[151] Ibid., p. 245.
[152] London, 1885.
[153] Dr. Norman Moore has printed the Cottonian MS. Life of Rahere in the Bartholomew Hospital Reports, vol. xxi., and copious extracts from the MS. had previously been given by Mr. J. Saunders in his articles on St. Bartholomew’s in Knight’s London, vol. ii.
[154] Progress of Medicine, 1888, p. 21.
[155] These documents are printed in the Appendix to Memoranda relating to the Royal Hospitals of London, 1836, pp. 1-49.
[156] Reprinted in Dr. Furnivall’s edition of Thomas Vicary’s Anatomie of the Bodie of Man, E. E. T. S., 1888, pp. 289-336.
[157] ‘The Physicians and Surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital before the time of Harvey,’ St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Reports, vol. xviii., 1882, pp. 333-338.
[158] ‘The Serjeant-Surgeons of England and their Office,’ by D’Arcy Power (British Medical Journal, 1900, vol. i. p. 583).
[159] The manuscript is dated 1392, but the handwriting of the copy used by Dr. Payne is of a much later date. Dr. Payne says that the Anatomy of Vicary is absolutely that of the fourteenth century, without any correction or addition to bring it up to the standard of his own day, ‘On an unpublished English Anatomical Treatise of the fourteenth century, and its relation to the Anatomy of Thomas Vicary’ (British Medical Journal, 25th January 1896, p. 208).
[160] A History of Epidemics in Britain, by Charles Creighton, M.D., 1891, vol. i. pp. 97, 98.
[161] Ibid., p. 106.
[162] Creighton, vol. i. p. 97.
[163] England in the Fifteenth Century, 1888, p. 208 (note).
[164] Creighton, vol. i. p. 105.
[165] Quarterly Review, No. 388, p. 540.
[166] Epidemics in Britain, vol. i. p. 119. See also The Great Pestilence, by F. A. Gasquet, D.D., O.S.B., London, 1893.
[167] Riley’s Introduction to Liber Albus, p. liv.
[168] Jessopp’s Coming of the Friars.
[169] Riley’s Memorials, p. 219 (note).
[170] Ibid., p. 240 (note).
[171] A History of Epidemics in Britain, vol. i. p. 202.
[172] Ibid., p. 228.
[173] Creighton, vol. i. pp. 313, 314.
[174] Anatomie of the Bodie of Man, ed. Furnivall, App. 161.
[175] Ibid., pp. 163, 164.
[176] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vii. 749.
[177] Creighton, vol. i. p. 316.
[178] Vicary, App. iii. p. 166.
[179] Mr. Power refers me to the fact that isolated cases of plague and local epidemics occurred long after the Great Fire.
[180] In a broadside referring to ‘The Plague of London, printed by Peter Cole, at the printing office in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, 1665,’ the number of deaths from plague in 1603, 1625 and 1636 are given as follows:—1603, 30,561 persons; 1625, 35,403; and 1636, 10,400. The numbers in 1593 are given as above.
[181] Mr Pearce gives some interesting facts in his Annals of Christ’s Hospital (p. 207) respecting the effects of the plague in 1603 and 1665 on the condition of the Blue Coat School. During 1665 no more than 32 children of the total number of 260 in the house died of all diseases, although the neighbourhood was severely visited.
[182] Creighton, vol. i. p. 265.
[183] Creighton, p. 270.
[184] Progress of Medicine, 1888, p. 24.
[185] Creighton, vol. i. p. 44.
[186] London (Ancient and Modern) from the Sanitary and Medical Point of View, by G. V. Poore, M.D., F.R.C.P., 1889, p. 114.
[187] Ibid., p. 31.
[188] Creighton, vol. i. p. 323.
[189] Stow’s Chronicle, p. 212.
[190] Riley’s Memorials, p. 67.
[191] Rymer’s Foedera, vol. iii. p. 411.
[192] Creighton, vol. i. pp. 323, 324.
[193] Creighton, vol. i. p. 324.
[194] Riley’s Introduction to Liber Albus, p. xl.
[195] Cal. Letter Book A.
[196] Riley’s Introduction to Liber Albus, p. xli.
[197] Mr. Round conjectures that the ‘Gosfregth Portirefan’ of the Conqueror’s Charter was the first Geoffrey de Mandeville.—Geoffrey de Mandeville, a Study of the Anarchy, 1892, p. 439.
[198] ‘The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the alleged disappearance of the portreeve, with the difficulties it has always presented, and the conjectures to which it has given rise. The style of the “portreeve” indeed disappears, but his office does not. In the person of the Norman vicecomes it preserves an unbroken existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of Ansgar, the portreeve.’—Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 354.
[199] Constitutional History, chap, xi., note to par. 131.
[200] Select Charters, Oxford, 1884, p. 107.
[201] Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1892, p. 372
[202] Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 373.
[203] Constitutional History, chap. xiii. par 165.
[204] Ancient Charters prior to 1200, edited by J. H. Round. Part I, p. 27, 1888 (Pipe Roll Society).
[205] The Commune of London, p. 98.
[206] Round’s Commune of London, pp. 223, 224.
[207] ‘A London Municipal Collection of the Reign of John,’ part i., English Historical Review, July 1902, p. 480.
[208] ‘Nunc primum in sibi indulta conjuratione, regno regem deesse cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus, nec prædecessor et pater ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcarum argenti fieri permississet.’—Richard of Devizes, p. 416 (Commune of London, p. 223)
[209] Bishop Stubbs’s Historical Introductions, pp. 200-309.
[210] The Commune of London, p. 224. The Beffroi of France was the symbol and pledge of independence. So was the bell-tower of St. Paul’s, which is styled in documents berefridum or campanile, p. 234.
[211] The Commune of London, p. 225.
[212] The Commune of London, p. 228.
[213] Ibid., p. 228.
[214] 1193. ‘Sacramentum Commune tempore regis Ricardi quando detentus erat Alemaniam’ (Add. MS., No. 14,252, f. 112 d.), 1205-1206. ‘Sacramentum xxiiij factum anno regni regis Johannis viiº.’ (Add. MS., No. 14,252, f. 110).—(The Commune of London, 1899, pp. 235-237.)
[215] Commune of London, p. 240.
[216] A curious point is that formerly the Leges Britolii were supposed to relate to Bristol, and the great English port obtained credit which it did not deserve.
[217] ‘The Laws of Breteuil [Britolium],’ English Historical Review, xv. (1900), pp. 73, 302, 496, 754.
[218] The seal is figured in ‘Rotuli Curiæ Regis. Rolls and Records of the Court held before the King’s Justiciars or Justices, ed. by Sir Francis Palgrave,’ vol. i., 1835 (plate 1), and is here reproduced.
[219] Constitutional History, chap. xiii. sec. 165.
[220] Cal. Letter Book B, p. 244.
[221] Cal. Letter Book A, pp. 89, 209.
[222] Rymer’s Foedera, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 892.
[223] Cal. Letter Book C, pp. 27, 212, 213.
[224] Constitutional History, chap. xxi. sec. 486.
[225] Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. i. p. 158.
[226] Letter Book F, fo. 44. Riley’s Introduction to Liber Albus, 1859, pp. xcviii., xcix. (note).
[227] This church was destroyed in the Great Fire, and rebuilt after the designs of Sir C. Wren. It was cleared away in 1831 to make way for the approaches to the new London Bridge.
[228] Stubbs, Constitutional History, chap. xxi. sec. 487.
[229] Statutes at Large, ed. 1762, ii. 257.
[230] Riley’s Memorials, pp. 473, 474.
[231] Riley’s Memorials, pp. 415, 416.
[232] Rotuli Parl. iii. 227.
[233] Riley’s Memorials, p. 494.
[234] Ibid., p. 526.
[235] Cal. Letter Book A, p. 64.
[236] Constitutional History, chap. xxi. sec. 488.
[237] See Jewitt and Hope’s Corporation Plate, 1895, vol. ii., pp. 446, 463.
[238] Riley’s Memorials, pp. 604, 605.
[239] Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, 1876, pp. 222, 223.
[240] London and the Kingdom, i. 69. ‘Cives vero Lundonie servierunt de pincernaria, et Cives Wintonie de Coquina.’—Roger de Hoveden, Bodl. Laud., MS. 582, fo. 52. (See Wickham Legg’s English Coronation Records, 1901, p. 50).
[241] ‘Andrew the Mayor came to serve as butler with 360 cups, on the ground that the City of London is bound to serve in butlery to help the great butler (just as the City of Winchester serves in the kitchen to help the steward). The King said that no one ought to serve by right except Master Michael Belet, so the Mayor gave way and served the two bishops on the King’s right hand. ‘De Servitiis magnatum in die Coronationis Regis et Reginæ, Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. by Hubert Hall, pt. ii., 1896, pp. 755-760 (Rolls Series). The germ of the Court of Claims will be found in this MS. See also Wickham Legg’s English Coronation Records, 1901, pp. 60, 63.
[242] English Coronation Records, 1901, pp. 140, 159.
[243] London and the Kingdom, i. 275.
[244] ‘Dinner being concluded, the Lord Mayor and twelve principal citizens of London, as assistants to the Chief Butler of England, accompanied by the King’s cupbearer and assistant, presented to His Majesty wine in a gold cup; and the King having drank thereof, returned the gold cup to the Lord Mayor as his fee.’—L. G. Wickham Legg, English Coronation Records, 1901, p. 361.
[245] The Petition of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London, containing their claims fully set forth, is printed in Coronation of King Edward VII. The Court of Claims. Cases and Evidence, by G. Woods Wollaston, London, 1903, p. 52.
[246] Constitutional History, iii. 587.
[247] Cal. Letter Book C, p. 32.
[248] Riley’s Memorials, p. 41.
[249] Ibid., p. 46.
[250] Ibid., p. 78.
[251] Liber Albus, trans. by Riley, p. 291.
[252] Liber Albus, p. 276.
[253] The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward, by John James Baddeley, 1901, p. I (Calendar of Letter Book A, pp. 209, 226).
[254] Cal. Letter Book C, pp. 11, 12.
[255] In 1711 a return was made to the practice of nominating two persons only, followed in 1714 by ‘an Act for reviving the ancient manner of electing aldermen’(13 Anne), which restored to the ‘inhabitants their ancient rights and privileges of choosing one person only to be their alderman.’ These particulars respecting the election of aldermen are taken from The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward, from 1276 to 1900, by Mr. Deputy John James Baddeley, who has collected in his valuable book a considerable amount of fresh information on the office of aldermen, etc.
[256] Liber Albus, translated by H. T. Riley, 1861, p. 29.
[257] Sharpe’s London and the Kingdom, vol. i. p. 217.
[258] Riley’s Memorials, p. 655.
[259] Cal. Letter Book A, p. 76. By the Local Government Act of 1888 the citizens of London were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the county of Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters.
[260] Liber Albus, English translation, p. 399.
[261] The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward, 1900, p. 235.
[262] Mr. Baddeley continues the account of the changes in the mode of election up to the present time: ‘From 1642 to 1651 the Mayor’s claim to elect a sheriff was always contested. For the year 1652 and for some years afterwards the Mayor neither nominated nor elected a sheriff, but in 1662, when he would have elected one Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their right, although they accepted the Mayor’s nominee. The prerogative thus claimed by the Mayor, although frequently challenged, was exercised for the most part by subsequent Mayors down to 1674, when exception was taken to William Roberts, whom the Mayor had formally nominated (according to a custom which is said to have arisen in the time of Elizabeth) by drinking to him at a public banquet. In the following year and for some years later the Mayor exercised his prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition. In 1703 an Act was passed declaring the right of election of sheriffs to be in the liverymen of the several companies of the city in Common Hall assembled.’ It was, however, lawful for the Lord Mayor to nominate for the office. ‘By an Act of 1748 the Lord Mayor might continue to nominate to the extent of nine persons in the whole.’ By an Act of Common Council in 1878 the right of election to the office of sheriff was vested in the liverymen of the several companies of the city in Common Hall assembled. The Lord Mayor nominating one or more freemen (not exceeding three in the whole) for the shrievalty.
[263] The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward, by J. J. Baddeley, 1900, p. 218.
[264] Letter Book F, f. 206.
[265] Letter Book H, f. 46b (Baddeley’s Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward, p. 215).
[266] Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office of the Cities and Towns of England and Wales, by Llewellyn Jewitt, ed. and completed by W. H. St. John Hope, 1895, vol. ii. p. 122.
[267] Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office of the Cities and Towns of England and Wales, p. 120.
[268] Archæologia, vol. v. pp. 211-213.
[269] See Liber Custumarum (Rolls Series), Introduction, p. lxxvi.
[270] Cal. Letter Book C, p. 71.
[271] Cal. Letter Book A, p. 222.
[272] Dugdale’s Baronage, i. 220.
[273] Riley’s Memorials, p. 178.
[274] Riley’s Memorials, p. 236.
[275] Ibid., p. 178.
[276] Cal. Letter Book A, p. 161.
[277] Calendar of Charter Rolls, vol. i. 1903, p. 163.
[278] Liber Custumarum (Rolls Series), vol i. p. 243.
[279] Calendars: Letter Book A, p. 128; Letter Book C, p. 116.
[280] Letter Book C, p. 157 (note).
[281] Letter Book B, pp. vi., xi.
[282] Riley’s Memorials, p. 650.
[283] Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office of the Cities and Towns of England and Wales, by Llewellyn Jewitt, ed. by W. H. St. John Hope, 1895, vol. ii, pp. 100, 109.
[284] Ibid., p. 91.
[285] Round’s Commune of London, p. 246.
[286] Calender of Documents preserved in France, ed. by J. Horace Round, 1899, p. 502.
[287] No woollen cloth was allowed to be dyed black except with woad. See Liber Custumarum, Introd., pp. xl., xliii., quoted in Letter Book C, ed. Sharpe, pp. 135, 136 (note), from which this information is obtained. The whole history of the cultivation and use of woad is one of great interest. It was cultivated in England from the earliest times, and the trade was ruined by the indigo growers as they in turn have been ruined in our own day by the manufacture in Germany of synthetic indigo.
[288] Sharpe’s London and the Kingdom, vol. i. p. 215.
[289] Riley’s Memorials, p. 444.
[290] Riley’s Memorials, p. 345.
[291] Calendar of State Papers, 1611-1618, p. 369.
[292] Cal. Letter Book B, p. 236; Cal. Letter Book C, p. vii
[293] Cal. Letter Book B, p. 236.
[294] Letter Book A, p. 3; Letters-Patent for St. Botolph’s Fair, 1298. Letter Book B, p. 219.
[295] Liber Albus, English translation, p. 473.
[296] Liber Albus, English translation, p. 228.
[297] Mr. W. J. Ashley writes of this town: ‘The conquest of Calais furnished a place which combined the advantages of being abroad and therefore near the foreign market with that of being within English territory.’—Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, 1888-1893, p. 112.