Aldermen of the City of London: Castle Baynard ward

CASTLE BAYNARD WARD.

Note A.—There is no direct evidence that Cotton was Alderman of Castle Baynard. His successor in Cripplegate, T. Aleyn, was serving for that Ward as early as December 23, 1415 [H.R. 143 (53)], but Cotton continued to be an Alderman until November 26, 1416 (Journal 1, fo. 4 b). Michell left Castle Baynard for Bridge in 1415, as he was Alderman of that Ward on October 5, and his predecessor (N. Ashton) on April 24 in that year [H.R. 143 (37, 31)]. Perneys was elected Alderman of Castle Baynard December 18, 1416, very shortly after Cotton's discharge. It will thus be seen that the interval between Aleyn's appearance as Alderman of Cripplegate and Cotton's discharge from the office of Alderman almost exactly corresponds with those between Michell's removal from Castle Baynard to Bridge and the election of Perneys for the former Ward, and it is reasonable to infer that Cotton filled the vacancy which the translation of Michell had created.

Note B.—Parsons, who was appointed to Castle Baynard, and Hawkins, who was appointed to Portsoken, appear to have exchanged Wards immediately afterwards. The Commission, however (if such was ever issued), under which the exchange took place is not preserved, or at any rate, cannot now be found amongst those at Guildhall, nor is there any record of it in the Repertory. St. Amand's commission as successor of Hawkins at his death, is also missing, and in its absence we may assume the possibility, though I do not take that view, that in Rep. 92, fo. 497, "Castle Baynard" is a mistake of the original scribe for "Portsoken." Mr. F. R. Craker, of the Town Clerk's office, who has compiled a valuable M.S. list of the Aldermen of the Wards,

The Commission of August 12 is preserved at Guildhall and shows that Hawkins was appointed to Portsoken and not to Castle Baynard on that day. It is possible, and indeed not improbable, that in Castle Baynard Mr. Craker has written "12" for "24" (August) by mistake, and that on the latter date an exchange of Wards between Parsons and Hawkins was effected. Mr. Craker cannot now remember his authority, but I believe that he is substantially accurate except for the error in the day of the month which I have suggested.

Note C.—There is no note in the Guildhall records to explain Turner's return to the Court of Aldermen in 1690, beyond the fact that he was present on June 26, 1690, and continued to attend the meetings of the Court until his death, when an election was held for Castle Baynard Ward to fill the vacancy created by his death. In Chancellor's "Wards of the City of London" (1772) p. 106 it is stated in a footnote that "in 1688 he (Turner) voluntarily resigned and Sir W. Gostlyn was elected in his room, but as Sir W. Turner was an Alderman at the time of the judgment on the Quo Warranto, upon the passing of the Act of Parliament for revising that judgment, Sir W. Gostlyn's election became void and Sir W. Turner was again sworn Alderman of Castle Baynard, notwithstanding his former resignation." No doubt this is correct, but there must have been some informality, which has not been noted, either in Turner's resignation or in Gostlyn's election, inasmuch as the Act (which received the Royal assent May 20, 1690, the day on which Gostlyn sat for the last time in the Court of Aldermen) expressly states that the Aldermen and other officers who held office before the Quo Warranto proceedings are to be confirmed in their respective offices "except such as have voluntarily surrendered any such office or place or have been removed for any just cause" and that "every person who, since the said judgment given, hath been chosen, admitted and placed into any office or employment within the said City upon the death, surrender or removal, as aforesaid, of the former officers shall be and is hereby confirmed in his said office or employment." These words would seem to cover the case of Turner's resignation in 1688 and the election of Gostlyn, and no explanation is forthcoming why they did not. Sir J. Edwards, who had been Alderman of Candlewick at the time of the Quo Warranto judgment, and Sir R. Clayton, who had been Alderman of Cheap, like Turner voluntarily declined to serve in 1688, but Edwards died shortly before the passing of the Act of 1690, and in the interim Clayton had been re-elected for Cheap on the removal of his successor to another Ward. Edwards' successor was not disturbed by the operation of the Act: whether he would have been had Edwards survived it is impossible to say. So far as the records give any information, there is nothing to differentiate the cases of Turner and Edwards except the fact that the former was alive and the latter was not when the Act of 1690 received the Royal assent. Gostlyn, who had to surrender his seat, and Lane, Edwards' successor, who retained his, appear to have held them by an equally valid (or invalid) tenure.

[On further consideration I think the probable explanation is that Turner was not formally discharged in October, 1688, but that on his intimating his intention not to resume his seat a fresh election was held, whereas Edwards and Clayton were formally discharged on the same day on which Gostlyn, Turner's successor, was elected. At the most, however, such difference as can in this way be made between the case of Turner and those of Clayton and Edwards is purely technical.]