INTRODUCTION.
The series of volumes preserved among the archives of the City
of London at the Guildhall under the name of "Letter-Books"
—so called from their being severally distinguished by a letter
of the alphabet—have already been introduced to public notice
by the late Mr. H. T. Riley in 'Memorials of London and
London Life in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries,' edited by him in 1868 on behalf of the Corporation,
under the superintendence of the Library Committee.
The series comprises just fifty volumes—lettered from A to Z
(with two odd volumes marked respectively "&c." and "AB")
and again from AA to ZZ—and in point of time extends from
the early years of the reign of Edward I. almost to the close of
the reign of James II. The earlier volumes (from which the
'Memorials' were compiled) possess the greater interest, inasmuch as they contain (inter alia) the chief, if not the only existing, record of the proceedings of the Court of Common Council
and Court of Aldermen prior to the fifteenth century, when they
were first entered in separate volumes, known respectively as
Journals and Repertories. (fn. 1) The later volumes contain much
that is also entered in the Journals and Repertories, (fn. 2) but the
concluding volumes of the series are almost wholly devoted to
orphanage matters. The Letter-Books are of vellum, whilst
the Journals and Repertories are of paper.
Besides being known by distinctive letters, the earlier Letter
Books originally bore other titles. Thus we find Letter-Book A
referred to in the 'Liber Horn' and elsewhere as the 'Lesser
Black Book' (Parvus or Minor Liber Niger
(fn. 3) ); Letter-Book B as
the 'Black Book' (Liber Niger
(fn. 4) ); Letter-Book C as the 'Greater
Black Book' (Major or Maximus Liber Niger
(fn. 5) ); Letter-Book D
as the 'Red Book' (Liber Rubeus
(fn. 6) ); and Letter-Book E as the
'White Book' or 'New White Book of Writs and Memoranda'
(Liber Albus or Liber Albus novus de brevibus et memorandis
(fn. 7) ).
These titles were no doubt derived from the comparative size
of each volume and the original colour of its binding. (fn. 8) The
value of these earlier records was fully realized by Andrew
Horn, the well-known jurist and sometime Chamberlain of the
City, no less than by John Carpenter, the City's famous Town
Clerk, both of whom drew largely upon these volumes for
their own respective compilations of City customs and ordinances,
viz., the 'Liber Horn' and the book known par excellence as the
City's 'Liber Albus.' Later on these books of "Remembrances"
(as they were sometimes called) were utilized by Fabyan, by
Stow, and others.
Like other volumes of the City's records, the Letter-Books
appear to have had their vicissitudes. Thus on the fly-leaf of
Letter-Book E we find the following statement written in a hand
of the sixteenth century :—
"Memorand' that this Boke of E was lost & was lackyng of
a long seasoun untill the viijth day of July in the xxxijth yere of
the reign of Kyng Henry the viijth that Robert Broke coen'
seriaunte (fn. 9) espied out the seid Boke and caused it to be redemyd
unto the Chambre of London &c. die et anno predictis."
This is corroborated by the record of the proceedings of the
Court of Aldermen. The volume had fallen into the hands of a
"gentilman"—an acquaintance if not a friend of the Common
Serjeant—and on the 1st of July, 1540, that distinguished lawofficer was instructed by the Court to make an offer of 20s.
for its surrender (fn. 10) :—
"Item yt ys agreyd that Mr Broke Coen' Seriaunt shall make
an offree of 20s. to a gentilman of hys acqueyntaunce for a boke
belongyng to thys Cytie called the boke of E whiche the seyd
gentilman hath & to make report therof to thys Court &c."
Broke appears to have had an easy task, for a week later he
brought the book into Court, with a solemn asseveration (provocative of a smile) that he had expended the whole of the
money entrusted to him for the purpose, and had himself reaped
no pecuniary benefit out of the transaction (fn. 11) :—
"Item Mr Broke Coen' Seriaunt brought in the boke of E
belongyng to thys Cytye whyche boke had been longe myssyng.
And reported to thys Court upon his honestye that yt cost hym
no less then 20s. whiche he before receyvyd of Mr Chamberleyn for the redempcon' therof."
How the book went astray and what length of time it had
been missing we shall probably never know. It might have
been borrowed, as other books of the City have been borrowed,
and for a time, if not for ever, lost. (fn. 12) But there is no need to
suppose the Letter-Book to have been borrowed to account for
its loss, if we consider the lax manner in which the City's
records were written up by the four clerks or attorneys of the
Mayor's Court prior to 1537, when stringent regulations were
promulgated for future practice. (fn. 13) Hitherto each clerk had been
in the habit of keeping in his own custody the books or calendars
upon which he happened to be engaged for the time being.
This would sufficiently account for the irregular, and at times
haphazard, manner in which entries have been made in (at
least) the first two Letter-Books, and for their overlapping each
other in point of chronology. Thus Letter-Book A comprises
the period from circa 1275-1298, and Letter-Book B from circa
1275-1313.
The character of the Letter-Books in general must not be
judged from these two books, the pages of which are chiefly
concerned with recognizances of debts. (fn. 14) These recognizances,
however, have their value as illustrating the commercial intercourse of the citizens of London with Gascony and Spain in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, more especially in connexion
with wine and leather. Hence the appearance of the names of
those sworn as "correctors" (coretaru), or licensed brokers, of
those commodities on the first page of Letter-Book A.
Another prominent feature of both these books is the record
of the Assize of Bread, (fn. 15) as set from time to time by the municipal authorities. Here, too, as will be seen on p. 207 of this
volume, the record has been irregularly kept, and little respect
is paid to chronological order. The mode of fixing the price
of bread was of so intricate and technical a character that it
was deemed advisable to give no more than a passing notice
of it in this Calendar.
To return to the Recognizances.
By the Statute of Acton Burnel (Stat. 11 Edward I.) it was
enacted (inter alia) that recognizances of debts should be taken
before the Mayor and a clerk appointed by the King. Nevertheless, within a very short while after the passing of this
statute, and notwithstanding its express provision to the contrary, we find the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen declaring
that such recognizances should be made before the City Chamberlain, (fn. 16) who might, if he liked, receive (as he frequently did)
the recognizances at his own house instead of at the Guildhall. (fn. 17)
A fee in proportion to the amount involved was charged for
the enrolment of each recognizance, but an Alderman was
exempt, just as he was also exempt from payment for enrolment of any kind of charter or deed. (fn. 18)
It was frequently a stipulation of these recognizances that the
money should be paid in good, round, unclipped coin, whether
pence or halfpence. This was especially the case about the
year 1278, and was due to the fact that for some time past the
coin of the realm had been so abominably clipped as to lose half
its weight and value. The price of every commodity had in
consequence become enhanced and foreign commerce had been
reduced to stagnation. The Jews were the chief culprits, having
taken to this method of recouping some of the loss they had
sustained by a recent enactment which forbade them altogether
to exact any kind of usury in future. (fn. 19) But the Jews were not
the only offenders. There were not wanting goldsmiths and
money-changers ready to take a hand in the ignoble game of
"sweating" coin, or at least to aid and abet those engaged
in the nefarious practice.
The evil became so great that in November, 1278, the King
determined to put a stop to it, and gave orders for the immediate arrest of all suspected Jews and their Christian accomplices. Those taken in the City were brought to the Guildhall
and there held to bail (vadiati). (fn. 20) Early in the following year
they were brought to trial before Stephen de Penshurst, Walter
de Helyun, and John de Cobham, the King's Justiciars sent to
the Guildhall for the purpose. The trial lasted until Lent began,
when the judges rose, and was resumed after Easter.
There seems little doubt that it was owing to these proceedings taking place at the Guildhall that Hugh Motun, the
City Chamberlain (or one of the City Chamberlains, for at
times there seem to have been more than one), found it con
venient to take recognizances at his house or shop instead of
at his official place of business. (fn. 21) At the close of the trial nearly
three hundred Jews were condemned to be hanged, and three
Christians, nearly all the goldsmiths and moneyers arrested on
suspicion escaping the death penalty, even if they did not get
off scot free. About Whitsuntide proclamation was made withdrawing from currency all clipped money, exchanges being set
up at the Tower of London and in various other cities and
boroughs, where the bad money might be brought in and, on
payment of the deficit, be exchanged for good. The exchanges
throughout the realm were placed in charge of one who figures
largely in the City's history, viz., Gregory de Rokesle, who was
at that time filling the Mayoralty chair for the sixth year in
succession. (fn. 22)
To add to the discomfiture of the Jew in the City, a series of
ordinances had recently been passed under Rokesle's rule, the
first being to the effect that the King's peace should be kept
between Christians and Jews; but this ordinance had been
afterwards altered (probably in consequence of the King's
action against the Jews over the clipped money business), and
Jews were struck out of the ordinance. They were in effect
not to be considered in the King's peace, although at all times
regarded as the King's chattel. (fn. 23)
Another ordinance forbade "foreign" butchers (i. e., butchers
not freemen of the City) buying meat from Jews to resell to
Christians, or meat slaughtered for Jews and by them rejected.
The meaning of the concluding words of this ordinance is best
illustrated by certain proceedings which took place before the
King's Council at Westminster in 1274, during the King's
absence abroad, whither also the Mayor, Henry le Galeys, had
gone. The proceedings are recorded in the City's 'Liber de
Antiquis Legibus,' (fn. 24) where it appears that shortly before Mid
summer the Sheriffs and certain discreet men of the City
appeared before the Council, and the following questions were
put to them:—
"It is notorious that the Jews kill with their own hands all
beasts and fowls whose flesh they eat. But some beasts they
consider of their law, and some not; the flesh of those which
are of their law they eat, and not the flesh of others. What
then do the Jews do with the flesh of those which are
not of their law? Is it lawful for Christians to buy and
eat it?"
In reply, the citizens declared that if any Christian bought
any such flesh of a Jew, he would be immediately excommunicated, and if convicted thereof by the Sheriffs of the City or
by any one else he would lose such flesh and it would be given
to the lepers or to the dogs to eat, and he would be heavily
amerced by the Sheriffs. They further expressed their willingness to visit such delinquents with heavier punishment if the
Council thought fit. To this the Council replied that seeing
the matter concerned the Jews, who were the property of the
King, they would not advise a severer form of punishment for
the Christians in his lordship's absence, but they straitly commanded the citizens in virtue of their fealty to cause the custom
rigidly to be observed. Hence, no doubt, its appearance
among these ordinances. One other ordinance was directed
against this ill-fated race, and this forbade the letting or hiring
of residential houses to or from Jews, who were to be strictly
relegated to the Jewry—the London Ghetto. (fn. 25)
The recognizances in Letter-Book A terminate in 1294, (fn. 26) and
are immediately followed by a series of deeds extending from
1281 to 1293, the recognizances and deeds being the chief
feature of the volume, the rest being occupied by miscellaneous
matters and additions of a later date, inserted wherever space
permitted. Thus on fos 89 b-92 we find ordinances touching
the fishmongers of the City, in French, with another set of
ordinances regulating the seasons for fishing, the size of nets to
be used, &c., in English, and between the two an account of the
burning of a "false kidell" of a considerably later date, written
in Latin. On fo. 101 and following folios we have the names of
the various Sheriffs elected between 1278 and 1293 (roughly
speaking), and again between 1298 and 1302, together with the
names of their respective sureties sworn to see that they paid
the City's ferm. Sometimes they are set down as Sheriffs of
London, and sometimes as Sheriffs of London and Middlesex.
On pp 75-6 will be found what appears to be a unique instance
of a Sheriff of Middlesex recorded eo nomine in the City's
archives, as distinct from the Sheriff (or Sheriffs) of London,
prior to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888.
The date of the record is 1283, and it purports to be an acknowledgment by Nicholas de Winchester of a sum of money due to
the King on his accounts during his Shrievalty in 1280-1, and
an acquittance to Anketin de Bettevile and Walter le Blound,
the then Sheriffs of London, and to Gerin, then Sheriff of
Middlesex, who held a writ of distress for the money. The
explanation of this seems to be that the Sheriffs of London, who
held the Sheriffwick of Middlesex at a ferm (under charter of
Henry I.), had, so to speak, sub-let it; for, in the same
year, we find a formal judgment given by the Mayor, Aldermen,
and Sheriffs to the effect that thenceforth (as if the practice had
been, or was likely to become, common) the Sheriffs of London
should not deliver the county of Middlesex to ferm. (fn. 27)
An early copy of the Statute of Westminster the First—
almost a code by itself, covering, as it does, the whole field of
legislation—is recorded on fos. 118-125 b, but has not been set
out by the Editor for the reason that with the exception of two
short paragraphs, each commencing E si viscuntes ou coroners ou
autre Bailifs, &c (fos. 119-120), the whole is printed in the
'Statutes at Large' (ed. 1758, vol. i. pp. 40-57). This is followed
(fos. 125 b-126) by extracts from the Statute of Gloucester
passed three years later, viz., A D. 1278. (fn. 28) It was based on the
returns of a great commission of inquiry instituted on the King's
return from the Holy Land after the death of his father, with a
view to correct various abuses and usurpations of Crown rights
that had arisen during the turbulent reign of King Henry III.
The results of this searching inquiry (to which the City of
London like the rest of the kingdom had to submit) are
recorded in the Rotuli Hundredorum or Hundred Rolls, (fn. 29) and
formed the basis of articles known as Capitula Itineris, delivered by the Justices in Eyre on going circuit, and were
the immediate cause of the first chapter of the Statute of
Gloucester. The chapters set out in the Letter-Book are
those which more particularly affected the citizens of London,
viz., caps. 11-15.
We learn from the City's 'Liber Custumarum' (fn. 30) that chapter 12
had been inserted in the statute for the express purpose of
removing a grievance of the citizens. Before the Act the custom
had prevailed in the City that when any one impleaded in the
Husting vouched to warranty a stranger (forinsecum), the matter
was adjourned until the next Iter at the Tower. This occasioned
oftentimes much delay and hardship, and the citizens had in consequence appealed to the King for a remedy. Accordingly, it
was enacted by this twelfth chapter of the Statute of Gloucester
that if a man impleaded for a tenement in the City vouched to
warranty a stranger, he should come into the Chancery and have
a writ to summon the warrantor on a certain day before the
Justices of the Bench, and another writ to the Mayor and
Bailiffs ordering them to stay proceedings in the Husting until
the plea of warranty should be determined before the Bench.
The remedy proved little better than the disease, for the King's
Chancery being in those days a movable Court, it was not
always an easy matter to sue out a writ, and thus default in
appearance frequently took place and all was lost. Further
representations were therefore made to the King, and in 1282
the chapter was amended. It was no longer to be necessary to
sue out a writ in Chancery; but the Mayor and Bailiffs were
themselves to send the matter direct to the Justices of the Bench,
the rest of the proceedings remaining much as before. (fn. 31) For
thirty-three years and more this procedure, we are told, was
followed, the Justices of the Bench always receiving the records
sent in by the Mayor and Sheriffs, and thereupon summoning
the stranger called to warranty to appear before them, until in
the seventh year of Edward II. exception was taken to the
practice as being contrary to the Statute of Gloucester. The
Justices examined the statute and examined the terms of the
chapter as amended (or article, as it was called) sent to the
Mayor and Sheriffs by the King, and, finding them not to agree,
forthwith quashed the proceedings. Matters began to look
serious, for if the amended chapter were to prove of no effect,
all the proceedings that had been taken under it, whether before
the Justices of the Bench or in the Husting, would be null and
void. The civic authorities, with John de Gisors at their head,
instituted a search among the Rolls of Chancery and the Rolls
and Writs of the Justices of the Bench in each year since the
amendment of the "article," in order to see what procedure had
been used. The records for two years and more were thereupon carefully examined, and nothing being found to throw light
on the subject, a Writ of Certiorari, addressed to the King's
Treasurer and Chamberlains of the Exchequer, was sought for
and obtained. This was in April, 1316. A second search,
officially carried out, proved successful, a record being discovered of a case in 1290 to which the amended "article"
was annexed. A return to the writ being duly made to that
effect, the King's Council agreed that a warrant under the royal
seal should issue to the Justices of the Bench, enjoining them
to follow in future the procedure set out in the article in all
cases of strangers being called to warranty in the Husting of
London, notwithstanding such article being at variance with
the statute. A writ was accordingly issued on the 2nd of May
following. (fn. 32)
The year 1285 was a memorable one in the City's annals as
marking what was little less than a civic revolution. The City
lost its franchise, and for thirteen years was "in the King's
hand," being governed by a Warden of his selection and
appointment, instead of by a Mayor appointed by the citizens.
Many fresh regulations were made, as we know, upon this
change of government, (fn. 33) and it is to this crisis in the City's
history that we are indebted (I venture to think) for the earliest
extant record of the names of the Aldermen and their respective Wards, as well as of the names of those appointed to assist
them in the government of the City, as set out on folio 116 of
Letter-Book A. (fn. 34)
Among the regulations just mentioned were some for keeping
watch and ward in the City, (fn. 35) and in the volume before us we
find Ralph de Sandwich, then Warden of the City, in conjunction with the Aldermen, allotting the several gates of the City
to the custody of certain Wards. (fn. 36) This was in 1287, or two
years after the City had been taken into the King's hand.
The list is interesting as showing a transition state, when the
Wards were becoming known by their territorial designations
instead of by the names of their respective Aldermen for the
time being. It gives us also the names of the gates then in
existence, and under the denomination of "Danes" mentions
the merchants of the Hanse of Almaine, whose duty it was not
only to keep Bishopsgate in good repair, but also to take their
part in guarding it whenever necessary, in accordance with the
terms of a "composition" made between them and the citizens
in June, 1282. The "Danes" were to occupy the middle portion
of the gate (in medio), the men of the Ward being above and
below them. (fn. 37) In return for their undertaking the above duties,
the Hanse merchants were to be for ever free from payment
of murage, a tax which the civic authorities were permitted
by the King to levy from time to time on goods entering the
City, to enable them to keep the City's wall and gates in a
state of efficiency. (fn. 38)
R. R. S.
The Guildhall, London,
March, 1899.