The Survey of London

by John Stow

AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE EXAMINATION OF SUCH CAUSES AS HAVE HERETOFORE MOVED THE PRINCES EITHER TO FINE AND RANSOM THE CITIZENS OF LONDON, OR TO SEIZE THE LIBERTIES OF THE CITY ITSELF.

These all may be reduced to these few heads; for either the citizens have adhered, in aid or arms, to such as have warred upon the prince, or they have made tumult, and broken the common peace at home; or they have misbehaved themselves in point of government and justice; or finally, and to speak the plain truth, the princes have taken hold of small matters, and coined good sums of money out of them.

To the first head I will refer whatsoever they have done, either in those wars that happened between King Stephen and Maude the empress, being competitors of the crown, or between King John and his nobles, assisting Lewis, the French king’s son, when he invaded the realm; for it is apparent by all histories that the Londoners were not the movers of these wars, but were only used as instruments to maintain them. The like is to be said of all the offences that King Henry III., whose whole reign was a continual warfare, conceived against this city, concerning the bearing of armour against him; for the first part of his reign was spent in the continuation of those wars that his father had begun with Lewis; and the rest of his life he bestowed in that contention, which was commonly called the Barons’ wars: in which tragedy London, as it could not be otherwise, had now and then a part, and had many a snub at the king’s hand for it: but in the end, when he had triumphed over Simon Montford at Evesham, London felt it most tragical; for then he both seized their liberties and sucked themselves dry; and yet Edictum Kenilworth, made shortly after, hath an honourable testimony for London, saying, “Te London laudamus,” etc. As for the other offences that he took against the Londoners, they pertain to the other parts of my division.

Next after this, against whom the Londoners did put on arms, followeth King Edward II., who in the end was deprived of his kingdom, not by their means, but by a general defection both of his own wife and son, and almost of the whole nobility and realm besides. In which trouble, that furious assault and slaughter committed by them upon the bishop of Excester, then treasurer of the realm, is to be imputed partly to the sway of the time wherewith they were carried, and partly to a private displeasure which they had to the bishop.

Finally cometh to hand King Richard II.; for these three only, in all the catalogue of our kings, have been heavy lords to London, who also had much contention with his nobility, and was in the end deposed. But whatsoever countenance and aid the city of London brought to the wars and uproars of that time, it is notoriously true that London never led the dance, but ever followed the pipe of the nobility. To close up this first part, therefore, I affirm, that in all the troublesome actions during the reign of these three kings, as also in all that heaving in and hurling out that afterward happened between King Henry VI. and King Edward IV., the city of London was many times a friend and fautor, but never the first motive or author of any intestine war or sedition.

In the second room I place a couple of tumultuous affrays that chanced in the days of King Richard I.; the one upon the day of his coronation against the Jews, which, contrary to the king’s own proclamation, would needs enter the church to see him sacred, and were therefore cruelly handled by the common people. The other was caused by William with the long beard, who after that he had inflamed the poor people against the richer sort, and was called to answer for his fault, took Bow church for sanctuary, and kept it, castle-like, till he was fired out.

Here is place also for the stoning to death of a gentleman, servant to the half-brother of King Henry III., which had before provoked the citizens to fury by wounding divers of them without any cause, 1257; for the riotous fray between the servants of the goldsmiths and the tailors, 1268; for the hurly burly and bloodshed between the Londoners and the men of Westminster, moved by the young men upon an occasion of a wrestling on St. James’ day, 1221; and made worse by one Constantine, an ancient citizen, for the brawl and business that arose about a baker’s loaf at Salisbury place, 1391; for the which, and some other misdemeanours, King Richard II. was so incensed by evil counsel against the Londoners, that he determined to destroy them and raze their city: and for the fight that was between the citizens and sanctuary men of St. Martin’s, 1454, under King Henry VI.: and finally, for the misrule on evil May-day 1519, and for such other like, if there have been any.

To the third head may be referred the seizure of their liberties, for a false judgment given against a poor widow, called Margaret Viel, 1246; the two several seizures in one year, 1258, for false packing in collections of money and other enormities; and finally the seizure made by King Edward I. for taking of bribes of the bakers, 1285. But all this security in seizing and resuming of the liberties, which was in old time the only ordinary punishment, was at length mitigated by King Edward III. and King Henry IV., in their statutes before remembered.

In the last place stand those offences, which I repute rather taken than given, and do fall within the measure of the adage, “Ut canem cædas, cito invenias baculum:” for King John, in the 10th of his reign, deposed the bailiffs of London, because they had bought up the wheat in the market, so that there was not to serve his purveyors. King Henry III., his son, compelled the Londoners to pay him five thousand pounds, because they had lent to Lewis, the French king, the like sum, of a good mind to dispatch him out of their city and the realm, at such time as the protector and the whole nobility fell to composition with him for his departure. And the same king fined them at three thousand marks for the escape of a prisoner out of Newgate, of whom they took no charge; for he was a clerk, prisoner to the bishop of London, under the custody of his own servants; and as for the place, it was only borrowed of the Londoners to serve that turn. Hitherto of these things to this end, that whatsoever misdemeanour shall be objected out of history against London, the same may herein appear, both in its true place and proper colour.