[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

——————————————————————————————————

You may click on the footnote symbol to jump to the note, then click again on that footnote symbol and you will jump back to the same place in the text.

——————————————————————————————————


From A Source Book of London history from the Earliest Times to 1800 edited by P. Meadows, London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd, 1914; pp. 27-29.

[27]

YEAR 1249 A. D.

Oppression by Henry III.

Perhaps no monarch was ever more detested by the citizens of London than was Henry III. — a weak and foolish ruler, who subjected every class to his exactions and oppressions. He was himself preyed upon by swarms of favourites, and enticed into all manner of expensive projects, and could only free himself from his debts and difficulties by abusing his royal prerogative. On one occasion he sold his plate and jewels to the Londoners. “These clowns,” he said, “who assume to themselves the name of barons, abound in everything, while we are reduced to necessities.” Henry certainly seemed to regard their resources as inexhaustible; false charges were repeatedly made against them, for the purpose of exacting money; exorbitant sums were demanded for purchasing the King’s good-will, and for the granting of charters; no occasion of soliciting presents was allowed to pass by; schemes of begging and robbing were carried on so assiduously by this infatuated monarch that the citizens were driven, in the end, to offer and render active assistance to the barons who leagued themselves against him. During this disturbed period the City did not prosper; it needed a firm and steady Government, and not till Edward I. ascended the throne did London resume its career of progress.



28

Source. — Matthew Paris, History.




The King began now sedulously to think how he could entirely dry up the inexhaustible well of England. For, on meeting with a just repulse from the community of nobles, as above mentioned, who state that they would no longer lavish their property to the ruin of the kingdom, he studied, by other cunning devices, to quench the thirst of his cupidity. Immediately after the festivities of the said season, he entered upon the following plan of harassing the citizens of London: he suspended the carrying on of traffic in that city, as has been before mentioned, for a fortnght, by establishing a new fair at Westminster, to the loss and injury of many; and immediately afterwards he sent letters by his agents, containing subtle and imperious entreaties, asking them for pecuniary aid. On receipt of this message, the citizens were grieved to the heart, and said: “Woe to us, woe to us; where is the liberty of London, which is so often bought; so often granted; so often guaranteed by writing; so often sworn to be respected? For each year almost, like slaves of the lowest condition, we are impoverished by new talliages, and injuriously harassed by fox-like arguments; nor can we discover into what whirlpool the property of which we are robbed is absorbed.” At length, however, although immense sums were demanded, the citizens, although unwillingly and not without bitterness of heart, yielded their consent to a contribution of two thousand pounds, to be paid to the King at a brief period. . . .

About the same time, the City of London was excited in no slight degree, because the King exacted some liberties from the citizens for the benefit of the abbot of Westminster, to their enormous loss, and the injury of their liberties. The mayor of the city and the whole of the community in general, as far as lay in their power, opposed the wish (or rather violence and raving) of the King; but he proved harsh and inexorable to them. The citizens, therfore, in a state of great excitement, went with sorrowful complaints to Earl Richard, the earl of Leicester, and other nobles of the Kingdom, telling them how 29 the King, perhaps bent into a bow of wickedness, by the pope’s example, shamelessly violated their charters, granted to them by his predecessors. The said nobles were much disturbed at this, fearing that the King would attempt a similar proceeding with them; they therefore severely reproached him, adding threats to their reproaches, and strongly blamed the abbot, who, they believed, was the originator and promoter of this wrong, heaping insult upon insult on him; which, however, it does not become us to relate, out of respect to the order. Thus the prudence of the nobles happily recalled the King from his conceived design.





——————————————————————————————————



[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

Valid CSS!