A Survey of London. Reprinted From the Text of 1603. Originally published by Clarendon, Oxford, 1908.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Volume 2, pp. 101–229
102, l. 13. built by king Henry the eight. Thomas Cromwell drew up in 1536 a memorandum of 'Things done by the King's highness sythyn I came to his service'. He has purchased 'St. James in the Fields and all the ground, whereof the new park of Westminster is now made: all the old tenements in Westminster where now is builded the new garden, the tennis plays, and cockfight' … 'He has newly builded … the place at Westminster with the tennis plays and cockfight, and walled the park with a sumptuous wall; and St. James in the Fields, a magnificent and goodly house' (Letters and Papers, x. 1231). The gate by the gallery is said to have been designed by Holbein; it was removed in 1750. The other gate near the north end of the former King Street, and end of Downing Street, was pulled down in 1723. See Smith, Antiquities, 20, 21, with views (facing p. 24) showing the Gallery, Gate, and Tiltyard. See Anc. Deeds, A. 13406, 13446–8 for lands purchased for these improvements.
'Tattle. I have better news from the bakehouse in ten thousand parts in a morning: or the conduits in Westminster: all the news of Tuttle Street, and both the Alm'ries, the two Sanctuaries, Long and Round Woolstaple, with King Street and Cannon Row to boot.
'Mirth. Ay! my gossip Tattle knew what fine slips grew in Gardener's Lane; who kist the butcher's wife with the cow's breath: what matches were made in the Bowling-alley, and what bets were won and lost; how much grist went to the Mill, and what besides; who conjured in Tuttle fields and how many.'
l. 16. Long ditch. A watercourse ran from the Thames by Canon Row to the end of Gardener's Lane. 'From the west end of Gardener's Lane it turned southward, and after passing down what is now called Prince's Street, but was then Long Ditch, crossed Tothill Street a little westward of the Gatehouse; then taking an eastern direction, it ran along by the south wall of the Abbey garden, where College Street now stands, to the Thames; and this is still the exact course of the common sewer which was erected over it' (see Maitland, London, 1328; Smith, Antiquities, 2, 102). Prince's Street was known as Long Ditch till about 1750. For houses on 'Langediche' between 1331 and 1367 see Samuel Bentley, Abstract of Westminster Charters, 67–8.
l. 18. Chanon Row. It is called 'Chanen Row' in 1501 (Gairdner, Letters, &c., Richard III and Henry VII, i. 406). Howel (Londinopolis, 350) says it is corruptly called 'Channel Row'. Smith argues that the latter from is the original, and connects it with the channel or cut from the Thames, referred to in the previous note (Antiquities, 3). However, the name 'Channel Row' does not seem to occur before 1557 (Machyn, Diary, 126; see also London Past and Present, iii. 325). An alternative name, as Stow notes in the margin, and on p. 122, was St. Stephen's Alley.
l. 31. the Woolestable. The Long Staple extended from the south end of Canon Row to King Street, whilst the Round Staple, at right angles to it, was about in the position of Parliament Street. For the history of the Woolstable see Hall, History of the Custom Revenue in England, and Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i, 4th ed., 1905. For the Merchants of the Staple see Gross, Gild-Marchant, i. 140–7.
104, l. 13. vpon Enirode. This is obscure. Possibly it may be a corruption of 'eny rode' (any riding or raid) as suggested by the reading of 1633. Or it may refer to the 'roade' which Stow in his Annales (p. 437, ed. 1605) relates to have been made by Sir Hugh Calveley in 1377. The passage does not appear in the 1598 edition: that edition has, however, the marginal note 'Manuscript French' which must consequently belong to the next paragraph. The Staple had been fixed once more at Calais in 1376 (Foedera, iii. 1057).
l. 33. Theeuing lane. Smith describes it as 'a turning still existing' on the west side of King Street, 'very near its south end' (Antiquities, 27). If the thieves had entered the Sanctuary, they must have been liberated. Maitland (London, 1342) describes it as on the north of the Clochard.
105, l. 8. Sulcardus. He was a monk of Westminster about 1075, and author of a treatise, De Constitutione Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis. It is merely by way of introduction to the Cartulary which he had prepared at the command of his abbot, and of which two extended copies are preserved in Cotton MSS., Titus, A. viii (early fourteenth century), and Faustina, A. iii (late thirteenth century). The reference to the Temple of Apollo appears in the latter MS. on f. 19vo,
l. 34. Charter. Stow's version of the charter, which is given in facsimile, is manifestly incorrect. Some of the errors are probably typographical, but others are due to the omission or addition of final e, most of the early antiquaries having no idea that this letter meant any more in Anglo-Saxon than it did in the orthography of their own day. The words seo gifta in line three are redundant; the second word perhaps arises from anticipation by the copyist of the immediately following gyfen. The charter is printed by Kemble, Cod. Dipl. dccclxi, from the thirteenth-century copy in Cotton MS., Faustina, A. III, f. 110vo, where the text is corrupt. Stow's text is superior in having the correct Anglo-Saxon longap in 1.6 against the Middle-English longenof the Cotton MS., and in some other minor details. It is possible that he may have derived his text from the original charter, or from a better copy than that contained in the Cotton MS.; but these superior readings in his text may be due to corrections by some one moderately versed in AngloSaxon. The Cotton text, derived from the MS. itself and without Kemble's accents and normalizations, is as follows:-
Edward king gret Willem bisceop andLeofstan andAlfsy porterefen and alle mine burhtheynes on Lundene frendlice. Andicc cipe eow pæt icc habbe segifen (sic) and unnen Crist and Sainte Petre pam halegen apostle into Westminstre fulne fredom oferalle þaland þe longen into þare halagen stowe.
l. 27. Peter a Painter. Pietro Torregiano, who came to England in the reign of Henry VII, and remained till at least 1518. He contracted in 1512 to make 'well, surely, cleanly,workmanly, curiously, and substantially' for the sum of £1,500 a tomb of marble with 'images, figures,beasts, and other things, of copper gilt'. (Lethaby, Westminster Abbey, 236–7.)
108, l. 29. buried in this Church. Stow's printed list is based in part on one of which he has preserved a copy in Harley MS.544, ff. 65 and 67vo; this latter list seems to have been compiled after 1499, for it includes John, Viscount Welles, but before 1506, for it gives Catherine of Valois as buried in the Lady Chapel. The burials are described under the several chapels. Early printed lists are those in Camden's Reges, Reginae, &c., published in 1603, Weever's Funerall Monuments (1631), and Henry Keepe's Monumenta Westmonasteriensia (1682). For some critical notes see Mr.Lethaby's Westminster Abbey and the King's Craftsmen, pp. 332–50, giving extracts from the list in Harley MS. 544.
l. 18. remayneth above ground. Katherine's body remained unburied till 1778, when it was removed to the Percy vaults. Finally, through the care of Dean Stanley, she was buried in her husband's chantry in 1878 (Archaeologia, xlvi. 281–93).
110, l. 27. Johane Tokyne, &c. The list in Harley MS. 544, f.67, reads 'the lady Joane Tokayne daughter of dabridgecourte'. Probably the true reading is 'Cokayne'; for Joan, daughter of Sir John Dabridgecourt (d. 1415), married John Cokayne (d. 1447), though her tomb has been supposed to exist at Ashbourne in Derbyshire (A. E. Cockayne, Cockayne Memoranda, i.20, ii.195–6).
111, l.6. mine owne paynefull labors. The edition of Chaucer was Stow's first production. See Introduction, vol. i.pp. ix and lxxxvi. On p. cccxl of his edition Stow writes thus: 'Here foloweth certaine woorkes of Geoffrey Chauser, whiche hathe not heretofore been printed, and are gathered and added to this booke by Iohn Stowe.' Of twenty pieces thus added three are admittedly genuine, and Professor Skeat accepts two others; of the remainder some are obviously by Lydgate or other later poets. Professor Skeat writes: 'It is clear that Stow had no better reason for inserting pieces in his edition of Chaucer than their occurrence in this MS.(Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 3,19), to which he had access.' 'Stow in 1561 added more pieces to the collection, but he suppressed nothing. Neither did he himself exercise much principle of selection.' See Skeat, Chaucer, i. pp. 31–43,56, and v.p.x; and The Chaucer Canon, 117–26.
l. 31. Charter. The privileges of Sanctuary here set out are to be found incorporated in the spurious Charter of Edward the Confessor, professedly granted to Westminster in 1066. See Kemble, Codex, dcccxxv, vol.iv.pp. 181–90, and especially pp. 186 and 188. I have not been able to trace a more exact original.
119, l. 39. the Starre Chamber. Smith (Antiquities, 29) has an engraving of the Elizabethan ceiling decorated with roses, portcullises, and fleurs-de-lys. The name is much older than the Court (established in 1488); it occurs in 1378 (C.P.R. Richd.II, i.276).
120, l. 7. a great Chamber. This White Hall, in which the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Court of Requests were held in Stow's time, was one of the rooms of the old place of Westminster, and had of course no connexion with the later Whitehall Palace. As the 'White chamber' in the palace of Westminster it occurs in 1314 (Cal. Close Rolls, Edw. III, vi. 339; see also Chron. Lond. 47, for 'White Hall' in 1399). The House of Lords sat here from 1801 to 1834.
l. 10. S. Stephens Chappell. There are frequent references to it during the reign of Henry III. It was refounded by Edward I in 1292, and work was in progress there from time to time down to 1352. For the history of the chapel and its decoration see Smith, Antiquities, 72–101, 144–64, and 171–250, with elaborate illustrations. See also Lethaby, Westminster Abbey, 180–2, 188–91. For the foundation Charter of Edward III, dated Aug. 6, 1348, see Mon. Angl. vi. 1349.
l. 19. He builded for those. Munday (Survey, 523, ed. 1633) altered this to 'He builded it for them', which led Smith (Antiquities, 81–2, 101) to censure Stow, since the chapel did not stand 'from the house of Receipt, along nigh to the Thames, but this was actually the situation of houses for the vicars'. The latter was clearly Stow's own meaning.
l. 21. there was also builded, &c. What Stow means here is not clear; but probably he depends on a grant by Henry VI in 1438, which, after explaining that the ground appointed for the dean's dwelling had not been and could not be built on, confirmed to the Dean rooms 'situated within and on the wall of the king's said palace, adjoining "le Wolbrigge" of the king's staple there on the east, and the Clock-Tower of the palace on the west, and the palace wall on the south running along from the said clock-tower to the Thames, and bounded on the north by the way which runs between "le Weyhous" of the said staple and the said "Wolbrigge"' (C. P. R. Henry VI, iii. 192). This grant itself is somewhat obscure. The way from the Weyhouse to the Woolbridge was on the line of the modern Bridge Street. On its north side were the six woolhouses referred to on p. 104. The ultimate additional buildings ran north and south along the Thames and formed Cannon Row. See Smith, Antiquities, 82, 101–6, III, with plan facing p. 124.
l. 25. a strong Clochard. Stow's ascription of this building to Edward III was probably due to some confusion with the Clock-house (see pp. 379–80 below). It did not belong to St. Stephen's; J. T. Smith describes another tower, which appears to have been the bell-tower of that Chapel, and formed before 1834 the state staircase of the Speaker's house. The Clochard at the west end of the Little Sanctuary was an isolated belfry, and was built in 1249–53. It was a massive tower about sixty feet high, surmounted with a leaded spire. The spire was probably destroyed before Stow wrote, but the tower survived till 1750. John Norden, about 1600, wrote of: 'the Little Sanctuary, wherein is a very ancient and old building and strong, now made a dwelling-house, sometime a tower, wherein was a bell of wonderful bigness weighing, as is reported, 33,000 wt. and was rung only at coronations, which bell King Henry VIII employed to other uses at his going to Boulogne' (Lethaby, Westminster Abbey, 56–60, 155–6; Smith, Antiquities, 89–92). In Maitland's time the ruined building was used as a tavern or wine-vault; he describes it as 'a prodigious strong stone-building of two hundred and ninety feet square, or seventy-two feet and a half the length of each side, and the walls in thickness [at the base] no less than twenty-five feet' (London, 1342). Stukely contributed an account of the building at the time of its destruction to Archaeologia, i. 39–44, with plans; he regarded it as the ruin of an asylum, connected with the Sanctuary, and described the interior as two chapels, one above the other; his error has since been often repeated.
121, l. 10. John Chambers, or Chamber, was appointed Dean in 1526, and died in 1549 (see Dict. Nat. Biog. x. 30). He gave lands to St. Stephen's (Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, i. 89, ed. Bliss). For his cloisters, which were on the north side of the Chapel, see Smith, Antiquities, 128, 148, 232. The College was dissolved in 1546. From that date till its destruction in 1834 the Chapel was used for the House of Commons. Its site is now St. Stephen's Hall.
l. 18. our Lady of the Piew. In his first edition Stow incorrectly described the chapel of the Pew as a part of the house of Bethlehem Hospital near St. Martin-in-the Fields (see p. 264 above). The Chapel of the Pew was probably situated on the north side of St. Stephen's, for at the creation of Henry, Duke of York, to be a Knight of the Bath in 1494, the knights 'toke their waye secretly by our ladie of Pieu, thorough St. Stephen's Chapell on to the steyr foote of the Ster Chambre end' (Gairdner, Letters, &c., Richard III and Henry VII, i. 391). Maitland (London, 1341) cites a reference to Our Lady of the Pew in 1369. The chapel occurs as 'the king's closet of St. Mary de la Pewe' in the reign of Richard II. Froissart (ix. 409, ed. Luce), when describing the king's visit to Westminster on June 15, 1381, says that 'Richard went to a little chapel, with an image of Our Lady, that worked great miracles, wherein the Kings of England have great trust.' The latest notice which I have found is the record in Henry VIII's Privy Purse Expenses for 1531 of the payment of 8l. 1s. 8d. 'to the clerk of the closet for money in charity at our Lady of the Pewe' (Letters and Papers, v. p. 756). These instances suggest that 'our Lady of the Pewe' owed its name to the fact that the king's closet or pew was there (cf. N. E. D. s. v. pew). As the king's private chapel its usefulness ceased with the abandonment of the old palace; probably it was destroyed when Chambers built his cloisters. Anthony, Earl Rivers, bequeathed his heart to be buried at our Lady of Pue, and provided for a priest to pray there one year (Excerpta Historica, 246–7). The 'Keeper of the chapel', named on ii. 120, 1. 18 above, was keeper of 'la Pew'. Smith thought that the name was connected with the French puits, since there was a well close by. See Antiquities, 11, 101, 112–3, 116, 123–7.
l. 35. a Tower of stone. According to tradition this Clock-house was
built with the fine imposed on Ralph Hingham, the judge, in 1290, for
falsifying the record in order to reduce the fine on a poor man. This
story appears first in Coke's Institutes (iv.255), published in 1628. But
Justice Southcote (d. 1585) is reported on a like occasion to have 'said
openly that he meant not to build a clock-house' (Anecdotes and Traditions, 119, Camd. Soc.; Strype, Survey, vi. 55; Archaeologia, v. 427,
xxxiii.10). As a matter of fact the Clock-house was built for Edward III
in 1365–6—'Turris infra palatium pro quodam orlogio facta' (Archaeo
logia, xxxvii. 23–6, giving an account of the expenses, but confusing it
with the Clochard). The dimensions of the Clock-Tower were 24 feet
by 17 feet 6 inches. The bell, which was called 'Edward of Westminster'
or 'Great Tom', was presented by William III to St. Paul's. It then
weighed 9,261 lb., but it was cracked in the process of removal and has
since been twice recast with additional metal. The original bell had the
Tercius aptavit me Rex, Edwardque vocavit,
Sancti decore Edwardi signarentur ut hore.
The Clock-Tower was granted to the parish of St. Margaret in 1698, and soon afterwards pulled down (Smith, Antiquities, 28, 261; Walcote, Memorials of Westminster, 197–9). The grant to Walesby on June 23, 1453, was confirmed by Edward IV on July 16, 1461 (C.P.R. Edw. IV, i. 163; for earlier grants of the office of keeper of the Clock-Tower see id. Richd. II. i. 134, v. 648; Henry IV, i. 648; Henry IV, i. 84, iii, 385; Henry VI, ii. 184 540, iii. 131). Both Clock-Tower and fountain are shown in Hollar's print of New Palace Yard, date 1643.
122, l. 12. a verie faire gate. 'Highgate (a very beautiful and stately edifice) having occasioned great obstructions to the members of Parliament in their passage to and from their respective houses, was taken down in 1706' (Maitland, London, 1341; see also Smith, Antiquities, 54).
123, l. 10. first Presse of booke printing…about … 1471. Stow's account is very inaccurate. John Islip only entered the abbey in 1480, and did not become abbot till 1500. Caxton's first book, The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy, was printed at Bruges in 1474. His first book printed at Westminster was The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers on Nov. 18, 1477. He rented of the abbey in the ordinary way of business a house in the Almonry called 'The Red Pale' (Blades, Life of Caxton, i. 60, 65–8).
l. 19. Anne sister to Thomas the Lorde Buckhurst. She was the daughter of Sir Richard Sackville, and married Gregory (not Gyles) Fiennes, tenth and last Lord Dacre of the South. Dacre died in 1594, and his widow on May 14, 1595. Her almshouse was for twenty poor persons, ten of each sex, with a school for twenty children (Dict. Nat. Biog. xviii. 427–8). It continued till recently as Emmanuel Hospital. The name of Stourton House survives in Strutton Ground, close by.
l. 26. S. Hermits hill. Now St. Ermin's Hill, a blind-alley out of Great Chapel Street. It occurs as St. Armin's Hill in 1610 (Cal. State Papers, 1603–10, p. 582). In the eighteenth century it was called Torment Hill, or St. Torment's Hill. Van Dun's almshouses, also known as Red Lion almshouses, are placed by Strype in Petty France, backing on St. Ermin's Hill; they are now abolished (N. and Q., 7th ser. v. 449–50, vi. 88, 213; 8th ser. ix. 242–3; London Past and Present, ii. 467, iii. 424).
l. 27. of the London Bishops. Stow clearly took some pains over his list: but the result in its earlier part is not satisfactory. The British archbishops are purely legendary, as Stow recognized (see Stubbs, Reg. Sacr. Anglicanum, 2nd ed., pp. 215–16). The subsequent list down to Swithulf is fairly correct, but for Ingwald's three successors read 'Ecgwulf, Sigheah, and Aldberht'; the dates are also inaccurate. Deorwulf was bishop as late as 862. From Swithulf to Robert, Stow's list is quite wrong. The true succession with the approximate dates was: Ælfstan (d. 898), Wulfsige (898–910), Heahstan, Theodred (926–51), Wulfstan, Brihthelm (953–9), Dunstan (959–61), Ælfstan (961–95), Wulfstan II (996–1003), Ælfwin (1004–12), Elfwig (1014–35), Elfweard (1035–44). Stow himself refers elsewhere to Elfweard or Alfward, viz. on ii. 148 above. See further, Stubbs, u.s. pp. 220–1.
l. 19. he confirmed. Stow has assigned to 'Edgare' acts which should belong to Ælfstan, 'Ædelstanus' or 'Ælfstanus' of London witnesses spurious charters to Winchester and Croyland in 966 (Cod. Dipl. dxxiii, dxxviii). 'Eadgar presbyter' appears as witness to genuine charters for 'Wulfrinton' (Wolverton) in 977 and 984 (id. dcxii, dcxlv).
l. 32. sate 17. yeares. Stow is in manifest error. William was consecrated in 1051, in place of Spearhafoc, whom archbishop Robert had rejected, and lived till 1075, when he was succeeded by Hugh de Orivalle, or Orwell, who died in 1086. Bishop William's epitaph from St. Paul's is given in Godwin, De Praesulibus, 174–5.
138, l. 7. parish churches. Stow's list may be compared with the list of churches in the City proper in 1303 in the Liber Custumarum, ap. Mun. Gild. II. i. 228–38. All the churches named by Stow appear in the older list except St. Katherine's by the Tower, Trinity in the Minories, St. Peter in the Tower, The Chapel in Guildhall, St. Anne at the Blackfriars, and St. James by Cripplegate; the absence of these is easily explained. Most of the remainder can be traced back to the twelfth century, and many even further. See references in notes above, and for churches belonging to St. Paul's see Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Report.
147,, l. 30. diuers old Registers. One was no doubt the London Chronicle in Harley Roll, C. 8, which, unlike any other version with which I am acquainted, begins with a Latin notice of the early government of the City from the time of Edward the Confessor to 1189; the Roll contains some notes in Stow's writing. I have not been able to trace the St. Albans book; but like the Harley Roll it probably derived its information from the account given in the Trinity Cartulary, which was printed by Hearne in the notes to his edition of William of Newburgh (iii. 724–6), Under the reign of William II the Roll has 'G. de Magum Vicecomes' (see i. 121, 287 above) and 'R. de Pere, prepositus'; Hearne has 'G. de Magnavilla' and 'R. del Parc.' Under Henry I the Roll has Hugh de Boche (Hearne, 'Boch'), this is no doubt the well-known Hugh de Bocland; and 'Rob. de Berquereola', Stow's 'Bar Querel', who may possibly be one of the Bockerels; Aubrey de Vere, who was sheriff in 1125, was killed in 1141 (Round, Geoff. de Mandeville, 81, 309). Under Stephen, Stow's 'Andrew Bucheuet' is the 'Andreas Buchuynt' of the Roll, who was 'Justiciar of London' (id. 373, and Commune of London, 99, 108–13).
For the charter naming Alfward and Wolfgar see Letter Book C, 218; the date must be 1042–4. Swetman is named in a Chertsey Charter (Cod. Dipl. dccclvi), Leofstan and Aelfsi in two Westminster Charters of Edward the Confessor (id. dcclvii, and dccclxi, see also ii. 105 above). For a facsimile of William's London Charter see Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, vol. i.
For a list of the early sheriffs see Record Office Lists, 9, p. 200. Of those named by Stow, Peter FitzWalter, who held office 1174–6, was strictly speaking 'custos' or 'bailiff', not sheriff; FitzNigel was sheriff in 1177, Buchell or Buzell in 1178, and Fitzlsabel in 1156, 1162, 1176, 1178, and 1181.
149, l. 18. In the first yeare of king Richard the first, &c. This is erroneous. Richard did not grant a Commune to London. That privilege was not obtained till 1191, when the citizens took advantage of the quarrel between John, the king's brother, and William Longchamp the Chancellor, to extort this privilege from the former as the price of their support. Round, Commune of London, 219–25; see also Eng. Hist. Rev., xix. 702–6.
l. 29. The names, &c. Stow probably based his list of Mayors and Sheriffs on the current lists, of which examples are found in the London Chronicles and in Fabyan. But these lists had in process of time been much confused and corrupted. A chief cause of error was the numbering of the civic officers under each king's reign separately. Regnal and Mayoral years did not, however, coincide: thus the Mayor and Sheriffs elected in the last year of Henry III (i. e. in Sept.-Oct. 1272) held office during nearly the whole of the first year of Edward I; this may help to explain the misdating by Stow of the Mayors and Sheriffs for the greater part of Edward's reign. Other difficulties were caused by the removal or death of Mayors and Sheriffs during their term of office. In consequence, the lists in the Chronicles and in Stow are hopelessly inaccurate down to 1300. For the Sheriffs an authoritative list has been compiled from records of the Exchequer in Record Office: Lists and Indexes, 9. The names in this list agree so well with those in the Liber de Antiquis Legibus (covering the period 1189–1274), that we may accept the latter as a trustworthy guide for the names of the Mayors; I have checked it by the attestation of documents in the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. A list of mayors and sheriffs from 1276 to 1320, prepared at the great Iter of 1320, is given in the Liber Custumarum (Mun. Gild. II. i. 291–4; another list on pp. 239–46 is not free from error). There is a list of Mayors and Sheriffs in Letter Book F (pp. 276–303), which was originally compiled in 1354, subsequent names being added from time to time down to 1548. In its earliest part this list presents similar errors to those of Stow; but from about the end of the reign of Edward I it may be accepted as an authoritative record. In addition to the foregoing there is a nearly contemporary list of sheriffs for the reigns of Richard I and John in Additional MS. 14252, f. 107. A similar list of Mayors and Sheriffs, coming down to 1222, is printed from the Trinity Cartulary by Hearne in his notes to William of Newburgh, iii. 726–8. Both the latter resemble Stow in giving Henry de Cornhill and Richard filius Reneri as sheriffs for I Richard I, though they really vacated office early in that regnal year at Michaelmas, 1189. Hearne's list, like Stow's, gets the later dates right by omitting Serlo le Mercer and Henry of St. Albans under 1206–7; this list seems to represent the original of the lists in the Chronicles. In Add. MS. 14252 the Sheriffs are a year too late down to 'Martinus Aliz' and 'Petrus Bat' in the '16th' year; then comes the note: 'Sal. et hug. de bar. Discidium inter regem et barones. Andr. Neu. et Johes. trauers. Aduentus lodowici primus. Will's Albus trauers, B, Seint.'
In revising the list on pp. 149–86 above, Stow's spelling has been preserved, wherever possible; and also his system of dating, the year A. D. being always that in which the Mayor and Sheriffs named took office; thus under 1400, John Francis is the Mayor who held office from Oct. 29, 1400, to Oct. 28, 1401, being the second mayoral year of Henry IV. Throughout the whole period the Sheriffs took office on Sept. 29 and the Mayor on Oct. 29; this overlapping sometimes causes confusion, e. g. in 1247–8 both Peter Fitzalan and Michael Tovy occur as Mayor, with William Vyel and Nicholas Bat, Sheriffs. (For an account of how the Lord Mayor's day was changed to Nov. 9 see N. and Q., 10th ser., v. 30.)
The errors of date in Stow's list have affected his notices of events, I have endeavoured to put these notices under their appropriate years; thus the notes on Walter Brune, Henry FitzAlwin, and William Joyner, which in the edition of 1603 appear under 1203, 1212, and 1239, are put back to 1202, 1211, and 1238. Similarly the notices for Alen de la Souch (1266), Gregory Rocksley (1274), and Henry Walleis (1281) are all put back one year, in order that they may appear where these persons are first mentioned, as they do in the text of 1603. For other notices see notes below.
In the footnotes on pp. 149–86 the following abbreviations are used:—
A. = Additional MS. 14252.
F. = The list in Letter Book F.
G. = Dr. Gairdner's list.
H. = Hearne's list from the Trinity Cartulary.
L. = Liber de Antiquis Legibus.
O. = Official list in Record Office List, 9.
S. = Stow's list in the Survey for 1603.
149, l. 34. Their I. Maior. It is probable that Henry FitzAlwin's term of office dated from the recognition of the Commune in 1191. But the earliest mention of the Mayor of London seems to occur in 1193 (Round, Commune of London, pp. 225–35). 'Fifteenth of King John' is an error; FitzAlwin died on Sept. 19, 1212, in the fourteenth regnal and thirteenth mayoral year.
151, l. 23. to chuse … a Maior. I leave this under the date to which Stow assigns it; but there was no charter in 1208–9, and the reference must be to the Charter of May 9, 1215 (Birch, 12). It is noteworthy that the London Chronicles allege that the first mayor held office in 10 John (see Gregory's Chronicle, 60; Chron. Lond. 2).
158, l. 12. Thomas FitzTheobald. I leave this note under the year where Stow gave it. But Fitztheobald and his wife Agnes, sister of Thomas Becket, of course founded their hospital much earlier. See i. 269.
160, l. 3. Lawrence Ducket. Stow places under 1284–5; but it was in the year that Goodcheape was sheriff. Cf. i. 254 and Ann Lond. 81. For some light on the murder see references to another affair in which Ducket and Crepin had been concerned in Hundred Rolls, i. 403 sqq.
l. 19. Raph Barnavars. In the Cotton MS. Julius, B. II (Chron. London 7), Ralph de Sandwich is said to have been Custos 'usque in crastinum Sancti Barnabi Apostoli, anno xxiio'. (So also the list in Letter-Book, F, 282.) However, from the Liber Custumarum (Mun. Gild. II. 292) it appears that in 1289 Sandwich was removed 'ante festum Purificationis Beatae Mariae', and Ralph de Berners, deputyConstable of the Tower, was appointed in his place; but within a few days Berners was succeeded as Custos by John le Breton. Then in 19 Edward I Berners and Breton were removed, and Sandwich again made both Custos and Constable of the Tower. See also Ann. Lond. 97.
166, l. 26. Aldermen. Edward II granted in 1319 that they should be removeable every year on March 12, and not be re-elected (Mun. Gild. II. i. 269). There was some doubt whether this meant that they must be removed, or only that they might be removed. On November 12, 1376, it was ordained that all the aldermen should vacate office on that day, and not be re-elected. But on March 8, 1384, it was ordered that they should not be removed except for some reasonable cause (id. I. 36, II. ii. 436; cf. Letter-Book, H, 58).
186, l. 26. James Dalton. Stow in his Annales, p. 1217, ed. 1605, under date 1586, writes of a letter from the Queen 'read openly in a great assembly of the Commons in the Guildhall, August 22, before the reading whereof, master James Dalton, one of the Counsellers of the City, in the absence of the Recorder made this speech hereafter following, &c.' James Dalton was made under-sheriff of London through Burghley's favour in March, 1594 (Lansdowne MSS. 77 (31); and 34 (18), 77 (51) and 79 (75)—three other letters from Dalton).
195, l. 37. the new fashion of flatte caps. Howes in 1631, with reference
to the time of Queen Mary and beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, writes
of the London apprentices: 'They also wore flat caps, both then and
many yeares after, as well Apprentices as Journey-men, and others, both
at home and abroad, whom the Pages of the Court in derision called
Flat-caps', Annales, p. 1041. Ben Jonson, in Every man in his Humour,
Act 11, Sc. i, writes:—
Make their loose comments upon every word,
Gesture, or look I use; mock me all over,
From my flat-cap unto my shining shoes.
And Dekker in The Honest Whore, Pt. 2:—
Flat Caps as proper are to Citty Gownes,
As to Armors Helmets, or to kings their Crownes.
Let then the City Cap by none be scorn'd
Since with it Princes heads have been adornd.
196, l. 5. Sir John White wore it. Stow in his Memoranda (pp. 127–8)
writes: 'Ser John Whit, beynge mayre, wore bothe a longe beard and
allso a round cape that wayed not iiij ounces, whiche semyd to all men, in
consideracyon of y e auncient bonyt, to be very uncomly.' Dekker in
The Honest Whore, Pt. 2, comments both on caps and shaving (Works,
For Caps are emblems of humility;
It is a citizens badge, and first was worne
By th' Romans; for when any Bondmans turne
Came to be made a Freeman: thus 'twas said,
He to the Cap was call'd; that is, was made
Of Rome a Freeman, but was first close shorne,
And so a Citizen's haire is still short worne.
In 1543 the Court of Aldermen had actually ordered that no one wearing a beard 'of more notable prolyxyte or length than that worn by other citizens should be admitted by redemption to the liberties and freedom of the City as long as he should wear any such beard' (Repertory, 10, f. 343, ap. Letter-book, D, p. xi).
196, l. 33. The author. Stow expressly conceals his name, whilst stating that he was a Londoner born. From a reference at the head of p. 202 it appears that the writer was a young scholar at Oxford during the reign of Queen Mary, and from another on p. 208 to have been a lawyer, familiar with London constitutional government. The facts might suit James Dalton, who was at Christ Church in 1551(Reg. Univ. Oxford, i. 217). The occasion for writing seems to have been the proclamation against new building in 1580(see note on pp. 367–8 above).
220, Descriptio Londoniae was written in 1174 by William FitzStephen as a prelude to his life of Thomas Becket. It is not, however, found in all the extant copies of that work, and of the manuscripts used for the edition in Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol, iii (Rolls Series), Lansdowne 398 (in the British Museum) alone has it in full, whilst Douce, 287 (in the Bodleian Library) has an imperfect copy. Other copies are contained in Marshall MS. 75 (in the Bodleian Library), and in the Liber Custumarum, preserved at the Guildhall and edited by H. T. Riley in Mun. Gild. II. i. 1–15. Stow might presumably have had access to the last; but his discussion on London Schools (vol. i. 71–3) shows that he had not made use of it. His original more nearly resembled the Douce MS. which belonged to Lessness Abbey, near Erith, and the Marshall MS. which Hearne thought Stow had used.
The Description of London has been several times printed, viz. by Strype in his Survey (Appendix, pp. 9–11), using the Liber Custumarum; by Thomas Hearne in vol. viii of Leland's Itinerary from the Marshall MS.; by Samuel Pegge in 1772 with notes; and by W. J. Thomas in his edition of the Survey, where the previous printed editions are collated with the Lansdowne MS. The present text is based on a comparison of Stow's text with the two versions in the Rolls Series, which I have collated a new with the Lansdowne MS. I have further given some references to Hearne's text and to the Douce MS.
The copy in the Liber Custumarum, though somewhat late in date, is of peculiar interest for its civic origin. On the whole it agrees with Stow's text more closely than does the Lansdowne MS. It has the peculiarity of being divided into twenty-five chapters, as against the eleven of Stow's version; the chapter De Pascuis et Sationalibus is divided into two; the chapter De Dispositione Urbis has four divisions, and that De Ludis no less than than. In the Lansdowne MS. there is no division into chapters. In the present edition Stow's division (which is also that of Hearne) is retained. As a rule the text follows that of Stow, where he is supported by either of the chief MSS. No MS. appears to be entitled to pre-eminent authority.
Fitz Stephen adorned his narrative with an extraordinary display of classic learning (much of it no doubt second-hand). I have given as many references as I could find in previous editions or trace elsewhere.