London and the Kingdom Volume I Part 17

Soon after Brembre's election the king confirmed the City's liberties by charter,(654) which had the a.s.sent of parliament. Two years previously the citizens had besought the newly-married queen to use her interest with Richard to that end.(655) Her good offices, as well as the fact that the City had recently advanced to the king the sum of 4,000 marks, on the security of the royal crown and other things,(656) may have been instrumental in obtaining for the citizens this fresh confirmation of their rights.

(M353)

In January (1384) Northampton was bound over to keep the peace in the sum of 5,000;(657) but in the following month he was put under arrest (together with his brother, known as Robert "c.u.mberton," and another), for raising a disturbance in the City, and sent to Corfe Castle.(658) For Northampton's arrest, as well as for the summary execution of a certain John Constantyn, a cordwainer, who had been convicted of taking a leading part in the disturbance, Brembre received a letter of indemnity from the king.(659) The riot had one good effect. It roused public opinion against monopolies and restriction of trade to such an extent, that Richard very soon afterwards caused the city to be opened freely to all foreigners _(i.e._, non-freemen) wishing to sell fish or other victuals.(660)

(M354)

In August (1384) the opinion of each individual member of the Common Council was taken on oath, as to whether it would be to the advantage or disadvantage of the city if Northampton were allowed to return; and it was unanimously found that his return would breed dissension rather than peace and unity.(661) Armed with this _plebiscite_ the mayor and a number of citizens, whom the king had summoned by name, attended a council at Reading for the purpose of determining the fate of Northampton. The accused contented himself with objecting to sentence being pa.s.sed against him in the absence of his patron the Duke of Lancaster. This, however, availed him nothing, and he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in Tintagel Castle.(662) Another authority(663) states that the mayor brought with him to the council a man named Thomas Husk or Usk (whose name, by the way, does not appear in the list which the king forwarded to the mayor), who made a number of charges against Northampton. The prisoner so far forgot himself in the royal presence as to call Usk a liar, and to challenge him to a duel. Matters were not improved by Northampton's appeal for delay in pa.s.sing sentence upon him in the absence of the Duke of Lancaster. Richard flushed crimson with anger at the proposal, declaring that he was ready to sit in judgment upon the duke no less than on Northampton, and forthwith ordered the latter's execution, and the confiscation of his goods. The sentence would have been earned out but for the timely intercession of the queen, who flung herself at her husband's feet and begged for the prisoner's life. The queen's prayer was granted, and Northampton was condemned to perpetual imprisonment and remitted to Corfe Castle. Thence, at the beginning of September, he was removed to the Tower of London, where two of his partisans, John More, one of the sheriffs, and Richard Northbury, recently arrested, were lodged.

(M355)

The Chief Justice, Tressilian, hesitated to take any steps against the prisoners, one of whom had already been tried and sentenced, a.s.serting that the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the mayor. His scruples, however, on this score were easily set aside, and on the 10th September, each of the prisoners was sentenced to be drawn and hanged. No sooner was sentence pa.s.sed than the chancellor, Michael de la Pole, entered on the scene, and proclaimed that the king's grace had been extended to the prisoners, that there lives would be spared, but that they would be imprisoned until further favour should be shown them. They were accordingly sent off to various fortresses; Northampton to Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, Northbury to Corfe Castle, and More to Nottingham; and all this arose, says the Chronicler, from the rivalry of fishmongers.(664)

(M356)

When Brembre sought re-election to the mayoralty in October, 1384, he found a formidable compet.i.tor in Nicholas Twyford, with whom he had not always been on the best of terms. It was in 1378, when Twyford was sheriff and Brembre was occupying the mayoralty chair for the first time, that they fell out, the occasion being one of those trade disputes so frequent in the City's annals. A number of goldsmiths and pepperers had come to loggerheads in St. Paul's Churchyard during sermon time, and the mayor had committed one of the ringleaders to the compter. The culprit, however, happened to be, like Twyford, a goldsmith, and was one of his suite.

Twyford resented his man being sent to prison, and for his pains got arrested himself.(665) It was felt that the election would be hotly contested and might lead to disturbance. Besides the customary precept issued by the mayor forbidding any to appear who were not specially summoned,(666) the king took the precaution of sending John de Nevill, of Roby, to the Guildhall to see that the election was properly conducted. In spite of all precautions, however, a disturbance took place, and some of the rioters were afterwards bound over to keep the peace.(667) It is said that Brembre himself secreted a body of men in the neighbourhood of the Guildhall, and that when he found the election going against him, he signalled for them, and Twyford's supporters were compelled to flee for safety, and that thus the election was won.(668) Nothing of this appears in the City's Records, where Brembre's re-election is entered in the manner of the day.(669)

(M357)

In 1385 Brembre was again elected mayor, and continued in office until October, 1386, when he was succeeded by his friend and ally, Nicholas Exton. This was the fourth and last time Brembre was mayor. In the meantime, the Duke of Lancaster and his party had renewed their efforts to effect the release of Northampton and of his fellow prisoners, More and Northbury, on the understanding that they were not to come near the City, and Brembre again took the opinion of the aldermen and commons severally as to the probable effect of the release of the prisoners. This occurred in March, 1386, when it was unanimously resolved that danger would result to the city if Northampton was allowed to come within 100 miles of it.(670) The resolution caused much annoyance to the duke, who characterised it as unreasonable and outrageous, and led to some heated correspondence.(671) It had, however, the desired effect of at least postponing the release of the prisoners.(672)

(M358)

A few months after Exton had taken Brembre's place as mayor (Oct., 1386), the new mayor raised a commotion by ordering a book called "Jubilee,"

which Northampton is supposed to have compiled-or caused to be compiled for the better government of the City, to be publicly burnt in Guildhall yard.(673) The cordwainers of London, staunch supporters of Northampton (the leader of the riot which led to Northampton's arrest in 1384 was a cordwainer), complained to parliament of Exton. The book, said they, "

comprised all the good articles pertaining to the good government of the City," which Exton and all the aldermen had sworn to maintain for ever, and now he and his accomplices had burnt it without consent of the commons, to the annihilation of many good liberties, franchises, and customs of the City.(674) The book had already been subjected to revision in June, 1384, when Brembre was mayor;(675) it was now utterly destroyed.

(M359)

In 1387 efforts were again made to secure Northampton's release, and this time with success. On the 17th April Exton reported to the Common Council that Lord Zouche was actually engaged in canva.s.sing the king for the release of Northampton and his allies. The Council thereupon unanimously resolved to send a letter to Lord Zouche, on behalf of the entire commonalty of the City, praying him to desist from his suit, and a.s.suring him of their loyalty to the king even unto death.(676) It also resolved to send a deputation on horseback to the king, who was at "Esthamstede," to ask his favour for the City, and to beg of him not to annul the charters which he had already given to the citizens, more especially as touching the release of the prisoners in question.

(M360)

On the 4th May the Recorder, William Cheyne, reported to the Common Council a.s.sembled in the upper chamber of the Guildhall the result of the interview with the king. The deputation had been received most graciously, and the mayor had been particularly successful in his speech, setting forth the dangers that would inevitably ensue, both to the king and to the city, if pardon were granted to Northampton and his friends. The king had replied that he would take good precautions for himself before he granted them their liberty;(677) and with this answer the citizens had to be content. The answer was an evasive one, if it be true, as one authority states, that on the 27th April-the day on which the mayor had informed the citizens of the intervention of Lord Zouche-Northampton had received his pardon and been restored to his property.(678) His friends remained still unsatisfied, and plagued the king for more favourable terms to such a degree that Richard ordered (7 Oct.) proclamation to be made in the city against any further entreaties being made to him on the subject.(679)

(M361)

Two days before the order for this proclamation, the king was informed by letter of the nature of a fresh oath of allegiance(680) that had been taken by the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city. He was furthermore exhorted to give credence to what Nicholas Brembre might inform him as to the state and government of the city, since there was no one better informed than Brembre on the subject.

(M362)

To this the king sent a gracious reply.(681) He had learnt with much pleasure from Nicholas Brembre of the allegiance of the citizens, which he trusted would continue, as he would soon have good reason for paying a visit to the city in person. He had heard that the new sheriffs were good and trusty men, and he expressed a hope that at the approaching election of a mayor they would choose one of whom he could approve, otherwise he would decline to receive the mayor-elect at his presentation. He not only forbade any further entreaties to be made to him touching Northampton, More and Northbury, but commissioned enquiry to be made as to their property in the city. He was especially gratified to learn that, in accordance with his request, they had appointed Thomas Usk (the chief witness against Northampton) to the office of under-sheriff, and promised that such appointment should not be drawn into precedent. The citizens were not slow to take the hint about the election of a new mayor, and Exton was continued in office.(682)

(M363)

Great discontent had arisen meanwhile in the country at the lavish expenditure of the king, without any apparent result in victories abroad, such as had been gained in the glorious days of his predecessor. A cry for reform and retrenchment was raised, and found a champion in the person of the Duke of Gloucester, the youngest of the king's uncles. At his instigation, the parliament which a.s.sembled on the 1st October, 1386, demanded the dismissal of the king's ministers, and read him a lesson on const.i.tutional government which ended in a threat of deposition unless the king should mend his ways. Richard was at the time only twenty-one years of age. In the impetuosity of his youth he is recorded as having contemplated a dastardly attempt upon the life of his uncle, whom he had grown to hate as the cause of all his difficulties. A plan was laid, which is said to have received Brembre's approbation, for beguiling the duke into the city by an invitation to supper, and then and there making away with him, but the duke was forewarned. The chronicler who records Brembre's complicity in this nefarious design against Gloucester's life also relates that Exton, who was mayor, refused to have anything to do with it.(683)

(M364) (M365) (M366)

Before the end of the session, parliament had appointed a commission, with Gloucester at its head, to regulate the government of the country and the king's household. This very naturally excited the wrath of the hot-headed king, who immediately set to work to form a party in opposition to the duke. In August of the next year (1387) he obtained a declaration from five of the justices to the effect that the commission was illegal. On the 28th October he sent the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Suffolk into the city to learn whether he could depend upon the support of the citizens. The answer could not have been regarded as unfavourable, for, on the 10th November, the king paid a personal visit to the city and was received with great ceremony.(684) On the following day (11 Nov.) orders were given to the aldermen of the City to a.s.semble the men of their several wards, to see that they were suitably armed according to their rank and estate, and to make a return of the same in due course.(685)

(M367)

On the 14th Gloucester formally charged the king's five counsellors-the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, Chief Justice Tressilian and Nicholas Brembre, "the false London knight," with treason.(686) The king retaliated by causing proclamation to be made to the effect that he had taken these same individuals under his own protection, and that no one should harm them save at his own peril. This protection was extended also to the king's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Earls of Arundel and Warwick, the impeaching parties.

(M368)

On the 28th the mayor and aldermen were summoned to proceed to Windsor forthwith, to consult upon certain matters very weighty (_certeines treschargeauntes matirs_).(687) The City's archives contain no record of what took place at the interview, but it appears that the object of the conference was to ascertain how many men-at-arms the city would be likely to furnish the king at a crisis. The answer given by the mayor was not encouraging; the citizens were merchants and craftsmen, and not soldiers, save for the defence of the city itself; and the mayor straightway asked the king's permission to resign his office.(688)

(M369) (M370)

Finding that he could not rely on any a.s.sistance from the Londoners-whom Walsingham describes as fickle as a reed, siding at one time with the lords and at another time with the king(689)-Richard was driven to temporise. He had already promised that in the next parliament his unfortunate advisers should be called to account, but long before parliament met (3 Feb., 1388), four out of the five culprits had made good their escape-at least for a time. Brembre alone was taken.(690) He had antic.i.p.ated the blow by making over all his property at home and abroad to certain parties by deed, dated the 15th October, 1387, no doubt, upon a secret trust.(691)

(M371)

Notwithstanding the evident coolness of the citizens towards him, Richard determined to leave Windsor and spend Christmas at the Tower. He would be safer there, and less subject to the dominating influence of the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Arundel, Nottingham, Warwick and Derby, who objected to his shaking off the fetters of the commission. As soon as his intention was known, these five lords-who, from having been a.s.sociated in appealing against Richard's counsellors, were styled "appellant"-hastened to London, and drawing up their forces outside the city's walls, demanded admittance. After some little hesitation, the mayor determined to admit them, defending his action to the king by declaring that they were his true liege men and friends of the realm.(692)

(M372)

On the 18th January, 1388, the lords appeared at the Guildhall, accompanied by the Archbishop, the Bishops of Ely, Hereford, Exeter, and others. The Archbishop absolved the citizens of their oaths of allegiance, whilst the Bishop of Ely, the lord treasurer, deprecated any remarks made to the disparagement of the lords. The lords and the bishops had been indicted on an iniquitous charge, and there were some among the citizens who had been similarly indicted, but whether justly or unjustly he (the bishop) could not say. That would be decided by parliament. In the meantime they were ready to a.s.sist in settling the trade disputes in the city, for it was absurd for one body of the citizens to attempt to exterminate another. The citizens, however, showed no desire to accept the proffered mediation.(693)

(M373)

When parliament met (3 Feb.), a formidable indictment of thirty-nine charges was laid against the king's late advisers, of whom Brembre alone appeared. On the 17th February, he was brought up by the constable of the Tower, and was called on to answer off-hand the several charges of treason alleged against him. He prayed for time to take counsel's advice. This being refused, he claimed to support his cause by wager of battle, and immediately the whole company of lords, knights, esquires, and commons, flung down their gages so thick, we are told, that they "seemed like snow on a winter's day."(694) But the lords declared that wager by battle did not lie in such a case. When the trial was resumed on the following day, so much opposition arose between the king, who spoke strongly in Brembre's favour, and the lords, that it was decided to leave the question of the prisoner's guilt or innocence to a commission of lords, who, to the surprise and annoyance of the majority of the n.o.bles, brought in a verdict of not guilty. Brembre was not to be allowed thus to escape. The lords sent for two representatives of the various crafts of the city to depose as to Brembre's guilt; but even so, the lords failed to get any definite verdict. At last they sent for the mayor, recorder, and some of the aldermen (_seniores_) to learn what they had to say about the accused.

(M374)

One would have thought that with Nicholas Exton, his old friend and ally, to speak up for him, Brembre's life would now at least be saved, even if he were not altogether acquitted. It was not so, however. The mayor and aldermen were asked as to their _opinion_ (not as to their knowledge), whether Brembre was cognisant of certain matters, and they gave it as their _opinion_ that Brembre was more likely to have been cognisant of them than not. Turning then to the Recorder, the lords asked him how stood the law in such a case? To which he replied, that a man who knew such things as were laid to Brembre's charge, and knowing them failed to reveal them, deserved death. On such evidence as this, Brembre was convicted on the 20th February, and condemned to be executed.(695) He was drawn on a hurdle through the city to Tyburn, showing himself very penitent and earnestly desiring all persons to pray for him. At the last moment he confessed that his conduct towards Northampton had been vile and wicked.

Whilst craving pardon of Northampton's son "he was suddenly turned off, and the executioner cutting his throat, he died."(696)

(M375)

If we are to believe all that Walsingham records of Brembre, the character and conduct of the city alderman and ex-mayor was bad indeed. Besides conniving at the plot laid against Gloucester's life, which involved the grossest breach of hospitality, he is recorded as having lain in wait with an armed force at the Mews near Charing Cross, to intercept and ma.s.sacre the lords on their way to Westminster, to effect an arrangement with the king, as well as having entertained the idea of cutting the throats of a number of his fellow-citizens, and placing himself at the head of the government of the city, the name of which he proposed changing to that of "Little Troy."(697)

(M376)

Of Brembre's a.s.sociates, Tressilian was captured during the trial, torn from the Sanctuary at Westminster, and hanged on the 19th. Another to share the same fate was Thomas Uske, who had been one of the chief witnesses against Northampton. He was sentenced to death by parliament on the 4th March, and died a.s.severating to the last that he had done Northampton no injury, but that every word he had deposed against him the year before was absolutely true.(698)

(M377)

The lords appellant, who were now complete masters of the situation, insisted upon the proceedings of this "merciless" parliament, as its opponents called it, being ratified by oath administered to prelates, knights, and n.o.bles of the realm, as well as to the mayor, aldermen, and chief burgesses of every town. On the 4th June-the day parliament rose-a writ was issued in Richard's name, enjoining the administration of this oath to those aldermen and citizens of London who had not been present in parliament when the oath was administered there.(699)

(M378)

In the meantime the continued jealousy existing among the city guilds-the Mercers, Goldsmiths, Drapers, and others, objecting to Fishmongers and Vintners taking any part in the government of the city on the ground that they were victuallers, and as such forbidden by an ordinance pa.s.sed when Northampton was mayor to hold any munic.i.p.al office(700)-had led parliament (14 May) to proclaim free trade throughout the kingdom.(701) A party in the city tried to get parliament to remove Exton from the mayoralty on the ground of his having connived at the curtailment of the City's liberties and franchises. The attempt, however, failed, and he remained in office until succeeded by Nicholas Twyford (Oct., 1388).(702) Although Twyford belonged to the party of Northampton as distinguished from that of Brembre and Exton, his election raised little or no opposition, such as had been antic.i.p.ated. When he went out of office in October, 1389, however, party strife in the city again showed itself. The majority of the citizens voted William Venour, a grocer, into the mayoralty, but the choice was strongly opposed by the Goldsmiths, the Mercers, and the Drapers, who ran another candidate, one of their own body, Adam Bamme, a goldsmith.(703)

(M379)