And all the men of London shall be quit and free, and all their goods, throughout England, and the ports of the sea, of and from all toll and passage and lestage, and all other customs; and the churches and barons and citizens shall and may peaceably and quietly have and hold their sokes with all their customs, so that the strangers that shall be lodged in the sokes shall give custom to none but to him to whom the soke appertains, or to his officer, whom he shall there put: And a man of London shall not be adjudged in amerciaments of money but of one hundred shillings (I speak of the pleas which appertain to money); and further there shall be no more miskenning in the hustings, nor in the folkmote, nor in any other pleas within the city, and the hustings may sit once in a week, that is to say on Monday: And I will cause my citizens to have their lands, promises, bonds and debts, within the city and without; and I will do them right by the law of the city, of the lands of which they shall complain to me:
And if any shall take toll or custom of any citizen of London, the citizens of London in the city shall take of the borough or town, where toll or custom was so taken, so much as the man of London gave for toll, and as he received damage thereby: And all debtors, which do owe debts to the citizens of London, shall pay them in London, or else discharge themselves in London, that they owe none; but, if they will not pay the same, neither come to clear themselves that they owe none, the citizens of London, to whom the debts shall be due, may take their goods in the city of London, of the borough or town, or of the country wherein he remains who shall owe the debt: And the citizens of London may have their chaces to hunt, as well and fully as their ancestors have had, that is to say, in Chiltre, and in Middlesex and Surrey.
Witness the bishop of Winchester, and Robert son of Richier, and Hugh Bygot, and Alured of Toteneys, and William of Alba-spina, and Hubert the king's Chamberlain, and William de Montfichet, and Hangulf de Taney, and John Bellet, and Robert son of Siward. At Westminster.
MATILDA IN LONDON (1141).
The power and influence of the City are well illustrated by the part which it took in the struggles between Stephen and Matilda for the throne of England. The Londoners at first supported Stephen; but the party of the Empress Matilda proved to be the stronger, and for some time everything appeared to be in her favour. But she ruined her cause by her foolish behaviour towards the Londoners. She gave grants to a feudal nobleman, Geoffrey de Mandeville, which practically placed the City at his mercy, and she made unreasonable demands for subsidies from the citizens, besides treating them in a very contemptuous fashion. Finally, when they asked for a renewal of the laws of Edward the Confessor, she refused, and the citizens rose in revolt and compelled Matilda to withdraw from the City. The opposition of the Londoners at that particular time completely altered the aspect of affairs, and Stephen was shortly afterwards restored to the throne.
Source.—Gesta Stephani.
Having now obtained the submission of the greatest part of the kingdom, taken hostages and received homage, and being, as I have just said, elated to the highest pitch of arrogance, she came with vast military display to London, at the humble request of the citizens. They fancied that they had now arrived at happy days, when peace and tranquillity would prevail.... She, however, sent for some of the more wealthy, and demanded of them, not with gentle courtesy, but in an imperious tone, an immense sum of money. Upon this they made complaints that their former wealth had been diminished by the troubled state of the kingdom, that they had liberally contributed to the relief of the indigent against the severe famine which was impending, and that they had subsidised the King to their last farthing: they therefore humbly implored her clemency that in pity for their losses and distresses she would show some moderation in levying money from them.... When the citizens had addressed her in this manner, she, without any of the gentleness of her sex, broke out into insufferable rage, while she replied to them with a stern eye and frowning brow "that the Londoners had often paid large sums to the King; that they had opened their purse-strings wide to strengthen him and weaken her; that they had been long in confederacy with her enemies for her injury; and that they had no claim to be spared, and to have the smallest part of the fine remitted." On hearing this, the citizens departed to their homes, sorrowful and unsatisfied.
A NORMAN PICTURE OF LONDON (circa 1173).
William Fitz-Stephen was a native of London, and lived there much of his life. This description of his birthplace is prefixed to his "Life of Thomas Becket," perhaps because he did not wish Canterbury to eclipse London in his narrative. This account of the capital city is clearly a fanciful picture, containing much exaggeration; but apart from its quaintness, it is interesting as showing how a medieval writer treated a subject which would now be discussed precisely and minutely, with accurate details and statistics.