Southwark

Southwark.

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 for another.
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 henceforth.
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 matter.
(Circa 1606.)

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 Judge.
February, 1618.

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.
(Circa 1623.)

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.