not, exercise them; the city came to the assistance of the gilds when they had to fight against a non-gildsman on questions of privilege; the city resisted the attempts of the crown to control trading matters, and boldly declared that where gilds or traders went wrong city law was sufficient to deal with the delinquents. And in this way we get the gradual working together of city and gilds, the encroachment of gildship upon the more ancient free citizenship; finally the welding of the gild organisation with the city organisation. The victory therefore is largely, not completely, with the gilds. But let us note that if it is victory, the victory of an English institution over a city institution which was not English, there is no evidence whatever in London, though there is in other English cities, of a development of municipal into gild organisation. It is struggle all through, and though the gilds won their position they did not destroy municipal power, municipal tradition, or municipal law.

This is demonstrable from the whole tenor of the records. The weavers might claim a royal charter, but, royal charter or not, they had to obey city law. The power and process of city law is to be seen in actual working. A writ comes from Henry V. (5th February 1416-17) to the mayor and aldermen, that they take measures for the strict observance of the ordinance or agreement presenting the particular kind of work to be executed severally by cordewaners and cobelers, and that they punish offenders in accordance with the terms of the said ordinance and the

custom of the city. The answer of the city is decisive. It was made by Richard Merlawe, the mayor, and the aldermen, and was to the effect that by immemorial custom of the city the mayor and aldermen were in the habit of causing any ordinance affecting artificers in the city which proved to be prejudicial to the common good to cease to be observed. This was followed by a still more drastic step. On 6th January 1417-18 the ordinance was annulled at a general

court held at the Guildhall, "inasmuch as it was contrary to the commonweal." 2 City immemorial custom, not king's writ or king's law, is the controlling power; common good, not gild ordinances, is the governing factor; and in this single example the whole case of city government and gild organisation is contained.

Common good included the strictest line of honesty in trade. Many entries in the city archives certify to this, and the pillory and the stocks are brought into requisition against those who do not conform to the city standard of conduct. In 1352 an ordinance had been in existence since the reign of Edward I. prescribing that "fishmongers of the city of London and

1 Calendar of Letter Books, vol. i. p. 187. Cf. Riley, Memorials of London Life, pp. 571-4, for the original ordinance. 2 Calendar, op. cit., p. 194.

66

their partners should see that their baskets,” inter alia, were not "dubbed, that is to say, have good fish placed at the top and inferior kind placed beneath them"; and in 1354 an entry notifies the appointment, "by the good folk of the craft," of three "girdlers and citizens of London to rule and survey the said craft, that it be well and properly preserved in all points. I must quote one other example because of the interest of the subject matter. In 1374 Henry Clerke, John Dyke, William Tanner, and Thomas Lucy, tapicers and masters of the trade of tapicers in London, caused to be brought here a coster of tapestry wrought upon the loom after the manner of work of arras and made of false work by Katharine Duchewoman in her house at Fynkslane, being 4 yards in length and 7 quarters in breadth: seeing that she had made it of linen thread beneath but covered with wool above in deceit of the people and against the ordinance of the trade aforesaid, and they asked that the coster might be adjudged to be false, and for that reason burnt according to the form of the articles of their trade as here in the Chamber enrolled." The mayor, recorder, and certain of the aldermen heard and decided the case against the false tapestry.

2

3

Entries such as these are frequent, and that the

1 Letter Book, 1350-1370, pp. 64, 69.

2 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 375.

3 Another good instance relating to the same gild in 1344 is given in Letter Book, 1337-1352, p. 99.

officers of mediæval London were expected to be as free from interested influences as are those of this age, the following regulation of 1419 will show, by comparison with the "Act for the better prevention of corruption" passed in the sixth year of King Edward VII. (cap. 34): "Forasmuch as it is not becoming or agreeable to propriety that those who are in the service of reverend men, and from them or through them have the advantage of befitting food and raiment, as also of reward or remuneration in a competent degree, should after a perverse custom be begging aught of people like paupers; and seeing that in times past every year at the Feast of Our Lord's Nativity, according to a certain custom which has grown to be an abuse, the vadlets of the Mayor, the Sheriffs, and the Chamber of the said city -persons who have food, raiment, and appropriate advantages resulting from their office-under colour of asking for an oblation, have begged many sums of money of brewers, bakers, cooks, and other victuallers, and in some instances have more than once threatened wrongfully to do them an injury if they should refuse to give them something; and have frequently made promises to others that, in return for a present, they would pass over their unlawful doings in much silence, to the great dishonour of their masters, and to the common loss of all the city"; and then follows the penalty, which is loss of office.1

1 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 670.

That the city looked after the personal requirements is shown by several amusing cases, of which I will quote one. Letters patent under the seal of the mayoralty were issued, 39 Edward III. (1365), “certifying that John de Radeclive, born in the parish of St Botolph without Aldersgate, had a portion of his left ear bitten off by a savage horse belonging to his master, and in order that his character might not suffer by incurring the suspicion of his having been punished for theft or other matter, the said John had prayed them to testify to the truth, which they hereby do."1

Plantagenet London was a city enclosed by its walls, kept in order by the citizens. It is described in many passages in the Chronicles. The city records contain priceless evidence of the topography of inner London through documents presented at the Hustings Court, and those read in the Guildhall before the mayor, and perhaps the inquisition "as to who is or are bound by right to repair the bridge of Walebrok near Bokerelesbre" of 1291 is one of the best examples.2 The public records would yield a great many facts for extra London topography if they could be collated and arranged for such a purpose. Thus, among the charters of the Duchy of Lancaster (1174-1189) is a grant in fee to Henry de Cornhell of a "mill next to the Tower of London

1 Letter Book, 1350-1370, p. 125.

2 Letter Book, temp. Ed. I., pp. 177-179.