BOROUGH
It is likely that Southwark formed
part of the ancient demesne of the Crown
and that Cnut granted certain rights
within it to Earl Godwin. From Domesday it appears
that before the Conquest it was partly in the tenure
of the king, partly in that of Godwin, who is otherwise
known to have had a house in Southwark. (fn. 1) It is
said that the king owned two parts of the profits of
the stream, where ships used to come alongside, and
Godwin the third. The accompanying statement
that in the time of King Edward only the king took
toll on the strand or in the water street (fn. 2) must indicate either that the ships 'came alongside' elsewhere
than at these places or that Godwin's rights had
lapsed after his death, probably the latter. Later the
Earls Warenne had the third penny and other rights
in Southwark, probably as part of the earldom of
Surrey granted in 1089. (fn. 3) In 1131–2, (fn. 4) and again
in 1156–7 (fn. 5) and 1157–8, (fn. 6) sums of 20s. or 20s. 4d.
out of the aid of the borough were remitted to Earl
Warenne. In 1278–9 the earl laid claim to a third
part of all tolls in Southwark, however they arose,
and a jury pronounced that the bailiff of the king
and the bailiff of the earl had in the town a common
box in which from time immemorial they had collected toll. It was always in the custody of the royal
bailiff, but the bailiff of the earl kept the keys, and
the two from time to time opened it and divided the
money collected into three parts, of which two
belonged to the king and one to the earl. (fn. 7) Stow
quotes a deed by which John Earl Warenne in
1281 remitted for him and his heirs to the Abbot of
St. Augustine's in Canterbury the suit to the earl's
court of Southwark due for a messuage and houses in
his fee on the Thames and between the Bridge House
and the church of St. Olave. (fn. 8) There are other
references to property held of the earls in the parish
of St. Olave, (fn. 9) particularly to the Bridge House, but
apparently only this one to their court in the borough.
In 1347 John Earl Warenne died in possession of
one-third of the tolls, (fn. 10) which he held in chief of the
king as part of the county of Surrey, and Edward III
authorized their descent to his heir Richard Earl of
Arundel (though not yet Earl of Surrey), whose
homage and fealty, it was stated, would be due for
them at the king's return to England. (fn. 11) He died in
1376. On his son Richard's attainder in 1397 an
inquisition by the Sheriff of Surrey discovered that
he had held a house called 'le Cage' and 1 acre and
3 virgates of land with their appurtenances in Southwark which belonged to his office as bailiff of
one-third part of that place. (fn. 12) 'Le Cage' was probably
a prison. The king granted Richard's bailiwick to
Henry Champneys, one of his doorkeepers, to hold
for life, and afterwards on the same terms to John
Serle, groom of the royal chamber. (fn. 13) In 1399
Thomas son of Earl Richard was restored to his
father's dignities and possessions, and he was found
on his death in 1415 to have held a third part of certain rents, tolls and customs with their appurtenances
in Southwark of the king in chief by knight service
His heirs were his sisters, Elizabeth Duchess of
Norfolk, Joan de Beauchamp Lady Abergavenny and
Margaret the wife of Roland Lenthall, kt. The
possessions of Elizabeth passed first to her son
Thomas Mowbray, earl marshal, who died in 1405,
then to her second son John, created Duke of Norfolk
in 1424, who on his death in 1432 was found to
have granted in 1431 to John Almain for life the
office of bailiff of his liberties in Southwark and of
all his lands, tenements, rents and services there with
their appurtenances. (fn. 14) His property passed successively to two dukes named John in the direct line,
and afterwards to William Marquess of Berkeley, the
grandson of Duchess Elizabeth by her daughter Isabel
Lady Berkeley, (fn. 15) who when he died in 1492 held of
the king in chief a quarter of a moiety of the toll of
Southwark. (fn. 16) The heirs of Joan Lady Abergavenny
were successive lords of Abergavenny. (fn. 17) In 1451 it
was found that Sir Roland Lenthall and Margaret
had held one-third of a third part of tolls and customs
in Southwark, of rents of assize from divers lands and
tenements there which amounted to 25s. 4d., and of
one tenement, an acre of land and an acre of meadow
in Southwark and Camberwell. Their son and heir
Edmund died without issue, and their heirs were
their cousins John Duke of Norfolk and George
Nevill Lord of Abergavenny. (fn. 18) The later descent
of these fractions is not traceable. (fn. 19)
Warenne. Checky or and azure.
Arundel. Azure a lion or.
Mowbray. Gules a lion argent.
Berkeley. Gules a Cheveron between ten crosses formy argent.
Lenthall. Argent a bend cotised sable with three molets or on the bend.
Nevill. Gules a saltire argent with a rose gules thereon.
As to local burghal authority, there may be in
Domesday a reference to the forerunners of the later
'good men' of Southwark in a statement as to certain
property in the borough, seemingly appendant to
Kingston lordship. 'The men of Southwark themselves have proved their right to a close and the toll
thereof belonging to the farm of Kingston. Earl
Eustace held these.' Further, it is stated that any
who committed a trespass on the strand or in the
water street and was not questioned must make fine
to the king, unless he escaped unquestioned to the
jurisdiction of him who had sac and soc, who then
should receive the fine. (fn. 20) There is thus the implication of an authority intermediary between the king
and the offender able to question the latter. Domesday does not specifically mention Southwark as a
borough, but places it within the hundred of Kingston;
in 1130–1, however, there is a reference to the
past aid of the borough, (fn. 21) and burghal payments
were made throughout the reign of Henry II through
the sheriff. (fn. 22) In 1251 the king directed an inquisition
by the Sheriff of Surrey in full county court, by jurors
from within and from without Southwark, as to the
customs of that town, their value, whether they were
of the body of the county or of the Crown and
whether the king could grant them at farm. The
verdict comprehended a list of tolls said to be worth
£10 a year, with all profits, pleas and perquisites, and
pronounced them to belong inseparably to the body
of the county and to be included in the sheriff's farm
thereof, but to be demisable by the king to any farmer
who paid £10 a year to the sheriff. (fn. 23) On these terms
Henry III granted the customs, with all pleas, profits
of pleas and perquisites, to Henry Fitz Martin in this
year. (fn. 24) In 1277, however, Edward I committed the
bailiwick of Southwark to Hugh de Digneuton, to
hold at pleasure and to answer for it to himself as
other wardens had done, (fn. 25) and at the same time
ordered the sheriff to deliver the charge to Hugh. (fn. 26)
Thus the borough (fn. 27) and shire may again have been
separated, except the 'third penny,' which was
claimed by the Earl of Surrey in 1278 and allowed.
The next grant of the bailiwick, which was made
in 1280–1 to Henry de Dunlegh, was more explicit in
that it stipulated that Henry should render as well as
answer to the king as other keepers of the bailiwick
had done, and it ordered the burghers of Southwark to
be intendent to Henry in all things which pertained
to the bailiwick. (fn. 28) Finally Hugh de Yarmouth, who
was bailiff in 1298, (fn. 29) is definitely known to have held
the town for a yearly farm of £10 payable at the
Exchequer, and on such terms the bailiwick was confirmed to him on the accession of Edward II. (fn. 30) It
was similarly granted on later occasions. (fn. 31) In this
period there is sometimes mention of two bailiffs of
Southwark, one apparently appointed by the king and
one by the earl. (fn. 32)
In 1326 the king ordered that, whereas malefactors
of London fled to Southwark after they had committed offences in order to escape attachment by
ministers of the City, the bailiffs of the franchise of
Southwark should be intendent to their capture and
the mayor and sheriff should make daily inquiry as to
such evildoers and their allies and maintainers. (fn. 33)
This mandate, however, cannot have sufficed for its
purpose, for in the following year Edward III,
having heard in Parliament the petition of the
citizens that felons, robbers and other criminals of
London fled from justice to Southwark and were there
publicly received, granted the town, with the assent
of Parliament, to the citizens, to hold in perpetuity
for the accustomed farm payable at the Exchequer. (fn. 34)
From this grant it appears that the rights acquired by
the City were exactly those previously held by individual bailiffs, those, for instance, of Hugh de
Digneuton and John de Hatton, bailiffs of Southwark, who in 1280 had attached Alan Panyot, the
king's man, in the king's lay fee in Southwark, for
certain trespasses, in right of the king's ownership of
pleas and liberties of feudalities and of secular things
granted by the king or his progenitors to persons or
dignities. (fn. 35) The jurisdictional powers now vested in
the citizens did not entitle them to extend the power
of their own courts and officials to override or modify
the existing arrangements of the borough. Thus in
February and April 1382 special commissions were
necessary to allow a search by the mayor and sheriffs
for prisoners who had escaped to Southwark, their
arrest and their conduct to Newgate. (fn. 36) In 1372
the coroner of the City was ordered to distrain the
mayor, sheriffs and commonalty to answer a certain
charge at Southwark; and on their appearance a jury
of divers hundreds of Surrey presented to the king
that the accused had entered a shop and half a shop,
in the borough and parcel of it, which used to pertain
to the liberty of the king there, and had claimed them
as liable to lot and scot in the City. The defendants
alleged that the shops, which were at the end of
London Bridge, were in Bridge ward. (fn. 37) This process
makes clear Southwark's independence of the City, and
further the fact that the borough was not excluded
from the jurisdiction of the county. Fiscally the
county and borough were separate; and the office of
collecting customs and other dues must have been
acquired by the City in 1327. There is evidence of
a like exclusiveness as regarded the burden of military
service, (fn. 38) but it may have existed only by force of
special mandates issued on individual occasions. The
City farmed the rights they had received to bailiffs. (fn. 39)
The rent paid in the 14th century varied from £10
to £12 (fn. 40) ; and as the farm payable at the Exchequer
was throughout £10, the tenure of the borough was
of little advantage to the City except as a means of
influence. As such it sometimes served the interests
of trade as well as those of justice. (fn. 41) Evidence of
separate action on the part of burghal authorities
exists chiefly in royal grants to the bailiffs and good
men of Southwark of pavage in their town. (fn. 42)
The year 1406 marked the second stage in the process
of the absorption of Southwark in the city of London.
Henry IV then confirmed the borough to the mayor
and commonalty for the ancient farm of £10, and
granted them some additional powers. They might
in the person of their own servants arrest robbers,
felons and malefactors in Southwark and take them
to Newgate, there to justify themselves before the
mayor and other justices assigned to deliver the gaol,
in the same manner as felons found within the City.
They were granted all goods called 'waif and stray,'
and the return and execution of all writs of the king
and of all estreats, precepts and mandates of any of
his courts, in such form that the Sheriff of Surrey and
his officers might no longer intervene in the town of
Southwark, except as a consequence of the defect of
the mayor and commonalty. A saving clause protected the franchises of other lords within the town. (fn. 43)
Confirmatory charters received from Henry VI in
1443 (fn. 44) and from Edward IV in 1462 (fn. 45) gave also to the
City the view of frankpledge, treasure trove and unclaimed goods, all handiwork, goods and chattels of
traitors, felons and outlaws, escheats and forfeitures in
Southwark, and all liberties and franchises which
belonged to the Crown in the borough, excluding
those in the tenure of the Archbishop of Canterbury
or others. There is some evidence of resistance by
the borough to its subjection. In 1541 a contention
had arisen between the king's borough of Southwark
and the City as to the latter's franchise in Southwark. (fn. 46)
The area affected by these grants was the later
Gildable Manor. It was a small district on the south
side of London Bridge, bounded at Hay Lane on the
east, at St. Saviour's Dock on the west, and near the
junction of Stoney Street and the Borough High Street
on the south. (fn. 47) It has been conjectured that such was
the whole extent of the ancient borough. Against
this, however, it can be argued that the Abbot of
Bermondsey and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
tenants in chief outside this district and within the
later borough, held in the borough in the 12th
century. It is more probable that the liberties
outside the Gildable Manor and in Southwark before
1832 were created out of districts within the earliest
area of the borough. The word 'Gildable' has been
held to imply the existence of a gild in Southwark, of
which there is no other evidence. It is more likely
to have had reference to taxation, since it was applied
to the only district in the borough which was not
held in mortmain.
In 1550 the final step in the extension of the City's
power over Southwark was taken. Edward VI granted
to the Corporation all waifs and strays, treasure trove,
deodand, goods of felons and fugitives and escheats
and forfeitures in the parishes of St. Saviour, St. Olave,
St. George and St. Thomas or the King's Hospital,
and elsewhere in the borough and town. He gave,
as his predecessors had done, the execution of writs,
the power to arrest felons and other malefactors and
to take them to Newgate, and all liberties which the
king or his heirs should or might have had if the
borough had remained in their tenure. In addition
he granted that the mayor, commonalty and citizens
might hold all pleas of contract and demands in the
borough before the mayor, aldermen or sheriffs of the
City, or any of them, in the Guildhall or husting of
London, as such actions had always occurred within
the City. The serjeants-at-mace might serve and
execute processes in Southwark as they were used to
do in the City. The inhabitants of the town and
borough might be impleaded and might plead in the
City in the courts already mentioned and according
to the accustomed forms. Defaulters on juries were
liable to amercement by the mayor and sheriffs. The
mayor, commonalty and citizens had cognizance of
all pleas of the Crown in Southwark and were empowered to elect there yearly two coroners. The
mayor was constituted escheator in the borough and
was enabled, in such capacity, to make his precept to
the Sheriff of Surrey. The corporation of London
were vested with all jurisdictions, liberties and privileges held in Southwark by any Archbishop of Canterbury, by the Duke of Suffolk, by any master, brethren
or sisters of the Hospital of St. Thomas, Abbot of
Bermondsey, Prior and convent of St. Mary Overy,
or by the king or his father. The inhabitants of the
borough were subjected to the officers of the City as
though themselves citizens, and in like manner were
admitted to participation in civic rights and privileges.
The Mayor of the City, the recorder and all aldermen
who had held the mayoralty, became justices of the
peace in Southwark, with all powers exercised by other
justices in Surrey. The royal right to the ancient
farm of £10 was reserved. (fn. 48) It is not surprising that
this charter was regarded by the citizens as a complete
annexation of Southwark to London, as an extension
of the City boundaries. Three months after it had
been received the court of aldermen enacted that
one alderman above the ancient number should be
appointed to have rule over the borough, that he
should be chosen by the mayor and aldermen from
four persons nominated by the inhabitants of Southwark and that he should be called the alderman of
Bridge Ward Without. (fn. 49) This creation of a dual
elective authority proves that the new ward was considered to have an inferior status to the twenty-five
that were ancient. The provision was, moreover,
repealed in 1557 by the Common Council, and it
was ordered that thenceforth the alderman of Bridge
Ward Without should be chosen at a full court of
Common Council by the mayor and aldermen. (fn. 50)
Further, the ward was not represented on the Common
Council. It is stated by Stow to have had an alderman, three deputy aldermen and a wardmote inquest
of twenty (fn. 51) ; but it is probable that the latter body
would be more correctly described as the jury of an
older court, perhaps of the Gildable Manor. There
is no evidence of a wardmote in Southwark. For a
century subsequent to the charter of 1550 there are
many references to the fact that the jurisdiction of the
City extended over only a part of the borough, and
that the rest was subject to the county. (fn. 52) The
boundaries of the places specifically excluded by the
charter from the grant to the City were too well
known to cause disputes. The restriction appears to
be due to a survival of the distinction between the
jurisdiction in the Gildable Manor and those in the
King's Manor and the Great Liberty Manor. These
last had both been given to the City, and had previously been exempt from the sheriff's power. Yet
their independent history, the fact that no previous
grants to the City had affected them, and the centuries
during which they had been excluded from the burghal
administration, had probably resulted in peculiarities
which tended to confusion. The friction between
the county and the corporation clearly appears in
the military preparations of Elizabeth's reign. (fn. 53)
After the Restoration the dispute was revived, and
the limits of the rival jurisdictions were no longer
to be distinguished geographically. (fn. 54) The outcome
was the existence in Southwark in the 18th and early
19th century of concurrent jurisdictions of the county
and the City. The lord mayor, with the aldermen
who had passed the chair and the recorder, held
sessions independently, as did the Surrey justices, all
in the town hall on St. Margaret's Hill. In 1727
an indictment was preferred against the mayor because
at the City's court a licence, previously refused by the
county magistrates, had been granted to the keeper of
the 'Dog and Duck.' The resultant judgement was
to the effect that the two jurisdictions were concurrent, and that whichever of them attached first had
binding force. (fn. 55)
The civil jurisdiction of the corporation of London
in the borough was exercisable in a weekly court of
record held in the town hall. The judge was the
steward, who was elected by the court of aldermen,
before whom he took oath and was admitted to hold
office during his good behaviour. (fn. 56) The court had
cognizance of actions of debt, contract and trespass
arising within the limits of the mayor's jurisdiction
in the borough; but it does not appear that it ever
tried pleas of title to land. Its proceedings were not
subject to review by the ordinary City courts, nor by
the court at St. Martin's-le-Grand, but might be
removed to the superior courts at Westminster. (fn. 57)
There is no evidence as to whether it originated after
the charter of 1550 or previously. The bailiff was
elected by the Common Council, by whom he might
be removed, and took oath before the court of aldermen. It appears that his office was not farmed after
1733. (fn. 58) In 1788 an address of the freemen of
London in Southwark prayed the mayor and corporation for a restoration of rights and for a precept from
the lord mayor for the election of common councilmen to represent Bridge Ward Without. It had no
response. (fn. 59) In 1814 the sessions of the City magistrates
had been for many years a mere pageantry, displayed
four times a year, and the City's court of record had
fallen into disuse. (fn. 60) In that year a public meeting
of the inhabitants of Southwark was called by the
bailiff, and a petition was rendered to the court of
aldermen and the Common Council for the restoration
of the rights and privileges granted in 1550, the better
proclamation of the jurisdiction and existence of the
court of record, its re-establishment and that of the
sessions of peace for the borough, the holding of a
court of wardmote for the election of common
councilmen and the reconsideration of the Act of
Common Council of 1557. Complaint was also made
of the lack of a corporate magistracy, the liability of
the inhabitants to the county rate, to service in the
county militia and to the obligation of having soldiers
quartered on them. Additional grievances were that,
in spite of its disabilities, the borough contributed a
large proportion of the coal duties owing to its dense
population and its many factories, and that the City
derived a revenue from the water bailliage on corn
landed and warehoused in Southwark and from the
offices of the corn, coal and fruit meters on the
Surrey side of the Thames. As a consequence the
court of aldermen appointed two of their number
who had held the mayoralty to be acting and salaried
magistrates in Southwark; and thereafter one of these
attended every weekday at the town hall. The offices
were instituted of a clerk and of two marshalmen,
who were elected by the Common Council and
admitted and sworn before the magistrates. They
acted as high constables under the bailiff, but lost
many of their duties by the introduction of the
metropolitan police into Southwark in 1829. (fn. 61) In
1837 there was only one marshalman. The
bailiff had received licence to appoint a deputy in
1818.
The petition resulted, further, in a distribution of
all aldermen who had passed the chair for rotatory
attendance at the quarterly Southwark sessions with
the lord mayor and the recorder who was presiding
judge. This court had cognizance over all offences
and felonies not capital committed within the mayor's
jurisdiction in the borough (fn. 62) and of appeals against
summary convictions. Juries were taken solely from
the borough and were summoned by a precept to the
bailiff, signed by the mayor and recorder. In 1837
the business usually occupied two days in a session.
The concurrent sessions of the county magistrates
were held at that date in the Union Hall. The
court of record was also revived after 1814. In 1837
it sat every Monday and transacted considerable business. Two prothonotaries of the court were appointed
by the steward. (fn. 63)
A court of requests or of conscience for the borough
was established in 1690 (fn. 64) and in 1748–9. Its
jurisdiction was limited to the recovery of debts of a
less value than 40s. from inhabitants of the town and
borough and of the parishes of Christchurch, St.
Mary Newington, St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey,
St. Mary Lambeth and St. Mary Rotherhithe. In
1758–9 its powers were extended to include all the
eastern half of the hundred of Brixton, and in
1805–6 it acquired cognizance of debts up to the
value of £5. In 1837 all the inhabitants of the
district allotted and all those who owned property,
traded, or otherwise sought a livelihood within it
might sue in the court. Fifty-two commissioners
were authorized by statute and were elected in specified proportions by the vestrymen of the several
parishes. A certain number of them were appointed
monthly in rotation to form a court, and three or
five constituted a quorum. The chief bailiff of
Southwark was the ministerial officer of the court.
Its business was in 1837 very extensive. (fn. 65)
By the Local Government Act of 1888 Southwark
was included in the county of London. (fn. 66) In 1899
the metropolitan borough of Southwark was formed:
this excludes the outlying western and southern parts
of the old borough along Tooley Street and the Old
Kent Road, which are comprised respectively in
Bermondsey and Camberwell.
Southwark returned two members to the Parliament of 1295 and to subsequent Parliaments until
1832. By the Reform Bill of 1832 (fn. 67) the parliamentary borough was extended to include the Clink
and Paris Garden Liberties, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, but the number of representatives was not
changed. (fn. 68) The Redistribution of Seats Act divided
the new borough in 1885 into the West, the Rotherhithe and the Bermondsey divisions, to each of which
one member was allotted. The first includes St.
Saviour's district and St. Michael's and St. Paul's
wards in the parish of St. George; the second was
formed of St. Olave's district, the parish of Rotherhithe and the fourth ward of Bermondsey parish;
and the third comprehends the other three wards
of that parish and St. George's ward in the parish of
St. George. (fn. 69)
In 1258 it was stated that by custom of the
town none sold or bought corn in the market of
Southwark before morning mass had been sung at the
hospital of St. Thomas, (fn. 70) and in 1275 certain tolls in
fairs and markets in the borough were due to the
Earl of Surrey. (fn. 71) These references are probably to
an ancient and prescriptive market and fair. Since
Southwark was within the verge of the palace of
Westminster the duty of regulating sales in it, the
assay and assize of bread and ale, and the accompanying
rights of punishment, belonged to the clerk of the
market of the royal household, in so far as no grants
had affected them. They were transferred to the
City of London by the charter of 1406. (fn. 72) In 1443
the citizens acquired also the right to hold a fair in
the borough on the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin,
8 September, its vigil and its morrow, with a court
of pie powder. (fn. 73) This was regranted in 1462. (fn. 74)
In 1541 there was a contention between the town
and the City as to the fairs, (fn. 75) and in 1547 the mayor
and commonalty made suit to the king for its governance. (fn. 76) The grounds of the dispute are probably
revealed in the latter year, when a provisional order
in council directed that the profits of the fair should
be collected in the presence of two ministers of the
City and of the mayor and should remain with the
latter, and that the mayor and his council 'should
not ride further' than the place they had been wont
to pass in previous years. (fn. 77) This riding was presumably connected with the holding of the piepowder court, since such customarily went round a
fair or market, and there must have been an attempt
to extend its jurisdiction outside the area of the
Gildable Manor. The fair and the court were
regranted by the charter of 1550. (fn. 78)
In 1630 a proclamation forbade Our Lady Fair
in Southwark to take place on account of the plague
which threatened the borough and the City. (fn. 79) The
right to hold it was confirmed to the City in 1663. (fn. 80)
Southwark Fair was a place of great resort for the
citizens of London. In 1712 there is reference to
the 'Bartholomew Fair, which they keep up still in
the borough, though it be left off in the city.' (fn. 81)
This means of course that the fair had become a
place of riotous pleasures. (fn. 82) It was discontinued by
order of the lord mayor in 1792. (fn. 83)
The dispute between the City and Southwark in
1541 concerned among other things the 'keeping of
markets.' (fn. 84) There is no mention of market rights
in previous grants of privileges in the borough to the
mayor and citizens; but any such which existed in
1406 must then have been conferred on them. In
1550 the king granted to the City liberty to hold a
market in Southwark on every Monday, Wednesday,
Friday and Saturday. (fn. 85) The right was confirmed in
1663. (fn. 86) In 1671–2 there is mention of the meal
market in Southwark, (fn. 87) presumably a part of the
market or a building within its site. The market
was held near the place of St. Margaret's Church in
1542, (fn. 88) but afterwards in the Borough High Street,
as was apparently the fair, and such a position must
have been inconvenient. There was a proposition
between 1672 and 1692 to remove the market to
St. Margaret's Hill. (fn. 89) It was discontinued before
1754, when the churchwardens and inhabitants of
the parish of St. Saviour were enabled by Act of
Parliament to hold a market on another site, in
Rochester Yard. This is the origin of the present
Borough Market which takes place on ground by
St. Saviour's churchyard, where Rochester House
used to stand. It was held in 1891 on every
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The market is
one for fruit and vegetables and it serves, roughly,
all the district of South London. (fn. 90)
Fair Street was called in the 18th century Horsleydown Fair Street (fn. 91) ; and the name must indicate
the site of some sort of prescriptive fair, probably
held on Horsleydown before the district was covered
with buildings.
As to early trades and industries, there is evidence
from the 13th to the 17th century of some water
mills on the river bank, in addition to those mentioned in the accounts of holdings, and of windmills
on inland sites. (fn. 92) In the end of the 13th and in the
beginning of the 14th century references occur to the
lime-burners of Southwark. (fn. 93) Foreign craftsmen
settled in the borough in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Between 1394 and 1460 several conveyances took
place of land in 'Burgoyne' in the parish of St. Olave,
a name which is probably derived from a settlement
of weavers from the Duke of Burgundy's dominions. (fn. 94)
Land called 'Berghene' is marked in a map of 1542
as intervening between the Bridge House and Battle
Bridge. (fn. 95) Beyond the fact of the existence in
St. George's Church of the chantry of the leathersellers of London, there is a reference in 1541 to the
selling of leather in Southwark. (fn. 96) The number of
inns in Southwark naturally accounted for many
breweries, and numerous Dutch brewers settled there
in the 15th and 16th centuries. There was also
apparently a settlement of Protestant refugees in the
borough in the 17th century; the leatherdressers of
Southwark petitioned in 1622 against the injury done
to their trade by Dutchmen, who had served no terms
of apprenticeship and yet employed journeymen of
their own nationality to work as leatherdressers (fn. 97) ;
and there was a Flemish burial-ground in the parish
of St. Olave. (fn. 98)
The leather trade has now moved eastwards to
Bermondsey. The trade in hops is localized, to
some extent, in Borough High Street.
The Counter in Southwark was the prison attached
to the jurisdiction of the City. It was established in
a part of St. Margaret's Church, (fn. 99) presumably after
the charter of Edward VI to the City. The keeper
was nominated by the bailiff and appointed by the
court of aldermen. (fn. 100) In 1714 it was said to be a
prison only for debt, and was within part of the
Marshalsea House. (fn. 101) This situation was, however,
only temporary, for shortly before 1787 it was
rebuilt in Mill Lane, Tooley Street. (fn. 102) It was described in 1812 as the prison for the City's court of
record, but its use had been extended to admit
persons convicted by the court of conscience.
Debtors and vagrants were confined in it in circumstances of great misery. (fn. 103) It is alleged by Mr. E.
Walford to have been discontinued before the fire of
1861, during which it was destroyed (fn. 104) ; and there is
no evidence that it existed in 1869, when imprisonment for debt was abolished. (fn. 105) Its earlier site had
given the name of Counter Street, which occurs in
1715 (fn. 106) and in 1837, (fn. 107) to the southern part of Stoney
Street, and is still indicated by Counter Court.
Stow, writing in 1598, says that the county gaol
of Surrey had been established in the house in Southwark known as the 'White Lion' 'within these
forty years past.' (fn. 108) Records of 1681 state that the
property was bought by the county. (fn. 109) It stood on
St. Margaret's Hill, between the King's Bench prison
and the church of St. George. In 1640 it was pulled
down by the apprentices and others and the prisoners
were delivered. (fn. 110) Perhaps as a consequence the prison
was in 1681 so ruinous that it was no longer a place
of safe custody. In 1695 the sheriff had agreed for
the keeping of the prisoners of the county in the
Marshalsea. The 'White Lion' estate was let on
leases which expired in 1755. Subsequently, in
1759 and in 1771, the old gaol was enlarged. (fn. 111) An
Act of Parliament in 1772 extinguished a right of
common on an acre of land near the King's Bench
prison called White Lion or Hangman's Acre, which
belonged to the county of Surrey and which constituted a proper site for a house of correction. (fn. 112) This
was built accordingly. In 1791 both the prisons
and the court buildings on the site of St. Margaret's
Church were demolished (fn. 113) and a new county gaol,
which was that included in 1790 in the Rules of the
King's Bench, was erected in Newington. (fn. 114)
Since Southwark was within the verge of the palace
of Westminster, it was subject to the jurisdiction of
the officers of the household, the steward, the marshal
and the coroner. (fn. 115) In the 14th century the holders
of houses in the borough were several times exempted
from livery of the king's steward, marshal and other
ministers and from obligation to lodge them. (fn. 116) In
1374 the king empowered the good men of Southwark
to rebuild in the highway from the church of
St. Margaret a house in which to hold the pleas of
the Marshalsea of the royal household and all courts
of the king and his heirs which had place in the
town, (fn. 117) together with the house for the safe keeping
of the prisoners of the Marshalsea. The prison was
in the custody of the deputy marshal of the household.
In the charter of 1550 all powers of the master,
steward and marshal of the household within the
borough were reserved to the king. (fn. 118) The court was
removed by Act of Parliament in 1651. In 1654
many well-affected tradesmen in London, Westminster
and adjacent parts complained that by such removal
they had been deprived of all easy and speedy ways
to recover their debts. (fn. 119) In 1672 the right of the
lord steward of the palace and others of the household, that no privileges in Southwark and elsewhere
within the verge should be granted without their
knowledge, was reserved. (fn. 120) The prison of the
Marshalsea was rebuilt in 1811 and discontinued in
1842. (fn. 121) Its conditions were as miserable and corrupt
as those of other gaols, and there were the usual efforts
to reform them in the 18th and 19th centuries. (fn. 122)
The admiralty court was held in Southwark in the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries. (fn. 123) Its place was at
Horton Quay, 'by the tideway in the parish of
St. Olave,' in 1470 (fn. 124) ; at the town hall, presumably
that on the site of St. Margaret's, in 1625 (fn. 125) ; and at
the Marshalsea House in 1694. (fn. 126)