CHAPTER XV.

[pg 420]CHAPTER XV.Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset. At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle. He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects and received the honour of knighthood.1266On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal1267in his hand.[pg 421]The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the "festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with 1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence, after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.1268Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand. Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but indilettantefashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,1269had been[pg 422]abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.1270The ruthless destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order (1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were substituted for the original effigy of the saint.1271Henry himself only coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the doctrine and discipline of the Church.1272Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a spiritual man.1273Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street, "disguised" as he was,[pg 423]with a paper on his head setting forth his offence. He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found sureties for good behaviour.1274After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became greater than ever.1275A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of elevation.1276In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.1277On the 5th May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.1278In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a charge made against a city[pg 424]curate that, about a month before, after reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.1279Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and caps violently pulled.1280Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.The same statute—by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate, ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be thenceforth escheated to the Crown—dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these heads. Three years after[pg 425]the passing of the Act the Corporation and the companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective properties to the amount of £939 2s.5-1/2d.by payment to the Crown of no less a sum than £18,744 11s.2d.1281The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a clear title.1282Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement"[pg 426]of the churches; and if any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."1283These instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any further steps were taken.1284The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls[pg 427]whitewashed, and only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St. John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish church.1285In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard (April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required material for building his new palace in the Strand,1286to enlarge which he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the Holy Innocents.1287The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit[pg 428]of the interior of the cathedral, and said aDe profundisat the bishop's tomb.1288The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St. Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed among the poor.1289They went further than this. They removed the fine tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same time reduced the dimensions of the choir.1290The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the mass.1291At the election[pg 429]of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day, on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been confiscated by Henry VIII)1292as theretofore, it further ordered that the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests there at the same mass.1293Orders were issued by the king's council that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.1294The "tuning of the pulpits."The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to "tune the[pg 430]pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.1295The same want of uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the devysyon."1296The insurrections of 1549.In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired property.1297Insurrection broke out in various parts of the[pg 431]country. Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was ordered (inter alia) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to caste downe thother."1298The city gates were constantly watched and the walls mounted with artillery.1299Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St. Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they were threatened.1300The king passes through the city, 23 July.Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through the city to Westminster,[pg 432]accompanied by the Lord Protector and other nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector graciously bade him farewell.1301Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord Protector open defiance at Whitehall.1302At midnight instructions were sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At length the rebels were met and defeated[pg 433]by a force under the command of the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham Steeple.1303The fall of Somerset, 1549.Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to show their independence.Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous[pg 434]houses in four or five different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that nomatérielof war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.1304Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against conspiracy.1305Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against[pg 435]Somerset, to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place, Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York, one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for safe-guarding the city.1306Removal of the king to Windsor.As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither with such force as he could muster.1307The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall—they felt safer in London—and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.1308The Common Council met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday night.1309The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them "to the uttermost of their wills and[pg 436]powers" in the maintenance and defence of the king's person.1310The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old religion.1311This the lords assured the meeting was far from their minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor, aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves and goodes."1312A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where they had dined the previous day.1313They had heard that Somerset had seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others, and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the position of Protector.1314The Common Council, which met the same day—"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"—agreed to furnish[pg 437]with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the contingent should be horsemen.1315By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.) the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for the time.1316There is no evidence to show that the force was ever called upon to proceed to Windsor.The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and false and detestable procedynges."1317By the end of the week (12 Oct.) the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor, where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who received them graciously and[pg 438]gave them hearty thanks. The following day (Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday (14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane, with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."1318At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful—a little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and render him a prisoner in the Tower—did it cross the mind of any of the onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some cartloads of books which were never returned?Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion were William Latymer,[pg 439]the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney, and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was proclaymyd the protector a traytor."1319The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint. After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."1320Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his[pg 440]prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.1321Warwick and the reformers, 1550.With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea, where he had been roughly used,1322and the cause of his deprivation reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of Westminster,1323which[pg 441]had been created in 1540, was united to London. In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.1324As soon as the ceremony was over he cast them off.The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor.1325The first of these—and only the first—had been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them the town or vill of Southwark.1326This grant was afterwards confirmed and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three successive days in the month of September, together with a court of pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair appertaining.1327In course of time the City claimed the right of holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in[pg 442]Southwark. This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate. A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the hopes of arranging matters,1328but apparently without success.Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,1329and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s.1d.the king conveyed by charter1330to the City of London divers messuages in Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of £10 per annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of trumpet for[pg 443]all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs and liberties of the same.1331The ward of Bridge Without.It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the borough,1332there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as prevailed in the city;1333the inhabitants of the borough have never taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the Court of Aldermen,1334and was admitted and sworn before the same body on the 28th May, 1850—that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances just mentioned were drawn up.The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the Court of Aldermen[pg 444]until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council, the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to the election of an alderman.The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom" and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman, but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common Council1335to the effect that, considering that the borough of Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the same effect has quite recently[pg 445]been presented to the Court of Aldermen; but it was equally unsuccessful.1336Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and brought discredit upon the earl.1337One result of the conclusion of the war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city, and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).1338The debasement of the currency, 1551.In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to[pg 446]attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th May, and soundly rated him—or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some sore words"—for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th, the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more murmurings.1339Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13 shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city—a class of men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers—that they made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.1340Yet, in spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny, and the halfpenny for a farthing.1341The price of every commodity rose 50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick[pg 447]could do could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to overcome economic laws by a mereipse dixit, he caused a "contrary proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."1342The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized and again committed to the Tower.1343The new duke vaunted himself more than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its face.1344Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was over, and then took them into custody.1345Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to hear why the duke had been sent for the[pg 448]second time to the Tower, and to receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the substantiall men of the same."1346This was, of course, an exaggeration, although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.1347He was arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him' all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."1348According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted, whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)[pg 449]lamented his conviction.1349His execution took place on Tower Hill in January of the next year (1552).The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the maintenance of the poor of the hospital.1350The voluntary system, however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.1351In September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital—four aldermen and eight commoners1352—and in the following December the Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.1353St. Thomas's Hospital.In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose patron[pg 450]saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for the purchase of this hospital.1354They proceeded so favourably that by the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was transferred by another deed on the following day.1355The purchase-money amounted to nearly £2,500.Christ's Hospital.Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In 1552 Sir Richard Dobbs1356was mayor. He took an active part in the charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:—"O Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was commenced, and in a few months the[pg 451]premises were sufficiently forward to admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.1357Just as the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity, into Christ's Hospital.Bridewell Hospital.There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely, those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a deputation1358was appointed by the City to present a petition to the king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year (1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.1359The efforts of the bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of[pg 452]the workhouse.1360The City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.1361

[pg 420]CHAPTER XV.Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset. At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle. He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects and received the honour of knighthood.1266On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal1267in his hand.[pg 421]The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the "festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with 1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence, after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.1268Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand. Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but indilettantefashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,1269had been[pg 422]abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.1270The ruthless destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order (1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were substituted for the original effigy of the saint.1271Henry himself only coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the doctrine and discipline of the Church.1272Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a spiritual man.1273Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street, "disguised" as he was,[pg 423]with a paper on his head setting forth his offence. He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found sureties for good behaviour.1274After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became greater than ever.1275A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of elevation.1276In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.1277On the 5th May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.1278In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a charge made against a city[pg 424]curate that, about a month before, after reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.1279Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and caps violently pulled.1280Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.The same statute—by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate, ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be thenceforth escheated to the Crown—dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these heads. Three years after[pg 425]the passing of the Act the Corporation and the companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective properties to the amount of £939 2s.5-1/2d.by payment to the Crown of no less a sum than £18,744 11s.2d.1281The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a clear title.1282Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement"[pg 426]of the churches; and if any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."1283These instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any further steps were taken.1284The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls[pg 427]whitewashed, and only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St. John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish church.1285In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard (April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required material for building his new palace in the Strand,1286to enlarge which he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the Holy Innocents.1287The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit[pg 428]of the interior of the cathedral, and said aDe profundisat the bishop's tomb.1288The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St. Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed among the poor.1289They went further than this. They removed the fine tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same time reduced the dimensions of the choir.1290The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the mass.1291At the election[pg 429]of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day, on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been confiscated by Henry VIII)1292as theretofore, it further ordered that the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests there at the same mass.1293Orders were issued by the king's council that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.1294The "tuning of the pulpits."The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to "tune the[pg 430]pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.1295The same want of uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the devysyon."1296The insurrections of 1549.In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired property.1297Insurrection broke out in various parts of the[pg 431]country. Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was ordered (inter alia) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to caste downe thother."1298The city gates were constantly watched and the walls mounted with artillery.1299Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St. Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they were threatened.1300The king passes through the city, 23 July.Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through the city to Westminster,[pg 432]accompanied by the Lord Protector and other nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector graciously bade him farewell.1301Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord Protector open defiance at Whitehall.1302At midnight instructions were sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At length the rebels were met and defeated[pg 433]by a force under the command of the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham Steeple.1303The fall of Somerset, 1549.Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to show their independence.Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous[pg 434]houses in four or five different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that nomatérielof war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.1304Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against conspiracy.1305Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against[pg 435]Somerset, to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place, Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York, one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for safe-guarding the city.1306Removal of the king to Windsor.As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither with such force as he could muster.1307The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall—they felt safer in London—and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.1308The Common Council met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday night.1309The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them "to the uttermost of their wills and[pg 436]powers" in the maintenance and defence of the king's person.1310The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old religion.1311This the lords assured the meeting was far from their minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor, aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves and goodes."1312A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where they had dined the previous day.1313They had heard that Somerset had seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others, and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the position of Protector.1314The Common Council, which met the same day—"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"—agreed to furnish[pg 437]with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the contingent should be horsemen.1315By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.) the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for the time.1316There is no evidence to show that the force was ever called upon to proceed to Windsor.The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and false and detestable procedynges."1317By the end of the week (12 Oct.) the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor, where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who received them graciously and[pg 438]gave them hearty thanks. The following day (Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday (14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane, with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."1318At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful—a little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and render him a prisoner in the Tower—did it cross the mind of any of the onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some cartloads of books which were never returned?Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion were William Latymer,[pg 439]the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney, and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was proclaymyd the protector a traytor."1319The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint. After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."1320Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his[pg 440]prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.1321Warwick and the reformers, 1550.With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea, where he had been roughly used,1322and the cause of his deprivation reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of Westminster,1323which[pg 441]had been created in 1540, was united to London. In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.1324As soon as the ceremony was over he cast them off.The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor.1325The first of these—and only the first—had been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them the town or vill of Southwark.1326This grant was afterwards confirmed and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three successive days in the month of September, together with a court of pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair appertaining.1327In course of time the City claimed the right of holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in[pg 442]Southwark. This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate. A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the hopes of arranging matters,1328but apparently without success.Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,1329and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s.1d.the king conveyed by charter1330to the City of London divers messuages in Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of £10 per annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of trumpet for[pg 443]all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs and liberties of the same.1331The ward of Bridge Without.It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the borough,1332there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as prevailed in the city;1333the inhabitants of the borough have never taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the Court of Aldermen,1334and was admitted and sworn before the same body on the 28th May, 1850—that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances just mentioned were drawn up.The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the Court of Aldermen[pg 444]until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council, the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to the election of an alderman.The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom" and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman, but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common Council1335to the effect that, considering that the borough of Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the same effect has quite recently[pg 445]been presented to the Court of Aldermen; but it was equally unsuccessful.1336Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and brought discredit upon the earl.1337One result of the conclusion of the war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city, and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).1338The debasement of the currency, 1551.In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to[pg 446]attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th May, and soundly rated him—or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some sore words"—for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th, the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more murmurings.1339Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13 shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city—a class of men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers—that they made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.1340Yet, in spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny, and the halfpenny for a farthing.1341The price of every commodity rose 50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick[pg 447]could do could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to overcome economic laws by a mereipse dixit, he caused a "contrary proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."1342The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized and again committed to the Tower.1343The new duke vaunted himself more than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its face.1344Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was over, and then took them into custody.1345Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to hear why the duke had been sent for the[pg 448]second time to the Tower, and to receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the substantiall men of the same."1346This was, of course, an exaggeration, although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.1347He was arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him' all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."1348According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted, whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)[pg 449]lamented his conviction.1349His execution took place on Tower Hill in January of the next year (1552).The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the maintenance of the poor of the hospital.1350The voluntary system, however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.1351In September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital—four aldermen and eight commoners1352—and in the following December the Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.1353St. Thomas's Hospital.In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose patron[pg 450]saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for the purchase of this hospital.1354They proceeded so favourably that by the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was transferred by another deed on the following day.1355The purchase-money amounted to nearly £2,500.Christ's Hospital.Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In 1552 Sir Richard Dobbs1356was mayor. He took an active part in the charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:—"O Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was commenced, and in a few months the[pg 451]premises were sufficiently forward to admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.1357Just as the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity, into Christ's Hospital.Bridewell Hospital.There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely, those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a deputation1358was appointed by the City to present a petition to the king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year (1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.1359The efforts of the bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of[pg 452]the workhouse.1360The City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.1361

[pg 420]CHAPTER XV.Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset. At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle. He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects and received the honour of knighthood.1266On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal1267in his hand.[pg 421]The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the "festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with 1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence, after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.1268Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand. Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but indilettantefashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,1269had been[pg 422]abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.1270The ruthless destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order (1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were substituted for the original effigy of the saint.1271Henry himself only coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the doctrine and discipline of the Church.1272Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a spiritual man.1273Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street, "disguised" as he was,[pg 423]with a paper on his head setting forth his offence. He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found sureties for good behaviour.1274After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became greater than ever.1275A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of elevation.1276In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.1277On the 5th May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.1278In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a charge made against a city[pg 424]curate that, about a month before, after reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.1279Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and caps violently pulled.1280Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.The same statute—by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate, ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be thenceforth escheated to the Crown—dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these heads. Three years after[pg 425]the passing of the Act the Corporation and the companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective properties to the amount of £939 2s.5-1/2d.by payment to the Crown of no less a sum than £18,744 11s.2d.1281The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a clear title.1282Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement"[pg 426]of the churches; and if any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."1283These instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any further steps were taken.1284The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls[pg 427]whitewashed, and only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St. John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish church.1285In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard (April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required material for building his new palace in the Strand,1286to enlarge which he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the Holy Innocents.1287The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit[pg 428]of the interior of the cathedral, and said aDe profundisat the bishop's tomb.1288The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St. Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed among the poor.1289They went further than this. They removed the fine tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same time reduced the dimensions of the choir.1290The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the mass.1291At the election[pg 429]of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day, on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been confiscated by Henry VIII)1292as theretofore, it further ordered that the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests there at the same mass.1293Orders were issued by the king's council that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.1294The "tuning of the pulpits."The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to "tune the[pg 430]pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.1295The same want of uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the devysyon."1296The insurrections of 1549.In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired property.1297Insurrection broke out in various parts of the[pg 431]country. Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was ordered (inter alia) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to caste downe thother."1298The city gates were constantly watched and the walls mounted with artillery.1299Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St. Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they were threatened.1300The king passes through the city, 23 July.Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through the city to Westminster,[pg 432]accompanied by the Lord Protector and other nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector graciously bade him farewell.1301Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord Protector open defiance at Whitehall.1302At midnight instructions were sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At length the rebels were met and defeated[pg 433]by a force under the command of the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham Steeple.1303The fall of Somerset, 1549.Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to show their independence.Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous[pg 434]houses in four or five different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that nomatérielof war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.1304Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against conspiracy.1305Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against[pg 435]Somerset, to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place, Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York, one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for safe-guarding the city.1306Removal of the king to Windsor.As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither with such force as he could muster.1307The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall—they felt safer in London—and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.1308The Common Council met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday night.1309The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them "to the uttermost of their wills and[pg 436]powers" in the maintenance and defence of the king's person.1310The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old religion.1311This the lords assured the meeting was far from their minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor, aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves and goodes."1312A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where they had dined the previous day.1313They had heard that Somerset had seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others, and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the position of Protector.1314The Common Council, which met the same day—"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"—agreed to furnish[pg 437]with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the contingent should be horsemen.1315By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.) the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for the time.1316There is no evidence to show that the force was ever called upon to proceed to Windsor.The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and false and detestable procedynges."1317By the end of the week (12 Oct.) the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor, where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who received them graciously and[pg 438]gave them hearty thanks. The following day (Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday (14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane, with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."1318At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful—a little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and render him a prisoner in the Tower—did it cross the mind of any of the onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some cartloads of books which were never returned?Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion were William Latymer,[pg 439]the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney, and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was proclaymyd the protector a traytor."1319The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint. After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."1320Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his[pg 440]prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.1321Warwick and the reformers, 1550.With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea, where he had been roughly used,1322and the cause of his deprivation reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of Westminster,1323which[pg 441]had been created in 1540, was united to London. In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.1324As soon as the ceremony was over he cast them off.The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor.1325The first of these—and only the first—had been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them the town or vill of Southwark.1326This grant was afterwards confirmed and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three successive days in the month of September, together with a court of pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair appertaining.1327In course of time the City claimed the right of holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in[pg 442]Southwark. This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate. A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the hopes of arranging matters,1328but apparently without success.Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,1329and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s.1d.the king conveyed by charter1330to the City of London divers messuages in Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of £10 per annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of trumpet for[pg 443]all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs and liberties of the same.1331The ward of Bridge Without.It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the borough,1332there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as prevailed in the city;1333the inhabitants of the borough have never taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the Court of Aldermen,1334and was admitted and sworn before the same body on the 28th May, 1850—that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances just mentioned were drawn up.The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the Court of Aldermen[pg 444]until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council, the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to the election of an alderman.The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom" and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman, but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common Council1335to the effect that, considering that the borough of Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the same effect has quite recently[pg 445]been presented to the Court of Aldermen; but it was equally unsuccessful.1336Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and brought discredit upon the earl.1337One result of the conclusion of the war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city, and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).1338The debasement of the currency, 1551.In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to[pg 446]attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th May, and soundly rated him—or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some sore words"—for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th, the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more murmurings.1339Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13 shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city—a class of men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers—that they made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.1340Yet, in spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny, and the halfpenny for a farthing.1341The price of every commodity rose 50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick[pg 447]could do could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to overcome economic laws by a mereipse dixit, he caused a "contrary proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."1342The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized and again committed to the Tower.1343The new duke vaunted himself more than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its face.1344Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was over, and then took them into custody.1345Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to hear why the duke had been sent for the[pg 448]second time to the Tower, and to receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the substantiall men of the same."1346This was, of course, an exaggeration, although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.1347He was arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him' all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."1348According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted, whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)[pg 449]lamented his conviction.1349His execution took place on Tower Hill in January of the next year (1552).The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the maintenance of the poor of the hospital.1350The voluntary system, however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.1351In September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital—four aldermen and eight commoners1352—and in the following December the Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.1353St. Thomas's Hospital.In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose patron[pg 450]saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for the purchase of this hospital.1354They proceeded so favourably that by the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was transferred by another deed on the following day.1355The purchase-money amounted to nearly £2,500.Christ's Hospital.Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In 1552 Sir Richard Dobbs1356was mayor. He took an active part in the charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:—"O Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was commenced, and in a few months the[pg 451]premises were sufficiently forward to admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.1357Just as the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity, into Christ's Hospital.Bridewell Hospital.There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely, those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a deputation1358was appointed by the City to present a petition to the king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year (1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.1359The efforts of the bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of[pg 452]the workhouse.1360The City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.1361

Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset. At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle. He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects and received the honour of knighthood.1266On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal1267in his hand.[pg 421]The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the "festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with 1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence, after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.1268Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand. Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but indilettantefashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,1269had been[pg 422]abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.1270The ruthless destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order (1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were substituted for the original effigy of the saint.1271Henry himself only coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the doctrine and discipline of the Church.1272Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a spiritual man.1273Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street, "disguised" as he was,[pg 423]with a paper on his head setting forth his offence. He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found sureties for good behaviour.1274After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became greater than ever.1275A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of elevation.1276In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.1277On the 5th May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.1278In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a charge made against a city[pg 424]curate that, about a month before, after reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.1279Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and caps violently pulled.1280Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.The same statute—by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate, ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be thenceforth escheated to the Crown—dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these heads. Three years after[pg 425]the passing of the Act the Corporation and the companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective properties to the amount of £939 2s.5-1/2d.by payment to the Crown of no less a sum than £18,744 11s.2d.1281The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a clear title.1282Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement"[pg 426]of the churches; and if any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."1283These instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any further steps were taken.1284The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls[pg 427]whitewashed, and only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St. John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish church.1285In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard (April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required material for building his new palace in the Strand,1286to enlarge which he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the Holy Innocents.1287The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit[pg 428]of the interior of the cathedral, and said aDe profundisat the bishop's tomb.1288The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St. Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed among the poor.1289They went further than this. They removed the fine tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same time reduced the dimensions of the choir.1290The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the mass.1291At the election[pg 429]of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day, on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been confiscated by Henry VIII)1292as theretofore, it further ordered that the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests there at the same mass.1293Orders were issued by the king's council that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.1294The "tuning of the pulpits."The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to "tune the[pg 430]pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.1295The same want of uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the devysyon."1296The insurrections of 1549.In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired property.1297Insurrection broke out in various parts of the[pg 431]country. Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was ordered (inter alia) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to caste downe thother."1298The city gates were constantly watched and the walls mounted with artillery.1299Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St. Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they were threatened.1300The king passes through the city, 23 July.Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through the city to Westminster,[pg 432]accompanied by the Lord Protector and other nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector graciously bade him farewell.1301Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord Protector open defiance at Whitehall.1302At midnight instructions were sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At length the rebels were met and defeated[pg 433]by a force under the command of the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham Steeple.1303The fall of Somerset, 1549.Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to show their independence.Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous[pg 434]houses in four or five different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that nomatérielof war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.1304Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against conspiracy.1305Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against[pg 435]Somerset, to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place, Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York, one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for safe-guarding the city.1306Removal of the king to Windsor.As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither with such force as he could muster.1307The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall—they felt safer in London—and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.1308The Common Council met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday night.1309The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them "to the uttermost of their wills and[pg 436]powers" in the maintenance and defence of the king's person.1310The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old religion.1311This the lords assured the meeting was far from their minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor, aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves and goodes."1312A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where they had dined the previous day.1313They had heard that Somerset had seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others, and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the position of Protector.1314The Common Council, which met the same day—"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"—agreed to furnish[pg 437]with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the contingent should be horsemen.1315By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.) the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for the time.1316There is no evidence to show that the force was ever called upon to proceed to Windsor.The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and false and detestable procedynges."1317By the end of the week (12 Oct.) the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor, where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who received them graciously and[pg 438]gave them hearty thanks. The following day (Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday (14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane, with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."1318At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful—a little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and render him a prisoner in the Tower—did it cross the mind of any of the onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some cartloads of books which were never returned?Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion were William Latymer,[pg 439]the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney, and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was proclaymyd the protector a traytor."1319The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint. After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."1320Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his[pg 440]prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.1321Warwick and the reformers, 1550.With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea, where he had been roughly used,1322and the cause of his deprivation reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of Westminster,1323which[pg 441]had been created in 1540, was united to London. In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.1324As soon as the ceremony was over he cast them off.The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor.1325The first of these—and only the first—had been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them the town or vill of Southwark.1326This grant was afterwards confirmed and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three successive days in the month of September, together with a court of pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair appertaining.1327In course of time the City claimed the right of holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in[pg 442]Southwark. This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate. A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the hopes of arranging matters,1328but apparently without success.Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,1329and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s.1d.the king conveyed by charter1330to the City of London divers messuages in Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of £10 per annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of trumpet for[pg 443]all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs and liberties of the same.1331The ward of Bridge Without.It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the borough,1332there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as prevailed in the city;1333the inhabitants of the borough have never taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the Court of Aldermen,1334and was admitted and sworn before the same body on the 28th May, 1850—that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances just mentioned were drawn up.The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the Court of Aldermen[pg 444]until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council, the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to the election of an alderman.The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom" and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman, but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common Council1335to the effect that, considering that the borough of Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the same effect has quite recently[pg 445]been presented to the Court of Aldermen; but it was equally unsuccessful.1336Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and brought discredit upon the earl.1337One result of the conclusion of the war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city, and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).1338The debasement of the currency, 1551.In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to[pg 446]attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th May, and soundly rated him—or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some sore words"—for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th, the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more murmurings.1339Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13 shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city—a class of men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers—that they made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.1340Yet, in spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny, and the halfpenny for a farthing.1341The price of every commodity rose 50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick[pg 447]could do could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to overcome economic laws by a mereipse dixit, he caused a "contrary proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."1342The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized and again committed to the Tower.1343The new duke vaunted himself more than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its face.1344Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was over, and then took them into custody.1345Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to hear why the duke had been sent for the[pg 448]second time to the Tower, and to receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the substantiall men of the same."1346This was, of course, an exaggeration, although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.1347He was arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him' all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."1348According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted, whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)[pg 449]lamented his conviction.1349His execution took place on Tower Hill in January of the next year (1552).The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the maintenance of the poor of the hospital.1350The voluntary system, however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.1351In September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital—four aldermen and eight commoners1352—and in the following December the Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.1353St. Thomas's Hospital.In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose patron[pg 450]saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for the purchase of this hospital.1354They proceeded so favourably that by the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was transferred by another deed on the following day.1355The purchase-money amounted to nearly £2,500.Christ's Hospital.Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In 1552 Sir Richard Dobbs1356was mayor. He took an active part in the charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:—"O Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was commenced, and in a few months the[pg 451]premises were sufficiently forward to admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.1357Just as the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity, into Christ's Hospital.Bridewell Hospital.There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely, those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a deputation1358was appointed by the City to present a petition to the king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year (1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.1359The efforts of the bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of[pg 452]the workhouse.1360The City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.1361

Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.

Accession and coronation of Edward VI, 1547.

Provision had been made for the succession to the crown on Henry's death by an Act of Parliament passed in 1544, and the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were thereby re-instated in their rights of inheritance as if no question of their legitimacy had ever been raised. As Edward, who was next in succession to the crown, was but a boy, Henry had taken pains to select a council of regency in which no one party should predominate. This council was soon set aside, and Hertford, the king's uncle, got himself appointed Protector of the realm and took the title of Duke of Somerset. At the time of his father's death Edward was residing at Hertford Castle. He was soon afterwards carried thence by his uncle to London and lodged in the Tower, where the mayor, Henry Hoberthorne, went to pay his respects and received the honour of knighthood.1266

On the 19th the young king passed through the city to Westminster, the mayor riding before him bareheaded with the mace of crystal1267in his hand.[pg 421]The streets were lined with members of the livery companies. The conduits, the standard and cross in Chepe, the Ludgate and the Temple Bar had been freshly painted and trimmed with goodly hangings of Arras and cloth of gold for the occasion. At three of the conduits, namely, the conduit in Cornhill, the great conduit in Chepe, and the conduit in Fleet Street, wine was made by artificial means to flow as if from the "festrons" of the conduits themselves. At the little conduit in Chepe were stationed the aldermen of the city, in their scarlet gowns, and the Recorder, who, in the name of the whole city, presented his majesty with 1,000 marks in "hole new sufferaynes" of gold in a purse of purple cloth of gold, which his majesty deigned to accept with his own hand. The next day Edward was crowned. The lord mayor, according to custom, attended with his crystal mace as the king passed from his palace to church, and thence, after mass, to Westminster Hall, and received for his services the customary gold cup, which on this occasion weighed twenty ounces, with its cover and a "leyer" (or laver) silver-gilt weighing six ounces.1268

Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.

Opposition in the city to the sacrament of the mass, 1547-1548.

The work of reformation was now about to be taken seriously in hand. Something, it is true, had been done in this direction under Henry, but indilettantefashion. The ceremony connected with the boy-bishop, which even Colet had thought worthy to be perpetuated in his school,1269had been[pg 422]abolished by order of the mayor in 1538.1270The ruthless destruction of the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, and the erasure of his name from service-books, had been followed in the city by an order (1539) for a new common seal on which the arms of the city were substituted for the original effigy of the saint.1271Henry himself only coquetted with Protestantism; his chief object, if not the only one, was to get rid of the papal supremacy; but among the bourgeois class of the city there was an earnest desire to see an improvement made in the doctrine and discipline of the Church.1272

Whilst the statute of the Six Articles was still unrepealed, the sacrament of the mass frequently provoked open hostility in the city. Thus, in August, 1538, Robert Reynold, a stationer, was declared upon the oath of five independent witnesses to have been heard to say "that the masse was nawght, and the memento was Bawdrye, and after the consecracioun of the masse yt was idolatrye." He was further charged with having said that it were better for him to confess and be houseled by a temporal rather than a spiritual man.1273Again, in February, 1543, Hugh Eton, a hosier of London, was convicted of disguising himself "in fonde fassyon," and of irreverently walking up and down in St. Bride's Church before the sacrament, disturbing the priests at mass and creating a tumult. By way of punishment for his offence he was set in the cage in Fleet Street, "disguised" as he was,[pg 423]with a paper on his head setting forth his offence. He there remained until four o'clock in the afternoon, when he was removed to the compter and condemned to stay there a prisoner until he found sureties for good behaviour.1274

After the repeal of the statute by Edward's first parliament, the opposition to the "sacrament of the altar," as the mass was called, became greater than ever.1275A boy was ordered to be whipt naked in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth for throwing his cap at the host at the time of elevation.1276In February, 1548, information was given to the Court of Aldermen of preachers having used "certain words" touching the mass in the churches of St. Dunstan in the east and St. Martin Orgar.1277On the 5th May, 1548, the mayor and aldermen resolved to appear the next day before the Lord Protector Somerset and the council, and explain the nature of the misdemeanours of certain preachers, concerning which the mayor had already had some communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury.1278

In the following month (5 June) the Court of Aldermen investigated a charge made against a city[pg 424]curate that, about a month before, after reciting the common prayers at the choir door at high mass, he had prayed among other things that Almighty God might send the king's council grace and bring them out of the erroneous opinions that they were then in. The informer went on to say that Sir Clement Smith and the Recorder, who were present, laughed at the prayer. But inasmuch as the informer had not been present himself, and that what he had laid before the court was mere hearsay evidence, little attention was paid to it.1279

Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.

Act for abolition of chantries, 1547.

The abolition of chantries initiated by Henry VIII was carried out to a fuller extent by his successor. The statute (1 Edward VI, cap 14) by which this was effected not only deprived a large number of priests of a means of livelihood, but laid them open to insult from those they met in the street. They complained that they could not walk abroad nor attend the court at Westminster without being reviled and having their tippets and caps violently pulled.1280

Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.

Redemption of charges for superstitious uses by the city and companies, 1550.

The same statute—by declaring all chantries, obits, lights and lamps to be objects of superstitious use, and all goods, chattels, jewels, plate, ornaments and other moveables hitherto devoted to their maintenance to be thenceforth escheated to the Crown—dealt a heavy blow to the Corporation of the City of London, as well as to the civic companies and other bodies who owned property subject to certain payments under one or other of these heads. Three years after[pg 425]the passing of the Act the Corporation and the companies redeemed certain charges of this character on their respective properties to the amount of £939 2s.5-1/2d.by payment to the Crown of no less a sum than £18,744 11s.2d.1281

The redemption of these and other charges of a similar character, whilst very convenient to the Crown, saving the trouble and expense of collecting small sums of money, worked a hardship upon the Corporation and the companies. In order to raise funds for redeeming the charges they were obliged to sell property. This property was often held under conditions of reverter and remainders over, unless what was now declared to be illegal was religiously carried out. It was manifestly unfair that they should be made to forfeit property because the conditions under which it was held could no longer be legally complied with. A petition therefore was presented to the king in order to obviate this difficulty, and to enable them to part with the necessary property and at the same time to give a clear title.1282

Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.

Order for demolition of images, pictures, &c., Aug., 1547.

In the meantime (Aug., 1547) an order had gone forth for the demolition of all images and removal of pictures and stained glass from churches. The instructions sent to the lord mayor were very precise. "Stories made in glasse wyndows" relative to Thomas Becket were to be altered at as little expense as possible. Images and pictures to which no offerings and no prayers were made might remain for "garnisshement"[pg 426]of the churches; and if any such had been taken down the mayor was at liberty to set them up again, unless they had been taken down by order of the king's commissioners or the parson of the church. If there existed in any church a "storye in glasse" of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise the Pope, the mayor might paint out the papal tiara and alter the "storye."1283These instructions, contained in a letter from the king's council, were duly considered at a Court of Aldermen held on the 22nd September, with the result that every alderman was ordered, in the most secret, discreet and quiet manner he could devise, to visit each parish church in his ward, and to take with him the parson or curate and two or three honest parishioners, churchwardens or others who had had anything to do with the removal of the images that had already been taken down, and, having shut the church door for the sake of privacy, to take a note in writing of what images had formerly been in the several churches, what images had offerings and were prayed to, and what not; who had removed those taken down, and what had been done with them. A report was to be made on these points by every alderman at the next court, so that the lords of the council might be informed thereon and their will ascertained before any further steps were taken.1284

The havoc worked by the king's commissioners in the city and throughout the country by the reckless destruction of works of art was terrible. The churches were stripped of every ornament, their walls[pg 427]whitewashed, and only relieved by the tables of the commandments. Early in September the commissioners visited St. Paul's and pulled down all the images. In November the rood was taken down with its images of the Virgin and St. John. The great cross of the rood fell down accidentally and killed one of the workmen, a circumstance which many ascribed to the special intervention of the Almighty. From St. Paul's the commissioners proceeded to the church of St. Bride, and so from parish church to parish church.1285

In the following year (1548) the chapel of St. Paul's charnel house was pulled down and the bones removed into the country and reburied. From a sanitary point of view their removal is to be commended. There is no such excuse, however, for the destruction of the cloister in Pardon churchyard (April, 1549), with its famous picture of the Dance of Death, painted at the expense of John Carpenter, the town clerk of the city, of whom mention has already been made. The fact was that the Protector Somerset required material for building his new palace in the Strand,1286to enlarge which he had already pulled down Strand Church, dedicated to Saint Mary and the Holy Innocents.1287The destruction of the cloister necessitated a new order of procession on the next Lord Mayor's Day (24 Oct.), when Sir Rowland Hill paid the customary visit to St. Paul's, made a circuit[pg 428]of the interior of the cathedral, and said aDe profundisat the bishop's tomb.1288

The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.

The citizens and the Grey Friars Church, 1547.

Nor can the civic authorities themselves be altogether acquitted of vandalism. They destroyed the churches of St. Nicholas Shambles and St. Ewin, and sold the plate and windows, but the proceeds were distributed among the poor.1289They went further than this. They removed the fine tombs and altars, as well as the choir stalls, from the church of the Grey Friars, where mingled the ashes of some of the noblest and best in the land. There was some excuse, however, for these acts. The house and church of the Grey Friars had been granted to the City at the close of the last reign on the express condition that the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewin should be abolished, and that the church of the Grey Friars should be established as a parish church in their place under the name of Christ Church. It was probably in order to render the old monastic church more convenient as a parish church that they removed much of what to the antiquary of to-day would have seemed of priceless value, and at the same time reduced the dimensions of the choir.1290

The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.

The "communion" substituted for the mass, 1548.

At Easter, 1548, a new communion service in English took the place of the mass.1291At the election[pg 429]of the mayor on the following Michaelmas-day, on which occasion a mass had always been celebrated at the Guildhall Chapel since the time of Whitington, an endeavour appears to have been made by the Court of Aldermen to effect a compromise between mass and communion, for whilst it ordered that a mass of the Holy Ghost should be solemnly sung in English in the Guildhall Chapel (which had been confiscated by Henry VIII)1292as theretofore, it further ordered that the holy communion should be administered to two or three of the priests there at the same mass.1293Orders were issued by the king's council that candles should no longer be carried about on Candlemas-day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. These practices were now considered superstitious, as also was the "sensyng" which hitherto had taken place in St. Paul's at Whitsuntide, but which the Court of Aldermen now decreed to be abolished, and the preaching of sermons substituted in its place.1294

The "tuning of the pulpits."

The "tuning of the pulpits."

The people were at this time extremely distracted by the various and contradictory opinions of their preachers; and as they were totally incapable of judging of the force of arguments adduced on one side or the other, but conceived that everything spoken from the pulpit was of equal authority, great confusion and perplexity of mind ensued. In order to "tune the[pg 430]pulpits" and to effect uniformity of doctrine and service, the Lord Protector resorted to proclamations, which, although no longer having the authority of statutes as in the reign of Henry VIII, practically answered the same purpose. Preaching was thus restricted to those who had previously obtained a licence from the king, his visitors, the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of the diocese.1295The same want of uniformity which appeared in the preachers appeared also in their congregations; some "kepte holy day and manny kepte none, but dyd worke opynly, and in some churches servys and some none, soche was the devysyon."1296

The insurrections of 1549.

The insurrections of 1549.

In the meantime great discontent had been caused by the Protector's measures. The rich nobleman and country gentleman said nothing, for their assent had been purchased by gifts of church property, but the tenants and bourgeois class suffered from increased rents, from enclosures and evictions. Church lands had always been underlet; the monks were easy landlords. Not so the new proprietors of the confiscated abbey lands, they were determined to make the most out of their newly-acquired property.1297Insurrection broke out in various parts of the[pg 431]country. Not only were enclosures thrown open and fences removed, but a cry was raised for the restoration of the old religion. Information of what was taking place was sent to Sir Henry Amcotes, the mayor, and steps were at once taken (2 July, 1549) for putting the city into a state of defence and for the preservation of the king's peace. A "false draw-brydge" was ordered (inter alia) to be made for London Bridge "in case nede should requyer by reason "of the sterrynge of the people (which God defende!) to caste downe thother."1298The city gates were constantly watched and the walls mounted with artillery.1299

Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.

Cranmer at St. Paul's, 21 July, 1549.

In the midst of these preparations there was a lull. On the 21st day of July, being the 6th Sunday after Trinity, came Archbishop Cranmer to St. Paul's. He wore no vestment save a cope over an alb, and bore neither mitre nor cross, but only a staff. He conducted the whole of the service as set out in the "king's book" recently published, which differed but slightly from the church service in use at the present day, and he administered the "Communion" to himself, the dean and others, according to Act of Parliament. The mayor and most of the aldermen occupied seats in the choir. Cranmer's object in coming to the city on that day was to exhort the citizens to obey the king as the supreme head of the realm, and to pray the Almighty to avert the trouble with which, for their sins, they were threatened.1300

The king passes through the city, 23 July.

The king passes through the city, 23 July.

Two days later (23 July) the king himself left Greenwich and rode through the city to Westminster,[pg 432]accompanied by the Lord Protector and other nobles. The mayor and aldermen rode out to Southwark, the former in a gown of crimson velvet, the latter in gowns of scarlet, to meet the royal party, and conducted it as far as Charing Cross, where the aldermen took their leave, the king saluting them and "putting of his capp to everie of them." The mayor rode on to Westminster, where the king and the Protector graciously bade him farewell.1301

Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.

Ket's rebellion in Norfolk. 1549.

The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. By the end of the month Exeter was being besieged by the rebels, and on the 8th August the French ambassador, taking advantage of the general distraction, bade the Lord Protector open defiance at Whitehall.1302At midnight instructions were sent to the mayor to seize all Frenchmen in the city who were not denizens, together with their property. By this time, however, Exeter had been relieved and the insurrection in the west had been put down. The western insurgents had demanded the restoration of the mass and the abolition of the English liturgy. Contemporaneously with this religious movement another agitation was being made in the eastern counties, and more especially in Norfolk, which had for its object the destruction of enclosures. With the eastern rebels, who placed themselves under the leadership of Robert Ket, a tanner of Wymondham, the Protector himself sympathized at heart, and the council had to exercise no little pressure before he could be induced to send an efficient force to put them down. At length the rebels were met and defeated[pg 433]by a force under the command of the Earl of Warwick, the son of the extortionate Dudley who was associated with Empson in oppressing the city towards the close of the reign of Henry VII. Ket galloped off the field, leaving his followers to be ridden down and killed by the earl's horsemen. He was shortly afterwards captured in a barn, and eventually brought up to London, together with his brother William, and committed to the Tower. Being arraigned and convicted of treason, they were handed over to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert was hanged in chains on the top of Norwich Castle, whilst his brother William suffered a similar fate on the top of Wymondham Steeple.1303

The fall of Somerset, 1549.

The fall of Somerset, 1549.

Somerset's fall was now imminent. The citizens hated him, not for his favouring the reformers, but for the injury he had caused to trade and for his having bebased the coinage still further than it had been debased by Henry VIII. His colleagues in the council, who had been pampered with gifts of church lands, were angry with him for the favour he had shown towards those who raised the outcry against enclosures, and they began to show their independence.

Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.

Letter from lords of the council to the City accusing the Protector, 6 Oct.

On the afternoon of Sunday, the 6th October, 1549, a letter was sent to the mayor subscribed by Lord St. John, the president of the council, the earls of Warwick, Southampton and Arundel, and other members of the council, containing a long indictment of the Protector's policy and conduct. He was proud, covetous and ambitious. He had embezzled the pay of the soldiers, with which he was building sumptuous[pg 434]houses in four or five different places. Whilst sowing discord among the nobles, he flattered the commons to the intent that, having got rid of the former, he might with the aid of the latter achieve his scarcely veiled design of supplanting the king himself. They had hoped, the letter continues, to have persuaded the duke by fair means to take order for the security of the king's person and the commonwealth; but no sooner was the matter broached to the duke than he showed himself determined to appeal to the arbitrament of the sword. Such being the case, they on their part were no less resolved, with God's help, to deliver the king and the realm from impending ruin, or perish in the attempt. They concluded by asking the civic authorities to see that good watch and ward were kept in the city and that nomatérielof war was supplied to the duke or his followers. Any letters or proclamations coming from the Protector were to be disregarded.1304

Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.

Letter from Somerset to the mayor, 6 Oct., 1549.

Determined not to be forestalled by his enemies; the duke himself wrote the same day (6 Oct.) to the mayor desiring the City to furnish him forthwith with 1,000 trusty men fully armed for the protection of the king's person. The men were to be forwarded to him at Hampton by the following Monday mid-day at the latest, and in the meantime the citizens were to take steps to protect the king and his uncle, the duke, against conspiracy.1305

Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.

Conference between the lords and the City at Ely Place, 6 Oct., 1549.

Before these letters had been despatched the mayor and aldermen had been summoned by the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead against[pg 435]Somerset, to meet him and other lords of the council at his house in Ely Place, Holborn. A meeting had accordingly taken place that Sunday morning, when the state of affairs was discussed. After the meeting separated Warwick came to the city and took up his residence in the house of Sir John York, one of the sheriffs, situate in Walbrook. Sir John Markham, lieutenant of the Tower, was removed, and Sir Leonard Chamberlain appointed in his place, whilst the Court of Aldermen took extraordinary precautions for safe-guarding the city.1306

Removal of the king to Windsor.

Removal of the king to Windsor.

As soon as Somerset was made aware of the Tower being in the possession of his rivals he removed from Hampton Court to Windsor, carrying the young king with him, and despatched a letter to Lord Russell to hurry thither with such force as he could muster.1307

The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.

The City joins the lords against Somerset, 7 Oct., 1549.

On Monday (7 Oct.) the lords of the council sat at Mercers' Hall—they felt safer in London—and thence despatched a dutiful letter to the king, and another (explaining their conduct) to Cranmer.1308The Common Council met at seven o'clock that morning, having been warned on Sunday night.1309The object of their meeting so early in the day was that no time might be lost before taking into consideration the letters that had been received from Somerset and from the lords. After due deliberation the citizens agreed to throw in their lot with the lords and to assist them "to the uttermost of their wills and[pg 436]powers" in the maintenance and defence of the king's person.1310

The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.

The lords attend a Common Council, 8 Oct., 1549.

On Tuesday (8 Oct.) the Common Council again assembled in the Guildhall to meet the lords by appointment. Rumour had been spread to the effect that it was the intention of the lords to cause a reestablishment of the old religion.1311This the lords assured the meeting was far from their minds. They intended no alteration of matters as established by the laws and statutes. All they wanted was to cause them to be maintained as formerly, before they had been "disformed" by the Lord Protector, and for this they prayed the assistance of the citizens. Thereupon the mayor, aldermen and common council, thanking God for the good intentions of their lordships, "promised their ayde and helpe to the uttermost of their lieves and goodes."1312

A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.

A meeting at Sheriff York's house, 9 Oct.

The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.

The City agrees to furnish a contingent of soldiers to aid the lords.

On Wednesday (9 Oct.) the lords met at the house of Sheriff York, where they had dined the previous day.1313They had heard that Somerset had seized all the armour, weapons and munitions of war he could lay his hands upon, both at Hampton Court and Windsor, and with them had armed his adherents. They again sent letters to the king, the archbishop and others, and declared Somerset to be unworthy to continue any longer in the position of Protector.1314The Common Council, which met the same day—"for divers urgent causes moved and declared by the mouth of the recorder and of the lord mayor and aldermen on the king's behalf"—agreed to furnish[pg 437]with all speed 500 men, or if necessary 1,000 men, well harnessed and weaponed, to proceed to Windsor Castle for the delivery and preservation of his majesty. It was subsequently arranged that 100 of the contingent should be horsemen.1315By the afternoon of Friday (11 Oct.) the men and horsemen were ready. They mustered in Moorfields, whence they marched through Moorgate, Coleman Street, Cheapside, and out by Newgate to Smithfield, with the Sword-bearer riding before them as captain. At Smithfield they broke off, and were discharged from further service for the time.1316There is no evidence to show that the force was ever called upon to proceed to Windsor.

The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.

The effect of the City's adhesion to the lords.

Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.

Somerset brought to the Tower, 14 Oct.

The adhesion of the City to the lords had in the meanwhile added strength to their cause, many who had at first held back now declaring themselves against Somerset. In this manner they were joined by Lord Chancellor Rich, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Chief Justice Montague and others, whose signatures appear to a proclamation issued on the 8th October setting forth "the verye trowth of the Duke of Somersettes evell government and false and detestable procedynges."1317By the end of the week (12 Oct.) the lords felt themselves strong enough to proceed in person to Windsor, where on their knees they explained their conduct to the king, who received them graciously and[pg 438]gave them hearty thanks. The following day (Sunday) was spent in removing some of Somerset's followers; and on Monday (14th) Somerset himself was brought prisoner to London, "riding through Oldborne in at Newgate and so to the Tower of London, accompanied with diuers lordes and gentlemen with 300 horse, the lord maior, Sir Ralph Warren, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Locke and both the shiriffes and other knights, sitting on their horses agaynst Soper-lane, with all the officers with halbards, and from Oldborne bridge to the Tower certaine aldermen or their deputies on horsebacke in every streete, with a number of housholders standing with bils as hee passed."1318

At the sudden fall of one who for a short time had been all powerful—a little more than a week had served to deprive him of the protectorate and render him a prisoner in the Tower—did it cross the mind of any of the onlookers that he it was who carried away from the Guildhall Library some cartloads of books which were never returned?

Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.

Bonner deprived of bishopric of London, 1 Oct., 1549.

There were some who looked upon Somerset's fall as an act of God's vengeance for his having caused Bonner to be deprived of his bishopric of London. On the 1st September last Bonner had preached at Paul's Cross against the king's supremacy. Information of the matter was given to the council, and Bonner was called upon to answer for his conduct before Cranmer and the rest of the commissioners. The informers on this occasion were William Latymer,[pg 439]the parson of the church of St. Laurence Pountney, and John Hooper, a zealous Protestant, who afterwards became Bishop of Gloucester. Whilst under examination before the commissioners Bonner was confined in the Marshalsea. Hooper in the meantime was put up by Cranmer to preach at Paul's Cross, and he took the opportunity thus afforded him of inveighing strongly against Bonner's conduct. Bonner failed to satisfy the commissioners, and on the 1st October was deprived of office and committed to prison during the king's pleasure. "But marke what followeth," writes the chronicler of the Grey Friars, within a week "was proclaymyd the protector a traytor."1319

The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.

The king entertained by Sheriff York, Oct., 1549.

On the 17th October Edward came from Hampton Court to Southwark Place, a mansion formerly belonging to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when it was known as Suffolk House. It was now used in part as a mint, and was occupied by Sheriff York in his capacity as master of the king's mint. After dinner the king knighted York in recognition of his hospitality and his past services, an honour personal to York and not extended to his colleague in the shrievalty, Richard Turke. From Southwark Edward set forth to ride through the city to Westminster, accompanied by a long cavalcade of nobles and gentlemen, "the lord mayor bearinge the scepter before his maiestie and rydinge with garter kinge of armes."1320

Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.

Somerset released on parole, 6 Feb., 1550.

Somerset's confinement in the Tower was not of long duration. On the 6th February, 1550, the lieutenant of the Tower received orders to bring his[pg 440]prisoner "with out greate garde or busyness" to Sheriff York's house in Walbrook, where the council was sitting; and on the duke entering into a recognisance to remain privately either at Shene or Sion, and not to travel more than four miles from either place, nor attempt to gain an interview with the young king, he was allowed to depart.1321

Warwick and the reformers, 1550.

Warwick and the reformers, 1550.

With Warwick, who became the ruling spirit of the council after the fall of Somerset and the abolition of the protectorate, religion was a matter of supreme indifference, and for a time it was uncertain whether he would favour the followers of the old religion or the advanced reformers. He chose to extend his patronage to the latter. The day after Somerset's release from the Tower, Bonner was again brought from the Marshalsea, where he had been roughly used,1322and the cause of his deprivation reconsidered by the lords of the council sitting in the Star Chamber, the result being that the previous sentence by Cranmer was confirmed and Bonner again relegated to prison. Bishops were now appointed directly by the king, who in the following April caused Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, to be transferred to London in Bonner's place; and the see of Westminster,1323which[pg 441]had been created in 1540, was united to London. In July Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester; but some time elapsed before this rigid reformer could be induced to overcome his prejudice to episcopal vestments (which he denounced as the livery of Anti-Christ) and consent to be consecrated in them.1324As soon as the ceremony was over he cast them off.

The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.

The City and the borough of Southwark, 1550.

For some time past the City had experienced difficulty in exercising its franchise in the borough of Southwark. That borough consisted of three manors, known respectively as the Guildable Manor, the King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor.1325The first of these—and only the first—had been granted to the City by Edward III soon after his accession. The civic authorities had complained of felons making good their escape from the city to Southwark, where they could not be attacked by the officers of the city; and the king, in answer to the City's request, had made over to them the town or vill of Southwark.1326This grant was afterwards confirmed and amplified by a charter granted by Edward IV in 1462, whereby the citizens were allowed to hold a yearly fair in the borough on three successive days in the month of September, together with a court of pie-powder, and with all liberties and customs to such fair appertaining.1327In course of time the City claimed the right of holding a market, as well as the yearly fair, twice a week in[pg 442]Southwark. This claim now led to difficulties with the king's bailiff, Sir John Gate. A draft agreement had been drawn up during Somerset's protectorate in the hopes of arranging matters,1328but apparently without success.

Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.

Charter to the City, 23 April, 1550.

At length the city agreed (29 March, 1550) to make an offer of 500 marks for the purchase of the rights of the Crown in Southwark,1329and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s.1d.the king conveyed by charter1330to the City of London divers messuages in Southwark, with the exception of "Southwark Place" and the gardens belonging to it, formerly the Duke of Suffolk's mansion, and for a further sum of 500 marks he surrendered all the royal liberties and franchises which he or his heirs might have in the borough or town of Southwark. It was expressly provided that this charter was not to be prejudicial to Sir John Gate or to his property and interests. The ancient rent of £10 per annum was still to be paid, and the citizens were to be allowed to hold four markets every week in addition to a fair and court of pie-powder enjoyed since the time of Edward IV. On the 9th May the lord mayor took formal possession of the borough of Southwark by riding through the precinct, after which the Common Cryer made proclamation with sound of trumpet for[pg 443]all vagabonds to leave the city and borough and the suburbs and liberties of the same.1331

The ward of Bridge Without.

The ward of Bridge Without.

It was originally intended, no doubt, that the borough should be incorporated for all municipal purposes with the city, and that the inhabitants of the borough should be placed on the same footing as the citizens. This, however, was never carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that among the ordinances drawn up (31 July) for the government of the borough,1332there was one which prescribed the same customary procedure in the election of an alderman for the new ward of Bridge Without as prevailed in the city;1333the inhabitants of the borough have never taken any part in the election of an alderman. The first alderman, Sir John Aylyff, a barber-surgeon, was "nominated, elected and chosen" by the Court of Aldermen,1334and was admitted and sworn before the same body on the 28th May, 1850—that is to say, some weeks before the ordinances just mentioned were drawn up.

The alderman of the ward continued to be nominated and elected by the Court of Aldermen[pg 444]until 1711, when, by virtue of an Act of Common Council, the ward was to be offered to the several aldermen who had served as mayor, in order of seniority. If no alderman could be found willing to be translated from his own ward to that of Bridge Without, the Court of Common Council was empowered by another Act passed in 1725 to proceed to the election of an alderman.

The ward of Bridge Without has never sent representatives to the Common Council, inasmuch as its inhabitants refused to "take up their freedom" and bear the burdens of citizenship, and there existed no means for forcing the freedom upon them. In 1835, however, a petition was presented to the Common Council by certain inhabitants of Southwark asking that they might for the future exercise the right of electing not only an alderman, but common council-men for the ward, and that the ordinances of 1550 might be carried out according to their original intention. The petition was referred to the Committee for General Purposes, who reported to the Common Council1335to the effect that, considering that the borough of Southwark had never formed part of the City of London, the charter of Edward VI notwithstanding, and that the holding of wardmotes in the borough would materially interfere with the duties of an ancient officer known as a seneschal or steward of Southwark, the petition could not be complied with, except by application to the legislature, and that such a course would neither be expedient or advisable. Another petition to the same effect has quite recently[pg 445]been presented to the Court of Aldermen; but it was equally unsuccessful.1336

Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.

Growing unpopularity of Warwick, 1550-1551.

Warwick had not long taken the place of Somerset before he found himself compelled to make peace with France (29 March, 1550). This he accomplished only by consenting to surrender Boulogne. The declaration of peace was celebrated with bonfires in the city, although the conditions under which the peace was effected were generally unacceptable to the nation and brought discredit upon the earl.1337One result of the conclusion of the war was again to flood the streets of the city with men who openly declared that they neither could nor would work, and that unless the king provided them with a livelihood they would combine to plunder the city, and once clear with their booty they cared not if 10,000 men were after them. It was in vain that proclamation was made for all disbanded soldiers to leave the city. They refused to go, and oftentimes came into conflict with the city constables. At length the mayor and aldermen addressed a letter on the subject to the lords of the council (25 Sept.).1338

The debasement of the currency, 1551.

The debasement of the currency, 1551.

In the following year the state of the city was rendered worse by a proposal of Warwick to debase the currency yet more. As soon as the proposal got wind up went the price of provisions, in spite of every effort made by the lords of the council to keep it down. They sent for the mayor (Sir Andrew Judd) to[pg 446]attend them at Greenwich on Sunday, the 10th May, and soundly rated him—or, as the chronicler puts it, "gave him some sore words"—for allowing such things to take place. On Thursday, the 28th, the mayor summoned a Common Council, when the Recorder repeated to them the king's orders that the price of wares was not to be raised. The livery companies were to see to it, and there were to be no more murmurings.1339

Warwick himself excited the anger of the city burgesses by riding through the streets to see if the king's orders against the enhancement of the price of victuals were being carried out. Coming one day to a butcher's in Eastcheap, he asked the price of a sheep. Being told that it was 13 shillings, he replied that it was too much and passed on. When another butcher asked 16 shillings he was told to go and be hanged. The earl's conduct so roused the indignation of the butchers of the city—a class of men scarcely less powerful than their brethren the fishmongers—that they made no secret that the price of meat would be raised still more if the debasement of the currency was carried out as proposed.1340Yet, in spite of all remonstrances and threats, a proclamation went forth that after the 17th August the shilling should be current for six pence sterling and no more, the groat for two pence, the penny for a halfpenny, and the halfpenny for a farthing.1341The price of every commodity rose 50 per cent. as a matter of course, and nothing that Warwick[pg 447]could do could prevent it. Seeing at last the hopelessness of attempting to overcome economic laws by a mereipse dixit, he caused a "contrary proclamasyon" to be issued, and "sette alle at lyberty agayne, and every viteler to selle as they wolde and had done before."1342

The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.

The Duke of Somerset again arrested, 16 Oct., 1551.

Warwick's increasing unpopularity raised a hope in the breast of Somerset of recovering his lost power. Some rash words he had allowed to escape were carried to the young king, who took the part of Warwick against his own uncle, and showed his appreciation of the earl's services by creating him Duke of Northumberland (11 Oct.). A few days later Somerset was seized and again committed to the Tower.1343The new duke vaunted himself more than ever, and as a fresh coinage was on the eve of being issued, he caused it to be struck with a ragged staff, the badge of his house, on its face.1344Some of the duke's servants thought to ruffle it as well as their master, and offered an insult to one of the sheriffs, attempting to snatch at his chain of office as he accompanied the mayor to service at St. Paul's on All Saints' Day, and otherwise creating no little disturbance in St. Paul's Churchyard. The mayor waited until service was over, and then took them into custody.1345

Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.

Trial and execution of Somerset, 22 Jan., 1552.

At the time of Somerset's second arrest the Common Council and the wardens of the several livery companies were summoned to meet at the Guildhall to hear why the duke had been sent for the[pg 448]second time to the Tower, and to receive instructions for safe-guarding the city. They were informed by the Recorder that it had been the duke's intention to seize the Tower and the Isle of Wight, and to "have destroyed the city of London and the substantiall men of the same."1346This was, of course, an exaggeration, although there is little doubt that the duke was preparing to get himself named again Protector by the next parliament. On the 1st December he was brought from the Tower by water to Westminster, the mayor and aldermen having received strict orders to keep the city well guarded.1347He was arraigned of treason and felony, but his judges, among whom sat his enemy Northumberland himself, acquitted him of the former charge, and those in the hall, thinking he had been altogether acquitted, raised a shout of joy that could be heard as far as Charing Cross and Long Acre. When they discovered that he had been found guilty of felony and condemned to be executed they were grievously disappointed. As he landed at the Crane in the Vintry on his way back to the Tower that evening, and passed through Candlewick (Cannon) Street, the people, we are told, cried "'God save him' all the way as he went, thinkinge that he had clerely bene quitt, but they were deceyved, but hoopinge he should have the kinge's pardon."1348According to another chronicler there were mingled cries of joy and sorrow as he passed through London, some crying for joy that he was acquitted, whilst others (who were better informed of the actual state of the case)[pg 449]lamented his conviction.1349His execution took place on Tower Hill in January of the next year (1552).

The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.

The City and the Royal Hospitals, 1547-1553.

In the meanwhile the civic authorities had been energetically engaged in making regulations for the hospital of the poor in West Smithfield, better known as St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which they had recently acquired, and in grappling with the poverty and sickness with which they were surrounded. Instead of trusting to the charity of those attending the parish churches on Sunday for raising money for the poor, the Common Council, in September, 1547, resorted to the less precarious method of levying on every inhabitant of the city one half of a fifteenth for the maintenance of the poor of the hospital.1350The voluntary system, however, was not wholly abolished. In the following April (1548) a brotherhood for the relief of the poor had been established, to which the mayor (Sir John Gresham) and most of the aldermen belonged, each agreeing to subscribe a yearly sum varying from half a mark to a mark.1351In September governors were appointed of St. Bartholomew's Hospital—four aldermen and eight commoners1352—and in the following December the Common Council passed an Act for the payment of 500 marks a year to the hospital, the sum being levied on the livery companies.1353

St. Thomas's Hospital.

St. Thomas's Hospital.

In 1551 the City succeeded in obtaining another hospital. This was the hospital in Southwark originally dedicated to Thomas Becket, but whose patron[pg 450]saint was, after the Reformation, changed to St. Thomas the Apostle. Negotiations were opened in February with the lord chancellor for the purchase of this hospital.1354They proceeded so favourably that by the 12th August the hospital and church and part of their endowment were conveyed to the City by deed, whilst the rest of the endowment was transferred by another deed on the following day.1355The purchase-money amounted to nearly £2,500.

Christ's Hospital.

Christ's Hospital.

Having thus cared for the sick and the poor, the civic authorities next turned their attention to the conversion of a portion of the ground and buildings of the dissolved monastery of the Grey Friars into a hospital for the reception and education of fatherless and helpless children. In 1552 Sir Richard Dobbs1356was mayor. He took an active part in the charitable work that was then being carried on in the city, and his conduct so won the heart of Ridley that the bishop wrote from prison shortly before his death commending him in the highest possible terms:—"O Dobbs, Dobbs, alderman and knight, thou in thy year did'st win my heart for evermore, for that honourable act, that most blessed work of God, of the erection and setting up of Christ's Holy Hospitals, and truly religious houses which by thee and through thee were begun." In July the work of adapting the old buildings, rather than erecting new, was commenced, and in a few months the[pg 451]premises were sufficiently forward to admit of the reception of nearly 400 children. The charity was aided by the king's bestowal of the linen vestures used in the city prior to the Reformation, and at that time seized by the commissioners.1357Just as the close of the reign of Henry VIII had witnessed the reopening of the church of the Grey Friars under the name of Christchurch, and the celebration of the mass once more within its walls, so now the close of his son's short reign witnessed the restoration of their house and buildings, and their conversion, in the cause of education and charity, into Christ's Hospital.

Bridewell Hospital.

Bridewell Hospital.

There was yet another class of inhabitant to be provided for, namely, those who either could not or would not work. On behalf of these a deputation1358was appointed by the City to present a petition to the king that he would be pleased to grant the disused palace of Bridewell to the municipality for the purpose of turning it into a workhouse. The deputation was introduced by Ridley, who himself wrote in May of this year (1552) to secretary Cecil on the same subject.1359The efforts of the bishop and the deputation were rewarded with success. In the following spring (1553) the king not only consented to convey the palace to the municipal body, but further gave 700 marks and all the beds and bedding of his palace of the Savoy for the maintenance of[pg 452]the workhouse.1360The City having thus become possessed of the several hospitals of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, Christ's and Bridewell, the king, a few days before his death, granted the mayor, aldermen and commonalty a charter of incorporation as governors of these Royal Hospitals in the city.1361

Back to IndexNext