London and the Kingdom Volume I Part 22

On the 14th January, 1460, the king issued a commission to the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs for collecting men-at-arms and archers to resist the _late_ Duke of York and the _late_ Earls of March, Warwick, Salisbury and Rutland.(881) Similar commissions were addressed to every township,(882) and did much harm to the royal cause, now tottering to its fall, as being unconst.i.tutional. They formed the subject of one of the set of articles of complaint drawn up by the Earls of March, Warwick and Salisbury, and addressed by them, on behalf of themselves and the Duke of York, to the archbishop and the commons of England.(883) Such commissions the lords declared to be an imposition which, if continued, would be "the heaviest charge and worst example that ever grew in England." The city authorities appear to have rested their opposition to the king's commission, not so much on the grounds that they were unwilling to raise a force for his a.s.sistance, as that a demand for military aid in such a form might derogate from the city's franchise and liberties. A deputation, consisting of two aldermen, Thomas Urswyk, the Recorder, and one of the under-sheriffs, was sent to Northampton to wait upon the king and council and to explain the views of the citizens in that respect. The interview was of a satisfactory character; and the deputation returned bearing a gracious letter from the king declaring that the City's franchise and liberties should in no way be prejudiced by the commission.(884)

(M474)

The citizens deemed it time to look to their own safety, and place their city into a better posture of defence. The master and wardens of the livery companies were exhorted (14 Feb., 1460), on account of the disturbed state of the kingdom, to raise contributions towards the purchase of accoutrements for the safeguard of the city.(885) The king himself was shortly coming into the city, and measures were taken (28 Feb.) for placing a proper guard over the several gates.(886) On the 11th May the masters and wardens were summoned, on behalf of the king, to appear before the mayor and aldermen at the Guildhall, to hear a royal proclamation read touching the preservation of the king's peace.(887)

(M475)

The Yorkist Earls of Salisbury, Warwick and March, encouraged by the reports of the state of affairs in England, at length made up their minds to return and strike a blow for the recovery of their estates, which had become forfeited to the king. They set sail from Calais (26 June), and landing at Sandwich made their way without opposition through Kent to London.

(M476)

On the 27th June, by which time news of their arrival must have reached the city, a Common Council was held, when the commoners who were present solemnly promised to stand by the mayor and aldermen in safe-guarding the city, and resist with all their might the rebels against the lord the king who were about to enter the city contrary to the king's orders. The civic companies somewhat tardily gave their adhesion to the royal cause, and agreed to defend the city. The gates were ordered to be manned, and no one was to be allowed to enter without first saying who and what he was.

Strict enquiry was to be made as to the character of strangers residing within each of their wards.(888) On the following day the Common Council met again and gave orders that the drawbridge of London Bridge should be always kept down, so that victuallers and others might have ready access to the City, but the gateway on the drawbridge was to be kept closed, whilst _le wikett_ was to be constantly open. A strict watch was to be kept on the new tower(889) above the bridge by men-at-arms stationed there, who should also be ready to let down _le port Colyce_ when occasion required.(890)

(M477)

A deputation, moreover, was appointed to set out to meet the Earls of March and Warwick on their way to Northampton, for the purpose of inducing them, if possible, to turn aside and not approach the city. The members were instructed to inform the lords of the king's commands to the citizens to hold the city for him, and to oppose the lords' entry under heavy penalty. This instruction to the deputation was given, we are told, with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Norwich, Ely and Exeter, and of the Prior of St. John's, Clerkenwell. The mayor, aldermen and commonalty agreed to stand by any terms which the deputation might be compelled to make. They had not taken this step without first consulting the Lords Scales and Hungerford, and Sir Edmund Hampden, who held the Tower of London for King Henry. The bridge gate was ordered to be closed between nine and ten o'clock on the night of the 28th, and to remain closed till the morning. Even the portcullis was to be kept down if necessary, whilst the mayor and sheriffs, with a certain number of armed men, patrolled the city, and the aldermen kept watch in their several wards.(891) Notwithstanding the next day being Sunday, the critical state of affairs necessitated a meeting of the Common Council. It was then agreed that if any messenger should arrive from Warwick, no communication should be held with him. Special watches were appointed for the bridge and for Billingsgate by night and day, and so anxious were the authorities to avail themselves of the service of every abled citizen on that Sunday, that no one was allowed to attend Divine Service at St. Paul's.(892)

(M478)

Up to this point the citizens had shown themselves loyal to Henry. They now began to waver. Early in the morning of the 30th June the mayor and aldermen appear to have changed their minds. The earls had sent them a letter and they resolved to receive it. The contents of this letter are not recorded. On the following day (1 July) another communication from the earls was received. Here again we are left in the dark as to its purport-the City's journals at this period being very imperfect,-we only know that they declined to accede to the request to keep at a distance from London, for the very next day (2 July) they were admitted into the city.(893)

(M479)

The city was thus lost to the king; but the Tower still held out, and no amount of eloquence on the part of certain doctors of divinity, whom the Common Council had appointed to try and arrange matters so as to avoid bloodshed, would induce Lord Scales and his companions to surrender it, although the garrison was hard pressed for victuals.(894) Nothing was left but to starve them out, and this the Earl of Salisbury proceeded to do, with the aid of the citizens and the boatmen on the river, by whom the Tower was strictly invested by land and water. The Common Council appear to have felt some qualms of conscience in joining in this proceeding, for they caused it to be recorded-as if by way of excuse for their action-that "there seemed to be no other way of preserving the city."(895) A resolution, moreover, that each alderman should subscribe the sum of 5 towards raising a force to intercept victuals on their way to the Tower was rescinded.(896)

(M480) (M481)

By the 10th July matters had become so serious with the beleaguered garrison, that a letter was sent to the Common Council, signed by the Earl of Kendal, Lord Scales, Lord Hungerford, Lord Lovell and Sir Edmund Hampden, asking why war was thus being made upon them. To this the Council replied that the lords had brought it upon themselves by firing on the citizens in the first instance, and taking provisions from them without payment.(897) At last the garrison could hold out no longer, and the Tower was surrendered (19th July). Lord Scales endeavoured to take sanctuary at Westminster, but was seized by river boatmen and barbarously murdered.(898)

(M482)

Meanwhile the Duke of York had managed to raise a sum of money in the city;(899) the battle of Northampton had been won and lost (10th July), and Henry had been brought a prisoner to London (16th July). On the same day that the king arrived in London, the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the City entered into an agreement, under the Common Seal, to abide by any arrangement made between the Earl of Salisbury and the beleaguered lords in the Tower for the surrender of that stronghold.(900)

(M483)

On the 21st July the king, or the Earl of Warwick, in his name, attempted to restore quiet in the city by promising that those who had offended against the king's highness and the common weal of the realm, and had been committed to the Tower, should forthwith receive ample justice. In the meantime all conventicles, a.s.semblies or congregations in breach of the peace were strictly forbidden, and every man was exhorted to repair to his own house, and wait upon his lord or master in whose service he might happen to be.(901)

(M484) (M485) (M486)

In October the Duke of York attended parliament and boldly a.s.serted his right to the throne. After hearing arguments for and against his claim, parliament arrived at a compromise by which the reversion of the crown was settled on the duke, and to this the king himself was forced to give his a.s.sent.(902) It was otherwise with the proud and defiant Queen Margaret.

She was determined to acquiesce in no such arrangement. Whilst she was collecting a force in the north, wherewith to strike one blow for the crown of which her son appeared likely to be robbed, the mayor and aldermen held an extraordinary meeting of the wardens of the livery companies. The king wished to be a.s.sured of the temper of the citizens.

Would they as a body support him and his council, protect his royal person, and defend the city against those who were raising disturbances in divers parts of the realm? To each and all of these questions the wardens are recorded as having given satisfactory replies, and it was then and there agreed that each alderman should make enquiry as to the number of strangers residing in his ward, and the reasons for their being in the city. Watch was to be kept by night in every ward, a lantern hung outside every dwelling-house, and the city's gates were to be closed every night and guarded by men-at-arms.(903) Although these measures were avowedly taken on behalf of King Henry, they were, in reality, so many precautions for securing the government in the hands of his rival the Duke of York.

(M487)

The struggle which hitherto had been between two unequal sections of the n.o.bility, each avowing its loyalty to the king, now became a struggle between the two rival Houses of Lancaster and York. Richard, Duke of York, did not live to enjoy the crown, his right to the reversion of which had recently been acknowledged by parliament. Just as the year was drawing to a close he met his death at Wakefield in the first clash with the House of Lancaster, and his head in mockery was set up on one of the city's gates from which he derived his ducal t.i.tle.

"Off with his head, and set it on York's gates; So York may overlook the town of York."

(M488)

When Henry was once restored to liberty and to his queen, after the second battle of St. Albans (17 Feb., 1461), York's son, Edward, Earl of March, who became by his father's death heir to the crown, was immediately proclaimed traitor in the city.(904) The queen wished for victuals to be sent from the city to her forces at St. Albans, but the carts were seized before they left the city by a mob which refused to let them go in spite of the mayor's entreaties and threats. Margaret's army consisted for the most part of rude northern followers who threatened to sack the city if once allowed within its walls, and the majority of the inhabitants were unwilling to supply the queen with provisions until she had removed her half-disciplined force to a distance from London. With a civilized army at her back it might have been possible for Margaret to have gained a footing in the city.(905) As matters stood, she deemed it best to accede to the request thus made to her, and to draw off her army.

(M489)

It was a fatal mistake, for it gave time for Edward and Warwick to join forces and march on London. The civic authorities, finding how hopeless it was to place further dependence upon Henry, and desiring above all things a stronger government than they could look for under the king, now surrendered the city to his opponents. They had not forsaken the king-he had forsaken them. They would no more of him.

"He that had Londyn for sake, Wolde no more to hem take."(906)

(M490)

On the 1st March the chancellor called a general a.s.sembly of the citizens at Clerkenwell, and explained to them the t.i.tle by which Edward, Duke of York, laid claim to the crown.(907) His t.i.tle was thereupon acknowledged with universal applause, and on the 4th he proceeded to Westminster Palace, accompanied by many of the n.o.bility and commons of the realm,(908) and was there proclaimed king by the name of Edward IV.

CHAPTER XII.

(M491)

The new king made himself very popular with the citizens. He was not less a favourite with them because he joined their ranks and became a trader like themselves, or because he took a wife from among his own subjects and made her a sharer of his crown. At the coronations, both of Edward and his queen, which took place after an interval of three years, the City was fully represented, and its claim to services at the king's coronation banquet duly acknowledged.(909) At the latter ceremony no less than four citizens, among them being Ralph Josselyn, the mayor, were created Knights of the Bath.(910) The citizens had previously shown their respect to Elizabeth Woodville by riding forth to meet her and escorting her to the Tower on her first arrival to London, and by presenting her with a gift of 1,000 marks or 750.(911)

(M492)

If the young and handsome prince who now ascended the throne occasionally carried his familiarity with the wives of city burgesses beyond the limits of strict propriety, much could be forgotten and forgiven for the readiness he showed to confirm and enlarge the City's privileges and to foster the trade of the country. Before he had been on the throne many months he granted the citizens, by charter, the right of package and scavage, as well as the office of gauger of wines.(912)

(M493)

In the following March (1462) he confirmed the charter granted to the City by Henry IV, whereby the citizens obtained the right of taking toll and custom at Billingsgate, Smithfield and elsewhere, as well as the right of _tronage_ or weighing wool at the Tron.(913)

(M494)

In August, 1462 Calais was again in danger, and the king wanted money. The Earl of Worcester and others of the council were sent into the city to ask for a loan of 3,400. After considering the matter, the civic authorities agreed to lend him 1,000. The money was to be raised by a.s.sessment on the wards, but Dowgate ward being at the time very poor, was not to be pressed.(914) In the following October the City again came to the king's a.s.sistance with a further loan of 2,000 marks,(915) and on the 9th November the City obtained (in return, shall we say?) a charter confirming its jurisdiction over the Borough of Southwark,(916) originally granted by Edward III. Again, the coincidence of a charter granted by the king to the City, with a loan or gift from the City to the king, is remarkable.

(M495)

When Edward returned in February, 1463, from the North, where he had succeeded with the a.s.sistance afforded him by the Londoners in re-capturing most of the castles which the restless Margaret had taken, the City resolved to give him a befitting reception. Preparations were made for the mayor, aldermen and commons to ride forth to meet him in their finest liveries, but the king having expressed his intention of coming from Shene to the city by water, the citizens went to meet him in their barges, with all the pomp and ceremony of a Lord Mayor's day.(917)

(M496)

Edward now gave himself up to a life of luxury and pleasure. In 1464 he married the young widow of Sir John Grey, better known by her maiden name of Elizabeth Woodville. His marriage to her gave offence to the n.o.bility, more especially to the Earl of Warwick, who was planning at the time a match with France or Burgundy, and to whom the news of the marriage with one so beneath the king in point of dignity came as an unpleasant surprise. The earl was still more offended when he learnt that the young king had secretly effected a marriage treaty between his sister Margaret (whom Warwick had destined for one of the French princes) and the Duke of Burgundy. These matrimonial alliances, combined with the inordinate favour Edward displayed towards his wife's family, led to an estrangement between the king and his powerful subject.

(M497)