London and the Kingdom - Volume 1 / A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.

by Reginald R. Sharpe

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,[1322] and 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,[1323] which[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.[1324] As 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.[1325] The 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.[1326] This 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.[1327] In 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,[1328] but 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,[1329] and eventually a compromise was effected. For the sum of £647 2s. 1d. the king conveyed by charter[1330] to 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.

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,[1332] there 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;[1333] the 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,[1334] and 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 Council[1335] to 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]