Analytical Index to the Series of Records Known as the Remembrancia 1579-1664. Originally published by EJ Francis, London, 1878.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
II. 55. Letter from Lady Dorothy Stafford and Mary Scudamore, (fn. 1) Ladies-in-Waiting upon the Queen, to the Lord Mayor and
Aldermen, on behalf of Annes Bartlett, daughter of Richard Stowe,
late of London, bone-setter, and Robert Stewart, his servant, complaining that the fourteen butchers' stalls in Leadenhall, bequeathed
to them, had been withholden by his Lordship, and praying that they
might be restored, or a full compensation allowed.
From the Court at Greenwich, 26th May, 1595.
III. 40. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor
and the Recorder (Sir Henry Montague), stating that the Fishmongers'
Company had complained to them that, whereas of ancient time there
had been appointed three several markets within the City for the sale
of watered, salt, and fresh sea fish by retail, viz., Old and New Fish
Streets and the Stocks, which had been thus instituted by the ancient
custom and usage of the City, and by many Charters granted by His
Majesty's progenitors to the Fellowship, that the store and quantity
of fish to be sold might appear there to the buyers, for the better
governing of the price, and that the Wardens might more readily
survey the same, and see whether it was wholesome, but that persons
now sold fish in such corners and remote places as might best serve
to sell their bad and unwholesome fish without control or oversight of
the Company. Order should be taken with such Fishmongers for
keeping such markets. When the Council heard further from the
Company what other persons they complained of, and in what places
in or near the City they sold their fish, they would proceed to remedy
25th February, 1611.
VII. 141. Petition of the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London to the Lords of the Council, reciting that, contrary to their Charter of the 1st Edward III., confirmed by Parliament in the 7th Richard II., by which no market was to be permitted within five miles of the City, one Henry Darrell was seeking to obtain a grant from the King for the erection of two markets, on Tuesday and Saturday, and three fairs in the year, to continue six days each, in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and praying the Council by their mediation to obtain a stay of the grant.
A Note is appended that, upon consideration of the Petition, the
Council requested Mr. Secretary Windebank to acquaint the King therewith, whereupon order was given to the Attorney-General to proceed
no further with the Patent.
Dated in margin, 10th April, 1635.
VII. 196. Order in Council, reciting that a Petition had been
presented to the Board from Henry Darrell and the inhabitants
of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and adjacent parts, stating
that King James had granted to Trinity College, Oxford, six
markets and twelve fairs towards the building of their hall, which
grant had, in July, 1632, been confirmed by the present King.
Two of these markets and three fairs had been purchased of
the College by the Petitioners. In August, 1634, a Petition for
settling the said markets and fairs in a piece of ground in the parish
of St. Giles, belonging to the King, had been referred to Sir Henry
Spiller, (fn. 2) Sir Kenelm Digby, (fn. 3) and George Gage, (fn. 4) Esq., who certified
to the convenience and necessity thereof, whereupon they were
granted by the King, on the 15th December, 1634, one-fourth of the
toll being reserved to the Duke of York. (fn. 5) The Petitioners had thereupon sued out a Writ of ad quod damnum, which, by a jury of sufficient freeholders, had been found very convenient, and to the damage
of none, and a book had accordingly been drawn up by the AttorneyGeneral, for the King's signature. On a complaint from the City of
London to the Council, the King had directed proceedings to be
stayed, but in January, 1636, the Attorney-General had been ordered
to proceed; the Petitioners therefore prayed they might be no longer
hindered. The Council had directed a Copy of the Petition to be
sent to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and that they should
answer by Counsel or otherwise. The Petitioners and the City
had been that day heard, and the Charter of the 6th March,
1st Edward III., made in Parliament, granting that no markets
should be allowed within seven miles of the City, which Charter
was, in the 7th Richard II., confirmed by Parliament, had been
pleaded. It had been further alleged that the grants prayed for
would be inconvenient and prejudicial to the City; would draw a
great number of inhabitants into those parts, and cause more erections
of buildings and divided houses. The City had, by Charter of King
John, the Sheriffwick of London and Middlesex, for which they paid
to the King 300l. per annum. The principal means of raising this
sum was by the toll on cattle coming to the markets, and the
proposed markets and fairs, if allowed, would disable the City from
raising their rent. The Council were of opinion it would be very
inconvenient and unfit that there should be any market or fair at St.
Giles's-in-the-Fields, contrary to the grants in Parliament, and therefore ordered their decision to be entered in the Register of Council
At the Inner Star Chamber, 17th May, 1637.
IX. 80. Petition of the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the
City of London to the King, stating that, by the Charter of the late
King, in the sixteenth year of his reign, and by former Charters, granted
to the Petitioners by his progenitors and confirmed by His Majesty, no
market should be erected or permitted within seven miles of the City,
and though attempts had been made in times past to erect markets in
direct violation of their ancient privileges, upon their application, the
same had been made void. Attempts were now being made to erect
markets in the suburbs and parts adjacent, one in East. Smithfield, by
one Barnehurst; another in the Parish of Stepney, by the Earl of
Cleveland, (fn. 6) and others in other places, which would cause exceeding
damage to the City. The Petitioners prayed the King to maintain the
City's ancient privileges, and to prevent the erection of the said new
IX. 81. Letter from Sir Henry Bennet, Secretary of State, by
command of the King, to the Lord Mayor &c., acknowledging the
above Petition, and informing them that he had referred the same
to the Attorney-General for his consideration and opinion.
26th April, 1664.
IX. 82. Opinion of the Attorney-General, Sir Geoffrey Palmer,
2nd May, 1664.
IX. 83. The opinion of Sir Heneage Finch, Solicitor-General,
upon the same subject.
IX. 84. Petition of the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of
the City of London, to the King, calling attention to their former
Petition, and requesting His Majesty to declare his will and pleasure
IX. 85. Petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to the King,
stating that they had been informed that one Barnehurst had obtained
His Majesty's warrant to erect three weekly markets in East Smithfield, contrary to their several Charters before referred to, and requesting
him to withhold his said warrant, until the Petitioners had been heard
by the Council, upon the subject.