken at Paul's
Cross after service, and that the money so given should be dis
tributed weekly to those who had the greatest need of it.56 In
cases where there was especial need the mayor directed certain
well known and discreet persons to make the collections and
distributions of money.57 A conference regarding the poor in
the city was held between the youthful king and the Bishop of
London in 1551. The bishop advised the king to write to the
mayor asking for information concerning the city's plans of
dealing with its paupers.58 The mayor, aided by two aldermen
and six commoners, drew up a schedule of the degrees of poverty
existing in London. By this it was shown that different grades
of poor were sent to different hospitals in the city. This sys
tematic report so pleased Edward that he gave the income of
certain lands to the city for the maintenance of these institu
tions.59 In 1571 the privy council called the attention of the mayor
to the number of beggars that were permitted in the streets.
He was urged to use some means, preferably by consultation
with the Bishop of London, whereby the valiant and strong
beggars might be punished and the poor and impotent might
be provided for.60 Again in 1576 the mayor was urged to follow
the example of his predecessor, who had formed a means of
ridding the streets of the great number of vagabonds and beggars
by providing work for many of the unemployed.61
The mayor had some oversight, too, of ecclesiastical and
theological matters in the city. When Henry's breach with
Rome was complete the Lord Mayor was commanded to declare
throughout the city that the Pope was but Bishop of Borne, and
""A. P. G, 1571-1575, 52 ; Wriothesley, I, 77.
"'Remem., 129.
""Grafton, II, 530.
""Ibid., 531.
"°A. P. G, 1571-1575, 52.
"Ibid., 1575-1577, 247.

57
as such was worthy of no allegiance from, the people of Eng
land.62 In the same year the Bishop of London examined the belief
of John Firth and Andrew Hewet, and after finding them guilty
of heresy delivered them to the mayor for punishment.63 At
the trial of heretics in the Guildhall, in June, 1546, the accused
persons, by acknowledging their belief, were declared "guilty
by their own confession," without trial by jury. In the list of
justices the name of the Lord Mayor occurs first.65 A week
later the heretics were burned, and the Lord Mayor, with the
Duke of Norfolk and other members of the council and certain
aldermen, sheriffs and judges, was a spectator.65 In July of the
same year the mayor, with the Duke of Norfolk, was again
present at the burning of heretics in Smithfield.66
In 1553 and 1554 the trial of heretics took place, not in the
Guildhall, as in Henry's time, but in St. Paul's, again before
the commission composed of the mayor, the bishop and members
of thje council.67 Later in that year the same commission sat
in judgment of a monk of Ely who had struck a priest of West
minster while the latter was conducting mass. He was con
demned, being imprisoned at Newgate after having his hand
cut off.68 On December 16 the Dean of Winchester was tried
before the mayor and bishop in St. Paul's. Being convicted, he
was burned two days later at Smithfield.69
In the early part of 1548 the mayor reported to the Lord
Protector that he and the Bishop of London had found the
wardens and curate of the parish church of St. Martin's guilty
of destroying the crucifix and images of the saints. Instead of
these they had placed about the church certain texts of scrip
ture and had painted the king's arms where the crucifix had
"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 5, 1487.
"Ibid., 6, 761.
"Wriothesley. 167.
"*Grey Friars' Chronicle, 51.
"Wriothesley, 169. .
"'Machyn, 83; Grey Friars' Chronicle, 77; Wriothesley, 129.
""Machyn. 85.
""Wriothesley, 132.

58
been. The mayor was directed to see that the wardens and
curate followed the form established by the king for the realm.70
A similar case of extreme protestantism in Elizabeth's reign was
punished by the mayor by closing the doors of the church and
imprisoning the persons concerned in the destruction of images
and sacraments.71 In 1574 it was declared that English citizens who were
found guilty of hearing mass should be imprisoned until they
had paid their fines.72 In 1580 one of the attorneys of the city
was thought to hold extreme beliefs ; the mayor accordingly
sent him for examinations to the Bishop of London and dis
missed him from his office in the city. The bishop, after ques
tioning him, found his faith conformed with the queen's belief,
and requested that he be reinstated as city attorney.73 As the
mayor did not immediately comply with his request, the. bishop
wrote to the lords of the council, declaring that as the attorney
was conformable in religion he ought not to be removed from
his position. The privy council therefore urged the mayor to
readmit him.74 In 1581 it was feared that many Eecusants
had left their homes in the rural districts and had gone to Lon
don, hoping, in the crowded city, to escape detection. The
mayor was consequently ordered to direct the aldermen and
deputy of each ward to make inquiries of all persons that had
lately come to the city from the country, and to see that each
person attended church.75 A few months later the mayor was
authorized to release all persons imprisoned for non-conformity,
provided they could furnish bonds and securities. In being
given their liberty, it was urged, they were more likely to come
into contact with those who would give them instruction. If,
however, it was found that they remained obstinate, proceedings
were to be immediately instituted against them.76 In order to
7°A. P. G, 1547-1550, 25.
"Ibid., 1558-1560, 77 ; ibid., 1571-1575, 173.
"Ibid., 270.
"Remem., 124.
"Ibid.
"Ibid., 127.
"Ibid.

59
make the search thorough the mayor ordered the sheriffs to
assist him.77
In dealing with the foreign Catholics the mayor had to
treat with the ambassadors, who were permitted to hold mass
for their households, and who, in their zeal, admitted more than
foreigners to their services. In 1560 a number of persons who
had heard mass at the French ambassador's were imprisoned.78
Three years later, in order to prevent this evil, the mayor
ordered the foreigners to appear before him once a week to
receive systematic training in religion.79 After the mayor and
aldermen had questioned them regarding their creed, certain
ones were sent to the Bishop of London for further examina
tion.80 Those judged guilty were returned to the Lord Mayor
for punishment,81 which consisted in banishing them from Eng
land.82 As another means of preventing the attendance of
English subjects at these Catholic services it was proposed to
give the ambassadors houses only in conspicuous parts of the
city, so that persons entering the doors might be easily ob
served.83 It will be remembered that one of the mayor's duties
consisted in providing lodgings for the ambassadors.84
The command that the mayor imprison all priests and
seminaries was increased ofter the popish plots against Eliza
beth were exposed. The mayor was directed to imprison per
sons known to be priests and Jesuits and to keep a list of all
suspected persons, so that' their actions might be carefully
watched.85 The apprehension of persons of the city concerned with
the publication or possession of seditious books was also referred
to the major. In 1546 the mayor was directed to examine the
"0. S. P.. 1581-1590, 198.
'"Nichols, Progresses of Elizabeth, 82.
'"0 S. P.. Snanish. 1558-1567, 304.
*>C. S. P.. 1547-1580. 426.
"Ibid.. 437.
"Wright. Queen Elizabeth and her Time, 10.
"Ibid., II. 87.
"A. P. G. 1558-1560. 36.
""Hist. MSS. Com., Rept. XII, Appendix IV, 297.

6o
searcher and a grocer's apprentice with regard to certain
heretical books which had lately been brought from Flanders.86
Philip and Mary in 1558 directed the mayor to search the house
of certain printers in London, who were suspected of having in
their possession some books impugning the Catholic faith.87 In
1580 the mayor submitted to the Bishop of London a pamphlet
by one John Newman, papist, sent to him by a justice of the
peace of SurreyJ38 In 1582 a drifat of Catholic books was
intercepted by the council. The books had been sent to some
citizens of London, under pretense of being a barrel of worsted
yarn. The Lord Mayor was directed to enter the houses of the
men to whom they were addressed, to arrest the men and make
search for other suspicious books.89
In 1575 it was discovered that certain Anabaptists had
recently come from foreign countries and had settled in London.
The mayor was directed to act with the Bishop of London in
conferring with them. If they did not prove amenable to
reason, the Lord Mayor was authorized to proceed against them,
using his judgment either in administering corporal punish
ment or in banishing them.90
Closely connected with the part played by the mayor in the
theological controversy was his position with regard to the
religious life of the city. The wishes of the sovereign with
regard to ecclesiastical affairs were made known to the London
ers through him. In 1551 he made proclamation that no holiday
should be kept on St. Barnabas Day,91 and in 1559 he instructed
the aldermen to declare in their wards that the Epistle and
Gospel should be read in English in every parish church.92
His oversight of religious matters consisted in the appoint
ment of ministers to certain parish churches over which the citv
had the advowson, and in settling disputes between ministers
"A. P. G. 1546, 409.
"Ibid., 1556-1558, 346. *
"Remem., 30.
"Ibid., 31.
"A. P. G, 1571-1575, 370, 389.
"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 67.
"Wriothesley, I, 142.

6i
and their congregations. The mayor made arrangement for the
three days' preaching services following Easter and Whitsunday
at St. Mary Spittle.93 In 1581 Elizabeth appointed a certain
person to take charge of the singing in Christ Church. At once
the Bishop of London wrote to the mayor urging him to fill the
position, as the overseeing of the foundation, the placing and
displacing of ministers and the appointment and hiring of con
ductors belonged wholly to the city.94 The Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1594 at
tempted to alter the regular service of the same church by
having singing ministers placed there instead of the regular
preachers. The mayor forthwith sent a petition from the inhabi
tants of the parish to the archbishop beseeching him to restore
the former services.95
Any person who preached in the city without having taken
Holy Orders was punished by the Lord Mayor. In 1537 a
bricklayer preached the Gospel from one of the windows of his
house.96 He was imprisoned by the mayor, but later, as he
continued in his preaching, he was sent to Cromwell with the
examinations and depositions taken at the trial before the
mayor.97 The mayor was also required to see that the proclamations
regarding fasting during Lent and on holidays were carried
out. In 1538 Sir Eichard Gresham wrote to Cromwell that if
the persons who had eaten meat on Ember days were not pun
ished, they would likewise eat it on Fridays and Saturdays.98
In 1543 the mayor was ordered to search throughout London
for persons who had been guilty of eating flesh during Lent.99
In the Lenten season of the year 1581 the mayor had the num
ber of butchers in the city limited to five. Each of these were
""Wriothesley, II, 2.
"Remem., 126.
"Ibid., 131.
•¦L. F. & D., H. VIII, 12, If, 594.
"Ibid., 624.
"Ibid., 13, II, 384.
-A. P. C, 1543, 108.

62
required to give bond that he would sell no meat except to those
lawfully licensed to eat it.100
When the spire of St. Paul's was burned Elizabeth wrote
to the mayor advising him to take speedy orders for its repair.
As an incentive to the people to give money towards its recon
struction, she delivered 1,000m. in gold and a warrant for 1,000
loads of timber to the mayor.101 Somewhat later she wrote again
to the mayor informing him that she had deputed certain of her
council to confer with him regarding its reconstruction.102
Another of the functions of the mayor, that brought him
into close connection with the people of London, -was that of
chief of the companies. On receiving any important directions
from the crown, he immediately summoned the companies to
meet in their respective halls, when the news was imparted to
them. In 1533 much displeasure was felt by Henry VIII on
account of action taken by many of the citizens at the sermon
during the Easter festival. Because the preacher had recom
mended that special prayers be offered up for the health of
Queen Anne, many persons left the church. The mayor, on
account of the king's displeasure, caused all the crafts and guilds
to assemble in their various halls, when he commanded them
"not only to abstain from murmuring about the king's mar
riage, but to command their own journeymen and servants, and,
a still more difficult task, their own wives, to refrain from
speaking disparagingly about the queen."103
Any information which the crown officials were desirous
of having imparted to the companies was sent first to the Lord
Mayor. In 1555 the lords of the council wrote to the mayor
directing him to call all the merchants trading in Guinea before
him and to command them to refrain from further traffic in
those parts until further orders should be taken. This order
was issued because of the claim that had been made by the King
of Portugal to that district.104
""Remem., 393.
I01Hayward, Annals of Elizabeth, 88.
1MC. S. P., 1547-1580, 178.
10"G S. P., Spanish. 1531-1533, 646.
IMA. P. G, 1554-1556, 162.

63
In case the citizens of London received ill usage at the
hands of the crown officials, they appealed through the mayor to
the privy council. In 1585 Sir Wolstan Dixie, the Lord Mayor,
sent a petition of Eichard Puttenham to the council, complain
ing of the treatment he had received from Mr. Seckford as
Master of Bequests.105
Complaints against the mayor were made to the crown. In
1539 the Hungarian ambassador sent word to the queen of
Hungary that he intended presenting the complaints of the
emperor's subjects against the mayor to the Lord Privy Seal,
and if he could not obtain justice, then he should apply to the
king himself.106 In 1598 Elizabeth wrote to Sir Eichard Sal-
tonstall, Lord Mayor of London, informing him of a complaint
which she had received from the Lord Admiral regarding his
interference in maritime affairs.107 In 1581 John Aylmer,
Bishop of London, sent a characteristic letter to the mayor com
plaining of his unbecoming treatment of himself and the clergy.
Instead of referring the matter to Elizabeth, he said that if the
mayor did not treat him with more respect he would admonish
him from the pulpit of Paul's Cross, "when the Lord Mayor
must sit, not as a judge to control, but as a scholar to learn, and
the writer, not as John Aylmer, to be thwarted, but as John
London, to teach him and all London."108
From this examination of the mayor's duties as both a
crown and city official, it is seen how much power was concen
trated in his hands. Aside from this administrative work,
which was carried out by him alone, there is that part of the
official business of the metropolis which was performed by the
conjoint action of the mayor and the board of aldermen. This
will be considered after the duties of each alderman in his own
ward have be.en discussed.
105C. S. P., 1581-1590, 281.
>°"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 14, I, 921.
""C. S. P., 1598-1601, 57.
"Remem, 128.

64
Chaptee V.
THE ALDERMEN AND THEIE WARDS.
Besides those duties which were incumbent on him as the
chief executive of the city, the Lord Mayor represented one of
the twenty-six wards of London in the court of aldermen. To
the Lord Mayor's title was added the name of the company to
which he belonged, while to the twenty-five other aldermen was
usually added only the name of the ward they represented,
although they were frequently members of the principal com
panies and represented much wealth. On account of their repu
tation for riches they were often called upon to lend money to
the crown. In 1558 three aldermen lent money to Elizabeth, for
which they were permitted to collect interest at 12 per cent.1
The truism that the wealth of the aldermen frequently exceeded
that of the nobility of England is brought out by a letter of the
Earl of Oxford to Burghley, in which he says that Alderman
Haughton has so magnificent a home that few noblemen in
England can equal it.2 Much of the money had to be expended
in the costly feasts which the aldermen as well as the mayor were
required to give to the officials of London and strangers of note
within the city.3 Then, too, the aldermen occasionally, at the
request of the mayor, provided lodgings for the foreigners in
London.4 Much money, too, was spent by the aldermen in the changes
of apparel which was required of them as well as of the mayor.
It was necessary for them to have gowns and cloaks of the same
three colors, black, violet and scarlet, to wear on specified days.
On the ordinary working days of the year the aldermen wore
the black gowns ; on holidays either the violet or scarlet, accord
ing to the solemnity of the day. The violet gowns were worn
1C. S. P., 1549-1580, 111.
"Ibid., 1595-1597, 57.
"L. F. & D., H. VIII. 2, 4348 ; Wriothesley, II, 69 ; Grafton, II, 398
'Chamberlain's Letters, 66.

65
on more ceremonious occasions. The cloaks which were worn
with these gowns were trimmed with fur for the winter months
and with taffeta for the spring and summer months.5
The aldermen of the city were regarded by the crown offi
cials as being equal to the justices of the peace of the shires. In
1526, when peace was declared between England and France,
Wolsey commanded the attendance of the mayor and aldermen
of London with the justices of the peace of the shires.6
According to an act of common council passed in the early
part of the fifteenth century, when a vacancy occurred in the
court of aldermen, the inhabitants of the ward left destitute
elected four men. These names being submitted to the court of
aldermen, one was chosen as being most worthy to represent the
ward. The alderman-elect was then notified by the court to
appear at a specified time before the mayor and aldermen for
the purpose of taking his oath.7 In 1581, it was at the next
regular meeting of the court of aldermen, that Mr. William
Rowe, who had been elected by the court as the representative
of Castle Baynard Ward, was directed to appear to be sworn into
office.8 When the first alderman of Bridge Ward Without was
chosen, he was elected, not by the inhabitants of Southwark, but
by the mayor and aldermen of London.9
There was a system of rotation in office among the alder
men. When a ward was left vacant the usual procedure con
sisted in the removal of another alderman from the ward he had
been serving to the unoccupied ward, leaving the new alderman
to take his place. If the conditions of the act of 1402 were
really carried out the inhabitants of the ward must have been
particularly expeditious in their choice, for in several cases the
new alderman was transferred from an old ward to a new one
on the day that the death of the previous alderman occurred. A
"Stow (ed. 1633), 657.
•Grafton, II, 398.
'Wriothesley, II, 16.
"Remem., 2.
"Wriothesley, II, 40 ; Holinshed, III, 1024.

66
consideration of the different aldermen representing Langbourne
Ward from 1572-1605 will show the system of rotation.
In 1572, February 19, John Langley, goldsmith, who had
been elected alderman for Billingsgate Ward in 1566, removed
from Queenhithe, where he had served as alderman for two
years (having removed there in 1570, December 12), to Lang
bourne.10 He served as alderman for that ward until his death
in 1578, February 4. On that date James Harvey, ironmonger,
moved to the ward from Coleman Street Ward,11 which he had
served from December 11, 1571. He remained in office until
his death, representing that ward. On the day of his death,
June 25, 1583, George Barnes,12 haberdasher, removed from
Tower Street Ward to take his place. Previous to this time
George Barnes had acted as alderman for Bridge Ward Without
from October 26, 1574, to October 19, 1576. He continued as
alderman for Langbourne Ward until August 8, 1587, when
he removed to Bassishaw. August 9 Sir John Spencer,13 cloth-
worker, was elected alderman of the ward. He was one of the
few men elected sheriff without having acted as alderman,
having been made sheriff in 1583. In 1594, October 8, Nicholas
Mosley,14 clothworker, who had been elected alderman of Alders-
gate in 1589, moved to Langbourne, where he remained until dis
charged in 1602, April 20. On that day Robert Lee,15 merchant
tailor, removed to Langbourne from Cordwainer Ward, which
he had represented from July 31, 1599. Prior to this he had
been alderman of Walbrook from October 18, 1593, to July,
1599. At his death, on January 28, 1606, John Watts,16 cloth-
worker, moved from Aldgate. Before this he had acted as
alderman for three wards, having been elected for Aldersgate in
1594, October 26. He remained there until April 21, 1601,
"Remem, 276n.
"Ibid., 113n.
"Ibid., 181n.
"Ibid., 172n.
"Ibid., 80n.
"Ibid., 3n.
-Ibid., 287n.

Approximate size and shape of the wards of London during the Tudor period, made by applying
Stow's description of the wards to the contemporary maps drawn by Ralph Agas and John
Norden.

t, 33a.rres'

T "

W/TtfOUT

6;
when he removed to Tower Street Ward, where he remained
until May 29, 1605-
A glance, too, at the changes made in certain years shows
the movements in the court of aldermen. If the elections took
place in the wards, according to the act mentioned before, the
death of an alderman must have necessitated in some cases as
many as four different elections, or at the least two elections. In
the early part of 1575, at the death of Roger Martin, Ambrose
Nicholas was transferred to the vacant ward of Bread Street,
leaving Walbrook, the ward he had represented, without an
alderman.17 John Rivers, then alderman of Broad Street,
removed to Walbrook.18 In his place as alderman of Broad
Street Wolstan Dixie was elected February 4.19 That is, there
were several changes among the aldermen after the death of
Roger Martin, and it was not until the fourth change that a new
man was added to the court of aldermen.
A similar change is seen in 1602, when, on April 20,
Nicholas Mosley was successful in obtaining permission to
resign his office, thus leaving Langbourne without representa
tion.20 On the same day Robert Lee moved from Cordwainer
Street to Langbourne.21 It appears that the ward which he left
vacant remained without representation till May 18, when Wil
liam Craven moved from Bishopsgate to Cordwainer.22
Whether the expression "removed" as used by the editors
of the Remembrancia means really a change of abode, I am
unable to state. According to the act of common council passed
in Henry IV's reign, the aldermen were required to live in the
wards they represented. This seems to have been the intention,
too, of an earlier act, that of 1318, which declared that the
eoods of an alderman should be taxed with the other citizens of
the ward in which he resided.23 And again, a letter of 1589,
"Remem., 308.
"Ibid., 38.
"Ibid., 435.
"Ibid., 80.
"Ibid., 3.
22Ibid., 211.
'"Strype, Annals, V, 363.

68
sent by the council to the mayor, seems to point towards the
enforcing of the same idea. This letter complains of the action
of the city in electing Mr. Giles Gurton as one of the aldermen
of London. Previous to this time he had been elected sheriff,
but as he did not wish to serve he paid the accustomed fine and
was released from the office. Later he removed to Sussex, where
he proved himself of so great value to the people of the county
that they petitioned the privy council to have his election as
alderman annulled. It was because the people of Sussex did
not wish him to be removed from their county that the privy
council wrote to the mayor urging that he be freed from all
municipal offices.24 In one of Chamberlain's letters to Dudley
Carleton he speaks of the resignation of many of the alder
men, and in giving the reasons for their acts says that Sir
Richard Mosley wished to resign so that he might go to the
country to live ;25 and Cavendish gives an account of a quarrel
which William Fitzwilliam had with the aldermen, which led
him to resign his office and to depart into the country.26 But
a different light is thrown on the question by a letter which was
sent by the privy council to Alderman Saltonstall, governor of
the Merchant Adventurers and resident at Stode.27 The fre
quent change of the aldermen from the representation of one
ward to that of another also adds to the impression that they
did not change their abode. Moreover, the fact that the alder
man's deputy did reside in the ward would obviate the necessity
of the alderman's living in the same district. It would seem
then, that attempts were made by the city to compel the residence
of the alderman in the ward which he represented, but that the
attempts were not crowned with success, and that in some cases
the alderman did not actually live within the city's limits. The
latter, however, might have been but temporary.
A person who refused to accept the office of alderman after
he was elected to the position was imprisoned until he agreed
MA. P. G, 1588-1589. 4.
"Chamberlain's Letters, 132.
'"Cavendish. Life of Wolsey, 189.
"C. S. P., 1595-1597, 17.

69
to take the oath of office. In 1542 Thomas Blanke was elected
alderman of Bishopsgate at the death of William Paget. As he
refused to accept the office, he was committed to ward at the
house of one of the sheriffs for five days. At the end of that
time he took the oath of office, but was permitted to resign
immediately, as he declared that he was unable to perform' the
duties required of an alderman.28 He was required, however,
to pay a fine of 400m. In 1547 John Wishe, who refused to
accept the office of alderman, was imprisoned at Newgate from
April 13 to April 21, when he took the required oath. He was
then permitted to resign, on condition that he paid a fine of
300m.29 He was compelled to pay but 100m. out of hand,
being given a year and a quarter to pay the remainder. With
this payment he was discharged of all the offices in the city. In
1571 Sir Eichard Martyn agreed to accept the office of alderman
on condition that the court of aldermen and court of common
council agree that he should forever be free of the office of
sheriff.30 In 1545 Eichard Jarvis, desiring to be discharged from
his aldermanship, appealed to the privy council, which granted
him letters patent freeing him from his office. Immediately
after the mayor and aldermen went to Greenwich and spoke
with the king and council so effectively that Jarvis returned to
the court of aldermen.31 In 1558 the queen wrote to the Lord
Mayor and aldermen requesting that Simon Lowe be exempt
from the offices of sheriff and alderman during the time he
remained in her service.32
Quite similar to the process by which a man was freed from
accepting the duties of alderman was that by which an alderman
"gave over his robe." In each case application for the privilege
of resignation was made to the mayor and aldermen. A sum
was then named which the alderman was. required to pay to the
'"Wriothesley, I, 134.
"Ibid., 183.
""Remem., 1.
81Wriotbeslev. T. 154.
"C S. P., 1547-1580, 114.

7°
city for his exemption from service. In 1549 the £500 paid
out of hand by the retiring alderman of Portsoken was used for
purchasing wheat for the city.33 In 1550 Christopher Aleyn
was required to pay 200m. for the privilege of resigning, 100
of which was to be paid at once and 100 to be paid in the next
nine months. For the payment of the latter sum two sureties
were bound with him. In 1551, when Eobert Chersey resigned,
he gave a house valued at £10 a year to St. Bartholomew's Hos
pital for the maintenance of the poor.34
Sometimes aldermen were permitted to resign without
being required to pay a fine to the city. In 1546 three alder
men,35 and again, in 1550, one other were permitted to resign
without payment of a fine.36
For unseemly behavior an alderman was deprived of his
office. The court of aldermen in 1587 wrote to one of their
number requesting his resignation.37 In August of 1602 Sir
Eichard Martyn, on "account of his unfitting demeanor and
carriage," was removed from his aldermanship. In May he
had appealed for permission to retire,38 declaring that he was
insolvent.39 Evidently, however, the favor was not granted, and
he gained his end by his misbehavior.
During their term of service the aldermen held other
important positions in the city, in the House of Commons and
in the great commercial companies. Thomas Seymer, alder
man, had also acted as mayor of the staple at Westminster and
mayor of the staple at Calais.40 In 1595 Alderman Saltonstall
was governor of the Merchant Adventurers at Stode.41 Alder
men were also appointed by the crown officials to positions
within the city, answerable only to the crown. Sir Eichard
""Wriothesley, II, 15.
"Ibid., 47.
"'Ibid., I. 163.
"Ibid., II, 39.
"'Remem., 2.
"Ibid., 3.
""Chamberlain's Letters. 132.
4»L. F. & D., H. VIII, 5, 1005.
"C. S. P., 1595-1597, 17.

7i
Martyn, who was elected alderman in 1597, continued to hold
the office of Master of the Mint.42 In 1591 Alderman Henry
Billingsley received a warrant of £400 a year for his services as
collector of customs in London and £640 for the salaries of
fourteent assistants at £40 a year.43 In April, 1525, Sir John
Munday, alderman of London, was appointed justice for the
Merchants of the Steelyard on account of the negligence of Sir
Lawrence Alymer in fulfilling the duties of the office. Sir
Ralph Warren was appointed to the same position in 1537.44
The aldermen frequently represented the city in the House of
Commons. In 1554 and 1555, Martin Bowes ; in 1557, Wil
liam Garrard; in 1586, Edward Osborne; in 1588, George
Barns, and in 1592, John Hart, aldermen, were elected as
representatives of the city.45
Each alderman was responsible for the general order of his
ward. To enable him to carry out this part of his work, there
was annually elected at the ward mote of each ward a number
of men who were to act on the ward mote inquest.46 The
ward mote consisted of the householders of the ward, summoned
to a meeting by the aldermen on the feast of St. Thomas.46 The
size of the ward mote inquest varied, each ward having its
regular number. This number varied from twelve to twenty,
Chepe and Candlewick having the smallest numbers, and Bridge
Without and a part of Farringdon Without the largest numbers.
Between these extremes were the other numbers, seven wards
having thirteen men, six, fourteen, and so on. Lime Street, one
of the smallest of the wards, had sixteen men on the inquest.
The ward having the largest number of men on the inquest was
Farringdon Ward Without. This ward was divided into three
parts, and though there was but one alderman with his deputy
to act for the entire ward, each part had its own distinct number
"Remem, 1.
4=C. S. P., 1591-1594, 17.
"L F. & D., H. VIII, 4, 1298 ; ibid., 12, II, 20.
"Pari. Blue Books, 391, 393, 397, 418, 429.
'"Stow (ed. 1633), 657.
"Laws and Customs of London, 185.

72
of common councilmen, scavengers, constables and ward mote
men. For the ward mote, two parts had twelve each, with
twenty for the third part. These inquest men had full power
and authority for one year to inquire into all cases of misde
meanor in the ward. These cases were reported to the aldermen
as often as he thought expedient. It was necessary, however,
that he heard the reports of the inquest once a month at least.48
The verdicts were given by parishes. The cases worthy of trial
were indicted by the aldermen, and were brought before the
court, meeting every every Monday in the' Guildhall.49
At any time of great disorder in the city the mayor might
command the aldermen to repair at once to their wards and to
require the inquest to make a direct report to them. In 1550,
April, the mayor caused all the aldermen to inquire of their
inquests concerning all misdemeanors since Candlemas. The
trial of the indictments presented by the aldermen necessitated
the mayor's court to sit for several days.50
In case of death or removal of any of the grand jury the
aldermen called a ward mote for a new election. The aldermen
reported the non-appearance of all inquest men to the mayor,
who saw they were properly punished.51
In addition to the election of the grand jury at the annual
meeting in December, there were other officers chosen for the
ward. "The most sufficient, honest and discreet men" of the
ward were chosen for the common council52 for one year, and
were sworn into office before the aldermen. The scavengers and
constables were also elected at this time. The number of men
chosen to act in these capacities was also determined by custom,
the more congested parts of the city having a greater number of
scavengers as well as constables. The number of the former
officers varied from two to eighteen. Farringdon Within had
the greatest number, while Bassishaw and Line Street had but
48Stow (ed. 1033), 669.
4°L. F. & D., H. VIII, 3. 3657
""Wriothesley, II, 30.
"Stow (ed. 1633). 069.
"'Ibid.

73
two each. The commonest number of scavengers for a ward was
six; that of constables was eleven. Bassishaw again had the
smallest number, two, and Farringdon - Within the largest,
seventeen. Finally the raker and beadle were elected at this
meeting. The former acted with the scavengers in attending to
the sanitary conditions of the streets, while the latter seems
to have been the presiding officer of the grand jury of the ward,
for, after giving the number of men on the ward mote inquest,
Stow adds, "and the beadle." He also had much to do with the
impanelling of the petty jury, as he was required to send the
names of six substantial householders to the mayor, who then
gave the list to the sheriffs. These persons were then sum
moned by the sheriff to appear at the court held in the Guildhall.
The beadle was also connected with the constables. He was the
custodian of the roll which the constables kept of their pre
cincts. Innholders were required to report the names of all
strangers remaining longer than two days to the constable.
• These names were then given to the beadle, who saw to it that
each person remaining longer than two days was under frank
pledge.53 By means of this custom the aldermen were able to
make reports of the number of foreigners dwelling within their
wards.54 The beadle likewise aided the constables in the arrest
of disorderly persons.55
At the ward mote there is no account of the election of the
alderman's deputy. It would seem then that the alderman
appointed the person to act in the ward for him. In 1550, how
ever, after the alderman of Southwark had been sworn into
office, he and the mayor rode through the borough. At the
Bridge house a number of persons of the borough were assem-
- bled. To them the mayor presented the alderman and appointed
two deputies to act with him for the preservation of order.56
In each ward the deputy was responsible, with the constable, for
the apprehension of persons guilty of misdemeanor. In 1591 a
""Stow (ed. 1633), 670.
"Hall 829 • Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Salisbury Papers, IV, 223.
""Middleton, A trick to Catch, the Old One, II, 1 ; Remem., 266.
""Wriothesley, II, 40.

74
letter was sent from the privy council to the mayor directing
him to have the aldermen's deputies and constables of certain
wards arrested, for they had not only neglected to commit to
prison certain lewd and seditious persons, but had permitted
them to wander up and down the streets.57
The alderman's direct connection with his ward is seen in
the muster of troops. It has been seen that when there was
need of men for the military service, a commission specifying
the number required of the city was sent to the mayor as Lord
Lieutenant of London. After receiving his commission, the
mayor sent his precept to the aldermen, requiring them to go to
their wards for the purpose of enrolling a certain number.58
When the muster was made, the aldermen examined the men
to see that they were equipped with swords and daggers, and
that those who were qualified to act as archers were provided
with proper weapons.59
In 1545, when the city furnished 1,500 men, there was a
general tax of the fifteenth levied on the wards to provide for
the equipment of arms. In order to prevent the delay that
would necessarily accompany the collection of the tax, each
alderman paid the sum required of his ward,60 and afterwards
reimbursed himself with the money collected. Preceding this
muster of troops some members of the privy council sat in
London and demanded a loan from the citizens to aid in the
undertaking.61 Because one of the aldermen would not pay
the sum required of him, he was sent as captain to Scotland.82
When any money was to be granted by the city, each
alderman went to his own ward and in the accustomed places
urged the people to grant the sum that was required of them.
In 1522, August 20, when it was necessary for Henry to have
more ready money, Wolsey summoned the mayor and aldermen
"'A. P. C, 1591, 300.
""Grafton, II, 460.
ML. F. & D., H. VIII, 14, I, 940 ; Wriotheslev, II, 16.
"Ibid., 159.
"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 48.
"Wriothesley, I, 151.

75
to appear before him. He then told them to assemble the people
of wealth in the city, in order to ascertain the value of their
property. Though the aldermen protested, the cardinal was
obdurate. Each alderman, therefore, went to his own ward and
named those who were reported to have goods of great value.63
These then appeared before Wolsey and made the loan. Three
years later, when the sixth part of every man's goods was
demanded, the aldermen again assembled the people in their
wards. The Londoners, however, openly refused to grant the
request, declaring they had given enough money already.64 In
making the assessment for his ward it was customary for the
alderman to take with him one or more of the chief commoners
as he made the circuit of his ward. In 1545 each alderman,
with two commoners, summoned before him all persons whose
goods were valued above £40, and urged them to make a loan to
the king on account of his affairs with Scotland and France.
They also urged the people to pay immediately.65
When a loan was required of the city the aldermen called
before them only those persons whose property was valued above
a certain sum. This limit varied in different years. In 1545
it was £40, while four years later half that sum was the mini
mum.66 In 1576 those persons whose property was valued at
£50 and upwards were assessed.67 When a loan of £20,000,
in 1553, was required from the city, the aldermen asked the
money from those who could afford to pay £100 at least.68 This
sum was collected in a week's time, and was paid immediately
to the queen's cofferer. When Elizabeth, in 1598, wanted to
borrow £150,000 of the city, she offered to the aldermen as a
security £500 of her land in mortgage and the customs of
London.69 If a person felt that the aldermen had charged him
unduly he might appeal to the mayor for relief.70
"Hall, 645.
"Ibid., 698.
""Wriothesley, I, 155.
"Ibid., II, 23.
"'C. S. P., 1547-1580, 43.
"Wriothesley, II, 102.
"Chamberlain's Letters, 31.
'"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 8, 476.

76
One of the most important of the alderman's duties in con
nection with his ward was his oversight of the watch. Ordi
narily it was the duty of the alderman's deputy and the con
stables to see that the peace was duly kept by the inhabitants of
a ward, but in times of great excitement the aldermen remained
with the constables to see that they performed their duty. At
the time of the great rising of the apprentices of London against
the foreigners the mayor sent for all the aldermen to appear at
the Guildhall, where it was announced that the privy council
had heard that a general rising was feared for the next day.
Each alderman then went to his ward and sent word that no
man should leave his house after nine o'clock till seven the next
morning, and that no watch should be kept.71 This last condi
tion was imposed because it was asserted that it was impossible
to tell who might be connected with the plan, and it would be
dangerous to keep any armed men in the city. The aldermen
were directed to ride about the city to see that the orders were
carried out. When the rising did occur, the city officials were
severely reprimanded by Henry, who declared that if the alder
men had not connived at the plot the disorder could not have
occurred.72 At other times, when a riot or conspiracy was feared, the
constables' watch was increased by the addition of "honest
householders" of the ward.73 In 1531 the mayor received word
from the privy council that the king desired all physicians to be
excused from the watch by night.74 While watching during the
night was consigned to the householders of the wards, the gates
of the city were guarded during the day by members of the
companies.75 In 1551 the watch was particularly strong. Early
in the year the mayor and certain aldermen were required to
appear before the privy council, where they were informed of
Somerset's conspiracy, and were directed to see that order was
"Hall, 588.
"Ibid., 590.
'"Wriothesley, I, 159.
,4L. F. & D., H. VIII, 5, 549.
"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 65.

77
maintained in the city by four distinct methods, viz., by the
watch, by correction of vagabonds, by repulsion of strangers
coming into the realm, and by the reformation of disorders
in the churches.76 In October they were again before the
council, when it was declared that a watch of the householders
should be kept at night from nine to five.77 Two days after the
court of aldermen sent precepts to certain of the head companies
requiring them to place two men at each gate of the city, to
remain there from six to seven, to see that no masked men or
masterless person entered the city.78 This was maintained for
one month's time, when the court of aldermen attempted to dis
pense with the watch by day.79 But the next day orders were
sent to the mayor directing him to double the guard and to see
that a privy watch was made throughout the city twice a week.80
A week later another message was sent to the mayor directing
that the city be well guarded during the next day and night.81
Eesponding to the request, the mayor sent for the aldermen and
then declared to them that for the safeguard of the city every
alderman should, by himself or by his deputy, cause every con
stable to warn all the householders in his precinct to look after
his household and family, and to see that all kept within doors.82
In addition to the watch of the householders and constables
in times of excitement the aldermen or their deputies were
required to ride about the city during the night watches.83 In
1551 each alderman in his turn appointed two of the common
councilmen to ride in his place.84 These men were to see that
no constable opened the gates of the city. At the time of Mary's
accession two aldermen or their deputies rode about the city,
both within and without the walls, accompanied by eight of the
"A. P. C, 1550-1552, 257.
"Wriothesley, II, 57.
"Ibid., 58.
"Ibid., 62.
8"A. P. G, 1550-1552, 425.
"Ibid., 432.
"'Wriothesley, I, 62.
""Ibid., 23.
"Ibid., 58.

78
common councilmen.85 In 1554 hews of an uprising in Kent
was brought to the Lord Mayor by the Lord Chamberlain,
whereupon a court of aldermen was summoned for that after
noon. This court decided that the mayor should ride about the
city during that night and every succeeding night until the
danger should be over, two aldermen should oversee the watch.86
The so-called watches held on St. John's (midsummer)
and St. Peter's eves were rather elaborate and gorgeous
processions through the streets, lighted with bonfires and
torches, than marches through the city for the preservation of
order. On these days the chief officers of the city, accompanied
by the mayor's special officers and some of the more prominent
members of his company, marched through the city from one
side to the other. Besides this, there were the persons taking
part in the pageants and the Morris dances.87 It was customary,
too, for the wealthier citizens to place tables covered with viands
and drinks on the pavements in front of their houses, "whereof
they would invite their neighbors and passengers also to sit and
be merry with them in great familiarity."88
On account of the expenditure that must necessarily accom
pany so great a display, the citizens were forbidden to hold the
watch at times when they had been already at great expense.
The first order that the watch be dispensed with, came from the
crown in 1539, and seems to have caused much discontent among
the people at large.89 That year the city had been at great
expense but a few weeks previous to midsummer in fitting out
the muster of citizens at Mile End. As the order from Henry
did not reach the city until ten days before the vigil of St. John,
the mayor and his officers had already prepared the pageants
and the order of marching. Five years later, because of the
expense of the wars, the show accompanying the watch was again
given over, although the mayor and the sheriffs rode through
"Wriothesley, I, 87.
""Ibid., 107.
"'Stow, 127.
'"Ibid., 126.
"Wriothesley, I, 100.

79
the city and the aldermen marched through their particular-
wards.90 Two years after the court of aldermen attempted to
abolish the institution entirely by declaring that on neither
midsummer's nor on St. Peter's eve should the watch be
held ; instead one hundred constables preceding the mayor and
his officers should march through the city.91 Two years later,
however, during the mayoralty of Sir John Gresham, the
pageantry was revived with a great display of splendor and
wealth.92 After that the show was again forbidden,93 and in
its place the mayor and aldermen were required to march
through the city to seek out offenders.94
Besides the processions on these two days, there were
certain other holy days on which the mayor and aldermen were
expected to attend divine service in a body. On Twelfth Day,95
Candlemas,96 Palm Sunday,97 Good Friday,98 Whitsuntide,99
they heard sermons at Paul's Cross. Except for Good Friday
and the Tuesday in Whitsuntide, when violet was worn, they
wore their scarlet gowns at all these services.100 The three days
following Easter they attended service at St. Mary Spital, again,
except for Wednesday, when they wore violet, wearing their
scarlet robes.101 On the eve of St. Bartholomew they attended
service at St. Magnus' Church, after which they rode through
the fair.102 At the services in St. Paul's the mayor sat in the
dean's seat or in the choir. When the services were in St. Paul's

"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 47.
"Wriothesley, I, 166.
KIbid., II, 3.
"Ibid., 41.
"A. P. G, 1558-1560, 107.
•"Nichols, Progresses of Elizabeth, 82.
"Machyn, 225.
"Wriothesley, II, 35.
•"Stow (ed. 1633), 652.
"Wriothesley, II, 14, 40; Letter Book V, 236b, in Simpson, St.
Paul's. 89.
""Grey Friars' Chronicle, 89.
'"Machyn, 131.
'"'Stow (ed. 1633). 652.

8o
Churchyard, seats were placed for the mayor, aldermen and
their wives.103
The processions to the church and in the church, which had
been abolished by Henry except in cases of particular solemnity,
as at the thanksgiving service at the birth of Edward, were
revived by Mary.104 In 1553, on St. Andrew's day, a general
procession was begun in St. Paul's Church, with the parsons
and curates of London and the mayor and some of the alder
men. This was continued for three days following.105 A
general procession through London, consisting of the school
children, sextons, clerks, priests, bishops and mayor and alder
men in their liveries, was held in 1555. 106 In Elizabeth's time
processions were abolished for all days except All Soul's Day,
when the aldermen and sheriffs met at the mayor's house,
wearing their scarlet gowns and cloaks trimmed with fur.107
At the Guildhall they were met by the mayor's company, with
the bachelors and gentlemen ushers, who walked before them, in
the procession to Paul's. This procession, however, was more in
the nature of a ceremonial connected with the installation of a
new mayor than of any particular religious significance.
Sometimes the aldermen were required to act as the cus
todians of prominent persons who had been guilty of misde
meanors.108 In 1554 the Duke of Suffolk and Lord John Grey
were confined at the house of Sir Christopher Warren for three
days, after which they were taken to the Tower.109 In 1579
Alderman Dixie held as a prisoner, by order of the privy
council, the wife of on,e Johnson. He was directed to keep her
as a close prisoner, allowing no one to hold conference with her
until she had been examined by the recorder and Thomas
Norton.110 In 1586 William Copley was committed to the
'""Letter Book V, 224, 237, in Simpson, I. c. 89 ; Wriothesley, I, 35.
'"Ibid., 65, 69.
'"'Grey Friars' Chronicle, 85.
10"Machyn, 92.
107 Stow (ed. 1633), 657.
M8Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Papers, V, 139.
""Chronicle Q. Jane and Q. Mary, 53.
""A. P. G, 1578-1580, 289.

care of Alderman Eadcliffe during the time that the council
was at Fotheringay. The alderman wrote to Secretary Davison
that he found the young man "so tractable as to be easily won
to be a good Christian."111 In 1600 Sir Robert Drury was
committed to the custody of Alderman Saltingstall because he
had spoken in the blustering way about living in France.112
The body of aldermen, as well as the mayor, was regarded
by the crown officials as an important factor in the municipal life
of London. At the accession of Edward VI the mayor and alder
men, dressed in their scarlet robes, awaited the king's herald in
the Guildhall, and then accompanied him to St. Magnus'
Church, where proclamation of Henry's death and Edward's
succession to the crown was made.113

Chapteb VI.
COURT OF ALDERMEN.
In addition to the functions which the aldermen exercised
within their own wards, they controlled to a great extent the
life of the city by the rules and regulations which they enacted
in the court of aldermen. This court, consisting of the mayor
and the aldermen, was held in the Guildhall every Tuesday and
Thursday, except holidays and the week preceding Christmas1
and Easter, and the summer vacation.2 It might also be sum
moned at any other time by the mayor. It regulated the watch
and the training of the soldiers ; it disposed of the property and
the lands of the city ; it advised the mayor in questions relating
to the price of foods and the issuing of proclamations, and it set
tled all disputes over admittance to the freedom of the city, as
mC. S. P., 1581-1590, 365.
"'Chamberlain's Letters, 98.
""Wriothesley, I, 178.
'Stow (ed. 1633), 664.
'Wriothesley, II, 87.

82
well as all those controversies between companies which were
referred to it by the mayor.
Although the order that the city should be safely guarded
in any times of danger was sent to the mayor, it was the court of
aldermen that decided upon the manner of executing this com
mand. In 1549, when there was a general fear lest the rebellion
of Somerset should spread through the city, the mayor sum
moned the court of aldermen. There it was decided that the
mayor should ride about the city to see that the constables kept
the hours of the watch that had been appointed by the last court
of aldermen, and that every night following for three months
each alderman should ride in his turn.3 But as the danger
increased rather than abated, it was decided at a court held at
the expiration of that period that two aldermen should ride
about the city every night and that the companies should guard
the gates of the city by day.4 In 1550, too, a court decided
that two aldermen should ride through the city by night to
oversee the watch, one taking the eastern and the other the
western part of the city.5 When the dread of a rising dimin
ished, the court of aldermen discharged the watch by day and
night.6 The midsummer watch, too, it has been seen, was
abolished by the court of aldermen.7
When the mayor received his commission for raising and
training a specified number of men, he assembled a court of
aldermen in order to decide on the best means of furnishing and
providing practice for the required quota. In 1580 the court
decided that Mile End Fields would be the most convenient
place to use for the training of 3,000 shot and 1,000 pike men.
They requested that permission to use the land might be granted
to them.8 In 1583 the lords of the council, in writing to the
mayor and aldermen, stated that a number of complaints had
"Wriothesley, II, 15.
'Ibid., 24.
'Tbid., 39.
"Ibid., 28.
'Grey Friars' Chronicle, 47.
"Itomem., 231.

83
been received by them regarding the condition of archery. They
directed that a court of aldermen should take orders that the
statute which had been established for the maintenance of
archery be put in execution.9
The mayor and aldermen assembled in this court had
control of the property belonging to the municipality. It was
through their action in 1550 in agreeing to pay 1,000m. for the
land that the liberties of Southwark came into possession of the
city.10 The houses on London Bridge belonging to the city
were leased by the court to tenants. In 1579 two houses on the
bridge had been torn down and rebuilt. Burghley wrote to the
court of aldermen requesting that the former tenants might
occupy the houses with but slight increase in the rent, even
though a higher rent might be offered by others.11 The mayor
in reply stated that the houses had been demolished because the
bridgemasters had declared them unfit for occupation. The
tenants being afraid to live in them had given up absolutely
the unexpired term of their former leases, and had rejected the
new leases which were offered by the city authorities.12 In 1582
Sir Francis Walsingham intervened on behalf of a poor tenant
of the city.. He wrote to the mayor urging that a house recently
leased by the aldermen to some one else be restored to its former
occupant.13 The court had a definite mode of procedure established by
custom regarding contests growing out of the leasing of prop
erty. The oldest aldermen were chosen as surveyors and were
directed to hear the suitors in all cases of dispute, and to treat
with them regarding the conditions belonging to their contracts.
They then made a report to the court, which granted the leases
accordingly. 14
Permission to build within the city was granted or denied
"Remem., 16.
'"Wriothesley, II. 30.
"Remem., 36.
"Ibid."Ibid., 176.
"Ibid., 470.

84
by the court. When Sir Thomas Gresham wished to erect the
bourse, it was to the court of aldermen that he applied for per
mission. In one of Heywood's plays, where there is considerable .
reference to the building of this exchange, Gresham asks :
"What have our honorable court of aldermen
"Determined yet ? Shall Gresham have a place
"To erect this worthy building to his name ?"15
In 1567 a glassblower informed the queen's secretary that
the court of aldermen had granted him permission to erect a
house for making Normandy and Lorraine glass.16 In 1580
the request that a license be granted for building an enclosed
alley, to be used for bowling in stormy weather, was refused
because there were already three such alleys within the space of
one-half acre of ground. Moreover, the character of the per
sons who resorted to the place was such that it did not warrant
the license. It was declared that many of the poorest persons
of the city resorted to the place, spending their time in idleness
and their money in betting while their families were in danger
of starvation.17 The request had been from Sir James Croft,
but a letter received from him in 1582, two years later, is of a
very different tenor. At this later date he and Walsingham
wrote urging that the court of aldermen require the observance
of the proclamation of Elizabeth forbidding the erection of
buildings within three miles of the gates of the city of London.18
As the proclamation did not fulfil its ends, for new buildings
were constantly being constructed within the city, the court
was directed not only to ascertain the number of new houses
built contrary to the proclamation, but was further directed to
send the names of all the builders to the privy council, in order
that they might be called before the Court of Star Chamber.19
Each alderman was commanded by the court to search his ward
'"Heywood, If You Know Not Me, 106.
MC. S. P., Addenda, 1566-1579, 34.
"Remem.. 165.
"Ibid., 41.
"Ibid.. 44.

85
for cases of overcrowding. A request received in 1596 by the
court shows the control the aldermen exercised over buildings
in the city. It was urged that license to build a corn mill
between two arches of the bridge be granted to a miller. In
order to further his request, it was stated that such a mill would
be of great service to the poor.20
Connected with the oversight of buildings in the city is
the action which was taken by the court of aldermen regarding
the building of the great bridge at Stratford the Bow. The
bridge being in great need of repair, assistance to aid in the
work was asked of the city. The aldermen directed that a fund
should be raised by collection of money in each parish. It was
ascertained, however, that the care of the bridge belonged wholly
to certain owners of the adjoining land. In view of this fact,
they requested that it should be expressly stated in the record
of the exchequer that the contribution was but voluntary, and as
such should not be drawn into a precedent.21
The control of property and money belonging to minor
heirs of London citizens was in the hands of this court. The
money remained with the chamberlain of London until suitable
persons to whom it might be lent were found by the aldermen.
In 1594 Sir Robert Cecil applied to the mayor for the loan of
some money belonging to the heirs of Sir Cuthbert Buckle. The
mayor replied that he of himself was not empowered to lend
the money, as the privilege belonged to the court of aldermen.
The court had already bestowed some part of the money among
the citizens, but the remainder, £1,500, was to be reported upon
at the next court. He, therefore, advised Cecil to write to the
aldermen regarding the loan.22 The day following this Cecil
repeated his request in a letter written to both the mayor and
aldermen.23 In answer to this the court replied that all the
estate had been given out immediately in loans to prevent the
money's remaining in the hands of two very young men.2
'"G S. P., 1595-1597, 325.
"Remem., 34.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, V, 113.
'"Remem., 315.
"Hist MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Papers, V. 114.

24

86
The minor children of deceased freemen were regarded as
the wards of the city, and were placed under the charge of the
mayor and aldermen.25 The mayor was informed of the death
of any freeman by the constables of the city. These officials
were required to certify each month to the clerk of the mayor's
court the names of any freeman who had died within his pre
cinct, as well as the names of his children.26 The common crier
then summoned the widow or executor to appear before the
court of the Lord Mayor and aldermen to bring an inventory of
the testator's estate.27 The common sergeant then took an
account of the orphans' estates and signed the indentures before
they passed to the Lord Mayor and aldermen, who then gave
them to the chamberlain.28
As guardian the Lord Mayor provided for the custody of
the property and the marriage of the wards. In 1580 the mayor
wrote to the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Lincoln and others,
requesting that Clement Draper might have the custody of his
wife's child by her former husband, as well as control over the
child's legacy. The mayor added that the court of aldermen
requested that the disposition of orphans be left to them, accord
ing to the laws and usages of the city.29 In 1581 the aldermen,
being incorrectly informed that the Duchess of Somerset wished
to be relieved of the care of her husband's neice, a ward of the
city, requested that the child be sent to them at the next meet
ing of their court at the Guildhall. As the duchess declared
that the statement was untrue and that she desired to keep the
girl with her, she was permitted to do so.30 The mayor and
the aldermen were also empowered to send for the guardians of
the city's wards, to question them regarding their treatment of
the children.31
^Norton, in Collier's Reprints, III, 10 ; Coke, Fourth Institute. 249
'"Stow (ed. 1633), 687.
"Remem.. 313.
"Lex Londini. 55; Loirs and Customs of London, 44.
"Remem., 307.
"Ibid., 309.
"Ibid., 310.

87
Sometimes, after her marriage, an orphan had consider
able difficulty in obtaining her inheritance which had been
controlled by the city during her minority. In 1579 John
Mellors requested the privy council to write to the Lord Mayor
in his favor for the payment of certain sums of money, rent,
etc., due him in the right of his wife, an orphan of the city.32
The second husband of a widow having charge of her
children's estates was required to enter recognizances that he
would pay the legacy to the chamberlain of the city. In 1598
one Michael Aspley married the widow of William Simpson
and was required to enter such a recognizance. As he was a
stranger in London, he could not procure citizens to become his
bond and had not enough ready money to discharge the legacies.
He, therefore, urged the council to intercede for him with the
mayor, especially as he intended to bring up the children at his
own expense.33 Any attempt to marry a ward of the city without permis-
sionjf rom the guardians was summarily punished by the mayor
and aldermen. In 1575 the privy council directed the mayor to
examine into a complaint against one Thomas Eaton, who had
compelled an orphan of the city to marry him. He was directed
to punish the offender according to the laws of the city, after
which, if he considered the city laws insufficient for so great a
crime, he could appeal to council, which would be glad to aid
him in the Court of Star Chamber.34 Public penance at Paul's
Cross was required of another man who had stolen an orphan
of the city and married her at Leicester.35 In 1579 the queen
appealed to the mayor in behalf of George Bargeman, who had
unwittingly broken one of the city laws by marrying an orphan
without license.36
Another conspicuous function of the court of aldermen was
its connection with the companies of the city. Cases of continu-
"G S. P., 1547-1580, 631.
»'A. P. G, 1598-1599, 480.
"Ibid., 1571-1575, 358.
""Hist MSS. Gom. Rept., Salisbury Papers, II, 117.
"C. S. P., 1547-1580, 642.

88
ous dispute between companies were sometimes referred by the
mayor to it for consideration. In 1580 the Earl of Leicester
wrote to the mayor urging that a certain Humphrey Nichols
might be permitted to make bread according to his accustomed
method until the dispute between the white and brown bakers
should be settled. The mayor replied that he had referred the
matter to certain aldermen, as the court was not meeting at that
time it would be impossible to acquaint that body with the earl's
request.37 In 1582, in order that the dispute between the
journeymen printers and the company of stationers might be
settled, the printers petitioned the privy council to send a com
mission to the Lord Mayor and aldermen to hear and determine
the controversy.38 When the company of pewterers dismissed
one of their masters he applied to the lords of the council in
order to be reinstated. The privy council accordingly urged
the court of aldermen to take such steps as would lead up to the
restoration of his position.39
The influence which the court of aldermen exercised in
questions of disfranchisement was important. For a man to
be admitted to the freedom of the city by service it was neces
sary that he should have served a freeman of London for at
least seven years as apprentice. In 1580 Leicester wrote to the
Lord Mayor and aldermen in behalf of one James Fowler, who,
though he had served his master, a carpenter, as apprentice for
seven or eight years, had been refused admittance to the city
because his master had not taken up his freedom until the last
two years of his service. He requested that the poor man might
be permitted to take up his freedom in spite of that fact.40 It
was probably some similar error on the part of the master that
caused the aldermen to deprive one William Weeks of his
franchise. Lady Dorothy Stafford, writing to the Lord Mayor
and aldermen in his behalf, requested that, as the fault had been
committed by the master, who had made him free, he was the
"Remem, 33.
"C. S. P., 1581-1590, 87.
""Remem., 93.
MIbid., 149.

89
one to be punished, while the poor man should have his freedom
restored to him. The day following the mayor, in reply, stated
that Weeks had not reported the case truthfully to her; yet,
because of her suit, the court of aldermen had agreed to restore
him to the freedom of the city.41
Persons who desired to be admitted to the freedom of the
city seem to have made a habit of appealing to noblemen of
rank and members of the privy oouncil to urge their suit with
the court of aldermen. Many letters are calendared in the
Remembrancia in which the mayor and aldermen are requested
to admit certain people. Of the ten letters given for the years
1579-1580, six requests were refused, the answers of three are
unrecorded, while one only was granted.42 That was a letter
from the Master of the Rolls requesting that two young men
might be admitted to the freedom of the waxchandler's com
pany. In 1580 Peter Osborn wrote to the mayor and aldermen
requesting that his servant be admitted by patrimony, as his
father, Thomas Nichols, was presented in Cook's Hall, and so
enrolled in the chamber of London, and as he had also married
Widow Green, a grocer.
The court of aldermen also passed acts to aid in the main
tenance of prices of food determined upon by the mayor. In
1549 the court ordained that a certain number of commoners
should be appointed to perambulate the fish markets weekly, to
see that a just amount of fish be given to the people for their
money.43 In 1552 the king's council appeared in the Guildhall,
where were assembled the mayor, aldermen and wardens of the
companies. They declared to the Londoners that the prices of
food were too high in the city ; that when prices fell over all the
realm, in London they remained stationary. The blame was laid
to the mayor and aldermen, who were ordered to repair the
matter instantly.44
Because of the heavy frosts of the winter of 1542 and 1543,
"Remem, 146.
,2Ibid.. 140. 147. 148.
"Wriotheslev. II. 23.
"Ibid.. 70.

90
fish was particularly dear, and because of the mortality among
the cattle, meat was very scarce, the court of aldermen, there
fore, regulated the feasts which were to be given at Easter.
According to the action taken at that time, it was declared that
the mayor should be served with but one course, consisting of
seven dishes, at dinner and supper, and the aldermen and sheriffs
with but six dishes. For every dish above the prescribed num
ber the offender was to pay 40s.45 It was further decreed that
neither the mayor nor the aldermen should buy crane, swan or
bustard for one year from the feast of Easter. In 1549 another
feast of the mayor and aldermen was regulated by the court.
In the new prayer book there was no especial service appointed
for Wednesday in Whitsun week. It was, therefore, doubtful
whether the day should be kept as a holiday or not. The court
decided that there should be no sermon and that the feast, which
had been regularly given by the mayor and sheriffs to the alder
men, should be postponed to Trinity Sunday.46
One of the most important functions of the court of alder
men was the power it possessed with regard to appointments.
This privilege was the source of many communications between
the court and the privy council. The lords of the council were
especially solicitous that those offices which yielded an income
to the incumbent might be granted to persons of their choice.
Among these desirable offices were many dealing with the com
mercial life of the city, — the gauger, the garbler, the collec
tor of scavage, the collector of package, the alnager and the
measurer of linens and woolens and the measurer of sea coal
and salt. In 1581 there was an attempt on the part of the Lord
Chancellor to supersede the court in the appointment of the
gauger. His action brought forth a letter from the mayor
declaring the disposition of the office to be wholly in the hands
of the city.47 The lords of the council somewhat later requested
"Wriothesley, II, 141.
"Ibid., 14.
"Remem, 274.

9i
the mayor to command the city gauger to refrain from meas
uring any sacks until such time as the president of the Spanish
merchants could certify to him that her majesty's purveyors had
made choice thereof. As there had been a dispute between the
gauger's deputies and the Spanish merchants, it was requested
that the court of aldermen should inquire into the matter and
take steps that would prevent the same action in the future.48
Towards the close of the sixteenth century the privy council
urged the mayor to give John Cottesford the office of gauger,
which had been taken from him by his predecessor in the
chair.49 Between 1581 and 1584 there was much discussion regarding
the right of the court to appoint a garbler for the city. Before
this time, in 1570, Lawrence Cookson, garbler of the city, peti
tioned Cecil to aid him in the execution of his duties, as some
of the officers of the city placed obstructions in his way in
carrying out the work of his office. He claimed that he held
the office by legal conveyance from Anthony White. On Lady
Day a lease for twenty-one years was granted to Blase Saunders.
The office must have been particularly desirable, for at the death
of Saunders, in 1581, there were three petitioners for the posi
tion — the queen, Burghley and Sir Francis Walsingham.50
Burghley requested that no action be taken in the matter of
appointing anyone to the office until the court had time to hear
from him again, as it was his intention to be a suitor for a
friend of his.51 The day after Burghley's letter was received
two letters were sent to the mayor from Sir Francis Walsingham
in behalf of his cousin, the widow of Blase Saunders. He asked
that she be allowed to continue the execution of the office, as
the lease which had been granted to her husband was unex
pired.62 If the court of aldermen were still determined to
deprive her of the office, he requested that he might be heard
"Remem, 278.
4BA. P. C, 1596-1597, 334, 409.
""Remem.. 273.
"Ibid., 272.
"Ibid., 273.

92
in defense of her title. Three days later Elizabeth, under her
signet, sent word to the Lord Mayor asking that a lease similar
to that granted to Blase Saunders be given to George Southwack,
merchant tailor.53 Slightly over a month later the privy council
wrote to the mayor urging that the recommendation of the queen
be carried out. The aldermen, declaring that such a grant
would be prejudicial to their charter, refused to grant it. While
the contest thus begun between the aldermen and the privy
council was carried on during the winter and spring of the
next year, Burghley must have withdrawn his suit, for in May,
1582, he talked to Fleetwood, urging him to use his influence
in getting the court of aldermen to appoint Mr. Southwack as
garbler.54 When Fleetwood wrote to Burghley he said that in
speaking with the aldermen he had ascertained that but three
were against the appointment of Mr. Southwack. At the pres
entation of the mayor the next day he suggested it would be a
good time for Burghley to talk to the mayor. To the letter is
added, by Fleetwood : "I touched somewhat the garbler's office.
My Lord Mayor telleth me that he is very willing to help Mr.
Southwicke. But now I find that Mr. Daniel Duchett, Mr. Pipe
and Mr. Martin are the only letts. I have not spared to tell
them my mind this day, although I have only angered them,
yet I see they be coming over."55
That his expectations were not realized is seen from the
fact that the city records testify that on February 26, 1583,
Thomas Saunders, grocer, was sworn garbler. About eight
months later the widow of Thomas Saunders obtained the sanc
tion of the court of aldermen to set over the remainder of the
unexpired lease to George Southwack, who was sworn into
office October 26, 1584.56 "
The office of collector of scavage seems to have been almost
as desirable as that of garbler. In 1594 the lords of the council
wrote to the Lord Mayor and aldermen requesting them to
""Remem, 275.
"Wrieht. 1. c, II, 173.
"Ibid., 174.
"Remem, 273.

,93
admit John de Cardwas to this office. They added that the
reversion of the office had been granted to them some time
previous. On the same day Sir T. Heneage requested the grant
of the reversion of the office for one of his servants.57
When the office of collector of package became vacant in
1580, the court of aldermen was petitioned by Christopher
Hatton for the reversion of the office for a servant of his.58
The mayor answered that the appointment could not be made.
A few months later the office in reversion after the death of
Richard Young was granted to Robert Woodruff e, the son of
the mayor, Nicholas Woodruffe.59 It was stated that Sir John
Spencer had an old grudge against Nicholas Woodruffe, so,
when he was elected to the mayoralty in 1594, he attempted to
deprive Robert Woodruffe of his office, although the court of
aldermen was opposed to the action. Richard Carmarden asked
Sir Robert Cecil to intercede for the young man with the queen,
as the person that the mayor contemplated appointing could not
fill the office so well as Woodruffe. The latter had determined
to serve the office himself instead of appointing a deputy.60
The question of the right to appoint the measurer of linen,
cloth, canvas and velvet caused considerable strife in the early
part of the sixteenth century. In July, 1535 a sign manual
was sent to the chancellor and secretary, requiring them to settle
the controversy between the king and the city regarding the gift
of common meter of silk and linen cloth.61 Writs of injunction
were to be issued until the king's title should be disproved. A
year later Henry VIII ordered the mayor to restore William
Blackendale to the office of metership of cloth, which had
recently been taken from him. He further directed that not only
should he be restored immediately to the full possession of the
office, but all the profits which had been collected during the
time that he was deprived of the office be given to him.62 In
"Remem, 284.
"Ibid., 270.
»C. S. P., 1547-1580, 9.
""Hist MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, V, 40.
"h. F. & D, H. VIII, 8. 1026.
"2Ibid., 10, 894; Ellis' Letters, Second Series, II, 90.

94
1541 the king granted a patent for the metership of cloth of
gold, velvet, silks and linen cloth to one of the clerks of the
signet. The king's appointee brought with him an injunction,
which he served in the court of aldermen, declaring that who
ever would not suffer him to exercise the metership should be
fined 2,000m. The chronicler adds, "This was against the
charter of the city, for the mayor had the gift always."63 This
intrusion of the king set a precedent that brought the matter
into conflict later. In 1580 Elizabeth granted a patent to
Edward Stafford granting to him the penalties incurred by the
clothmakers of England and Wales.64 About a year' from that
time Stafford received a letter from the city regarding his
patent. The court of aldermen had considered the matter and
had declared that, according to statutes passed during Philip
and Mary's reign, as well as in Elizabeth's reign,65 the search,
survey and benefit of forfeitures had been vested in such per
sons as the mayor and aldermen had appointed. Moreover, the
queen had granted to the city a charter assigning to the mayor,
commonalty and citizens the searching, measuring, weighing and
sealing all kinds of cloth. That this did not end the contention
is shown by a letter received by the mayor from Burghley in
1582. This letter gave a list of the offices in the nomination of
the city, in which that of the metership is not included.66
The gift of the office of alnager was considered equally
valuable to the city. In 1580 Peter Osborne requested that his
servant, Robert Nichols, might be appointed to that office, as Mr.
Parker, who held it at that time, desired to surrender it.67 From
three letters sent by Sir Christopher Hatton in the year follow
ing, it appears that Nichols did not give good service in the posi
tion. In the letter sent on August 8 it was declared that the
queen regarded the great abuses in cloth throughout the realm to
be due to the searchers and alnagers, and she urged the court of
""Wriothesley, I, 129.
"Remem, 68.
""St. of the Realm, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, 5 ; 14 Elizabeth, 10.
"Remem, 118.
"Ibid., 271.

95
aldermen in choosing these men to be careful that they selected
skillful and experienced persons. It was recommended that at
the next meeting of the court Mr. Parker should be readmitted
to the position.68 Again, on August 20 and September 4,
Hatton urged the appointment of Parker. On September 15
the mayor answered that Parker had been granted the office,
then had requested to regrant it to a young man who had paid
him £160 for the place. It was agreed that he should be
replaced if he paid back the purchase money.69 In 1582 the
council recommended Francis Langley, who had long since
received from them the grant in reversion of alnager, for the
office. On December 9 Sir Francis Walsingham sent a letter
requesting the appointment of the same man.70 Four years
later Walsingham was again a supplicant to the mayor and
aldermen for the office of alnager, requesting the position for
one John Edon.71
In case an alnager failed in his duty or was guilty of any
misdemeanor, he was called before the court of aldermen and
was required to answer for his actions. In 1581 the mayor
displaced Edon from his position because he was known to have
brought up his children beyond the seas in the Roman Catholic
religion.72 The aldermen appointed men to the offices of meters of
sea coal and sea salt. The ancient usage and custom of the
city consisted in taking a sample of the coal from every vessel
coming to London, either from above or below the bridge, and
an account of the bulk, after which a bill of discharge was given.
For the measuring there was a charge of 2d. a quarter, and for
placing the coal in sacks the measurer charged an olabus a
quarter.73 In 1558 there were four coal meters in London,74
but the number increased, so that in 1582 George Southwack
""Remem, 69.
"Ibid., 272.
"Ibid., 277.
"G S. P, 1581-1590, 311.
"Remem, 68.
"Ibid., 375.
"A P. C, 1558-1560, 45.

96
found the income so small that he declared to Walsingham that
it was scarcely sufficient to maintain those who exercised the
duty. Walsingham then requested that a decree should be
passed by the city that no more should be admitted until, by
death or otherwise, the number should be reduced to four.75
The positions, however, must have yielded a good return
to the holders, for not only were prominent persons of the court
suitors in the interests of different persons, but the queen herself,
under signet, wrote to the Lord Mayor in 1571, recommending
Robert Pamphyn, a servitor in her wardrobe of robes, to the
next vacancy in the office of measurer of coals.76 And again, in
1578, the lords of the council wrote to the Lord Mayor to admit
John Hubbard to the freedom of the city and to grant him the
office of salt meter or coal meter.77 The request that all excuses
which might tend to his hindrance be set aside could not have
met with favor, because, in 1580, the privy council solicited, by
command of the queen, the grant of salt or coal meter for John
Hubbard.78 Two years later another letter was sent to the
mayor and aldermen, reminding them of the fact that they had
not complied with the queen's request in behalf of the same man,
and directing them to grant him the office at the next vacancy.79
In 1591, when the privy council was again urging the mayor to
grant a reversion of the office of metership of coal, the mayor
responded that he could not comply with the request, as there
was no vacancy and he could not bind his successor to confirm
the appointment.80 Sir John Spencer, mayor in 1594, sold the
office of coal meter to one Yardley, contrary to the laws of the
city. The next year Yardley died, leaving his wife and children
almost destitute on account of the great sums that he had paid
for the office.81
In order to facilitate shipping on the Thames, a number of
'"Remem, 275.
"Ibid., 279, 280.
"A. P. C, 1577-1578, 429.
'"Remem, 270.
"Ibid., 275.
"Ibid., 283.
"A. P. C, 1595-1596, 103.

97
water bailiffs were appointed by the city. By charter, the mayor
had full authority over that part of the river which was near
the city, being called the "Conservator of the Thames," but
because of his various duties these substitutes were appointed to
punish all encroachments on the river, to look after the fisher
men in order to preserve the small fry and to prevent their
destruction by unlawful nets.82 For this purpose juries were
appointed for the counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent and Sur
rey, bordering on the Thames, and were summoned to make
their presentments when the water bailiff wished to make inquiry
of all offenses relative to the river.83
In 1580 Elizabeth, through Sir Francis Walsingham, made
a request that the court of aldermen grant this office to one of
her choice. In answer to this letter the mayor informed Wal
singham that the election had been postponed, but, because the
office was of considerable importance on account of the manage
ment of the river and service of the market, and because the
reversion had already been granted, the court of aldermen
besought him to speak to the queen, as they could not, without
prejudice to the city, choose the one the queen wished in the
place.84 To this letter the queen replied that she consented to
the appointment of the person having the reversionary grant.85
When the office of water bailiff became vacant in 1592 it
was immediately filled, although John Dowell had been granted
the reversion of it five years before this time. Though the privy
council commanded the mayor and aldermen to give the office
to him, according to his grant, they refused to yield, offering the
man 100m. for the repair of his credit.86 Dowell declared that
the office was worth £100 a year, but rather than hold it with
the dislike of the court of aldermen he agreed to accept the
100m. and relinquish all claim to the position. The privy
council urged the mayor and aldermen to increase the 100m. to
"Stow (ed. 1633), 18; Hist MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, II,
520. ""Laws and Customs, 461.
"Remem, 10.
"Ibid. 8«A P C, 1591-1592. 209.

98
£100 to be bestowed on the man, on account of the temperate
course he held towards the city officials.87
The court of aldermen had the appointment of certain
persons who aided the mayor in his efforts to preserve the public
health. When any article of food seemed impure, the court of
aldermen appointed a number of men as searchers of it for the
city. In 1551 thirty-one sacks of tainted hops were burned in
Finsbury Fields by order of the court of aldermen.88 The same
court appointed six commissioners to be searchers of hops during
the remainder of the year.
In connection with the judicial affairs of the city, there
were several places in the gift of the court of aldermen. One of
the most important of these was the common sergeant, who
attended the mayor and aldermen on court days and gave them
counsel on all matters of moment.89 That the common council,
too, seemed to have a voice in the appointment is evident from
some communications received from Elizabeth and her advisers
regarding the office. The position had been held for a number
of years by Bernard Randolph.90 In January, 1582, the queen
directed that a letter be sent to the mayor, aldermen and com
monalty of London declaring Randolph, on account of his age
and infirmity, to be unfit to fulfil his duties. Because of her
great regard for the reputation of the city she recommended
Dr. Julius Caesar as deputy for the office. She suggested that
some of the profits of the office might still go to Randolph. Some
time after this Leicester requested that the reversion of the office
be granted to his servant, Richard Sutton.91 He stated that the
mayor and aldermen had already granted their sanction to his
request, so his suit was that the common council would confirm
the grant. It is evident that the city did not yield, to the earl's
request, for shortly after another letter came from Walsingham,
reminding the mayor and aldermen of the queen's request in
"'A. P. C, 1591-1592, 521.
""Wriothesley, II, 55.
"Laws and Customs of London, 44.
""Remem., 278.
"Ibid., 277.

99
favor of Dr. Csesar.92 He further asked that such a yearly fee
and pension should be granted as should be seemly for one of
his degree. But neither to the queen's choice nor to that of
Leicester was the position granted, for the city records show that
Thomas Kirton was admitted common sergeant in place of Ran
dolph, deceased, August 15, 1583.93
Almost as valuable as the office of common sergeant were
the secondaryships of the counters. Each of these two men
had charge of the writs in the sheriffs' court, and had control of
one or the other of the sheriffs' prisons.94 Wolsey, in 1527,
asked Henry Dackers to resign the reversionary interest he had
obtained from the mayor and aldermen for his son Robert.95 In
1580 Sir William Condell sent a letter to the mayor and alder
men requesting a grant in reversion of one of the offices of
secondary for his servant, Jasper Warren. The Lord Chan
cellor, in 1583, wrote to the mayor and aldermen thanking them
for the reversionary grant made by them to George Filton, and
urging them to admit him to the next place that should be
vacant.96 After this five other letters were sent to the mayor
and aldermen demanding that George Filton be admitted to the
office immediately.97 For some time there was a contest between
him and Andrew Mallory for the place, but after the question
as to which should be appointed had been much discussed the
mayor issued a declaration in favor of Filton, as "Mallory was
of evil fame in the city and unsuited for such an important
office."98 The appointment of secondary again led to much
discussion in 1593-1594. A Mr. Moulton had been admitted
to the counter of Wood Street by the consent of the court of
aldermen through the intervention of the queen. In spite of
this, the sheriff in charge of this prison had admitted another
"'Remem, 279.
"Ibid., 278n.
"Laws and Customs of London, 171.
9BL. F. & D, H. VIII, 4, Appendix, 133.
•"Remem, 270, 281.
•'Ibid.. 281, 282.
"8C. S. P, 1581-1590, 187.

100
person to the office.99 A month later Sir Robert Cecil sent
another letter to the aldermen, declaring that her majesty re
quired them to confirm the grant which she had so often recom
mended.100 That the duties appertaining to the office of secondary
might be well performed, the incumbent was expected to give
bonds showing his good intention.101 In 1592 the court of alder
men, though opposed to Robert White, was required to admit him
to the office, as he had received the reversion some years back.
The aldermen, therefore, in order to deprive him of the benefits
accruing from the position, imposed new bonds each year on him,
which were to be paid to one of the sheriffs. These amounted to
such large sums that it was almost impossible for the man to pay
them. The privy council wrote to the mayor requesting that
these bonds be withdrawn and but one bond be required of him
which would cover the entire period of his service.102
There were a number of less important offices that were
likewise granted by the court of aldermen. In 1579 the privy
council wrote to the court of aldermen that as John Sturgeon
had received the reversion of the office of clerk of the chamber
lain's court in 1565, by the mayor and alderman at that time,
they were required to admit him at once.103
Again, in 1589, the privy council wrote to the mayor, alder
men and sheriffs regarding one Ralph Knighton, who had re
ceived the reversion of the office of beadleship in the Court of
Conscience about thirteen years previous, to succeed at the
death of William Baker, who then held the office. But, when
the place was vacant, it had been granted to one Hills by
unlawful means. It was requested that Knighton be given his
just dues by appointing him to the office.104
The reversion of the office of common clerk, too, was fre-
Salisbury Papers, IV, 386.

"Hist.

MSS. Com. Rept,

""Ibid..

, 414.

'"Ibid.

"2A. P.

C, 1592-1593, 115.

'"'Ibid.,

, 1578-1580, 316.

'"Ibid.,

, 1588-1589, 122.

IOI
quently granted by the court of aldermen.105 This officer, who
attended the mayor and aldermen on court days, kept the
original charters of the city, the books, rolls and other records
wherein were registered the acts and proceedings of the city.106
Occasionally he read the proclamations sent to the city. The
sentence of Mary, Queen of Scots, was read by the town clerk
at four places in the city, at the Cross in Chepe, Chancery Lane,
Leadenhall and St. Magnus' Church.107
The positions of city wait,108 common hunt,109 master
fuller in Blackwell Hall,110 master of the bridge house,111
provost marshal of Southwark,112 swordbearer113 and masters of
the court of requests114 were also filled by the court of aldermen.
The constant interference of the crown officials in the
appointment of persons for city positions would seem on its
face to be dangerous to the privileges of the Londoners. That
the citizens of London felt this, appears from a letter sent from
the mayor and aldermen to Henry VIII in answer to communi
cations sent by the king. In these letters Henry had stated
that there had been composition between the city and certain
officers of the crown regarding the appointment of officers of
the city. The mayor replied that there had been no composi
tion, that it was simply owing to the fact that there had been
intercession on the part of the crown officials for certain men,
that the court had yielded to their choice.115 The city regarded
its action as a concession which in no way should be taken as a
precedent. Then, too, the frequent refusal of the city to sanc
tion the choice of the crown officers shows that they regarded
'""Remem, 31.
'"Laws and Customs of London, 44.
""Nichols, Progresses of Q. Elizabeth, II, 497.
'""Remem, 275.
'"Ibid., 274.
"°A. P. C, 1578-1580, 30.
"'G S. P, 1540, 783.
"'A. P. C, 1596^1597, 352.
"8L. F. & D, H. VIII, 12, II, 15.
"4Stow (ed. 1633), 769.
""L F. & D, H. VIII, 9, 28.

102
their right of appointment as a privilege which should not be
violated. The officers appointed by the court were answerable to the
mayor and aldermen. In 1550 the Lord Mayor, by the assent
of the court of aldermen, sent the keeper of the counter in
Bread Street, on account of his cruelty to the prisoners, to the
jail of Newgate, where he was placed in irons. At the expira
tion of three days he was released of his irons, because of the
suit of the court of aldermen, but he was required to remain in
prison two days longer. He was then taken before the court
of aldermen, where he was bound in recognizance in 100m. to
observe the act of common council for the ordering of prison
ers.116 In a suit brought against a constable, in 1580, the court
of aldermen decided that the man had done no wrong, but had
simply fulfilled his duty.117

Chaptee VII.

COUETS OF JUDICATTJBE OF MAYOE AND
ALDERMEN.
For judicial purposes there were several courts held by the
mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had previously
served as mayors. The most important of these were the court
of hustings, the Lord Mayor's court and the court of requests
or conscience. They were all held in the Guildhall, where each
court had its own specified place and day of meeting.1 The
oldest and most important of them was the hustings court, which
was held by right of charter granted to the city by Henrv I.2
This privilege of holding the court was confirmed by John in
""Wriothesley, II, 42.
"'Remem, 265.
'Wriothesley, II, 108.
'Hist. Charters, 3.

103
11993 and Henry III in 1268. According to Henry I's charter,
the court was to meet once a week, on Monday. Henry III
declared that, though the court ought to be held but one day in
the week, if any work were left unfinished the court might be
continued the next morning.4 From that time on it had come to
meet twice a week, on Monday and Tuesday. The place of hust-
ing was evidently some distance back from the council chamber,
for when Mary, in 1554, came to speak to the Londoners regard
ing Wyatt's rebellion, she passed through the council chamber,
then went up to the mayor's court and then came down to the
place of husting,5 where the commons were assembled. More
over, in the election of mayor the first step was taken in the
place of the hustings, where the common council and the livery
men of the companies were assembled, after which the aldermen
and recorder retired to the council chamber.6 The court was
held before the mayor and sheriffs, with the recorder acting as
judge. It was here that all cases of pleas of land and common
pleas were tried, and judgment of outlawry was given and deeds
enrolled, wills registered and writs of error proved.7
The crown officials insisted that the court should be held
regularly. In 1582 the mayor was amerced £1,000 by the court
of common pleas for neglecting to hold the hustings. His
excuse was that he had been ill with a disease resembling the
plague, and it had been decided that his attendance at the court
would be with great risk of life. The aldermen advised him to
confer with the recorder, who was able to give proofs of a
similar loss of hustings due to the sickness of the mayor. He
was further advised to repair to the court, taking with him
letters and proofs of previous failures to hold the hustings, in
order that he might secure his discharge.8 That another loss of
"Hist Charters, 11.
'Ibid., 40.
"Wriothesley, II, 108.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, II, 117; Stow (ed. 163c>),
65'' ""'Coke, Fourth Institute. 247; Lex Londini, 100: Calthorpe, Rept. of
Special Cases touching Customs and Liberties, 84.
"Remem, 207.

104
the court might be avoided, the court of common council, about a
year and a half later, passed an act providing for the court in
case of the absence of the mayor from sickness or other urgent
occasion. In such cases any alderman who had previously acted
as mayor might hold the court with the assistance of the recorder
and one or both the sheriffs.9
The mayor's court was held on Tuesday before the mayor
and aldermen, with the recorder acting as judge. It had cogni
zance of all cases arising within the city of which the Londoners
were parties.10 All suits between Londoners, all questions of
debt which had been appealed from the sheriff's court, all
matters of assize and the questioning of all persons suspected
of writing incendiary literature, were tried in this court.
Owing to the frequent change in the principal officer of the
oity, it sometimes happened that judgments which were given
in the mayoralty of one man were executed in that of another.
In 1576 it seemed as if the mayor lacked zeal in carrying out
the decisions which had been rendered by the court during the
time of service of his predecessor. According to a judgment
which had been given in a suit between two Londoners, one man
was required to pay £80 to the other. The privy council had
been informed that the execution of the judgment had been
hindered by the present mayor. Consequently, the lords com
manded him either to hasten the execution or to report to them
the reason for the delay.11 It was probably to prevent the delay
which would necessarily follow the installation of the new
mayor and the possibility of the new mayor's being more hostile
to the privy council than the present incumbent that the lords
of the council, in 1586, almost at the expiration of the current
term of service, urged the mayor to "use some speade" in bring
ing to an end a contention between certain Londoners.12
There was considerable work attached to the mayor's court
•Act of common council, in Sharpe Calendar of Wills, XI.
10Coke, Fourth Institute, 247| ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Ill, Appendix
I, 212. "A. P. C, 1575-1577, 250.
"Ibid., 1589-1590, 179.

i°5
with regard to pleas of debt. These cases might be appealed
from -the sheriffs' court to that of the mayor, when the decision
might be altered.13
In a letter which Fleetwood sent to Burghley in 1581 he
stated that, if the defendant requested it, cases were carried to
the mayor's court in spite of opposition of the plaintiff. He
added that it was advisable to have suits in this higher court, for
there was twice as much expedition there than in the sheriffs'
court.14 When a suit that was being heard was between citizens of
London judgment was given in the presence of both parties.15
If, however, a citizen of another town had a complaint against a
Londoner, the mayor summoned the defendant before him in
order to hear his defence. It will be remembered that by charter
the citizens of London were not required to plead outside the
walls of the city. In 1582 the mayor and jurats of the Cinque
Ports informed the Lord Mayor that one Hall, a fishmonger of
London, was £4 3s. Id. in debt to Abraham Snode, of Fever-
sham. They requested the mayor to summon Hall before him
to examine into the matter and to compel Hall to pay the costs
as well as the just debt.16
The privy council's hand is seen in trial of cases for debt,
just as it is in other matters connected with the city. In 1550
a letter was sent to the mayor and four aldermen to end a
controversy which had existed between Thomas and John Barne
and their debtors.17 In 1552 the mayor was directed to con
sider a complaint against John Vandernoit, physician, and
to do what he could to remedy his distress.18 A letter of com
plaint against a London citizen was sent to the mayor in 1554.
It was stated that, according to rumor, John Lewis was feigning
bankruptcy in order to avoid paying for certain goods. The
"Coke, I. c, 247f.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, I, 221.
'"Remem, 491.
"Ibid., 489.
"A P. 0, 1580-1582, 51.
"Ibid., 1552-1554, 50.

io6
mayor was directed to ascertain whether this were true or not
by searching out Lewis in his own home. If it were found to
be true that Lewis was unable to pay, then the goods were to be
delivered unto the persons from whom they had been pur
chased.19 In addition to directing that certain trials be held, the
privy council sometimes urged the delay in proceedings of other
cases. In 1551 the mayor was requested to delay giving judg
ment in a certain suit, and was directed to command one of the
principals to appear before the council.20 In the same year the
mayor was asked to stay a process between Combes and Spinola
until the next year. It was declared that as Combes was to be
sent on a mission outside of the realm, he would not be able to
be present at the trial until that time.21
By a writ of certiorari cases which had been judged in
the mayor's court might be re-examined by the justices of com
mon pleas. In 1529 certain justices were granted commissions
authorizing them to examine, in the presence of the mayor and
aldermen, at the Guildhall, a judgment given in a suit before
the said mayor and aldermen concerning a debt of 100m.22
There was a similar case in 1592, when a commission of error
was granted to the Lord Chief Justice and to two justices of
common pleas to determine an action depending before the Lord
Mayor of London.23
After a case had been decided in the court, the privy council
sometimes directed the mayor to attempt to bring about some
agreement between the debtors and creditors. In 1574 the lords
wrote to the mayor in behalf of a Scotchman imprisoned in one
of the counters. It was thought that the mayor by meeting
with his creditor might bring about some composition whereby
the man's imprisonment might be lessened.24 Again, in 1580,
"A. P. O, 1554-1556, 344.
'"Ibid., 1550-1552, 235.
"Ibid., 384.
"L. F. & D, H. VIII, 4, 5748 (18).
"0. S. P., 1591-1594, 178.
"A. P. C, 1571-1575, 310.

107
when William Parker was in debt for a sum not exceeding £16,
the privy council urged the mayor to call his creditors before
him and to treat with them in their lordship's names in order
that he might obtain an agreement by which the man could
still retain some of his property.25 In 1581 the mayor, recorder,
sheriffs and Bishop of London were appointed as commissioners
to compound with the creditors of the poor debtors imprisoned
in Newgate, Ludgate and the two Counters.26 In 1586 the
council requested the mayor to persuade the creditors of Michael
Story to give him one year's day of payment. If they would
not agree to this he was required to cause them to certify the
reason for their refusal,27 and to forbear to trouble the debtor
with imprisonment until they should have received an answer
to their communication. A letter of like content was requested
of the council in 1589. The debtor asked the lords of the council
to write to the mayor and sheriffs that the time already allowed
him by their lordship's former letters might be extended six
months longer.28 In 1596 the mayor sent word to Sir Robert
Cecil that he had done what he could for the debtor in whose
behalf he had written.29
According to the law of London the personal effects of a
debtor unable to meet his obligations were seized by the creditor.
In 1531, at the death of Thomas Mullins, his creditors detained
the clothes belonging to him by judgment given in the Lord
Mayor's court.30 In 1580 the privy council informed the mayor
that property of Richard Brackenburg had been attached for
debt by Samuel Knolles and had been offered for sale, although
no lawful demand had been made for the debt. The mayor was,
therefore, directed to call the creditors before him for the pur
pose of ascertaining what had become of the goods.31 If the
aA. P. C, 1580-1581, 247.
'"G S. P, 1581-1590, 8.
"A. P. C, 1586-1587, 205.
»C. S. P, 1581-1590. 584.
"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, VI, 187.
"°L. F. & D, H. VIII, 5, 674.
"Remem, 484.

io8
creditors refused to inform him he was authorized to imprison
them without bail.
A large part of the time was consumed in the trial of
persons suspected of breaking the assize. A person found guilty
of making bread smaller than the size prescribed by the mayor
was condemned to sit in the pillory.32 Sometimes the con
demned had to bear the article of false weight or measurement
about his neck while he sat on the pillory. A purveyor who
had been declared fraudulent in his dealings was required to
wear a string of smelts around his neck. The court had
adjudged that the remainder of his punishment would be mutila
tion of the ears, but, on account of the mayor's intercession, he
was confined to one of the prisons of London for a long period.33
The court had control of persons who were guilty of uttering
seditious words and of publishing incendiary literature.34 In
1595 the mayor sent to the Counter a person who had uttered
contemptuous words against the authority of the Star Cham
ber.35 The punishment of the authors of seditious books was
frequently severe. In 1568 the mayor committed to one of the
Counters a man who had caused an unlicensed book to be
printed.36 In order to prevent the circulation of a book bearing
the title "A Discovery of the Gaping Gulf," in which the author
had spoken disrespectfully of the queen and the Duke of Anjou,
the council in 1579 commanded the mayor to summon before
him the masters and wardens of the companies. After they
had received the directions of the mayor, the masters and
wardens of each company called a meeting of their company and
read the queen's proclamation concerning the book. Each
person having a copy of the book was directed to bring it imme
diately to the company, so that it might be delivered to the
mayor. All persons possessing copies were required to give the
names of the persons from whom they had obtained them.37
"Wriothesley, II, 35, 71.
"Hay ward, I. c, 29.
!4G S. P, 1547-1580, 417.
"Ibid., 1595-1597, 63.
"Ibid., 1547-1580, 320.
"'Remem, 29.

109
When unlicensed books or those containing matter of state were
printed the mayor imprisoned the printer as well as the author.38
Persons who refused to abide by the decisions of the court
were further punished by the mayor. In 1589, when the privy
council urged the mayor to hasten to give judgment in a certain
suit, it was added, "If either of the parties refuse to stand to
such order as you shall so set down, then you are to proceed
further with them, or either of them, for their contempt as you
shall think meet."39 In 1577 the mayor was directed by the
council to release a person whom he had imprisoned because of
his refusal to carry out the decisions of the court, on condition
that he gave bonds not to disturb the possessions of the com
plainant.40 The couro sometimes acted in conjunction with the national
courts. In 1551 the mayor was directed by the privy council
to take sureties of £500 from Sir Thomas Newneham to appear
before the Court of Star Chamber.41 In the same year the
warden of the fleet was directed by the council to conduct the
warden of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, whom he was hold
ing as a prisoner, to the mayor of London. The mayor was
then to bind him in £200 to appear before the council from day
to day during the next term, and in the meantime not to return
to his college.42 In 1552 one John Kell was bound before the
mayor in recognizance of 1,000m. to appear before the lords
of the council to answer a certain complaint made against him
by one of the Earl of Pembroke's servants.43
Besides taking recognizances for appearance before the lords
of the council, the mayor's court sometimes carried out the
sentences of the Court of Star Chamber. In 1580 the mayor
was directed to release a person who had been judged by the
Court of Star Chamber to stand upon the pillory and to be
'"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, VI, 264; Wright, I. c.
II, 463. "•A P. C, 1589-1590, 179.
"Ibid., 1575-1577, 375.
"Ibid., 1!V50-1552, 316.
"Ibid., 317.
"Ibid., 457.

no
committed to Newgate for six months. At the expiration of
three months the council agreed that his punishment might be
remitted, provided he gave bonds for his good behavior to the
mayor.44 The court had no authority over officers of the crown.
Even though these might be living in London, they were free
from arrest and trial by the officials of London. In 1566 the
privy council sent word to the mayor that, although officers at
arms were free from arrest in London, they had been informed
that certain officers had been arrested within the liberties of
the city. These were ordered to be released, but any person
having suit against them could be satisfied by appealing to the
Lord Marshal's court.45 In 1571 the queen directed the mayor
to refrain from dealing in the courts in any suit appertaining
to the admiralty court.46 In 1584 Fleetwood wrote to Burghley
that he was unable to proceed with a certain case because the
persons who had created the disturbance were officers of the
guard.47 In 1595 the mayor wrote to Burghley that when he
discovered that a certain man who had been imprisoned on
account of disorderly behavior was a yeoman of the guard he
released him. He urged that fitting punishment be admin
istered to him by the council.48.
Growing out of the mayor's court was another court which
was established in 1518 by the common council. In that year
an act was passed authorizing the mayor and aldermen to
appoint every month two aldermen and four discreet commoners
as commissioners to hold a court twice a week, Wednesday and
Saturday, in the Guildhall.49 The body was to be known
as the court of requests or court of conscience, and was
to have cognizance of all cases of debt which did not exceed
40s.50 In 1574 Leicester wrote to the mayor asking him to
"Remem, 264.
4"G S. P., Addenda, 1566-1579, 10.
"Ibid., 1547-1580.
"Wright, 1. c, II, 242.
"Remem, 451.
"Stow (ed. 1633), 769.
""Wright, II. 166.

ill

intercede for one Philpot. Accordingly, the mayor, with six
aldermen, wrote to the masters of the court of requests urging
them to help the poor man and his tenants.51 That the creation
of this court considerably lessened the work of the Lord Mayor's
court, and that it was regarded as a boon by the officials of
London, is evident from the extension of its powers that was
made from time to time.52
The mayor and those aldermen who had previously held
the office of mayor were, by the grant of Edward IV, justices
of the peace for the city of London.53 This privilege was care
fully guarded by the officials of London. At a time when it
seemed as if the rights of the city in this respect might be
infringed, the mayor, in a letter to Burghley, declared that the
queen's ancestors had granted to the city those privileges by
which the mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had
passed the chair were justices of the peace for the county of the
city of London in as ample a manner as any other justice of the
peace of the realm.54
In case of riots or concerted risings on the part of the Lon
doners, the mayor and the aldermen went out to suppress the
disorder. After the people were subdued the perpetrators of the
disorder were usually, by the mayor's order, confined in one of
the Counters.55 The opposition of the citizens to the foreigners in London
is seen by the frequent rising of the people against them. In
addition to the rising on "Evil May Day,"56 there were two
other attacks on the French — one in 152557 and the other in
1586.58 On the latter date the rising was against the Dutch
as well as the French. In 1558 an assault was made upon the
"'G S. P, Addenda, 1566-1579, 473.
"Privilegia Londini, 398.
""Charter of Edward IV, in Hist. Charters, 80.
"Remem, 43.
™Gvn Friars' Chronicle, 71 ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury
Papers, V, 249 ; ibid.. XV Rept, Appendix V, 94.
""Hall. 588; Grey Friars, 30.
"'Hall, 720.
""Ellis Letters, First Series, II, 306.

112
house of the ambassador of the king of Swevia,59 and in 1582
the Spanish ambassador60 was attacked as he rode through the
streets of the city. In each of these cases the instigators of the
attacks were severely punished by the mayor and aldermen. The
privy council directed the mayor to administer whatever punish
ment he should think advisable to the offenders against the
Swedish ambassador in the presence of some delegate of the
injured man.
The Lord Mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had
passed the chair were also justices of oyer and terminer. This
had been granted to the citizens by charter of Edward IV.61
The mayor was usually appointed as chief of the commission,
although one or more of" the most prominent of the national
judges were placed on the commission with him.62 In the trial
of Thomas Culpepper, in 1541, the mayor presided, with the
Lord Chancellor sitting at his right hand and the Duke of
Norfolk at his left hand.63
As justices of jail delivery, too, the mayor and aldermen
acted in conjunction with prominent men of the time.64 If the
suspected person in a murder trial pleaded guilty, the jury was
not summoned. One of the popular dramas of Elizabeth's reign
contains a scene in which persons suspected of murdering a
London citizen are tried before the mayor and aldermen. After
the prisoner declares himself guilty, the Lord Justice speaks^
"Mr. Sheriff, ye shall not need any jury to pass upon him, for
he hath pleaded guilty and stands convicted before the bar."65
Many cases of treason were brought for trial to the Guild
hall. In the eighth year of Henry VIII, on May 4, the persons
principally concerned with the uprising of May 1 against the
French were arraigned at the oyer and terminer at Guildhall.66
The charge was treason, because a truce had been made between
"»A. P. C, 1558-1560, 21.
"Hist MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, II, 513.
"Historical Charters, 80.
"Wriothesley, I, 131, 176, 177 ; II, 7, 12, 13, 106.
"Ibid., II, 106, 131.
ML. F. & D, H. VIII, I, 1942.
"Warning for Fair Wom&n, Act. II, 315.
""Hall, 589.

"3
England and France. The trial of the Duke of Buckingham
took place in the same hall.67 In 1747 Henry Howard was
arraigned before this court, with the Lord Mayor acting as
chief.68 In 1553, November 13, Archbishop Cranmer, Guilford
Dudley, Lady Jane Gray, Ambrose and Harry Dudley were
also arraigned here.69 It was not until the next January that
Robert Dudley was brought from the Tower to the Guildhall
for trial.70 In 1594 Dr. Lopez was tried for treason in the
Guildhall before the Lord Mayor, the Earl of Essex and Lord
Howard.71 When persons suspected of treason were tried in the Tower,
the Lord Mayor, with the aldermen and certain men of the
principal crafts was present. Thus, in 1536, at the arraign
ment of Anne Boleyn and Lord Rochefort, the Lord Mayor,
aldermen and eight men of the twelve principal crafts sat in the
council chamber.72
This then represents the part played by the mayor and the
aldermen in the judicial life of the city. It does not, however,
represent the entire civil and criminal jurisdiction of London,
for, in addition to the courts here enumerated, there were those
tribunals which were held before the other officials — the sheriffs
and the recorder — whose work was not considered in this study.

Chaptee VIII.
THE CITY AND THE COURT.
In examining the one hundred and eighteen years which
constitute the entire period of the Tudor rule, for the purpose
of ascertaining any change in the relations between the crown
"L F. & D, PI. VIII, 3, 1284.
""Grey Friars' Chronicle, 53 ; Wriothesley, I, 177.
"Chronicle Q. Jane and Q. Mary, 34.
"Ibid., 35.
"C S P, 1591-1594, 448.
"Grev Frinrs' Chronicle, 38 ; Wriothesley, 39.

114
officials and those of London, one is struck by the fact that
there is a marked increase in the number of communications
which passed from one body to the other during the later years
of the rule than in the earlier. This would seem to imply, at
first glance, that there was a closer connection between the city
and the court at this time. There are, however, two other cir
cumstances which had much to do with this enlarged corre
spondence, and which consequently tqnd to diminish the impres
sion that a greater interest was manifested on the part of the
royal officials for the city at one time than at another. In the
first place, a new official, the Remembrancer, was added to the
municipality in 1577. A part of his duty consisted in preserving
the official letters and other documents sent to the city, as well
as a copy of every letter sent by the London officers. Thus it
is that for the later years we have additional sources of informa
tion. For the earlier years, until the Repertory — the record
of the proceedings of the court of aldermen — is published, the
Calendar of State Papers and the Acts of the Privy Council
constitute the principal means by which we can become familiar
with the correspondence between the two bodies. After the year
1577 the increase may be due, not so much to the number of
letters actually written, as to the number now accessible.
But, aside from this consideration, that more letters did
pass between the city and the court for the later period is largely
due to the personality of two men conspicuous in the life of the
two places. Lord Burghley, active and interested in the least
detail regarding the welfare of the kingdom, had an equally
active associate in Fleetwood, the loquacious recorder of Lon
don. The letters, or rather diaries, sent by the latter to the
great statesman, are filled with matter of interest pertaining to
the governmental and social life of the city. Had there been
men of like temperament at the head of affairs in the city and
the kingdom, it is probable that there might have been an equally
large number of letters written for the earlier as for the later
period. During the century and a quarter we are considering there

"5
is a growth of independence on the part of the citizens of Lon
don. This is especially noticeable in their actions with regard
to the loans which were demanded by the Tudor sovereigns.
With the exception of the amicable loan of 1525, the demand
of which was met with so much opposition, not only in London,
but throughout the country, that it was consequently withdrawn,
when money was desired by either Henry VII or VIII, the
citizens, though grumbling, usually made the desired grant with
out delay. Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, the
city refused to grant any money to the queen without the
security of carrack goods, or the promise of income from the
export and import duties on all goods passing through London.
The change in the attitude of the crown towards offending
officers of the city shows that the increase in the independent
spirit of the people was recognized by the court officers. The
high-handed manner in which Henry VII extorted money from
the rich middle class brought about much complaint from certain
aldermen and other persons prominent in London. The persons
guilty of such misdemeanors were instantly imprisoned by the
order of the king. From 1495 to 1509 Sir William Capell,
alderman, who was sheriff in 1504 and mayor in 1503 and
1509, was frequently in conflict with the king.1 On the latter
date he was sent to the Tower, after having been imprisoned
first in the counter and later in the sheriff's house. There he
was compelled to remain until the death of Henry, when, "with
many others, he was freed." It does not appear from the chron
icle that these men were given a trial before imprisonment. In
Henry VIII' s time the mayor and aldermen were reprimanded
for the insurrection which occurred on the Evil May Day, but
other than that they were not required to suffer any punish
ment. At the time of the rebellion of Essex, the sheriff, Sir
Thomas Smith, who was suspected of being in league with the
earl, was, after his trial by the court officials,2 handed over to
the court of aldermen for punishment.3
'Fabyan, Chronicle, 685, 689, 690.
'C. S. P, 1589-1601, 570.
'Camden, Britannia, 609.

u6
In the same way the attitude of the city regarding the
royal interference in municipal elections points to this increase
in the spirit of independence. Elizabeth's withdrawal of a suit
on two separate occasions regarding appointment to office in
the city is in striking contrast with a step taken by her father at
an earlier period. The citizens in 1535 attempted to deprive
an appointee of the king of the office of measurer of cloth,
claiming that by right of charter the privilege belonged to them.
The overbearing mastery of Henry VIII is apparent when he
insisted that not only should the man be reinstated, but that all
the profits of the office during the time he was deprived of it
should be restored to him, and that a heavy fine should be
placed on those who should hinder him in the fulfilment of his
duties. In 1580, though Elizabeth insisted upon granting the
proceeds of this office to one of her choice, she yielded a point
to the city by withdrawing a request that a certain man be
granted the office of water bailiff. The final victory of the city
in the contest waged between the court of aldermen on one side,
and Lord Burghley, Lord Walsingham and Elizabeth on the
other, from 1580 to 1583, shows plainly how strong was the
effort made by the Londoners to hold what they believed to be
their privileges. Finally, the mild tone of the two letters sent
by the privy council to London in the closing years of the six
teenth century, regarding the office of gauger, reveals the fact
that the court was aware of the spirit prevalent in the city.
These, as well as the positive acts of refusal on the part of the
court of aldermen to agree to appoint persons chosen by the
crown, are indices of that tenacity of purpose which became so
conspicuous a characteristic of the Londoners of the succeeding
century, and point to their city as the school in which was taught
the principle of resistance which became so great an indication
of the spirit of the Englishmen of the Stuart period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Chronicles.

London Chronicle during the Reigns of Henry VII and VIII.
Edited, 1859, by Clarence Hopper. Camden Society, vol. 73
(Camden Miscellany, IV). Brief statement of affairs, chiefly
social, in the city.
Wriothesley, Charles A Chronicle of England during the
Reign of the Tudors. 2 vols. Ed., 1875, by W. D. Hamilton, C. S.,
new series, vols. 11 and 20. Extends from 1485-1559. After the
first eleven years of Henry VIII's reign it is particularly valuable
as a source for London history. The author, a cousin of Thos.
Wriothesley, the chancellor, lived in London and recorded matters
of interest as they were transpiring.
Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London. Ed., John Gough
Nichols, 1852. C. S. 53. The author, living in one of the busy
parts of the city, was a witness of many important events, which he
recorded without prejudice.
The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary.
Ed., J. G. Nichols, 1850. C. S. 48. Interesting accounts of affairs
connected with the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey. Full account
of the action of the city officials regarding the rebellion of
Wyatt. Fabyan, Robert. The New Chronicles of England and
France. Second edition. Ed., Ratsell, 1533, carries events to death
of Henry VII. Good account of the life in the city. Author an
alderman of Farringdon Ward Without, and sheriff in 1493.
Hall, Edward. The Union of the] Two Noble Families of
York and Lancaster. Printed 1542, extends to death of Henry
VIII. Particularly strong in revealing contemporary feeling,
(n7)

n8
especially the hatred existing between the citizens and Wolsey.
Detailed account of the rising of the Londoners against the for
eigners in 1518.
Grafton, Richard. A Chronicle at Large, Mere History of
the Affairs of England. 1569. Copy of Hall, with a continuation
to 1558. Valuable list of mayors and sheriffs to 1558
Holinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland and
Ireland. Carried his chronicle of England to 1577 whence it was
continued by John Hooker to 1587. Information regarding London
but slight. Speed, John. History of Great Britain to Reign of King James.
1611. Very little of value for London, except during the time that
Lady Jane Grey was in the city.
Stow, John. The Abridgment of the English Chronicles,
continued to end of 1610 by Edward Howes, 1611. Condensed
compilation, containing little that is new regarding London.
Mayor and sheriffs for each year are given, which supplements the
list of Grafton.
Stow, John. Historical Memoranda and Contemporary Notes
of Occurrences in reign of Queen Elizabeth. Ed., James Gairdner,
1880. C. S., N. S., 28. Short but interesting accounts of the customs
of the city.
Camden, Wm. Annals of the Reign of Elizabeth. 1625. Full
account of the conspiracy of Essex.
Hayward, John. Annals of Elizabeth. Ed., John Bruce.
C. S. 7, 1840. Account of the first four years of Elizabeth's reign,
adds some slight information.
Records.
Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis. Vol. I, Liber Albus.
Ed., H. T. Riley. R. S. 1819-1862.
Liber Albus. Translated H. T. Riley, 1861.
This book, "the Grand Repository of the archives of the city,"
was compiled in 1419 by John Carpenter, Common Clerk.
Although collected at so early a date, the records are invaluable
for the study of London at all later periods.

iig
Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of London.
Ed., W. De G. Birch, 1887. Copies of the city charters con
tained in the Guildhall, arranged chronologically. Translated.
Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard HI and
Henry VII. 2 vols., R. S. 1864. Ed., J. Gairdner. Of some slight
value for the history of London.
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry
VIII. Ed., J. S. Brewer. 1862-1901.
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign and Domestic. Ed., Record
Commission, 1856.
Acts of the Privy Council of England. In progress 1834-1905.
29 vols. Vol. edited 1905 contains Acts of year 1599.
These three last mentioned publications are replete with
information concerning London. Almost every page contains
something of importance and interest.
Statutes of the Realm. 1235-1713. 9 vols. Ed., Record Com
mission, 1810-1828.
Calendar of Wills in the Court of Hustings. 2 vols. Ed., R. R.
Sharpe. 1889. Valuable introduction dealing with the early
history and the development of the Court of Hustings. In a study
like the present one little use can be made of the material collected
in the volumes, except for finding the financial standing of
individuals already known by name.
Remembrancia. Analytical Index to series of records, 1559-
1664, in the library of the Guildhall. Ed., W. H. Overall, Libra
rian, and H. C. Overall, Town Clerk's Office. 1878. Calendar of
documents, arranged alphabetically. Of great value in the study
of London. Parliamentary Papers. Vol. 359. Second Report of the Com
missioners Appointed to Inquire into Municipal Corporations. 1837.
This report for London and Southwark is very valuable inasmuch
as certain acts passed by the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen at earlier periods are printed in extenso. On the other
hand, The Report of the Commissioners on the State of the Corpora
tion of London, in 1854, vol. 175, is of little value. It consists of
the report of the evidence taken from the city officials, and has little
reference to documentary evidence.

120

Contemporary Narratives.
Lord Mayor's Pageants. Percy Soc, vol. 10. Ed., Fred W.
Fairholt, 1843. Collection of descriptions, in prose and poetry, of
the mayor's procession through the city. Contains the valuable
description by Wm. Smith of the election and pageant of the
mayor in 1575. The same description, slightly condensed, is also
found in Drake, Nathan, Shakespeare and his Times. 2 vols.
1817. A Relation of England. C. S. 37. Ed. and translated by
Charlotte A. Sneyd. 1847. An account of the manners and customs
of England, written by an Italian, evidently one of the members
of the ambassador's suite, about 1496-1502. Valuable for the
customs of London.
England as Seen by Foreigners. Ed., Wm. B. Rye, 1865.
Collection of descriptions by foreign merchants and travelers in
England. The account by Paul Hentzner is particularly valuable
for London.Stow, John. Survey of London. Written 1598, first pub
lished 1603. Reprint of this edition 1842, by Wm. J. Thomas,
Sec. Camden Soc. Re-edited with modern spelling in Carisbrook
Library by Ed., Henry Morley, 1890. The fountain head of infor
mation concerning manners and customs of Londoners. Valuable
descriptions of the wards and public and private buildings of the
city. Enlarged in 1618 by Anthony Munday and again in 1633 by
Humphrey Dyson. (See Article Stow in Diet. Natl. Biog.) This
last edition is of great value in working up any part of the govern
ment. This edition contains a good working index, which is lacking
in the editions of Thomas and Morley.
An interesting adverse criticism of the work, written in
December, 1633, shortly after the appearance of Dyson's edition
will be found in Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. XII, App. I, p. 38.
Harrison, Wm. Anthony. Elizabethan England. 1577-1587.
Written as first book in Holinshed's Chronicle. Ed., Fred. J.
Furnivall, 1877. New Shakespeare Soc. contains copy of Norden's
map. Otherwise of but little value for London.

121
Camden, Wm. Britannia. 1586, Latin; and
Speed, John. England, Wales, and Scotland and Ireland,
abridged, with the history of things worthy of memory, from a far
larger volume done by John Speed, London, 1672; and
John Norden, Speculum Britanniae, an historical de
scription of Middlesex, 1593, contain some slight information.
Two contemporary maps, Civitas Londinune, by Ralph Agas,
in reign of Elizabeth, drawn c. 1561-1576, published in facsimile
by Wm. H. Overall, librarian to corporation of London, 1874; and
Joannes Norden, Anglus descripsit, anno 1593, New Sh. Soc,
1877, preceding Harrison's Decsription of England are of great
value in determining the extent of the wards and in locating
buildings and places of importance
Dramas.
Many of the Elizabethan dramas throw light upon the life in the
city. A few of the plays in which the life of the apprentice is
shown are
Beaumont and Fletcher, Knight of the Burning Pestle.
Dekker, The Shoemaker's Holiday.
Green's Tu Quoque.
Massinger, New Way to Pay Old Debts, and
Middleton, Trick to Catch the Old One.
t
The Tragedy of Sir Thomas More also gives a picture of the
Lord Mayor's Court
Haywood If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody, shows the
influence of the Court of Aldermen.
Legal Writings.
Coke, Sir Edward. Fourth part of the Institute of the Laws of
England, concerning the jurisdiction of the courts, 1644. The basis
for the greater part of later legal writings. Slight inaccuracy con
cerning the number of wards.

122
SECONDARY.
Legal Writings.
Bohun, Wm. Privilegia Londine, or the Rights, Liberties,
Privileges, Laws and Customs of the city of London. 1702.
City Liberties, or the Rights and Privileges of Freeman —
abridgment of the laws, charters, by-laws and customs of London.
1732. Laws and Customs, Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City
of London. 1765.
Emerson, Thomas. Courts of Law of the City of London. 1794.
Author was one of the four attorneys connected with the Lord
Mayor's Court.
Pulling, Alexander. Treatise on the Laws, Customs, and
Usages and Regulations of the City of London. 1842.
The above mentioned books, written from a legal point of
view, are of great value in any study dealing with the government
of London. They are, however, copied largely from Dyson's
edition of Stow's Survey and from Coke's Fourth Institute.
Historic Accounts.
Besant, Walter. London, 1892. An interesting account of
the social life of the city. Little reference to sources.
 . London in the Time of the Tudors. 1904. Rich
in quotations from sources and in contemporary pictures. Chapters
on the Social Life and on the Apprentices are particularly interesting.
The reproduction of the panoramic map of London made by
Anthony Van den Wyngaerde would have been more instructive
if it had not been broken up into three sections.
Drake, Nathan. Shakespeare and his Times. 1817. Number
of quotations from the sources.
Herbert, Wm. History of the Twelve Livery Companies of
London, principally compiled from their grants and records. 2 vols.
1836. Valuable
Loftie, W. J. History of London. 2 vols. 1884. Contains
many maps and illustrations.

123
Loftie, W. J. London, Historic Towns, 1887. Largely de
voted to the treatment of the growth of institutions. Some inac
curacies. A condensation of the History.
Maitland, Wm. History of London from its Foundation by the
Romans. 1739. Modeled on later editions of Stow's Survey.
Merewether and Stephens. History of the Boroughs.
3 vols. 1835. Examination of the charters granted to different
boroughs and cities by various sovereigns. Valuable.
Norton, Geo. Commentaries on the History, Constitution
and Chartered Franchise of the City of London. 1828. Examination
of the charters. Many quotations from Elizabethan dramatists.
Sharpe, Reginald R. London and the Kingdom. 1894. Of
great value. Author had access to the city records, much of the
information is drawn from unpublished archives, such as the Letter
Books, the Repertory and the Journal. Written chronologically, so
that the growth and development of institutions is not apparent.
Simpson, W. Sparrow. St. Paul's Cathedral and Old City
Life. 1894. Contains copies of letters and documents.
Stephenson, Henry Thew. Shakespeare's London. 1905.
Follows Stow closely.
Wheatley and Cunningham. London, Past and Present.
3 vols. 1891. Additions made by H. B. Wheatley to Handbook of
London by Peter Cunningham. A valuable cyclopedia.
I have not attempted in the foregoing list to give anything like
an exhaustive account of the books dealing with London in the
Tudor period. I have simply named those works which have been
of service to me in my study of the Lord Mayor and aldermen.
The sameness of many of the secondary books is due to the fact that
the authors have largely followed Stow and Maitland, to the exclu
sion of other sources, in their endeavor to picture London of Shakes
peare's day.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to Pro
fessor Edward P. Cheyney, at whose suggestion this study was
undertaken, and1 to thank him for his advice, encouragement
and kindly interest.

(124)

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04193 9985

Hi m «
asss 5/ ;
:
M