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.
I. 412. Letter from the Earl of Arundel to the Lord Mayor. In
the disorder in Southwark one of his men was in fault, for which he
could not be excused, yet it might in some part be qualified, because
there had been no intent to do hurt. He requested his lordship to
hear him and the others accused, and to join favour with justice, if
they should show sufficient matter for purgation.
14th October(sic,), 1582.
I. 413. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Earl of Arundel in
reply. He had offered to admit his servant and the others to bail, to
answer the charge at the next Southwark session, but that they had
not given bail. He had appointed a Sessions, to be held speedily,
and in the mean time he was ready to take bail of them by bonds, one
16th September (sic). 1582.
I. 545. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer.
Several of the Aldermen and other Citizens, with their wives and
families, for the sake of avoiding the infection, as well as for their
health, had houses without the City, specially in the counties adjoining;
and in all musters, setting out and furnishing of soldiers, were charged
in London. The Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for musters
in those shires had doubly charged the said Citizens in respect of their
houses, while on the other side such gentlemen as resided in the
country, and had lodgings or houses in the City, to which they resorted
in term or other times, had not been thus doubly charged. He
requested that the pleasure of the Council might be signified to the
Commissioners, to forbear to muster or burden such citizens, who had
their chief and ordinary residence in London. Part of Southwark had
been annexed to the jurisdiction of the City, and had been called the
Ward of Bridge-Without, having a special aldermen and officers, and
by expressed words of the charter had been placed under the government of the City, and accordingly in musters, training, and services
for the Queen had been joined and borne charge with the City; but
of late the Commissioners had charged them with the rest of the
borough, as a part of the county of Surrey. He desired the Council to
give such directions as would secure the liberties of the City.
29th September, 1583.
I. 569. Letter from Sir Francis Walsingham to the Lord Mayor.
He had written to the Justices of the Peace in Surrey, praying
them, in respect of the City's right within Southwark, to forbear to
muster any within that precinct, but to leave the same to the City.
The Justices had returned answer, with certain reasons why they ought
to continue the muster, which he had sent for his perusal, in order
that, with the advice of his Counsel, he might return answer thereto.
12th February, 1583.
I. 571. Letter from Sir Francis Walsingham to the Commissioners of musters in Surrey. The Council had been given to understand by the Lord Mayor that the inhabitants of the ward of the
City called the Ward of Bridge-Without had complained of the
Justices intermeddling, to take the musters contrary to their accustomed manner, and the Council had directed him to signify their pleasure to them that they should forbear now and hereafter to charge
and call the said inhabitants for service, but refer them to be mustered
by the Lord, Mayor and others deputed by his special commission of
the City, according to former Orders.
28th January, 1583.
I. 579. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer
The inhabitants of the borough of Southwark had usually been
accustomed, by virtue of the charter annexing the same to the City,
to be viewed and mustered by order and appointment of the Lord
Mayor for the time being, which had commonly been done in
St. George's Fields. The bailiffs and constables of the said borough
had now received directions from certain worshipful (persons) appointed
for that service to warn all able persons within the Liberty, between
the age of 16 and 60, personally to appear before them on the 30th of
this present month, to make show of their armour, shot, and weapons,
&c., at a place called Ubbershill, near Croydon, in the county of
Surrey, to the prejudice of the charters of the City, and the molestation
of the people, especially of the aged, having to go and return six or
seven miles, with hundreds of others, with their armour, without order
or government. He requested that the said worshipful (persons) might
be certified of the City's Charter and Order, hitherto used for the
mustering of the inhabitants, and required to forbear at this time and
17th January, 1587.
I. 585. Letter from the Lord Mayor to ...... the Lords of the Council.
The Lord Admiral, in order to carry out the Commission directed to him,
touching the selling and eating of flesh in this prohibited time, within
the county of Surrey, had appointed certain persons to execute the
commission, who had offered to take bonds of the victuallers within
the borough of Southwark. As some controversy might hereafter
arise, he begged the Council to explain the meaning to the commission, and whether it extended to the borough of Southwark.
13th February, 1590.
I. 662. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer.
Being informed of a great disorder and tumult in Southwark, he went
there, accompanied by one of the sheriffs, and found a great multitude
assembled, the principal actors being certain apprentices of the Feltmakers, out of Bermondsey Street and the Blackfriars, and a number
of master less men. Having made a proclamation and dismissed the
multitude, he caused the authors of the disorders to be apprehended
and committed to prison, to be further punished. To ascertain the
cause of the disturbance, he sent for the constable and deputy of the
borough, with divers other inhabitants of credit who were present. He
found it proceeded from the steps taken by the Knights Marshalsmen
to serve a warrant from the Lord Chamberlain upon a Feltmaker's
servant, committed to the Marshalsea with others, accused by the said
Knights Marshalsmen to the Lord Chamberlain, as they alleged without cause of offence, for restraining of whom the apprentices and
masterless men assembled themselves together, under pretence of their
meeting at a play. He desired to know from his lordship anything
meet to be done for the further punishment of the offenders. He had
been informed by the inhabitants of Southwark that the Knights
Marshalsmen in serving the warrant used very violent means:—that
they entered the house with a drawn dagger, and after having arrested
the party and certain others, committed them to prison, where they
remained for five days, without making their answer. When the
apprentices were assembled before the Marshalsea, the Marshalsmen
within issued forth with drawn daggers and with bastinadoes in their
hands, beating the people. They subsequently drew their swords,
which not only increased the tumult, but endangered themselves, if
help had not arrived. The inhabitants also complained that the Marshalsmen refused to pay scot and lot, or to perform any duties to either
Church or Commonwealth. He had thought it desirable to acquaint
his lordship with the facts, in order that the men might be admonished, and directed to use more discretion in serving their warrants in future.
30th May, 1592.
II. 97. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer,
giving an account of a riot in Southwark, caused by certain City
apprentices, who being sent by their masters to purchase mackerel at
Billingsgate, and finding that some fishwives had purchased the whole
store and carried them into Southwark, followed them, and took the
fish from them, paying for them according to a former price set by
the then Lord Mayor, and reporting proceedings taken for the
redress of the disorder.
14th June, 1595.
II. 268. Letter from the Lord Mayor to concerning a
levy of money proposed to be made upon the inhabitants of the
Borough of Southwark, in default of a hue and cry (fn. 1) upon a robbery
committed in the Hundred of Brixton, and requesting that, as the
inhabitants of the Borough were not liable to such levy, a day might
be named when a consultation might be had, with reference to this
II. 315. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Board of Green Cloth, touching the rating of the Carmen of the City, dwelling in Southwark, by the Justices of Surrey.
(See "Carts and Carmen.")
II. 323. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Board of Green Cloth upon the same subject.
(See "Carts and Carmen.")
III. 2. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to
the Lord Chancellor (Ellesmere). Upon their humble suit to the King
for the renewing and explaining, and also for some convenient and
needful enlargement, of their Charters and Liberties in and concerning
the Borough of Southwark, the King had referred the matter, together
with their requests as to their Character for London, to his Lordship
and the Attorney General. Exceptions to some of their demands for
Southwark having been taken by the Justices of Surrey, he had
twice heard the matter debated by Council on both sides. The
matter having been long depending, the government of the Borough
being dividedly carried, on, was found to be worse than before. They
prayed him to afford some time when they might attend to receive
his resolution in the matter.
4th January, 1610.
III. 21. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Justices of Surrey.
He was informed they had determined to meet in the Borough of
Southwark and administer the Oath of Allegiance to all the inhabitants there. He and his brethren (the Aldermen) had also determined to go there for the same purpose, to administer the Oath to
all such of the inhabitants as dwelt within the Liberties and government of the City. He therefore gave notice to the Justices not to
expect the appearance of such inhabitants before them, they being
already summoned to appear before him.
25th July, 1611.
V. 1. Letter from Sir George Rivers (fn. 2) to the Lord Mayor, stating
that since the death of Mr. Serrell several of his friends had written to
him before the receipt of his Lordship's letter on behalf of divers
worthy and learned gentlemen for that place, but he had requested
their forbearance until his return to London, when he would wait
upon his Lordship, and he doubted not give him such an answer as
would please him.
Chafford, 17th December, 1618.
V. 11. Letter from Lord Verulam, Lord Chancellor, to the Lord
Mayor and Court of Aldermen. He understood some questions had
been raised before them as to the ordering, placing and displacing of
Attorneys and Clerks in the Court of the Borough of Southwark, of
which Sir George Rivers, Knight, had for a long time been Judge and
Steward, and who claimed that he had, since his appointment, disposed
of such places according to his discretion, as had also his predecessors.
He requested them to allow him to continue to exercise that right
which seemed reasonable and consonant to the course of all other
Courts of Record, where for the most part the choice and ordering
of Attorneys and inferior ministers were left to the discretion of the
V. 53. Order in Council dated at the Star Chamber, upon consideration of a difference between the City of London and the Borough
of Southwark on the one part, and the inhabitants of the Liberty of
Paris Garden, the Clink, and the Bankside on the other part, concerning a way leading through some part of Saint George's Field into
some part of the Liberty and Manor of Paris Garden, and so to the
Thames side, directing, for preservation of the peace, that both
parties should join in a course for speedy trial of the right to the way
by law, and that in the mean time there should be no alteration of
possesion on either side.
31st January, 1619.
VI. 33. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to
Sir George Rivers, Steward of the Borough of Southwark, with respect
to a dispute concerning the Office of Clerk of the Court, between
Mr. Powlton, who exercised that office, and one Collins, which had been
brought before the Court of Aldermen, and referring the matter to his
decision as steward in whom they conceived the nomination of the
Clerk of the Court was vested.
VI. 45. Order in Council, reciting that they had been informed
by the Remembrancer of the City that the inhabitants of Bridge
Without found themselves much grieved by being charged to appear
at "Croden" (Croydon) to be mustered there contrary to custom.
It appeared that Mr. Secretary Walsingham, upon a former similar
summons by the Commissioners for musters in Surrey, signified the
pleasure of the Council that the Commissioners should not only
forbear for the time being, but ever after cease to charge and call any
of the said inhabitants for such service, and leave them to be mustered
and trained in Saint George's Fields, and to be proceeded with by the
Lord Mayor and others, to be deputed by special Commission of the
City according to former orders. Sir George More, (fn. 3) an ancient Commissioner for musters in the County of Surrey, being called to the
Board, acknowledged that such directions had formerly been given
by the Council. The Council, therefore, direct that so much of the
said Borough should remain and be mustered by the City as formerly,
and not with the County.
Whitehall, 12th July, 1624.
VI. 47. Same as No. 545, Vol. I.
19th September, 1583.
VI. 48. Same as No. 569. Vol. I.
12th February, 1583.
VI. 49. Same as No. 571, Vol. I.
28th January, 1583.
VI. 50. Same as No. 579, Vol. I.
17th January, 1587.
IX. 78. Letter signed by Sir Henry Bennet, by command of the
King, to the Justices of the Peace for the County of Surrey, informing
them that His Majesty had referred the controversy between themselves and the City of London, concerning the right to hold sessions,
and exercise the powers of Justices of the Peace within the Borough
of Southwark, to the consideration of the Chief Justices of the
two benches and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and directing
that the meeting called for the licensing of victuallers, alehousekeepers, &c., should not be held until the matter had been determined.
6th February, 1663–4.