There is, however, another point. With the parentage and origin of the Mayors, there are presented, in this edition (see [p. 219]) of Stow, the arms of every Mayor. The earlier shields, such as that of Fitz Aylwin, we need not regard as authentic. After the thirteenth century, however, there could be no tampering with things heraldic. All the Mayors bore arms. Of course we know that in many cases there could be no doubt about the family arms. Such names suggest themselves as Whittington, Bullen, Chalton, Fielding, Cooke, Jocelyn, Hampton, Colet, Clopton, Percival, Capel, Bradbury, and Gresham. Some of them have on their shields the distinctive signs which mark the younger son. I am indebted to my friend Mr. Loftie for information on this point.
Thus, in 1631, Whitmore carries a mullet and a crescent—he was therefore the second son of a third son. Gore was a third son; Hacket was a second son; Jocelyn was a third son; Gamage was a third son; Mosely, the son of a third son; Anderson, son of a sixth son. All these, therefore, without doubt belonged to country families. In some cases, the arms were late, and were probably granted by the Heralds’ College. Among these are the arms of Cow, Warner, Hardy, Warren, Donne, and Cotes. Others given in the same book are ancient, as those of Calthorpe, Duckett, and Gore. In those days, we must remember, there was the greatest jealousy over the right to bear arms. The Heralds’ Visitations continued into the seventeenth century. A man could no more assume a coat of arms than he could—or can now—assume a peerage.
I claim, therefore, to have proved the social position and consideration of the merchants and wholesale traders and adventurers of London. The aristocracy of the City were brothers and cousins to the gentry—perhaps the lesser landed gentry of the country. Let that fact be borne in mind all through our History until the last century, when, as we have seen, a great change fell upon the City, which ceased for a long time to have any connection with the country, or to receive any lads from the country houses and the country gentry.
Then we naturally ask the question, “Does trade detract from honour?” We have seen that the gentry kept London continually supplied with new blood; this fact is in itself a sufficient answer. Let us consult a few authorities on this point. The first is Camden. He is speaking of the De la Poles:—
“William de la Pole, a merchant and mayor of Hull, was made a Baron of the Exchequer. His son, Michael de la Pole, became Earl of Suffolk, Knight of the Garter, and Lord Chancellor. His being a merchant,” says Camden, “did not detract from his honour, for who knows not that even our noblemen’s sons have been merchants? Nor will I deny that he was nobly descended, though a merchant. Whence it follows that mercatura non derogat nobilitati—trade is no abatement of honour.”
The Baron de Pollnitz testifies to the social position of English merchants:—
“In England the nobility intermarry with traders’ daughters as they do in France; however, a great distinction should be made betwixt the one and the other. In England, merchants are sometimes sprung of the greatest houses in the kingdom, and it has often happened that younger branches of noble families, who have been brought up to trade, by the right of succession, have become peers; and frequently it falls out that when a lord espouses a merchant’s daughter, she may be his cousin, or at least a lady of good family. Whereas in France, it is always the daughter of a Roturier.”
Defoe, who always stood up for the honour of trade, says, “Trading is so far from being inconsistent with a gentleman that in England trade makes a gentleman; for, after a generation or two, the tradesman’s children come to be as good gentlemen, statesmen, parliament men, judges, bishops, and noblemen as those of the highest birth and the most ancient families.” Swift says, “The power which used to follow land has gone over to money.” Johnson says, “An English merchant is a new species of gentleman.” Harrison says, “Citizens often change with gentlemen as gentlemen do with them.”
If, however, the country gentry sent their sons up to London, there to be apprenticed, there to become wholesale merchants and adventurers, the common proposition is equally true that the successful merchant or his children retired from London into the country, and carried on a cadet branch of the old house or founded a line of new gentry. This practice was in use as far back as the twelfth century, when the family of Gervase, the London merchant, became country gentry of Essex. The practice has been continued, estates have changed hands over and over again, the new purchasers being London merchants, or even, in these latter days, London tradesmen. In the second generation they are received into county society; in the third their origin is forgotten, or no longer talked about.
It would be a work of great interest to follow the family history of those who left London, and became owners of manors, parks, and country houses. But it would carry me too far, nor could I attempt it, even had I the time necessary, because the genealogies of the people are so full of errors, intentional and otherwise, that there would be no certainty as to the result. One would willingly learn, if one could, who are the modern representatives of Gervase of Cornhill, Ansgar the Staller, Leofwin the Portreeve, Orgar the Proud, the Haverels, the Bukerels, the Farringdons, the Whittingtons, the Philpots, the Greshams, and the later merchants. The descendants of some of the City houses can, however, be traced. An imperfect list has been compiled for my use, as follows:—