Growth and PopulationMuch has been written upon the population of medieval London, but little certainty has resulted therefrom. We know the size of London at different periods and are able to guess to some extent as to the number of its inhabitants, but most of theMedieval Population.figures which have come down to us are mere guesses. The results of the poll-tax have often been considered as trustworthy substitutes for population returns, but Professor Oman has shown that little trust can be placed in these results. As an instance he states that the commissioners of the poll-tax reported that there were only two-thirds as many contributaries in 1381 as in 1377. The adult population of the realm had ostensibly fallen from 1,355,201 to 896,481. These figures were monstrous and incredible.10The Bills of Mortality of the 16th and 17th centuries are of more value, and they have been considered and revised by such able statisticians as John Graunt and Sir William Petty. It was not, however, before the 19th century that accurate figures were obtainable. The circuit of the walls of London which were left by the Romans was never afterwards enlarged, and the population did not overflow into the suburbs to any extent until the Tudor period. Population was practically stationary for centuries owing to pestilences and the large proportion of deaths among infants. We have no materials to judge of the number of inhabitants before the Norman Conquest, but we can guess that there were many open spaces within the walls that were afterwards filled up. It is scarcely worth while to guess as to the numbers in Saxon London, but it is possible that in the early period there were about 10,000 inhabitants, growing later to about 20,000. During the latter part of the Saxon period the numbers of the population of the country began to decay; this decay, however, was arrested by the Norman Conquest. The population increased during ten peaceful years of Henry III., and increased slowly until the death of Edward II., and then it began to fall off, and continued to decrease during the period of the Wars of the Roses and of the Barons until the accession of the first Tudor monarch.The same causes that operated to bring about these changes in the whole kingdom were of course also at work in the case of the City of London.One of the earliest statements as to the population of London occurs in a letter of about the year 1199 written to Pope Innocent III. by Peter of Blois, then archdeacon of London, and therefore a man of some authority on the subject. He states that the City contained 120 parish churches and 40,000 inhabitants. These numbers have been very generally accepted as fairly correct, and Dr Creighton11comes to the conclusion after careful consideration that the population of London from the reign of Richard I. to that of Henry VII. varied within a limit of about forty to fifty thousand inhabitants.Dr Creighton points out that the number given by certain chroniclers of the deaths from the early pestilences in London are incredible; such for instance as the statement that forty or fifty thousand bodies were buried in CharterhousePlagues and Mortality.churchyard at the time of the Black Death in 1348-1349. These numbers have been taken as a basis for calculation of population, and one statistician reasoned that if 50,000 were buried in one churchyard 100,000 should represent the whole mortality of London. If this were allowed the population at this time must have been at least 200,000, an impossible amount.Although the mortality caused by the different plagues had a great effect upon the population of the country at large the city soon recovered the losses by reason of the numbers who came to London from outside in hopes of obtaining work. Although there were fluctuations in the numbers at different periods there is evidence to show that on the average the amount of forty to fifty thousand fixed by Dr Creighton for the years between 1189 and 1509 is fairly correct. The medieval period closed with the accession of the Tudor dynasty, and from that time the population of London continued to increase, in spite of attempts by the government to prevent it. One of the first periods of increase was after the dissolution of the religious houses; another period of increase was after the Restoration.A proclamation was issued in 1580 prohibiting the erection within 3 m. of the city gates of any new houses or tenements “where no former house hath been known to have been.” In a subsequent proclamation Queen Elizabeth commanded that only one family should live in one house, that empty houses erected within seven years were not to be let and that unfinished buildings on new foundations were to be pulled down. In spite of these restrictions London continued to grow. James I. and Charles I. were filled with the same fear of the increasing growth of London. In 1630 a similar proclamation to that of 1580 was published. During the greater part of the 18th century there was a serious check to the increase of population, but at the end of the century a considerable increase occurred, and in the middle of the 19th century the enormous annual increase became particularly marked. To return to the 16th century when the Bills of Mortality came into existence.12Mention is made of these bills as early as 1517, but the earliest series nowBills of Mortality.known dates from 1532. Dr Creighton had access to the manuscript returns of burials and christenings for five years from 1578 to 1582 preserved in the library at Hatfield House. The history of the Bills of Mortality which in the early years were intermittent in their publication is of much interest, and Dr Creighton has stated it with great clearness. The Company of Parish Clerks is named in an ordinance of 1581 (of which there is a copy in the Record Office) as the body responsible for the bills, and their duties were then said to be “according to the Order in that behalf heretofore provided.” John Bell, clerk to the company, who wrote an essay during the great plague of 1665, had no records in his office of an earlier date than 1593, and he was not aware that his company had been engaged in registering births and deaths before that year. The fire of 1666 destroyed all the documents of the Parish Clerks Company, and in its hall in Silver Street only printed tables from about the year 1700 are to be found. There is a set of Annual Bills from 1658 (with the exception of the years 1756 to 1764) in the library of the British Museum.13These bills were not analysed and general results obtained from them until 1662, when Captain John Graunt first published his valuableNatural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality. Sir William Petty followed with his important inquiries upon the population (Essay on Political Arithmetic, 1683).It is not worth while to refer to all the wild guesses that were made by various writers, but Dr Creighton shows the absurdity of one of these calculations made in 1554 by Soranzo, the Venetian ambassador for the information of the doge and senators of Venice. He estimates the population to have been 180,000 persons, which Dr Creighton affirms to be nearly three times the number that we obtain by a moderate calculation from the bills of mortality in 1532 and 1535.FollowingPopulation in 16th and 17th centuries.on his calculations from 1509, when the population may be supposed to have been about 50,000, Dr Creighton carries on his numbers to the Restoration in the following table:—1532-153562,4001605224,275156393,2761622272,2071580123,0341634339,8241593-1595152,4781661460,000The numbers for 1661 are those arrived at by Graunt, and they are just about half the population given authoritatively in the first census 1801 (864,845). It therefore took 140 years to double the numbers, while in 1841 the numbers of 1801 were more than doubled.These numbers were arrived at with much care and may be considered as fairly accurate although some other calculations conflict with a few of the figures. The first attempt at a census was in August 1631 when the lord mayor returned the number of mouths in the city of London and Liberties at 130,268, which is only about half the number given above. This is accounted for by the larger area contained in the bills of mortality compared with that containing only the city and its liberties.14Howell’s suggestion that the population of London in 1631 was a million and a half need only be mentioned as a specimen of the wildest of guesses.Petty’s numbers for 1682 are 670,000 and those of Gregory King for 1696, 530,000. The latter are corroborated by those of 1700, which are given as 550,000. Maitland gives the numbers in 1737 as 725,903. with regard to the relative size of18th century.great cities Petty affirms that before the Restoration the people of Paris were more in number than those of London and Dublin, whereas in 1687 the people of London were more than those of Paris and Rome or of Paris and Rouen.It is not necessary to give any further numbers for the population of the 18th century, as that has been already stated to have been almost stationary. This is proved by Gregory King’s figures for 1696 (530,000) when compared with those of the first census for 1801 (864,035). A corroboration is also to be found in the report of the first census for 1801, where a calculation is made of the probable population of the years 1700 and 1750. These are given respectively as 674,350 and 676,250. These figures include (1) the City of London within and (2) without the walls, (3) the City and Liberties of Westminster, (4) the outparishes within the bills of mortality and (5) the parishes not within the bills of mortality. No. 5 is given as 9150 in 1700, and 22,350 in 1750. It is curious to find that already in the 18th century a considerable reduction in the numbers of the city of London is supposed to have taken place, as is seen in the following figures:—1700.1750.City of London within the walls139,30087,000City of London without the walls69,00057,300As the increase in Westminster is not great (130,000 in 1700 and 152,000 in 1750) and there is little difference in the totals it will be seen that the amount is chiefly made up by the increase in the parishes without the bills of mortality. The extraordinary growth of London did not come into existence until about the middle of the 19th century (see § IV. above).GovernmentWe know little of the government of London during the Saxon period, and it is only incidentally that we learn how the Londoner had become possessed of special privileges which he continued to claim with success through many centuries.Saxon Period.One of the chief of these was the claim to a separate voice in the election of the king. The citizens did not dispute the right of election by the kingdom but they held that that election did not necessarily include the choice of London.An instance of this is seen in the election of Edmund Ironside, although the Witan outside London had elected Canute. The remarkable instance of this after the Conquest was the election of Stephen, but William the Conqueror did not feel secure until he had the sanction of the Londoners to his kingship, and his attitude towards London when he hovered about the neighbourhood of the city for a time shows that he was anxious to obtain this sanction freely rather than by compulsion. His hopes and expectations were fulfilled whenthe gates of London were opened to receive him, as already related. Athelstan’s acceptance of the London-made law for the whole kingdom, as pointed out by Mr Gomme, is another instance of the independence of the Londoner. When William the Conqueror granted the first charter to London he addressed the bishop and the portreeve—the bishop as the ecclesiastical governor and the portreeve as the representative of the civil power.The word “port” in the title “portreeve” does not indicate the Port of London as might naturally be supposed, for Stubbs has pointed out that it isportanotportus, and “although used for the city generally, seems to refer to it specially in its character of a Mart or City of Merchants.” The Saxon title of reeve was continued during the Norman period and the shire-reeve or sheriff has continued to our own time. There were originally several distinct reeves, all apparently officers appointed by the king. Some writers have supposed that a succession of portreeves continued in London, but J. H. Round holds that this title disappeared after the Conqueror’s charter. Henry I. granted to the city by charter the right of appointing its own sheriffs; this was a great privilege, which, however, was recalled in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I., to be restored by John in 1199.J. H. Round holds that the office of Justiciar was created by Henry I.’s charter, and as he was the chief authority in the city this somewhat takes off from the value of the privilege of appointing sheriffs.In the 12th century there was a great municipal movement over Europe. Londoners were well informed as to what was going on abroad, and although the rulers were always willing to wait for an opportunity of enlarging their liberties, they remained ready to take advantage of such circumstances as might occur. Their great opportunity occurred while Richard I. was engaged abroad as a crusader.In 1889 a medal was struck to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the mayoralty which according to popular tradition was founded in 1189. With respect to this tradition Round writes (Commune of London, p. 223): “The assumption that the mayoralty of London dates from the accession of Richard I. is an absolute perversion of history,” and he adds that “there is record evidence which completely confirms the remarkable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would King Richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of theCommunain London.”In October 1191 the conflict between John the king’s brother and Longchamp the king’s representative became acute. The latter bitterly offended the Londoners, who, finding that they could turn the scales to either side, named the CommuneThe Commune.as the price of their support of John. A small party of the citizens under Henry of Cornhill remained faithful to the chancellor Longchamp, but at a meeting held at St Paul’s on the 8th of October, the barons welcomed the archbishop of Rouen as chief justiciar (he having produced the king’s sign manual appointing a new commission), and they saluted John as regent. Stubbs, in his introduction to the Chronicle of Roger de Hoveden, writes: “This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the Justiciar and the Barons swore to maintain theCommunaof London; the oath of fealty to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers with the express understanding that should the king die without issue they would receive John as his successor.” Referring to this important event Mr Round writes: “The excited citizens, who had poured out overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th of October at the well-known sound of the great bell swinging out from its campanile in St Paul’s Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the ‘Commune’ like a French king or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of her own.”Little is known as to what the Commune then established really was. Round’s remarkable discovery among the manuscripts of the British Museum of the Oath of the Commune proves for the first time that London in 1193 possessed a fullyThe Mayor and Échevins.developed “Commune” of the continental pattern. A striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new privileges extended to the city of London were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and Mr Round shows that there is conclusive proof of the assertion that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. This MS. gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the aldermen. From this we learn that the government of the city was in the hands of a mayor and twelve échevins (skivini); both these names being French, seem for a time to have excluded the Saxon aldermen.Twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document, preserved in the same volume as the oath, thatalii probi homineswere associated with the mayor and échevins to form a body of twenty-four (that is, twelveskiviniand an equal number of councillors). Round holds that the Court of Skivini andalii probi homines, of which at present we know nothing further than what is contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the Common Council. We must not suppose that when the city of London obtained the privilege of appointing a mayor, and a citizen could boast in 1194 that “come what may the Londoners shall have no king but their mayor,” that the king did not occasionally exert his power in suspending the liberties of the city. There were really constant disagreements, and sometimes the king degraded the mayor and appointed a custos or warden in his place. Several instances of this are recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries. It is very important to bear in mind that the mayors of London besides holding a very onerous position were mostly men of great distinction. They often held rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of the country. They were mostly representatives of the landed interests as well as merchant princes.There is no definite information as to when the mayor first received the title of lord. A claim has been set up for Thomas Legge, mayor for the second time in 1354, that he was the first lord mayor, but there is positively no authority whatever for this claim, although it is boldly stated that he was created lord mayor by Edward III. in this year. Apparently the title was occasionally used, and the use gradually grew into a prescriptive right. There is no evidence of any grant, but after 1540 the title had become general.No record has been found of the date when the aldermen became the official advisers of the mayor. The various wards were each presided over by an alderman from an early period, but we cannot fix the time when they were united as a courtAldermen.of aldermen. Stubbs writes: “The governing body of London in the 13th century was composed of the mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs.”As we do not find any further evidence than the oath of the Commune alluded to of the existence of “échevins” in London, it is possible that aldermen were elected on the mayor’s council under this title. This, however, is not the opinion of Mr Round, who, as before stated, is inclined to believe that the body of échevins became in course of time the Court of Common Council. The aldermen are not mentioned as the colleagues of the mayor until the very end of the 13th century, except in the case of Fitz-Ailwin’s Assize of 1189, and this, of course, related specially to the duties of aldermen as heads of the wards of the city.In March 1298-1299 letters were sent from “the Mayor and Commune of the City of London” to the municipalities of Bruges, Caen and Cambray. Although the official form of “The Mayor and Commune” was continued until the end of the 13th century, and it was not until early in the 14th century that the form “Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council” came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the aldermen and common council before that time were acting with the mayor as governors of the city. In 1377 it was ordered that aldermen could be elected annually, but in 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an alderman to be re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year of office without any interval.In 1394 the Ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the king (Richard II.). Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen, and in theLiber Albuswe are told that “it is a matter of experience that ever since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was observed.” When the poll-tax of 1379 was imposed the mayor was assessed as an earl and the aldermen as barons.The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period, and these reeves were appointed by the king. The prefix of the various kinds of reeves made but little difference in the duties of the office, although the area of these dutiesSheriffs.might be different. There was slight difference between the office of sheriff and that of portreeve, which latter does not appear to have survived the Conquest.After the establishment of the Commune and the appointment of a mayor the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became what they are styled inLiber Albus“the Eyes of the Mayor.” When Middlesex was in farm to London the two sheriffs were equally sheriffs of London and Middlesex. There is only one instance in the city records of a sheriff of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and Walter le Blond are described as sheriffs of London, and Gerin as sheriff of Middlesex. By the Local Government Act of 1888 the citizens of London were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the county of Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters.In 1383 it was ordained and agreed “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.”The two courts—that of aldermen and that of the common council—were probably formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have no definite information on the subject. The number of members of the common council varied greatlyCommon Council.at different times, but the right to determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward III. (1341) which enables the city to amend customs and usages which have become hard.There have also been many changes in the mode of election. The common council were chosen by the wards until 1351, when the appointments were made by certain companies. In 1376 an ordinance was made by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole commons, to the effect that the companies should select menwith whom they were content, and none other should come to the elections of mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four and the least two. Forty-seven companies nominated 156 members. In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained again by the livery companies in 1467.The Common Hall was the successor of the folkmote, the meetings of which were originally held in the open air at the east end of St Paul’s and afterwards in the Guildhall. These general assemblies of the citizens are described in the old cityCommon Hall.records asimmensa communitasorimmensa multitudocivium. The elections in Common Hall were by the whole body of citizens until Edward I.’s reign, citizens were then specially summoned to Common Hall by the mayor. In Edward IV.’s reign the elections of mayor, sheriffs and other officers and members of parliament were transferred to liverymen. Various alterations were subsequently made and now the qualification of electors at the election of the corporate offices of lord mayor, sheriffs, chamberlain and minor offices in Common Hall is that of being a liveryman of a livery company and an enrolled freeman of London. The election of aldermen and common councilmen takes place in the wardmotes.The recorder, the chief official, is appointed for life. He was formerly appointed by the city, but since the Local Government Act of 1888 he is nominated by the city and approved byOfficials of the city.the lord chancellor. The common sergeant was formerly appointed by the city, but since 1888 by the lord chancellor. The town clerk is appointed by the city and re-elected annually.The chamberlain or comptroller of the king’s chamber is appointed by the livery. He was originally a king’s officer and the office was probably instituted soon after the Conquest. The remembrancer is appointed by the common council.The common hunt, an office abolished in 1807, was filled by John Courtenay in 1417. The sword-bearer is noticed in theLiber Albus(1419) and the first record of an appointment is dated 1426.Few fundamental alterations have been made in the constitution of the city, but in the reign of Charles II. the most arbitrary proceedings were taken against its liberties. The king and his brother had long entertained designs against the city,Later history of the corporation.and for the purpose of crushing them two pretexts were set up—(1) that a new rate of market tolls had been levied by virtue of an act of common council, and (2) that a petition to the king, in which it was alleged that by the prorogation of parliament public justice had been interrupted, had been printed by order of the Court of Common Council. Charles directed a writquo warrantoagainst the corporation of London in 1683, and the Court of King’s Bench declared its charter forfeited. Soon afterwards all the obnoxious aldermen were displaced and others appointed in their room by royal commission. When James II. found himself in danger from the landing of the Prince of Orange he sent for the lord mayor and aldermen and informed them of his determination to restore the city charter and privileges, but he had no time to do anything before his flight. The Convention which was summoned to meet on the 22nd of January 1689 was converted by a formal act into a true parliament (February 23). One of the first motions put to the House was that a special Committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom “and particularly of the City of London.” The motion was lost but the House resolved to bring in a bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten years later (March 5) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the City of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee’s opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House and on the 16th of March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th of May 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.15When the Act for the reform of Municipal Corporations was passed in 1835 London was specially excepted from its provisions. When the Metropolitan Board of Works was formed by the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 the city was affected to a certain extent, but by the Local Government Act of 1888 which founded the London County Council the right of appointing a sheriff for Middlesex was taken away from the city of London.When the county of Middlesex was dissociated from the city of London one portion was joined to the administrative county of London, and the other to the county of Middlesex.The lord mayor of London has certain very remarkable privileges which have been religiously guarded and must be of great antiquity.Privileges of the lord mayor.It is only necessary to mention these here, but each of the privileges requires an exhaustive examination as to its origin. They all prove the remarkable position of Old London, and mark it off from all other cities of modern Europe. Shortly stated the privileges are four:1. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.2. The mayor’s position in the city, where he is second only to the king.3. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign.4. His position of butler at the coronation banquets.The last may be considered in abeyance as there has not been any coronation banquet since that of George IV. In the case of the coronation of King Edward VII. the claim was excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims under the royal proclamation. The terms of the judgment on a further claim are as follows: “The Court considers and adjudges that the lord mayor has by usage a right, subject to His Majesty’s pleasure, to attend the Abbey during the coronation and bear the crystal mace.”Bibliography.—The earliest description of London is that written by the monk Fitzstephen in 1174 as an introduction to his life of Archbishop Thomas à Becket. This was first printed by Stow in his Survey. It was reprinted by Strype in his editions of Stow; by Hearne in his edition of Leland’sItinerary(vol. 8), by Samuel Pegge in 1772, and elsewhere. The first history is contained inA Survey of Londonby John Stow (1598, 1603). The author died in 1605, and his work was continued by Anthony Munday and others (1618, 1633) and in the next century by John Strype (1720, 1754-1755). Stow’s original work was reprinted by W. J. Thoms in 1842 and a monumental edition has been published by C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1908).The following are the most important of subsequent histories arranged in order of publication; James Howell,Londinopolis(1657); W. Stow,Remarks on London and Westminster(1722); Robert Seymour (John Mottley),Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster(1734, another edition 1753); William Maitland,History of London(1739, other editions 1756, 1760, 1769, continued by John Entick 1775); John Entick,A New and Accurate History of London, Westminster, Southwark(1766); The City Remembrancer,Narratives of the Plague 1665, Fire 1666 and Great Storm 1703(1769);A New and Compleat History and Survey, by a Society of Gentlemen (1770, revised by H. Chamberlain, folio revised by W. Thornton 1784); J. Noorthouck,A New History(1773); Walter Harrison,A New and Universal History(1775); J. P. Malcolm,Londinium Redivivum or an Ancient History and Modern Description of London(1803); David Hughson (E. Pugh),London(1805-1809); B. Lambert,History and Survey of London(1806); Henry Hunter,History of London(1811); J. W. Abbott,History of London(1821); Thomas Allen,History and Antiquities of London(1827-1829, continued by Thomas Wright 1839); William Smith,A New History of London(1833); Charles Mackay,A History of London(1838);The History of London, illustrated by W. G. Fearnside (1838); George Grant,A Comprehensive History of London(Dublin, 1849); John Timbs,Curiosities of London(1855, later editions 1855, 1868, 1875, 1876);Old London Papers, Archaeological Institute(1867); W. J. Loftie,A History of London(1883); W. J. Loftie,Historic Towns(London, 1887); Claude de la Roche Francis,London, Historic and Social(Philadelphia, 1902); Sir Walter Besant,The Survey of London(1902-1908)—Early London, Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and Norman(1908);Medieval London, vol. 1,Historical and Social(1906), vol. 2,Ecclesiastical(1906);London in the Time of the Tudors(1904);London in the Time of the Stuarts(1903);London in the Eighteenth Century(1902); H. B. Wheatley,The Story of London[Medieval Towns] (London, 1904).The following are some of the Chronicles of London which have been printed, arranged in order of publication: R. Grafton,Chronicle 1189-1558(1809); R. Arnold,London Chronicle(1811);A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483 written in the Fifteenth Century(1827);William Gregory’s Chronicle of London, 1189-1469(1876);Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, edited by James Gairdner (Camden Society, 1876);Chronicles of London[1200-1516], edited by C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905).Many books have been published on the government of London, of which the following is a selection:City Law(1647, 1658);Lex Londinensis or the City Law(1680); W. Bohun,Privilegia Londini(1723); Giles Jacob,City Liberties(1733);Laws and Customs, Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City of London(1765); David Hughson,Epitome of the Privileges of London(1816); George Norton,Commentaries on the History, Constitution and Chartered Franchises of the City of London(1829, 3rd ed. 1869);Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis, edited by H. T. Riley—vol. 1,Liber Albus(1419), vol. 2,Liber Custumarum(1859);Liber Albus: the White Book of the City of London, translated by H. T. Riley (1861); H. T. Riley,Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries(1868);De Antiquis Legibus Liber. Curante Thoma Stapleton(Camden Society, 1846);Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London 1188-1274, translated from theLiber de Antiquis Legibusby H. T. Riley.French Chronicle of London1259-1343 (1863);Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia 1579-1664(1888);Calendar of Letter-Books[circa 1275-1399] preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of London at the Guildhall, edited by Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L. (1899-1907); W. and R. Woodcock,Lives of Lord Mayors(1846); J. F. B. Firth,Municipal London(1876); Walter Delgray Birch,Historical Charters andConstitutional Documents of the City of London(1884, 1887); J. H. Round,The Commune of London and other Studies(1899); Reginald R. Sharpe,London and the Kingdom; a History derived mainly from the Archives at Guildhall(1894); G. L. Gomme,The Governance of London. Studies on the Place occupied by London in English Institutions(1907); Alfred B. Beaven,The Aldermen of the City of London temp. Henry III.(1908).In connexion with the government of London may be noted works on the following: Inns of Court. William Herbert,Antiquities of the Inns of Court and Chancery(1804); Robert P. Pearce,History(1848). Artillery Company, Anthony Highmore,History of the Hon. Artillery Co. of London to 1802(1804); G. A. Raikes,History of the Hon. Artillery Co.(1878). William Herbert published in 1837History of the Twelve great Livery Companies of London, and in 1869 Thomas Arundell publishedHistorical Reminiscences of the City and its Livery Companies. Since then have appearedThe Livery Companies of the City of London, by W. Carew Hazlitt (1892);The City Companies of London, by P. H. Ditchfield (1904);The Gilds and Companies of London, by George Unwin (1908). Separate histories have been published of the chief London companies.The following are some of the chief works connected with the topography of London: Thomas Pennant,Of London(1790, 1793, 1805, 1813, translated into German 1791); John T. Smith,Antient Topography of London(1815); David Hughson [E. Pugh],Walks through London(1817);London(edited by Charles Knight 1841-1844, reprinted 1851, revised by E. Walford 1875-1877); J. H. Jesse,Literary and Historical Memorials of London(1847); Leigh Hunt,The Town, its Memorable Character and Events(1848, new ed. 1859); Peter Cunningham,A Handbook of London past and present(1849, 2nd ed. 1850, enlarged into a new work in 1891); Henry B. Wheatley,London past and present; Vestiges of Old London, etchingsby J. W. Archer (1851);A New Survey of London(1853); G. W. Thornbury,Haunted London(1865, new ed. by E. Walford 1880);Old and New London, vols. i.-ii. by G. W. Thornbury, vols. iii.-vi. by Edward Walford (1873-1878); Walter Besant,London, Westminster, South London, East London(1891-1902);East London Antiquities, edited by Walter A. Locks (East London Advertiser, 1902); Philip Norman,London vanished and vanishing(1905);Records of the London Topographical Society; Monographs of the Committee for the Survey of the Memorials of Greater London.The following books on the population of London have been published: John Graunt,Natural and Political Observations on the Bills of Mortality(1661, other editions 1662, 1665, 1676);Essay in Political Arithmetick(1683);Five Essays on Political Arithmetick(1687);Several Essays in Political Arithmetick(1699, 1711, 1751, 1755);Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind(1682, 1683, 1686), all by Sir William Petty; Corbyn Morris,Observations on the past Growth and present State of the City of London(1751);Collection of the Yearly Bills of Mortality from 1657 to 1758(ed. by T. Birch, D.D. 1759); Graunt’sObservations, Petty’sAnother Essayand C. Morris’sObservationsare reprinted in this collection. Graunt and Petty’sEssaysare reprinted inEconomic Writingsof Sir W. Petty (1899).
Growth and Population
Much has been written upon the population of medieval London, but little certainty has resulted therefrom. We know the size of London at different periods and are able to guess to some extent as to the number of its inhabitants, but most of theMedieval Population.figures which have come down to us are mere guesses. The results of the poll-tax have often been considered as trustworthy substitutes for population returns, but Professor Oman has shown that little trust can be placed in these results. As an instance he states that the commissioners of the poll-tax reported that there were only two-thirds as many contributaries in 1381 as in 1377. The adult population of the realm had ostensibly fallen from 1,355,201 to 896,481. These figures were monstrous and incredible.10
The Bills of Mortality of the 16th and 17th centuries are of more value, and they have been considered and revised by such able statisticians as John Graunt and Sir William Petty. It was not, however, before the 19th century that accurate figures were obtainable. The circuit of the walls of London which were left by the Romans was never afterwards enlarged, and the population did not overflow into the suburbs to any extent until the Tudor period. Population was practically stationary for centuries owing to pestilences and the large proportion of deaths among infants. We have no materials to judge of the number of inhabitants before the Norman Conquest, but we can guess that there were many open spaces within the walls that were afterwards filled up. It is scarcely worth while to guess as to the numbers in Saxon London, but it is possible that in the early period there were about 10,000 inhabitants, growing later to about 20,000. During the latter part of the Saxon period the numbers of the population of the country began to decay; this decay, however, was arrested by the Norman Conquest. The population increased during ten peaceful years of Henry III., and increased slowly until the death of Edward II., and then it began to fall off, and continued to decrease during the period of the Wars of the Roses and of the Barons until the accession of the first Tudor monarch.The same causes that operated to bring about these changes in the whole kingdom were of course also at work in the case of the City of London.
One of the earliest statements as to the population of London occurs in a letter of about the year 1199 written to Pope Innocent III. by Peter of Blois, then archdeacon of London, and therefore a man of some authority on the subject. He states that the City contained 120 parish churches and 40,000 inhabitants. These numbers have been very generally accepted as fairly correct, and Dr Creighton11comes to the conclusion after careful consideration that the population of London from the reign of Richard I. to that of Henry VII. varied within a limit of about forty to fifty thousand inhabitants.
Dr Creighton points out that the number given by certain chroniclers of the deaths from the early pestilences in London are incredible; such for instance as the statement that forty or fifty thousand bodies were buried in CharterhousePlagues and Mortality.churchyard at the time of the Black Death in 1348-1349. These numbers have been taken as a basis for calculation of population, and one statistician reasoned that if 50,000 were buried in one churchyard 100,000 should represent the whole mortality of London. If this were allowed the population at this time must have been at least 200,000, an impossible amount.
Although the mortality caused by the different plagues had a great effect upon the population of the country at large the city soon recovered the losses by reason of the numbers who came to London from outside in hopes of obtaining work. Although there were fluctuations in the numbers at different periods there is evidence to show that on the average the amount of forty to fifty thousand fixed by Dr Creighton for the years between 1189 and 1509 is fairly correct. The medieval period closed with the accession of the Tudor dynasty, and from that time the population of London continued to increase, in spite of attempts by the government to prevent it. One of the first periods of increase was after the dissolution of the religious houses; another period of increase was after the Restoration.
A proclamation was issued in 1580 prohibiting the erection within 3 m. of the city gates of any new houses or tenements “where no former house hath been known to have been.” In a subsequent proclamation Queen Elizabeth commanded that only one family should live in one house, that empty houses erected within seven years were not to be let and that unfinished buildings on new foundations were to be pulled down. In spite of these restrictions London continued to grow. James I. and Charles I. were filled with the same fear of the increasing growth of London. In 1630 a similar proclamation to that of 1580 was published. During the greater part of the 18th century there was a serious check to the increase of population, but at the end of the century a considerable increase occurred, and in the middle of the 19th century the enormous annual increase became particularly marked. To return to the 16th century when the Bills of Mortality came into existence.12Mention is made of these bills as early as 1517, but the earliest series nowBills of Mortality.known dates from 1532. Dr Creighton had access to the manuscript returns of burials and christenings for five years from 1578 to 1582 preserved in the library at Hatfield House. The history of the Bills of Mortality which in the early years were intermittent in their publication is of much interest, and Dr Creighton has stated it with great clearness. The Company of Parish Clerks is named in an ordinance of 1581 (of which there is a copy in the Record Office) as the body responsible for the bills, and their duties were then said to be “according to the Order in that behalf heretofore provided.” John Bell, clerk to the company, who wrote an essay during the great plague of 1665, had no records in his office of an earlier date than 1593, and he was not aware that his company had been engaged in registering births and deaths before that year. The fire of 1666 destroyed all the documents of the Parish Clerks Company, and in its hall in Silver Street only printed tables from about the year 1700 are to be found. There is a set of Annual Bills from 1658 (with the exception of the years 1756 to 1764) in the library of the British Museum.13
These bills were not analysed and general results obtained from them until 1662, when Captain John Graunt first published his valuableNatural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality. Sir William Petty followed with his important inquiries upon the population (Essay on Political Arithmetic, 1683).
It is not worth while to refer to all the wild guesses that were made by various writers, but Dr Creighton shows the absurdity of one of these calculations made in 1554 by Soranzo, the Venetian ambassador for the information of the doge and senators of Venice. He estimates the population to have been 180,000 persons, which Dr Creighton affirms to be nearly three times the number that we obtain by a moderate calculation from the bills of mortality in 1532 and 1535.
FollowingPopulation in 16th and 17th centuries.on his calculations from 1509, when the population may be supposed to have been about 50,000, Dr Creighton carries on his numbers to the Restoration in the following table:—
The numbers for 1661 are those arrived at by Graunt, and they are just about half the population given authoritatively in the first census 1801 (864,845). It therefore took 140 years to double the numbers, while in 1841 the numbers of 1801 were more than doubled.
These numbers were arrived at with much care and may be considered as fairly accurate although some other calculations conflict with a few of the figures. The first attempt at a census was in August 1631 when the lord mayor returned the number of mouths in the city of London and Liberties at 130,268, which is only about half the number given above. This is accounted for by the larger area contained in the bills of mortality compared with that containing only the city and its liberties.14Howell’s suggestion that the population of London in 1631 was a million and a half need only be mentioned as a specimen of the wildest of guesses.
Petty’s numbers for 1682 are 670,000 and those of Gregory King for 1696, 530,000. The latter are corroborated by those of 1700, which are given as 550,000. Maitland gives the numbers in 1737 as 725,903. with regard to the relative size of18th century.great cities Petty affirms that before the Restoration the people of Paris were more in number than those of London and Dublin, whereas in 1687 the people of London were more than those of Paris and Rome or of Paris and Rouen.
It is not necessary to give any further numbers for the population of the 18th century, as that has been already stated to have been almost stationary. This is proved by Gregory King’s figures for 1696 (530,000) when compared with those of the first census for 1801 (864,035). A corroboration is also to be found in the report of the first census for 1801, where a calculation is made of the probable population of the years 1700 and 1750. These are given respectively as 674,350 and 676,250. These figures include (1) the City of London within and (2) without the walls, (3) the City and Liberties of Westminster, (4) the outparishes within the bills of mortality and (5) the parishes not within the bills of mortality. No. 5 is given as 9150 in 1700, and 22,350 in 1750. It is curious to find that already in the 18th century a considerable reduction in the numbers of the city of London is supposed to have taken place, as is seen in the following figures:—
As the increase in Westminster is not great (130,000 in 1700 and 152,000 in 1750) and there is little difference in the totals it will be seen that the amount is chiefly made up by the increase in the parishes without the bills of mortality. The extraordinary growth of London did not come into existence until about the middle of the 19th century (see § IV. above).
Government
We know little of the government of London during the Saxon period, and it is only incidentally that we learn how the Londoner had become possessed of special privileges which he continued to claim with success through many centuries.Saxon Period.One of the chief of these was the claim to a separate voice in the election of the king. The citizens did not dispute the right of election by the kingdom but they held that that election did not necessarily include the choice of London.
An instance of this is seen in the election of Edmund Ironside, although the Witan outside London had elected Canute. The remarkable instance of this after the Conquest was the election of Stephen, but William the Conqueror did not feel secure until he had the sanction of the Londoners to his kingship, and his attitude towards London when he hovered about the neighbourhood of the city for a time shows that he was anxious to obtain this sanction freely rather than by compulsion. His hopes and expectations were fulfilled whenthe gates of London were opened to receive him, as already related. Athelstan’s acceptance of the London-made law for the whole kingdom, as pointed out by Mr Gomme, is another instance of the independence of the Londoner. When William the Conqueror granted the first charter to London he addressed the bishop and the portreeve—the bishop as the ecclesiastical governor and the portreeve as the representative of the civil power.
The word “port” in the title “portreeve” does not indicate the Port of London as might naturally be supposed, for Stubbs has pointed out that it isportanotportus, and “although used for the city generally, seems to refer to it specially in its character of a Mart or City of Merchants.” The Saxon title of reeve was continued during the Norman period and the shire-reeve or sheriff has continued to our own time. There were originally several distinct reeves, all apparently officers appointed by the king. Some writers have supposed that a succession of portreeves continued in London, but J. H. Round holds that this title disappeared after the Conqueror’s charter. Henry I. granted to the city by charter the right of appointing its own sheriffs; this was a great privilege, which, however, was recalled in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I., to be restored by John in 1199.
J. H. Round holds that the office of Justiciar was created by Henry I.’s charter, and as he was the chief authority in the city this somewhat takes off from the value of the privilege of appointing sheriffs.
In the 12th century there was a great municipal movement over Europe. Londoners were well informed as to what was going on abroad, and although the rulers were always willing to wait for an opportunity of enlarging their liberties, they remained ready to take advantage of such circumstances as might occur. Their great opportunity occurred while Richard I. was engaged abroad as a crusader.
In 1889 a medal was struck to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the mayoralty which according to popular tradition was founded in 1189. With respect to this tradition Round writes (Commune of London, p. 223): “The assumption that the mayoralty of London dates from the accession of Richard I. is an absolute perversion of history,” and he adds that “there is record evidence which completely confirms the remarkable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would King Richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of theCommunain London.”
In October 1191 the conflict between John the king’s brother and Longchamp the king’s representative became acute. The latter bitterly offended the Londoners, who, finding that they could turn the scales to either side, named the CommuneThe Commune.as the price of their support of John. A small party of the citizens under Henry of Cornhill remained faithful to the chancellor Longchamp, but at a meeting held at St Paul’s on the 8th of October, the barons welcomed the archbishop of Rouen as chief justiciar (he having produced the king’s sign manual appointing a new commission), and they saluted John as regent. Stubbs, in his introduction to the Chronicle of Roger de Hoveden, writes: “This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the Justiciar and the Barons swore to maintain theCommunaof London; the oath of fealty to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers with the express understanding that should the king die without issue they would receive John as his successor.” Referring to this important event Mr Round writes: “The excited citizens, who had poured out overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th of October at the well-known sound of the great bell swinging out from its campanile in St Paul’s Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the ‘Commune’ like a French king or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of her own.”
Little is known as to what the Commune then established really was. Round’s remarkable discovery among the manuscripts of the British Museum of the Oath of the Commune proves for the first time that London in 1193 possessed a fullyThe Mayor and Échevins.developed “Commune” of the continental pattern. A striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new privileges extended to the city of London were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and Mr Round shows that there is conclusive proof of the assertion that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. This MS. gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the aldermen. From this we learn that the government of the city was in the hands of a mayor and twelve échevins (skivini); both these names being French, seem for a time to have excluded the Saxon aldermen.
Twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document, preserved in the same volume as the oath, thatalii probi homineswere associated with the mayor and échevins to form a body of twenty-four (that is, twelveskiviniand an equal number of councillors). Round holds that the Court of Skivini andalii probi homines, of which at present we know nothing further than what is contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the Common Council. We must not suppose that when the city of London obtained the privilege of appointing a mayor, and a citizen could boast in 1194 that “come what may the Londoners shall have no king but their mayor,” that the king did not occasionally exert his power in suspending the liberties of the city. There were really constant disagreements, and sometimes the king degraded the mayor and appointed a custos or warden in his place. Several instances of this are recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries. It is very important to bear in mind that the mayors of London besides holding a very onerous position were mostly men of great distinction. They often held rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of the country. They were mostly representatives of the landed interests as well as merchant princes.
There is no definite information as to when the mayor first received the title of lord. A claim has been set up for Thomas Legge, mayor for the second time in 1354, that he was the first lord mayor, but there is positively no authority whatever for this claim, although it is boldly stated that he was created lord mayor by Edward III. in this year. Apparently the title was occasionally used, and the use gradually grew into a prescriptive right. There is no evidence of any grant, but after 1540 the title had become general.
No record has been found of the date when the aldermen became the official advisers of the mayor. The various wards were each presided over by an alderman from an early period, but we cannot fix the time when they were united as a courtAldermen.of aldermen. Stubbs writes: “The governing body of London in the 13th century was composed of the mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs.”
As we do not find any further evidence than the oath of the Commune alluded to of the existence of “échevins” in London, it is possible that aldermen were elected on the mayor’s council under this title. This, however, is not the opinion of Mr Round, who, as before stated, is inclined to believe that the body of échevins became in course of time the Court of Common Council. The aldermen are not mentioned as the colleagues of the mayor until the very end of the 13th century, except in the case of Fitz-Ailwin’s Assize of 1189, and this, of course, related specially to the duties of aldermen as heads of the wards of the city.
In March 1298-1299 letters were sent from “the Mayor and Commune of the City of London” to the municipalities of Bruges, Caen and Cambray. Although the official form of “The Mayor and Commune” was continued until the end of the 13th century, and it was not until early in the 14th century that the form “Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council” came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the aldermen and common council before that time were acting with the mayor as governors of the city. In 1377 it was ordered that aldermen could be elected annually, but in 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an alderman to be re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year of office without any interval.
In 1394 the Ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the king (Richard II.). Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen, and in theLiber Albuswe are told that “it is a matter of experience that ever since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was observed.” When the poll-tax of 1379 was imposed the mayor was assessed as an earl and the aldermen as barons.
The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period, and these reeves were appointed by the king. The prefix of the various kinds of reeves made but little difference in the duties of the office, although the area of these dutiesSheriffs.might be different. There was slight difference between the office of sheriff and that of portreeve, which latter does not appear to have survived the Conquest.
After the establishment of the Commune and the appointment of a mayor the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became what they are styled inLiber Albus“the Eyes of the Mayor.” When Middlesex was in farm to London the two sheriffs were equally sheriffs of London and Middlesex. There is only one instance in the city records of a sheriff of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and Walter le Blond are described as sheriffs of London, and Gerin as sheriff of Middlesex. By the Local Government Act of 1888 the citizens of London were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the county of Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters.
In 1383 it was ordained and agreed “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.”
The two courts—that of aldermen and that of the common council—were probably formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have no definite information on the subject. The number of members of the common council varied greatlyCommon Council.at different times, but the right to determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward III. (1341) which enables the city to amend customs and usages which have become hard.
There have also been many changes in the mode of election. The common council were chosen by the wards until 1351, when the appointments were made by certain companies. In 1376 an ordinance was made by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole commons, to the effect that the companies should select menwith whom they were content, and none other should come to the elections of mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four and the least two. Forty-seven companies nominated 156 members. In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained again by the livery companies in 1467.
The Common Hall was the successor of the folkmote, the meetings of which were originally held in the open air at the east end of St Paul’s and afterwards in the Guildhall. These general assemblies of the citizens are described in the old cityCommon Hall.records asimmensa communitasorimmensa multitudocivium. The elections in Common Hall were by the whole body of citizens until Edward I.’s reign, citizens were then specially summoned to Common Hall by the mayor. In Edward IV.’s reign the elections of mayor, sheriffs and other officers and members of parliament were transferred to liverymen. Various alterations were subsequently made and now the qualification of electors at the election of the corporate offices of lord mayor, sheriffs, chamberlain and minor offices in Common Hall is that of being a liveryman of a livery company and an enrolled freeman of London. The election of aldermen and common councilmen takes place in the wardmotes.
The recorder, the chief official, is appointed for life. He was formerly appointed by the city, but since the Local Government Act of 1888 he is nominated by the city and approved byOfficials of the city.the lord chancellor. The common sergeant was formerly appointed by the city, but since 1888 by the lord chancellor. The town clerk is appointed by the city and re-elected annually.
The chamberlain or comptroller of the king’s chamber is appointed by the livery. He was originally a king’s officer and the office was probably instituted soon after the Conquest. The remembrancer is appointed by the common council.
The common hunt, an office abolished in 1807, was filled by John Courtenay in 1417. The sword-bearer is noticed in theLiber Albus(1419) and the first record of an appointment is dated 1426.
Few fundamental alterations have been made in the constitution of the city, but in the reign of Charles II. the most arbitrary proceedings were taken against its liberties. The king and his brother had long entertained designs against the city,Later history of the corporation.and for the purpose of crushing them two pretexts were set up—(1) that a new rate of market tolls had been levied by virtue of an act of common council, and (2) that a petition to the king, in which it was alleged that by the prorogation of parliament public justice had been interrupted, had been printed by order of the Court of Common Council. Charles directed a writquo warrantoagainst the corporation of London in 1683, and the Court of King’s Bench declared its charter forfeited. Soon afterwards all the obnoxious aldermen were displaced and others appointed in their room by royal commission. When James II. found himself in danger from the landing of the Prince of Orange he sent for the lord mayor and aldermen and informed them of his determination to restore the city charter and privileges, but he had no time to do anything before his flight. The Convention which was summoned to meet on the 22nd of January 1689 was converted by a formal act into a true parliament (February 23). One of the first motions put to the House was that a special Committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom “and particularly of the City of London.” The motion was lost but the House resolved to bring in a bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten years later (March 5) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the City of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee’s opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House and on the 16th of March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th of May 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.15
When the Act for the reform of Municipal Corporations was passed in 1835 London was specially excepted from its provisions. When the Metropolitan Board of Works was formed by the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 the city was affected to a certain extent, but by the Local Government Act of 1888 which founded the London County Council the right of appointing a sheriff for Middlesex was taken away from the city of London.
When the county of Middlesex was dissociated from the city of London one portion was joined to the administrative county of London, and the other to the county of Middlesex.
The lord mayor of London has certain very remarkable privileges which have been religiously guarded and must be of great antiquity.Privileges of the lord mayor.It is only necessary to mention these here, but each of the privileges requires an exhaustive examination as to its origin. They all prove the remarkable position of Old London, and mark it off from all other cities of modern Europe. Shortly stated the privileges are four:
1. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.2. The mayor’s position in the city, where he is second only to the king.3. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign.4. His position of butler at the coronation banquets.
1. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.
2. The mayor’s position in the city, where he is second only to the king.
3. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign.
4. His position of butler at the coronation banquets.
The last may be considered in abeyance as there has not been any coronation banquet since that of George IV. In the case of the coronation of King Edward VII. the claim was excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims under the royal proclamation. The terms of the judgment on a further claim are as follows: “The Court considers and adjudges that the lord mayor has by usage a right, subject to His Majesty’s pleasure, to attend the Abbey during the coronation and bear the crystal mace.”
Bibliography.—The earliest description of London is that written by the monk Fitzstephen in 1174 as an introduction to his life of Archbishop Thomas à Becket. This was first printed by Stow in his Survey. It was reprinted by Strype in his editions of Stow; by Hearne in his edition of Leland’sItinerary(vol. 8), by Samuel Pegge in 1772, and elsewhere. The first history is contained inA Survey of Londonby John Stow (1598, 1603). The author died in 1605, and his work was continued by Anthony Munday and others (1618, 1633) and in the next century by John Strype (1720, 1754-1755). Stow’s original work was reprinted by W. J. Thoms in 1842 and a monumental edition has been published by C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1908).
The following are the most important of subsequent histories arranged in order of publication; James Howell,Londinopolis(1657); W. Stow,Remarks on London and Westminster(1722); Robert Seymour (John Mottley),Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster(1734, another edition 1753); William Maitland,History of London(1739, other editions 1756, 1760, 1769, continued by John Entick 1775); John Entick,A New and Accurate History of London, Westminster, Southwark(1766); The City Remembrancer,Narratives of the Plague 1665, Fire 1666 and Great Storm 1703(1769);A New and Compleat History and Survey, by a Society of Gentlemen (1770, revised by H. Chamberlain, folio revised by W. Thornton 1784); J. Noorthouck,A New History(1773); Walter Harrison,A New and Universal History(1775); J. P. Malcolm,Londinium Redivivum or an Ancient History and Modern Description of London(1803); David Hughson (E. Pugh),London(1805-1809); B. Lambert,History and Survey of London(1806); Henry Hunter,History of London(1811); J. W. Abbott,History of London(1821); Thomas Allen,History and Antiquities of London(1827-1829, continued by Thomas Wright 1839); William Smith,A New History of London(1833); Charles Mackay,A History of London(1838);The History of London, illustrated by W. G. Fearnside (1838); George Grant,A Comprehensive History of London(Dublin, 1849); John Timbs,Curiosities of London(1855, later editions 1855, 1868, 1875, 1876);Old London Papers, Archaeological Institute(1867); W. J. Loftie,A History of London(1883); W. J. Loftie,Historic Towns(London, 1887); Claude de la Roche Francis,London, Historic and Social(Philadelphia, 1902); Sir Walter Besant,The Survey of London(1902-1908)—Early London, Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and Norman(1908);Medieval London, vol. 1,Historical and Social(1906), vol. 2,Ecclesiastical(1906);London in the Time of the Tudors(1904);London in the Time of the Stuarts(1903);London in the Eighteenth Century(1902); H. B. Wheatley,The Story of London[Medieval Towns] (London, 1904).
The following are some of the Chronicles of London which have been printed, arranged in order of publication: R. Grafton,Chronicle 1189-1558(1809); R. Arnold,London Chronicle(1811);A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483 written in the Fifteenth Century(1827);William Gregory’s Chronicle of London, 1189-1469(1876);Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, edited by James Gairdner (Camden Society, 1876);Chronicles of London[1200-1516], edited by C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905).
Many books have been published on the government of London, of which the following is a selection:City Law(1647, 1658);Lex Londinensis or the City Law(1680); W. Bohun,Privilegia Londini(1723); Giles Jacob,City Liberties(1733);Laws and Customs, Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City of London(1765); David Hughson,Epitome of the Privileges of London(1816); George Norton,Commentaries on the History, Constitution and Chartered Franchises of the City of London(1829, 3rd ed. 1869);Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis, edited by H. T. Riley—vol. 1,Liber Albus(1419), vol. 2,Liber Custumarum(1859);Liber Albus: the White Book of the City of London, translated by H. T. Riley (1861); H. T. Riley,Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries(1868);De Antiquis Legibus Liber. Curante Thoma Stapleton(Camden Society, 1846);Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London 1188-1274, translated from theLiber de Antiquis Legibusby H. T. Riley.French Chronicle of London1259-1343 (1863);Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia 1579-1664(1888);Calendar of Letter-Books[circa 1275-1399] preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of London at the Guildhall, edited by Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L. (1899-1907); W. and R. Woodcock,Lives of Lord Mayors(1846); J. F. B. Firth,Municipal London(1876); Walter Delgray Birch,Historical Charters andConstitutional Documents of the City of London(1884, 1887); J. H. Round,The Commune of London and other Studies(1899); Reginald R. Sharpe,London and the Kingdom; a History derived mainly from the Archives at Guildhall(1894); G. L. Gomme,The Governance of London. Studies on the Place occupied by London in English Institutions(1907); Alfred B. Beaven,The Aldermen of the City of London temp. Henry III.(1908).
In connexion with the government of London may be noted works on the following: Inns of Court. William Herbert,Antiquities of the Inns of Court and Chancery(1804); Robert P. Pearce,History(1848). Artillery Company, Anthony Highmore,History of the Hon. Artillery Co. of London to 1802(1804); G. A. Raikes,History of the Hon. Artillery Co.(1878). William Herbert published in 1837History of the Twelve great Livery Companies of London, and in 1869 Thomas Arundell publishedHistorical Reminiscences of the City and its Livery Companies. Since then have appearedThe Livery Companies of the City of London, by W. Carew Hazlitt (1892);The City Companies of London, by P. H. Ditchfield (1904);The Gilds and Companies of London, by George Unwin (1908). Separate histories have been published of the chief London companies.
The following are some of the chief works connected with the topography of London: Thomas Pennant,Of London(1790, 1793, 1805, 1813, translated into German 1791); John T. Smith,Antient Topography of London(1815); David Hughson [E. Pugh],Walks through London(1817);London(edited by Charles Knight 1841-1844, reprinted 1851, revised by E. Walford 1875-1877); J. H. Jesse,Literary and Historical Memorials of London(1847); Leigh Hunt,The Town, its Memorable Character and Events(1848, new ed. 1859); Peter Cunningham,A Handbook of London past and present(1849, 2nd ed. 1850, enlarged into a new work in 1891); Henry B. Wheatley,London past and present; Vestiges of Old London, etchingsby J. W. Archer (1851);A New Survey of London(1853); G. W. Thornbury,Haunted London(1865, new ed. by E. Walford 1880);Old and New London, vols. i.-ii. by G. W. Thornbury, vols. iii.-vi. by Edward Walford (1873-1878); Walter Besant,London, Westminster, South London, East London(1891-1902);East London Antiquities, edited by Walter A. Locks (East London Advertiser, 1902); Philip Norman,London vanished and vanishing(1905);Records of the London Topographical Society; Monographs of the Committee for the Survey of the Memorials of Greater London.
The following books on the population of London have been published: John Graunt,Natural and Political Observations on the Bills of Mortality(1661, other editions 1662, 1665, 1676);Essay in Political Arithmetick(1683);Five Essays on Political Arithmetick(1687);Several Essays in Political Arithmetick(1699, 1711, 1751, 1755);Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind(1682, 1683, 1686), all by Sir William Petty; Corbyn Morris,Observations on the past Growth and present State of the City of London(1751);Collection of the Yearly Bills of Mortality from 1657 to 1758(ed. by T. Birch, D.D. 1759); Graunt’sObservations, Petty’sAnother Essayand C. Morris’sObservationsare reprinted in this collection. Graunt and Petty’sEssaysare reprinted inEconomic Writingsof Sir W. Petty (1899).
(H. B. W.*)
1See map inLondon Statistics(vol. xix., 1909), an annual publication of the London County Council, which besides these divisions shows “Water London,” the London main drainage area, and the Central Criminal Court district.2Charing Cross station was the scene of a remarkable catastrophe on the 5th of December 1905, when a large part of the roof collapsed, and the falling débris did very serious damage to the Avenue theatre, which stands close to the station at a lower level.3The report appeared in eight volumes, the first of which, containing the general conclusions to which allusion is here made, bore the number, as a blue-book. Cd. 2597.4Over 200 local acts were repealed by schemes made under the act of 1899.5A valuable article on “The Conqueror’s Footprints in Domesday” was published in theEnglish Historical Reviewin 1898 (vol. xiii. p. 17). This article contains an account of Duke William’s movements after the battle of Senlac between Enfield, Edmonton, Tottenham and Berkhampstead.6“A map of London engraved on copper-plate, dated 1497,” which was bought by Ferdinand Columbus during his travels in Europe about 1518-1525, is entered in the catalogue of Ferdinand’s books, maps, &c., made by himself and preserved in the Cathedral Library at Seville, but there is no clue to its existence.7One is in the Guildhall Library, and the other among the Pepysian maps in Magdalene College, Cambridge.8This map of London by Norden is dated 1593, as stated above. The same topographer published in hisMiddlesexa map of Westminster as well as this one of the City of London.9Various changes in the names of the taverns are made in the folio edition of this play (1616) from the quarto (1601); thus the Mermaid of the quarto becomes the Windmill in the folio, and the Mitre of the quarto is the Star of the folio.10The Great Revolt of 1381(Oxford, 1906), p. 27.11In a valuable paper on “The Population of Old London” inBlackwood’s Magazinefor April 1891.12The old Bills of Mortality, although of value from being the only authority on the subject, were never complete owing to various causes: one being that large numbers of Roman Catholics and Dissenters were not registered in the returns of the parish clerk who was a church officer. The bills were killed by the action of the Registration Act for England and Wales, which came into operation July 1, 1837. The weekly Returns of the Registrar-General began in 1840.13“The invention of ‘bills of mortality’ is not so modern as has been generally supposed, for their proper designation may be found in the language of ancient Rome. Libitina was the goddess of funerals; her officers were the Libitinariiourundertakers; her temple in which all business connected with the last rites was transacted, in which the account of deaths—ratio Libitinae—was kept, served the purpose of a register office.”—Journal Statistical Society, xvii. 117 (1854).14The return was made “by special command from the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council.” The Privy Council were at this time apprehensive of an approaching scarcity of food. The numbers (130,268) were made up as follows: London Within the Walls 71,029, London Without the Walls 40,579, Old Borough of Southwark (Bridge Without) 18,660.15R. R. Sharpe,London and the Kingdom(1894), i. 541.
1See map inLondon Statistics(vol. xix., 1909), an annual publication of the London County Council, which besides these divisions shows “Water London,” the London main drainage area, and the Central Criminal Court district.
2Charing Cross station was the scene of a remarkable catastrophe on the 5th of December 1905, when a large part of the roof collapsed, and the falling débris did very serious damage to the Avenue theatre, which stands close to the station at a lower level.
3The report appeared in eight volumes, the first of which, containing the general conclusions to which allusion is here made, bore the number, as a blue-book. Cd. 2597.
4Over 200 local acts were repealed by schemes made under the act of 1899.
5A valuable article on “The Conqueror’s Footprints in Domesday” was published in theEnglish Historical Reviewin 1898 (vol. xiii. p. 17). This article contains an account of Duke William’s movements after the battle of Senlac between Enfield, Edmonton, Tottenham and Berkhampstead.
6“A map of London engraved on copper-plate, dated 1497,” which was bought by Ferdinand Columbus during his travels in Europe about 1518-1525, is entered in the catalogue of Ferdinand’s books, maps, &c., made by himself and preserved in the Cathedral Library at Seville, but there is no clue to its existence.
7One is in the Guildhall Library, and the other among the Pepysian maps in Magdalene College, Cambridge.
8This map of London by Norden is dated 1593, as stated above. The same topographer published in hisMiddlesexa map of Westminster as well as this one of the City of London.
9Various changes in the names of the taverns are made in the folio edition of this play (1616) from the quarto (1601); thus the Mermaid of the quarto becomes the Windmill in the folio, and the Mitre of the quarto is the Star of the folio.
10The Great Revolt of 1381(Oxford, 1906), p. 27.
11In a valuable paper on “The Population of Old London” inBlackwood’s Magazinefor April 1891.
12The old Bills of Mortality, although of value from being the only authority on the subject, were never complete owing to various causes: one being that large numbers of Roman Catholics and Dissenters were not registered in the returns of the parish clerk who was a church officer. The bills were killed by the action of the Registration Act for England and Wales, which came into operation July 1, 1837. The weekly Returns of the Registrar-General began in 1840.
13“The invention of ‘bills of mortality’ is not so modern as has been generally supposed, for their proper designation may be found in the language of ancient Rome. Libitina was the goddess of funerals; her officers were the Libitinariiourundertakers; her temple in which all business connected with the last rites was transacted, in which the account of deaths—ratio Libitinae—was kept, served the purpose of a register office.”—Journal Statistical Society, xvii. 117 (1854).
14The return was made “by special command from the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council.” The Privy Council were at this time apprehensive of an approaching scarcity of food. The numbers (130,268) were made up as follows: London Within the Walls 71,029, London Without the Walls 40,579, Old Borough of Southwark (Bridge Without) 18,660.
15R. R. Sharpe,London and the Kingdom(1894), i. 541.
LONDON CLAY,in geology, the most important member of the Lower Eocene strata in the south of England. It is well developed in the London basin, though not frequently exposed, partly because it is to a great extent covered by more recent gravels and partly because it is not often worked on a large scale. It is a stiff, tenacious, bluish clay that becomes brown on weathering, occasionally it becomes distinctly sandy, sometimes glauconitic, especially towards the top; large calcareous septarian concretions are common, and have been used in the manufacture of cement, being dug for this purpose at Sheppey, near Southend, and at Harwich, and dredged off the Hampshire coast. Nodular lumps of pyrites and crystals of selenite are of frequent occurrence. The clay has been employed for making bricks, tiles and coarse pottery, but it is usually too tenacious for this purpose except in well-weathered or sandy portions. The base of the clay is very regularly indicated by a few inches of rounded flint pebbles with green and yellowish sand, parts of this layer being frequently cemented by carbonate of lime. The average thickness of the London Clay in the London basin is about 450 ft.; at Windsor it is 400 ft. thick; beneath London it is rather thicker, while in the south of Essex it is over 480 ft. In Wiltshire it only reaches a few feet in thickness, while in Berkshire it is some 50 or 60 ft. It is found in the Isle of Wight, where it is 300 ft. thick at Whitecliff Bay—here the beds are vertical and even slightly reversed—and in Alum Bay it is 220 ft. thick. In Hampshire it is sometimes known as the Bognor Beds, and certain layers of calcareous sandstone within the clays are called Barnes or Bognor Rock. In the eastern part of the London basin in east Kent the pebbly basement bed becomes a thick deposit (60 ft.), forming part of the Oldhaven and Blackheath Beds.
The London Clay is a marine deposit, and its fossils indicate a moderately warm climate, the flora having a tropical aspect. Among the fossils may be mentionedPanopoea intermedia,Ditrupa plana,Teredina personata,Conus concinnus,Rostellaria ampla,Nautilus centralis,Belosepia, foraminifera and diatoms. Fish remains includeOtodus obliquus,Sphyroenodus crassidens; birds are represented byHalcyornis Toliapicus,LithornisandOdontopteryx, and reptiles byChelone gigas, and other turtles,Palaeophis, a serpent and crocodiles.Hyracotherium leporinum,Palaeotheriumand a few other mammals are recorded. Plant remains in a pyritized condition are found in great abundance and perfection on the shore of Sheppey; numerous species of palms, screw pines, water lilies, cypresses, yews, leguminous plants and many others occur; logs of coniferous wood bored through by annelids andTeredoare common, and fossil resin has been found at Highgate.SeeEocene; also W. Whitaker, “The Geology of London and part of the Thames Valley,”Mem. Geol. Survey(1889), andSheet Memoirs of the Geol. Survey, London, Nos. 314, 315, 268, 329, 332, andMemoirs on the Geology of the Isle of Wight(1889).
The London Clay is a marine deposit, and its fossils indicate a moderately warm climate, the flora having a tropical aspect. Among the fossils may be mentionedPanopoea intermedia,Ditrupa plana,Teredina personata,Conus concinnus,Rostellaria ampla,Nautilus centralis,Belosepia, foraminifera and diatoms. Fish remains includeOtodus obliquus,Sphyroenodus crassidens; birds are represented byHalcyornis Toliapicus,LithornisandOdontopteryx, and reptiles byChelone gigas, and other turtles,Palaeophis, a serpent and crocodiles.Hyracotherium leporinum,Palaeotheriumand a few other mammals are recorded. Plant remains in a pyritized condition are found in great abundance and perfection on the shore of Sheppey; numerous species of palms, screw pines, water lilies, cypresses, yews, leguminous plants and many others occur; logs of coniferous wood bored through by annelids andTeredoare common, and fossil resin has been found at Highgate.
SeeEocene; also W. Whitaker, “The Geology of London and part of the Thames Valley,”Mem. Geol. Survey(1889), andSheet Memoirs of the Geol. Survey, London, Nos. 314, 315, 268, 329, 332, andMemoirs on the Geology of the Isle of Wight(1889).
LONDONDERRY, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF.The 1st earl of Londonderry was Thomas Ridgeway (c.1565-1631), a Devon man, who was treasurer in Ireland from 1606 to 1616 and was engaged in the plantation of Ulster. Ridgeway was made a baronet in 1611, Baron Ridgeway in 1616 and earl of Londonderry in 1623. The Ridgeways held the earldom until March 1714, when Robert, the 4th earl, died without sons. In 1726 Robert’s son-in-law, Thomas Pitt (c.1688-1729), son of Thomas Pitt, “Diamond Pitt,” governor at Madras and uncle of the great earl of Chatham, was created earl of Londonderry, the earldom again becoming extinct when his younger son Ridgeway, the 3rd earl of this line, died unmarried in January 1765. In 1796 Robert Stewart (1739-1821), of Mount Stewart, Co. Down, was made earl of Londonderry in the Irish peerage. He had been created Baron Londonderry in 1789 and Viscount Castlereagh in 1795; in 1816 he was advanced to the rank of marquess of Londonderry. The 3rd marquess married the heiress of the Vane-Tempests and took the name of Vane instead of Stewart; the 5th marquess called himself Vane-Tempest and the 6th marquess Vane-Tempest-Stewart.