Aldermen of the City of London: Portsoken ward

PORTSOKEN WARD.

Previous to the dissolution of the monasteries and religious houses in the reign of Henry VIII., the office of Alderman of Portsoken Ward was held jure officio by the Prior of Christ Church or Holy Trinity, Aldgate, apparently as the result of the voluntary surrender to that Church and its Canons of their Soke or manorial jurisdiction by the English Cnihtengild in the reign of Henry I., which had been held by that body since the time of Canute. The date of this surrender appears to have been 1125 (see Note A, ad fin.). The Priory of Holy Trinity had been founded in 1108 by Matilda, wife of Henry I., and endowed with a grant of the Soke of Aldgate. Both this grant and that of the Soke of the Cnihtengild were subsequently confirmed by a Charter of Henry I., the exact date of which does not appear.

The history of the foundation of the Cnihtengild and of its voluntary absorption into the Priory is admirably summarised by Dr. Sharpe in his Calendar of Letter Book C (pp. xviii.-xx.), and the question of the exact position of the Cnihtengild in regard to the municipal government of the City and the origin of the inclusion of the Priory of Holy Trinity in the governing body as Alderman of the Ward is discussed at pp. xxiii.-xxv.

[Dr. Sharpe says (p. xxiv.): "As a gild, the Cnihts like other gilds were probably governed by an Alderman, and, as possessors of a Soke within the City's Liberties, they may have sent an Alderman (as there is little doubt they had a right to do) to join in the City's councils with Aldermen of other Sokes or Wards, but we have no evidence of their having done so. It is only a surmise based on a subsequent historical fact, namely, that after the conveyance of the land and soke of the gild to the Priory of Holy Trinity, and the extinction of the gild itself, the Prior was (to use Stow's words) 'for him and his successors admitted as one of the Aldermen of London, to govern the same land and soke,' and the Prior for the time being continued to be ex officio Alderman of the City until the dissolution of the Priory in 1531" (i.e. 1532 New Style). At p. xxv. Dr. Sharpe adds that the Soke of Aldgate "becoming united with the Soke of the Cnihtengild, came to be known as the Soke of the Port, or Portsoken, and the right to an Aldermanry, enjoyed (presumably) by the members of the gild by reason of their Soke, passed with the Soke to the Priory of Holy Trinity, and hence the Prior for the time being became (as just mentioned) ex officio Alderman of Portsoken Ward."]

The succession of Priors of Holy Trinity is given below, the names and dates of appointment and of vacation of office by death or deposition up to 1408 being taken from the Liber Trinitatis, a transcript of which is in the MSS. collection in the Guildhall Library; other lists given by Newcourt, Browne Willis, Dugdale, Stevens and Hearne present variations both of names and dates. From that date to the dissolution of the Priory in 1532, the chief authority for the names of the Priors is Lansdowne MS. 963 in the British Museum collection, supplemented by occasional notices of their admission to the Court of Aldermen in the Letter Books, Journals and Repertories.

[In the Letter Books of the 14th and 15th centuries the full name or Christian name alone of the Prior is occasionally given in the lists of Aldermen present at the annual election of the Mayor, but, so far as I have observed, this does not occur later than 1445, when Thomas Pomeroy's name is so given (Letter Book K, fo. 227 b). There are a few entries also in the Husting Rolls which enable us to ascertain the name of the Prior at particular dates.]

Priors of Holy Trinity 1108–1532.

Note A.—The date of the surrender of the soke of the Cnichtengild by the Cnichts to the Canons of Holy Trinity is definitely given as 1125 in the Charter of confirmation granted by Henry I, which Dr. Sharpe quotes in full at p. 219 of his Calendar of Letter Book C, from fo. 135 of the original MS. of the Letter Book. It should be noted, however, that "the charter of confirmation which Orgar le Prude succeeded in obtaining from Henry I.," referred to by Dr. Sharpe at p. xxv., of his introduction to the Calendar and set out verbatim from fo. 48 b, at p. 73, (which states that the King has granted to the Canons to hold the soke of the English Cnichtengild) is attested by "Rann Canc." i.e. Ranulph the Chancellor. Now this Ranulph died in 1123, according to Henry of Huntingdon (Chronicles and Memorials, Rolls Series, p. 244), the year being expressly stated to be that in which Alexander was appointed Bishop of Lincoln, which date Stubbs gives (Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum) as July 22, 1123, and that following the year in which Ralph, Archbishop of Canterbury and John, Bishop of Bath and Wells died, these dates being October 20, 1122 and December 29, 1122, respectively (Stubbs, pp. 40, 42).

Moreover, Foss (Judges of England, vol. i, pp. 79, 80), states on the authority of Dugdale, that Ranulph's successor in the Chancellorship, Geoffrey, attested as Chancellor, a Charter to which the names of Godfrey, Bishop of Bath and Wells and Teoldus. Bishop of Worcester are appended as witnesses, of whom the former was consecrated to his Bishopric, August 26, 1123 and the latter died October 20, 1123 (Stubbs, pp. 44, 49).

If these dates and signatures are to be relied upon, the soke of the Cnichts must have been made over to the Priory not later than 1123, but it is difficult to get over the definite statement of 1125 as the date in the Charter given in Letter Book C, fo. 135, except on the supposition of a mistake in transcription from the original document when it was entered in the Letter Book.

Note B.—In the Liber Trinitatis Aynel is said to have died May 20, 1289, but his name occurs as Prior in deeds enrolled on October 16, 1290 and June 2, 1292 respectively, and as his successor was appointed in May, 1294, I think it most I robable that the true date of death should be May 20, 1294 (or possibly 1293). It is, however, possible that he may have died before the enrolment of the deeds, though the long interval (over three years) before that of the later one is very unlikely.

Note C.—There appears to have been a good deal of difficulty about the election of Sevenok. On December 17, 1438, the Mayor and Aldermen resolved to send a letter to the Bishop of London ad inquirendum de fama cujusdam electi in priorem ecclesie Christi (Journal 3, fo. 3), and on September 21 of the following year it is recorded that the Mayor and Aldermen appointed Commissioners to oppose the confirmation of the appointment of Sevenok who had recently been elected Prior, but had proved himself unworthy by his dissolute habits (Letter Book K, fo. 178 b). Exactly a week after this date (September 28, 1439), Sevenok's election received the Royal assent and the temporalities were restored to him [Lansdowne MS. 963, fo. 229 b (129)]. The Prior was present at the Court of Aldermen held for election of Mayor on October 13, 1439; presumably this was Sevenok, though his name is not given. He was also present (his full name being given on each of these occasions), at the elections of 1440, 1441, 1442 and 1443, yet his final admission as Alderman of Portsoken is recorded under date, January 13, 1444 (Journal 4, fo. 13). I cannot suggest any explanation to account for his admission being deferred till 1444, although his presence at a Court is recorded in each of four preceding years.

Note D.—I can find no evidence as to the date at which Pomeroy ceased to be Prior. He was acting on February 5, 1451 [H.R. 179 (21)]. In the Lansdowne MS. no name occurs between his appointment in 1445 and that of Percy in 1481, but in a list of Aldermen at the end of Journal 8 (fo. 282 b), the date of which is 12 Edw. IV. (1472), the name "Chester" appears against Portsoken, being apparently written over an erasure.

As all the other names in this entry are certainly those of the Aldermen of the respective wards to which they are attached, the natural assumption is that the Aldermanry of Portsoken and consequently the Priory of Holy Trinity was at that date held by a person named Chester, but I can find no other mention of the name in connection with that Ward.

It is probably a mere coincidence that in 1484, a Richard Chester (Skinner) was elected Alderman of the adjacent Ward of Aldgate, and in the same year to the Shrievalty. It seems not altogether impossible, though I do not claim for the suggestion any high degree of probability, that this may be identical with the person named in the list in Journal 8, fo. 282 b, in which case he may have been acting as the Deputy in temporal matters to the Prior for the Aldermanry of Portsoken.

In Dugdale's List Percy's appointment is dated 12 Edw. IV. (i.e. 1472), but the authorities given in Note 14, which coincide in assigning it to 1481, seem conclusive evidence that this is an error.

Note E.—The authority for the insertion of Charnock's name, no record being extant of his appointment as Prior or admission as Alderman, is that Newton is said in Lansdowne MS. 963, fo. 356, to have taken the place of Charnock, deceased.

It should be noticed that the name of Thomas Percy occurs as having been admitted on October 9, 1481, and again (after Charnock and Newton), on December 20, 1506. It is more probable that the same person was for some reason removed from and subsequently restored to the Priory than that two persons of the same name should have held the office within so short a period as twenty-five years.

Note F.—It appears, though it is not very clearly stated, that Sir James Smyth vacated his seat by not taking the oaths to the new Government (as prescribed by Act of Parliament 1 Wm. and Mary c. 8), before August 1, 1689. On September 17, 1689, he appeared and took the oaths, explaining that he had been prevented from doing so earlier "by reason of his long residence in the country" (Rep. 95, fo. 48). A week later (September 24), a Wardmote was ordered to be held for the election of his successor, "upon complaint now made by divers inhabitants of the Ward of Portsoken of their great want of an Alderman, and praying a Wardmote for the choice of an Alderman of the said Ward" (Rep. 95, fo. 51 b). Sir James Smyth (who was one of the candidates nominated for Bridge Without, on October 15th in the same year), appears not to have acquiesced in his removal, inasmuch as on April 2, 1691, a Committee was appointed to take care of the defence to be made against the mandamus brought by Sir James Smyth to be an Alderman of the City (Rep. 95, fo. 258 b), but I cannot find any later reference to the matter.

Note G.—At the original election to fill the vacancy caused by Sir J. Shaw's resignation February 10, 1831, Michael Scales (Butcher), was elected by 155 votes to 127 for Daniel Whittle Harvey (Girdler). Harvey demanded a scrutiny, but withdrew from the contest, February 24 (Rep. 235, ff. 261–275). On March 8, when the election was reported to the Court of Aldermen, a petition was presented, alleging various charges against Scales, and in particular that he was disqualified in virtue of a resolution of the Court of Common Council of December 20, 1830, (Journal 105, fo. 28), which declared him incapacitated from sitting on any Committee of that Court as a penalty for having been concerned in the distribution of tickets with forged signatures giving admission to the Guildhall. After some adjournments the Court of Aldermen rejected a motion to admit Scales on May 10, 1831 (Rep. 235, fo. 404). Scales then obtained a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench, calling on the Court of Aldermen to show cause why he should not be admitted, but judgment was given against him on November 19 (Rep. 236, fo. 13).

At the ensuing election, December 7, 1831, Scales was again elected by 169 votes to 74 for William Hughes Hughes (Cordwainer), and on January 3, 1832 the Court of Aldermen declared Scales ineligible and seated Hughes (Rep. 236, ff. 176–187). Hughes, however, declined to defend his return, and was ousted by judgment of the Kings' Bench in July, 1832 (Rep. 236, fo. 536). Scales again applied for a mandamus to compel the Court of Aldermen to admit him, but this was refused by the Court of King's Bench, June 1, 1833 (Rep. 237, fo. 260). On June 28, at a third election, Scales obtained 155 votes against 70 for Thomas Johnson (Rep. 237, fo. 356), and on October 29 the Court rejected Scales for the third time and admitted Johnson, in accordance with the ancient prerogative which had not been exercised since 1669, whereby after three rejections of the nominations made at Wardmotes the filling of the vacancy lapsed to the Court of Aldermen.

Scales brought an action against the late Lord Mayor (Sir John Key) and Aldermen, for damages for false return to the original mandamus, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants, June 26, 1834 (Rep. 239, fo. 133). He then proceeded by quo warranto to endeavour to oust Johnson, but this action was decided in Johnson's favour, December 20, 1834, and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, June 8, 1836 (Rep. 240, fo. 282), and finally, on appeal, by the House of Lords, February 19, 1839 (Rep. 243, fo. 110).

Note H.—The votes in the Court of Aldermen were 13 against and 6 for admitting Salomons. The majority consisted of the Lord Mayor (Sir W. Magnay), Aldermen Lucas, Sir P. Laurie, Farebrother, Kelly, Sir C. Marshall, Sir J. Pirie, Gibbs (Lord Mayor elect), J. Johnson, Sir G. Carroll, Hooper, Farncomb and Hughes. The minority were Sir J. Key, Aldermen Humphery, T. Wood, W. Hunter, Challis and Sidney.

Those who were absent or did not vote were Sir C. S. Hunter, Aldermen Thompson, Copeland, Wilson, Sir J. Duke and Musgrove.