Chapter IX: History (3)

In October 1191 the conflict between John the king's brother and
Longchamp the king's representative became acute. The latter bitterly
offended the Londoners, who, finding that they could turn the scales
to either side, named the Commune as the price of their support of
John. A small party of the citizens under Henry of Cornhill remained
faithful to the chancellor Longchamp, but at a meeting held at St
Paul's on the 8th of October, the barons welcomed the archbishop of
Rouen as chief justiciar (he having produced the king's sign manual
appointing a new commission), and they saluted John as regent. Stubbs,
in his introduction to the Chronicle of Roger de Hoveden, writes:
"This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the Justiciar and the
Barons swore to maintain the _Communa_ of London; the oath of fealty
to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the two
archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers with the
express understanding that should the king die without issue they
would receive John as his successor." Referring to this important
event Mr Round writes: "The excited citizens, who had poured out
overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital,
streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th of October at the
well-known sound of the great bell swinging out from its campanile in
St Paul's Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the
'Commune' like a French king or lord; and then London for the first
time had a municipality of her own."

The Mayor and Échevins.

Little is known as to what the Commune then established really was.
Round's remarkable discovery among the manuscripts of the British
Museum of the Oath of the Commune proves for the first time that
London in 1193 possessed a fully developed "Commune" of the
continental pattern. A striking point in this municipal revolution is
that the new privileges extended to the city of London were entirely
copied from those of continental cities, and Mr Round shows that there
is conclusive proof of the assertion that the Commune of London
derived its origin from that of Rouen. This MS. gives us information
which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the
early governing position of the aldermen. From this we learn that the
government of the city was in the hands of a mayor and twelve échevins
(_skivini_); both these names being French, seem for a time to have
excluded the Saxon aldermen.

Twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document,
preserved in the same volume as the oath, that _alii probi homines_
were associated with the mayor and échevins to form a body of
twenty-four (that is, twelve _skivini_ and an equal number of
councillors). Round holds that the Court of Skivini and _alii probi
homines_, of which at present we know nothing further than what is
contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the Common
Council. We must not suppose that when the city of London obtained the
privilege of appointing a mayor, and a citizen could boast in 1194
that "come what may the Londoners shall have no king but their
mayor," that the king did not occasionally exert his power in
suspending the liberties of the city. There were really constant
disagreements, and sometimes the king degraded the mayor and appointed
a custos or warden in his place. Several instances of this are
recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries. It is very important to bear
in mind that the mayors of London besides holding a very onerous
position were mostly men of great distinction. They often held rank
outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of
the country. They were mostly representatives of the landed interests
as well as merchant princes.

There is no definite information as to when the mayor first received
the title of lord. A claim has been set up for Thomas Legge, mayor for
the second time in 1354, that he was the first lord mayor, but there
is positively no authority whatever for this claim, although it is
boldly stated that he was created lord mayor by Edward III. in this
year. Apparently the title was occasionally used, and the use
gradually grew into a prescriptive right. There is no evidence of any
grant, but after 1540 the title had become general.

Aldermen.

No record has been found of the date when the aldermen became the
official advisers of the mayor. The various wards were each presided
over by an alderman from an early period, but we cannot fix the time
when they were united as a court of aldermen. Stubbs writes: "The
governing body of London in the 13th century was composed of the
mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs."

As we do not find any further evidence than the oath of the Commune
alluded to of the existence of "échevins" in London, it is possible
that aldermen were elected on the mayor's council under this title.
This, however, is not the opinion of Mr Round, who, as before stated,
is inclined to believe that the body of échevins became in course of
time the Court of Common Council. The aldermen are not mentioned as
the colleagues of the mayor until the very end of the 13th century,
except in the case of Fitz-Ailwin's Assize of 1189, and this, of
course, related specially to the duties of aldermen as heads of the
wards of the city.

In March 1298-1299 letters were sent from "the Mayor and Commune of
the City of London" to the municipalities of Bruges, Caen and Cambray.
Although the official form of "The Mayor and Commune" was continued
until the end of the 13th century, and it was not until early in the
14th century that the form "Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council" came
into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the aldermen
and common council before that time were acting with the mayor as
governors of the city. In 1377 it was ordered that aldermen could be
elected annually, but in 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an
alderman to be re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year
of office without any interval.

In 1394 the Ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the
king (Richard II.). Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen, and in the
_Liber Albus_ we are told that "it is a matter of experience that ever
since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the
ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was observed." When
the poll-tax of 1379 was imposed the mayor was assessed as an earl and
the aldermen as barons.

Sheriffs.

The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early
period, and these reeves were appointed by the king. The prefix of the
various kinds of reeves made but little difference in the duties of
the office, although the area of these duties might be different.
There was slight difference between the office of sheriff and that of
portreeve, which latter does not appear to have survived the Conquest.

After the establishment of the Commune and the appointment of a mayor
the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became
what they are styled in _Liber Albus_ "the Eyes of the Mayor." When
Middlesex was in farm to London the two sheriffs were equally sheriffs
of London and Middlesex. There is only one instance in the city
records of a sheriff of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the
sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and Walter
le Blond are described as sheriffs of London, and Gerin as sheriff of
Middlesex. By the Local Government Act of 1888 the citizens of London
were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the county of
Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters.

In 1383 it was ordained and agreed "that no person shall from
henceforth be mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff
of the said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and
bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty."

Common Council.

The two courts--that of aldermen and that of the common council--were
probably formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have
no definite information on the subject. The number of members of the
common council varied greatly at different times, but the right to
determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward
III. (1341) which enables the city to amend customs and usages which
have become hard.

There have also been many changes in the mode of election. The common
council were chosen by the wards until 1351, when the appointments
were made by certain companies. In 1376 an ordinance was made by the
mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole commons, to the
effect that the companies should select men with whom they were
content, and none other should come to the elections of mayors and
sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six,
the lesser four and the least two. Forty-seven companies nominated 156
members. In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was
obtained again by the livery companies in 1467.

Common Hall.

The Common Hall was the successor of the folkmote, the meetings of
which were originally held in the open air at the east end of St
Paul's and afterwards in the Guildhall. These general assemblies of
the citizens are described in the old city records as _immensa
communitas_ or _immensa multitudo_ civium. The elections in Common
Hall were by the whole body of citizens until Edward I.'s reign,
citizens were then specially summoned to Common Hall by the mayor. In
Edward IV.'s reign the elections of mayor, sheriffs and other officers
and members of parliament were transferred to liverymen. Various
alterations were subsequently made and now the qualification of
electors at the election of the corporate offices of lord mayor,
sheriffs, chamberlain and minor offices in Common Hall is that of
being a liveryman of a livery company and an enrolled freeman of
London. The election of aldermen and common councilmen takes place in
the wardmotes.

Officials of the city.

The recorder, the chief official, is appointed for life. He was
formerly appointed by the city, but since the Local Government Act of
1888 he is nominated by the city and approved by the lord chancellor.
The common sergeant was formerly appointed by the city, but since 1888
by the lord chancellor. The town clerk is appointed by the city and
re-elected annually.

The chamberlain or comptroller of the king's chamber is appointed by
the livery. He was originally a king's officer and the office was
probably instituted soon after the Conquest. The remembrancer is
appointed by the common council.

The common hunt, an office abolished in 1807, was filled by John
Courtenay in 1417. The sword-bearer is noticed in the _Liber Albus_
(1419) and the first record of an appointment is dated 1426.

Later history of the corporation.

Few fundamental alterations have been made in the constitution of the
city, but in the reign of Charles II. the most arbitrary proceedings
were taken against its liberties. The king and his brother had long
entertained designs against the city, and for the purpose of crushing
them two pretexts were set up--(1) that a new rate of market tolls had
been levied by virtue of an act of common council, and (2) that a
petition to the king, in which it was alleged that by the prorogation
of parliament public justice had been interrupted, had been printed by
order of the Court of Common Council. Charles directed a writ _quo
warranto_ against the corporation of London in 1683, and the Court of
King's Bench declared its charter forfeited. Soon afterwards all the
obnoxious aldermen were displaced and others appointed in their room
by royal commission. When James II. found himself in danger from the
landing of the Prince of Orange he sent for the lord mayor and
aldermen and informed them of his determination to restore the city
charter and privileges, but he had no time to do anything before his
flight. The Convention which was summoned to meet on the 22nd of
January 1689 was converted by a formal act into a true parliament
(February 23). One of the first motions put to the House was that a
special Committee should be appointed to consider the violations of
the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom
"and particularly of the City of London." The motion was lost but the
House resolved to bring in a bill for repealing the Corporation Act,
and ten years later (March 5) the Grand Committee of Grievances
reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the City of
London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and
that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the
judgment given upon the _Quo Warranto_ against the city was illegal
and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among
others) was endorsed by the House and on the 16th of March it ordered
a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and
condition they were in on the 29th of May 1660, and to confirm the
liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and
enjoyed.[15]

When the Act for the reform of Municipal Corporations was passed in
1835 London was specially excepted from its provisions. When the
Metropolitan Board of Works was formed by the Metropolis Management
Act of 1855 the city was affected to a certain extent, but by the
Local Government Act of 1888 which founded the London County Council
the right of appointing a sheriff for Middlesex was taken away from
the city of London.

When the county of Middlesex was dissociated from the city of London
one portion was joined to the administrative county of London, and the
other to the county of Middlesex.

Privileges of the lord mayor.

The lord mayor of London has certain very remarkable privileges which
have been religiously guarded and must be of great antiquity. It is
only necessary to mention these here, but each of the privileges
requires an exhaustive examination as to its origin. They all prove
the remarkable position of Old London, and mark it off from all other
cities of modern Europe. Shortly stated the privileges are four:

1. The closing of Temple Bar to the sovereign.

2. The mayor's position in the city, where he is second only to the
king.

3. His summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new
sovereign.

4. His position of butler at the coronation banquets.

The last may be considered in abeyance as there has not been any
coronation banquet since that of George IV. In the case of the
coronation of King Edward VII. the claim was excluded from the
consideration of the Court of Claims under the royal proclamation. The
terms of the judgment on a further claim are as follows: "The Court
considers and adjudges that the lord mayor has by usage a right,
subject to His Majesty's pleasure, to attend the Abbey during the
coronation and bear the crystal mace."

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The earliest description of London is that written by
the monk Fitzstephen in 1174 as an introduction to his life of
Archbishop Thomas à Becket. This was first printed by Stow in his
Survey. It was reprinted by Strype in his editions of Stow; by Hearne
in his edition of Leland's _Itinerary_ (vol. 8), by Samuel Pegge in
1772, and elsewhere. The first history is contained in _A Survey of
London_ by John Stow (1598, 1603). The author died in 1605, and his
work was continued by Anthony Munday and others (1618, 1633) and in
the next century by John Strype (1720, 1754-1755). Stow's original
work was reprinted by W. J. Thoms in 1842 and a monumental edition has
been published by C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1908).

The following are the most important of subsequent histories arranged
in order of publication; James Howell, _Londinopolis_ (1657); W. Stow,
_Remarks on London and Westminster_ (1722); Robert Seymour (John
Mottley), _Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster_ (1734,
another edition 1753); William Maitland, _History of London_ (1739,
other editions 1756, 1760, 1769, continued by John Entick 1775); John
Entick, _A New and Accurate History of London, Westminster, Southwark_
(1766); The City Remembrancer, _Narratives of the Plague 1665, Fire
1666 and Great Storm 1703_ (1769); _A New and Compleat History and
Survey_, by a Society of Gentlemen (1770, revised by H. Chamberlain,
folio revised by W. Thornton 1784); J. Noorthouck, _A New History_
(1773); Walter Harrison, _A New and Universal History_ (1775); J. P.
Malcolm, _Londinium Redivivum or an Ancient History and Modern
Description of London_ (1803); David Hughson (E. Pugh), _London_
(1805-1809); B. Lambert, _History and Survey of London_ (1806); Henry
Hunter, _History of London_ (1811); J. W. Abbott, _History of London_
(1821); Thomas Allen, _History and Antiquities of London_ (1827-1829,
continued by Thomas Wright 1839); William Smith, _A New History of
London_ (1833); Charles Mackay, _A History of London_ (1838); _The
History of London_, illustrated by W. G. Fearnside (1838); George
Grant, _A Comprehensive History of London_ (Dublin, 1849); John Timbs,
_Curiosities of London_ (1855, later editions 1855, 1868, 1875, 1876);
_Old London Papers, Archaeological Institute_ (1867); W. J. Loftie, _A
History of London_ (1883); W. J. Loftie, _Historic Towns_ (London,
1887); Claude de la Roche Francis, _London, Historic and Social_
(Philadelphia, 1902); Sir Walter Besant, _The Survey of London_
(1902-1908)--_Early London, Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and Norman_
(1908); _Medieval London_, vol. 1, _Historical and Social_ (1906),
vol. 2, _Ecclesiastical_ (1906); _London in the Time of the Tudors_
(1904); _London in the Time of the Stuarts_ (1903); _London in the
Eighteenth Century_ (1902); H. B. Wheatley, _The Story of London_
[Medieval Towns] (London, 1904).

The following are some of the Chronicles of London which have been
printed, arranged in order of publication: R. Grafton, _Chronicle
1189-1558_ (1809); R. Arnold, _London Chronicle_ (1811); _A Chronicle
of London from 1089 to 1483 written in the Fifteenth Century_ (1827);
_William Gregory's Chronicle of London, 1189-1469_ (1876); _Historical
Collections of a Citizen of London_, edited by James Gairdner (Camden
Society, 1876); _Chronicles of London [1200-1516]_, edited by C. L.
Kingsford (Oxford, 1905).

Many books have been published on the government of London, of which
the following is a selection: _City Law_ (1647, 1658); _Lex
Londinensis or the City Law_ (1680); W. Bohun, _Privilegia Londini_
(1723); Giles Jacob, _City Liberties_ (1733); _Laws and Customs,
Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City of London_ (1765); David
Hughson, _Epitome of the Privileges of London_ (1816); George Norton,
_Commentaries on the History, Constitution and Chartered Franchises of
the City of London_ (1829, 3rd ed. 1869); _Munimenta Gildhallae
Londoniensis_, edited by H. T. Riley--vol. 1, _Liber Albus_ (1419),
vol. 2, _Liber Custumarum_ (1859); _Liber Albus: the White Book of the
City of London_, translated by H. T. Riley (1861); H. T. Riley,
_Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th
centuries_ (1868); _De Antiquis Legibus Liber. Curante Thoma
Stapleton_ (Camden Society, 1846); _Chronicles of the Mayors and
Sheriffs of London 1188-1274_, translated from the _Liber de Antiquis
Legibus_ by H. T. Riley. _French Chronicle of London_ 1259-1343
(1863); _Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the
Remembrancia 1579-1664_ (1888); _Calendar of Letter-Books_ [_circa
1275-1399_] preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of London
at the Guildhall, edited by Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L. (1899-1907); W.
and R. Woodcock, _Lives of Lord Mayors_ (1846); J. F. B. Firth,
_Municipal London_ (1876); Walter Delgray Birch, _Historical Charters
and_ _Constitutional Documents of the City of London_ (1884, 1887);
J. H. Round, _The Commune of London and other Studies_ (1899);
Reginald R. Sharpe, _London and the Kingdom; a History derived mainly
from the Archives at Guildhall_ (1894); G. L. Gomme, _The Governance
of London. Studies on the Place occupied by London in English
Institutions_ (1907); Alfred B. Beaven, _The Aldermen of the City of
London temp. Henry III._ (1908).

In connexion with the government of London may be noted works on the
following: Inns of Court. William Herbert, _Antiquities of the Inns of
Court and Chancery_ (1804); Robert P. Pearce, _History_ (1848).
Artillery Company, Anthony Highmore, _History of the Hon. Artillery
Co. of London to 1802_ (1804); G. A. Raikes, _History of the Hon.
Artillery Co._ (1878). William Herbert published in 1837 _History of
the Twelve great Livery Companies of London_, and in 1869 Thomas
Arundell published _Historical Reminiscences of the City and its
Livery Companies_. Since then have appeared _The Livery Companies of
the City of London_, by W. Carew Hazlitt (1892); _The City Companies
of London_, by P. H. Ditchfield (1904); _The Gilds and Companies of
London_, by George Unwin (1908). Separate histories have been
published of the chief London companies.

The following are some of the chief works connected with the
topography of London: Thomas Pennant, _Of London_ (1790, 1793, 1805,
1813, translated into German 1791); John T. Smith, _Antient Topography
of London_ (1815); David Hughson [E. Pugh], _Walks through London_
(1817); _London_ (edited by Charles Knight 1841-1844, reprinted 1851,
revised by E. Walford 1875-1877); J. H. Jesse, _Literary and
Historical Memorials of London_ (1847); Leigh Hunt, _The Town, its
Memorable Character and Events_ (1848, new ed. 1859); Peter
Cunningham, _A Handbook of London past and present_ (1849, 2nd ed.
1850, enlarged into a new work in 1891); Henry B. Wheatley, _London
past and present; Vestiges of Old London, etchings_ by J. W. Archer
(1851); _A New Survey of London_ (1853); G. W. Thornbury, _Haunted
London_ (1865, new ed. by E. Walford 1880); _Old and New London_,
vols. i.-ii. by G. W. Thornbury, vols. iii.-vi. by Edward Walford
(1873-1878); Walter Besant, _London, Westminster, South London, East
London_ (1891-1902); _East London Antiquities_, edited by Walter A.
Locks (_East London Advertiser_, 1902); Philip Norman, _London
vanished and vanishing_ (1905); _Records of the London Topographical
Society; Monographs of the Committee for the Survey of the Memorials
of Greater London._

The following books on the population of London have been published:
John Graunt, _Natural and Political Observations on the Bills of
Mortality_ (1661, other editions 1662, 1665, 1676); _Essay in
Political Arithmetick_ (1683); _Five Essays on Political Arithmetick_
(1687); _Several Essays in Political Arithmetick_ (1699, 1711, 1751,
1755); _Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind_ (1682, 1683,
1686), all by Sir William Petty; Corbyn Morris, _Observations on the
past Growth and present State of the City of London_ (1751);
_Collection of the Yearly Bills of Mortality from 1657 to 1758_ (ed.
by T. Birch, D.D. 1759); Graunt's _Observations_, Petty's _Another
Essay_ and C. Morris's _Observations_ are reprinted in this
collection. Graunt and Petty's _Essays_ are reprinted in _Economic
Writings_ of Sir W. Petty (1899). (H. B. W.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See map in _London Statistics_ (vol. xix., 1909), an annual
publication of the London County Council, which besides these
divisions shows "Water London," the London main drainage area, and
the Central Criminal Court district.

[2] Charing Cross station was the scene of a remarkable catastrophe
on the 5th of December 1905, when a large part of the roof collapsed,
and the falling débris did very serious damage to the Avenue theatre,
which stands close to the station at a lower level.

[3] The report appeared in eight volumes, the first of which,
containing the general conclusions to which allusion is here made,
bore the number, as a blue-book. Cd. 2597.

[4] Over 200 local acts were repealed by schemes made under the act
of 1899.

[5] A valuable article on "The Conqueror's Footprints in Domesday"
was published in the _English Historical Review_ in 1898 (vol. xiii.
p. 17). This article contains an account of Duke William's movements
after the battle of Senlac between Enfield, Edmonton, Tottenham and
Berkhampstead.

[6] "A map of London engraved on copper-plate, dated 1497," which was
bought by Ferdinand Columbus during his travels in Europe about
1518-1525, is entered in the catalogue of Ferdinand's books, maps,
&c., made by himself and preserved in the Cathedral Library at
Seville, but there is no clue to its existence.

[7] One is in the Guildhall Library, and the other among the Pepysian
maps in Magdalene College, Cambridge.

[8] This map of London by Norden is dated 1593, as stated above. The
same topographer published in his _Middlesex_ a map of Westminster as
well as this one of the City of London.

[9] Various changes in the names of the taverns are made in the folio
edition of this play (1616) from the quarto (1601); thus the Mermaid
of the quarto becomes the Windmill in the folio, and the Mitre of the
quarto is the Star of the folio.

[10] _The Great Revolt of 1381_ (Oxford, 1906), p. 27.

[11] In a valuable paper on "The Population of Old London" in
_Blackwood's Magazine_ for April 1891.

[12] The old Bills of Mortality, although of value from being the
only authority on the subject, were never complete owing to various
causes: one being that large numbers of Roman Catholics and
Dissenters were not registered in the returns of the parish clerk who
was a church officer. The bills were killed by the action of the
Registration Act for England and Wales, which came into operation
July 1, 1837. The weekly Returns of the Registrar-General began in
1840.

[13] "The invention of 'bills of mortality' is not so modern as has
been generally supposed, for their proper designation may be found in
the language of ancient Rome. Libitina was the goddess of funerals;
her officers were the Libitinarii _our_ undertakers; her temple in
which all business connected with the last rites was transacted, in
which the account of deaths--_ratio Libitinae_--was kept, served the
purpose of a register office."--_Journal Statistical Society_, xvii.
117 (1854).

[14] The return was made "by special command from the Right
Honourable the Lords of His Majesty's Privy Council." The Privy
Council were at this time apprehensive of an approaching scarcity of
food. The numbers (130,268) were made up as follows: London Within
the Walls 71,029, London Without the Walls 40,579, Old Borough of
Southwark (Bridge Without) 18,660.

[15] R. R. Sharpe, _London and the Kingdom_ (1894), i. 541.

LONDON CLAY, in geology, the most important member of the Lower Eocene strata in the south of England. It is well developed in the London basin, though not frequently exposed, partly because it is to a great extent covered by more recent gravels and partly because it is not often worked on a large scale. It is a stiff, tenacious, bluish clay that becomes brown on weathering, occasionally it becomes distinctly sandy, sometimes glauconitic, especially towards the top; large calcareous septarian concretions are common, and have been used in the manufacture of cement, being dug for this purpose at Sheppey, near Southend, and at Harwich, and dredged off the Hampshire coast. Nodular lumps of pyrites and crystals of selenite are of frequent occurrence. The clay has been employed for making bricks, tiles and coarse pottery, but it is usually too tenacious for this purpose except in well-weathered or sandy portions. The base of the clay is very regularly indicated by a few inches of rounded flint pebbles with green and yellowish sand, parts of this layer being frequently cemented by carbonate of lime. The average thickness of the London Clay in the London basin is about 450 ft.; at Windsor it is 400 ft. thick; beneath London it is rather thicker, while in the south of Essex it is over 480 ft. In Wiltshire it only reaches a few feet in thickness, while in Berkshire it is some 50 or 60 ft. It is found in the Isle of Wight, where it is 300 ft. thick at Whitecliff Bay--here the beds are vertical and even slightly reversed--and in Alum Bay it is 220 ft. thick. In Hampshire it is sometimes known as the Bognor Beds, and certain layers of calcareous sandstone within the clays are called Barnes or Bognor Rock. In the eastern part of the London basin in east Kent the pebbly basement bed becomes a thick deposit (60 ft.), forming part of the Oldhaven and Blackheath Beds.

The London Clay is a marine deposit, and its fossils indicate a
moderately warm climate, the flora having a tropical aspect. Among the
fossils may be mentioned _Panopoea intermedia_, _Ditrupa plana_,
_Teredina personata_, _Conus concinnus_, _Rostellaria ampla_,
_Nautilus centralis_, _Belosepia_, foraminifera and diatoms. Fish
remains include _Otodus obliquus_, _Sphyroenodus crassidens_; birds
are represented by _Halcyornis Toliapicus_, _Lithornis_ and
_Odontopteryx_, and reptiles by _Chelone gigas_, and other turtles,
_Palaeophis_, a serpent and crocodiles. _Hyracotherium leporinum_,
_Palaeotherium_ and a few other mammals are recorded. Plant remains in
a pyritized condition are found in great abundance and perfection on
the shore of Sheppey; numerous species of palms, screw pines, water
lilies, cypresses, yews, leguminous plants and many others occur; logs
of coniferous wood bored through by annelids and _Teredo_ are common,
and fossil resin has been found at Highgate.

See EOCENE; also W. Whitaker, "The Geology of London and part of the
Thames Valley," _Mem. Geol. Survey_ (1889), and _Sheet Memoirs of the
Geol. Survey_, London, Nos. 314, 315, 268, 329, 332, and _Memoirs on
the Geology of the Isle of Wight_ (1889).

LONDONDERRY, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF. The 1st earl of Londonderry was Thomas Ridgeway (c. 1565-1631), a Devon man, who was treasurer in Ireland from 1606 to 1616 and was engaged in the plantation of Ulster. Ridgeway was made a baronet in 1611, Baron Ridgeway in 1616 and earl of Londonderry in 1623. The Ridgeways held the earldom until March 1714, when Robert, the 4th earl, died without sons. In 1726 Robert's son-in-law, Thomas Pitt (c. 1688-1729), son of Thomas Pitt, "Diamond Pitt," governor at Madras and uncle of the great earl of Chatham, was created earl of Londonderry, the earldom again becoming extinct when his younger son Ridgeway, the 3rd earl of this line, died unmarried in January 1765. In 1796 Robert Stewart (1739-1821), of Mount Stewart, Co. Down, was made earl of Londonderry in the Irish peerage. He had been created Baron Londonderry in 1789 and Viscount Castlereagh in 1795; in 1816 he was advanced to the rank of marquess of Londonderry. The 3rd marquess married the heiress of the Vane-Tempests and took the name of Vane instead of Stewart; the 5th marquess called himself Vane-Tempest and the 6th marquess Vane-Tempest-Stewart.

LONDONDERRY, CHARLES WILLIAM STEWART (VANE), 3RD MARQUESS OF (1778-1854), British soldier and diplomatist, was the son of the 1st marquess by a second marriage with the daughter of the 1st Earl Camden. He entered the army and served in the Netherlands (1794), on the Rhine and Danube (1795), in the Irish rebellion (1798), and Holland (1799), rising to be colonel; and having been elected to parliament for Kerry he became under secretary for war under his half-brother Castlereagh in 1807. In 1808 he was given a cavalry command in the Peninsula, where he brilliantly distinguished himself. In 1809, and again in the campaigns of 1810, 1811, having become a major-general, he served under Wellington in the Peninsula as his adjutant-general, and was at the capture of Ciudad Rodrigo, but at the beginning of 1812 he was invalided home. Castlereagh (see LONDONDERRY, 2nd Marquess of) then sent him to Berlin as minister, to represent Great Britain in the allied British, Russian and Prussian armies; and as a cavalry leader he played an important part in the subsequent fighting, while ably seconding Castlereagh's diplomacy. In 1814 he was made a peer as Baron Stewart, and later in the year was appointed ambassador at Vienna, and was a member of the important congresses which followed. In 1822 his half-brother's death made him 3rd marquess of Londonderry, and shortly afterwards, disagreeing with Canning, he resigned, being created Earl Vane (1823), and for some years lived quietly in England, improving his Seaham estates. In 1835 he was for a short time ambassador at St Petersburg. In 1852, after the death of Wellington, when he was one of the pall-bearers, he received the order of the Garter. He died on the 6th of March 1854. He was twice married, first in 1808 to the daughter of the earl of Darnley, and secondly in 1819 to the heiress of Sir Harry Vane-Tempest (a descendant of Sir Piers Tempest, who served at Agincourt, and heir to Sir Henry Vane, Bart.), when he assumed the name of Vane. Frederick William Robert (1805-1872), his son by the first marriage, became 4th marquess; and on the latter's death in 1872, George Henry (1821-1884), the eldest son by the second marriage, after succeeding as Earl Vane (according to the patent of 1823), became 5th marquess. In 1884 he was succeeded as 6th marquess by his son Charles Stewart Vane-Tempest-Stewart (b. 1852), a prominent Conservative politician, who was viceroy of Ireland (1886-1889), chairman of the London School Board (1895-1897), postmaster-general (1900-1902), president of the Board of Education (1902-1905) and lord president of the Council (1903-1905).

LONDONDERRY, ROBERT STEWART, 2ND MARQUESS OF (1769-1822), British statesman, was the eldest son of Robert Stewart of Ballylawn Castle, in Donegal, and Mount Stewart in Down, an Ulster landowner, of kin to the Galloway Stewarts, who became baron, viscount, earl and marquess in the peerage of Ireland. The son, known in history as Lord Castlereagh, was born on the 18th of June in the same year as Napoleon and Wellington. His mother was Lady Sarah Seymour, daughter of the earl of Hertford. He went from Armagh school to St John's College, Cambridge, but left at the end of his first year. With Lord Downshire, then holding sway over the County Down, Lord Stewart had a standing feud, and he put forward his son, in July 1790, for one of the seats. Young Stewart was returned, but at a vast cost to his family, when he was barely twenty-one. He took his seat in the Irish House of Commons at the same time as his friend, Arthur Wellesley, M.P. for Trim, but sat later for two close boroughs in England, still remaining member for Down at College Green.

From 1796, when his father became an earl, he took the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh, and becoming keeper of the privy seal in Ireland, he acted as chief secretary, during the prolonged absence of Mr Pelham, from February 1797. Castlereagh's conviction was that, in presence of threatened invasion and rebellion, Ireland could only be made safe by union with Great Britain. In Lord Camden, as afterwards in Lord Cornwallis, Castlereagh found a congenial chief; though his favour with these statesmen was jealously viewed both by the Irish oligarchy and by the English politicians who wished to keep the machine of Irish administration in their own hands. Pitt himself was doubtful of the expediency of making an Irishman chief secretary, but his view was changed by the influence of Cornwallis. In suppressing Lord Edward Fitzgerald's conspiracy, and the rebellion which followed in 1798, Castlereagh's vigilance and firmness were invaluable. His administration was denounced by a faction as harsh and cruel--a charge afterwards repudiated by Grattan and Plunket--but he was always on the side of lenity. The disloyal in Ireland, both Jacobins and priest-led, the Protestant zealots and others who feared the consequence of the Union, coalesced against him in Dublin. Even there Castlereagh, though defeated in a first campaign (1799), impressed Pitt with his ability and tact, with Cornwallis he joined in holding out, during the second Union campaign (1800), the prospect of emancipation to the Roman Catholics. They were aided by free expenditure of money and promises of honours, methods too familiar in Irish politics. When the Act of Union was carried through the Irish parliament, in the summer of 1800, Castlereagh's official connexion with his native land practically ended. Before the Imperial Parliament met he urged upon Pitt the measures which he and Cornwallis thought requisite to make the Union effective. In spite of his services and of Pitt's support, disillusion awaited him. The king's reluctance to yield to the Roman Catholic claims was underestimated by Pitt, while Cornwallis imprudently permitted himself to use language which, though not amounting to a pledge, was construed as one. George III. resented the arguments brought forward by Castlereagh--"this young man" who had come over to talk him out of his coronation oath. He peremptorily refused to sanction emancipation, and Pitt and his cabinet made way for the Addington administration. Thereupon Castlereagh resigned, with Cornwallis. He took his seat at Westminster for Down, the constituency he had represented for ten years in Dublin. The leadership of an Irish party was offered to him, but he declined so to limit his political activity. His father accepted, at Portland's request, an Irish marquessate, on the understanding that in the future he or his heirs might claim the same rank in the Imperial Legislature; so that Castlereagh was able to sit in the House of Commons as Marquess in 1821-1822. Wilberforce discussed with Pitt the possibility of sending out Castlereagh to India as governor-general, when the friction between Lord Wellesley and the directors became grave; but Pitt objected, as the plan would remove Castlereagh from the House of Commons, which should be "the theatre of his future fame."

In 1802, Castlereagh, at Pitt's suggestion, became president of the Board of Control in the Addington cabinet. He had, though not in office, taken charge of Irish measures under Addington, including the repression of the Rebellion Bill, and the temporary suspension of the Habeas Corpus in 1801, and continued to advocate Catholic relief, tithe reform, state payment of Catholic and dissenting clergy and "the steady application of authority in support of the laws." To Lord Wellesley's Indian policy he gave a staunch support, warmly recognized by the governor-general. On Pitt's return to office (May 1804), Castlereagh retained his post, and, next year, took over also the duties of secretary for war and the colonies. Socially and politically, the gifts of his wife, Lady Emily Hobart, daughter of a former Irish viceroy, whom he had married in 1794, assisted him to make his house a meeting-place of the party; and his influence in parliament grew notwithstanding his defects of style, spoken and written. As a manager of men he had no equal. After Pitt's death his surviving colleagues failed to form a cabinet strong enough to face the formidable combination known as "All the Talents," and Castlereagh acquiesced in the resignation. But to the foreign policy of the Fox-Greville ministry and its conduct of the war he was always opposed. His objections to the Whig doctrine of withdrawal from "Continental entanglements" and to the reduction of military expenditure were justified when Fox himself was compelled "to nail his country's colours to the mast."

The cabinet of "All the Talents," weakened by the death of Fox and the renewed quarrel with the king, went out in April 1807. Castlereagh returned to the War Office under Portland, but grave difficulties arose, though Canning at the Foreign Office was then thoroughly at one with him. A priceless opportunity had been missed after Eylau. The Whigs had crippled the transport service, and the operations to avert the ruin of the coalition at Friedland came too late. The Tsar Alexander believed that England would no longer concern herself with the Continental struggle, and Friedland was followed by Tilsit. The secret articles of that compact, denied at the time by the Opposition and by French apologists, have now been revealed from official records in M. Vandal's work, _Napoléon et Alexandre_. Castlereagh and Canning saw the vital importance of nullifying the aim of this project. The seizure of the Danish squadron at Copenhagen, and the measures taken to rescue the fleets of Portugal and Sweden from Napoleon, crushed a combination as menacing as that defeated at Trafalgar. The expedition to Portugal, though Castlereagh's influence was able only to secure Arthur Wellesley a secondary part at first, soon dwarfed other issues. In the debates on the Convention of Cintra, Castlereagh defended Wellesley against parliamentary attacks: "A brother," the latter wrote, "could not have done more." The depression produced by Moore's campaign in northern Spain, and the king's repugnance to the Peninsular operations, seemed to cut short Wellesley's career; but early in 1809, Castlereagh, with no little difficulty, secured his friend's appointment as commander-in-chief of the second Portuguese expedition. The merit has been claimed for Canning by Stapleton, but the evidence is all the other way.

Meanwhile, Castlereagh's policy led to a crisis that clouded his own fortunes. The breach between him and Canning was not due to his incompetence in the conduct of the Walcheren expedition, In fact, Castlereagh's ejection was decided by Canning's intrigues, though concealed from the victim, months before the armament was sent out to the Scheldt. In the selection of the earl of Chatham as commander the king's personal preference was known, but there is evidence also that it was one of Canning's schemes, as he reckoned, if Chatham succeeded, on turning him into a convenient ministerial figurehead. Canning was not openly opposed to the Walcheren expedition, and on the Peninsular question he mainly differed from Castlereagh and Wellington in fixing his hopes on national enthusiasm and popular uprisings. Military opinion is generally agreed that the plan of striking from Walcheren at Antwerp, the French naval base, was sound. Napoleon heard the news with dismay; in principle Wellington approved the plan. Castlereagh's proposal was for a _coup de main_, under strict conditions of celerity and secrecy, as Antwerp was unable to make any adequate defence. But Chatham, the naval authorities and the cabinet proceeded with a deliberation explained by the fact that the war secretary had been condemned in secret. The expedition, planned at the end of March, did not reach Walcheren till the end of July 1809; and more time was lost in movements against Batz and Flushing, protracted until an unhealthy autumn prostrated the army, which was withdrawn, discredited and disabled, in September. Public opinion threw the whole blame upon Castlereagh, who then found that, in deference to Canning, his colleagues had decreed his removal half a year earlier, though they kept silence till the troops were brought back from Walcheren. When Castlereagh learned from Percival that the slur cast on him had its origin in a secret attack on him many months before, he was cruelly hurt. The main charge against him was, he says, that he would not throw over officers on whom unpopularity fell, at the first shadow of ill-fortune. His refusal to rush into censure of Moore, following Canning's sudden change from eulogy to denunciation, requires no defence. According to the ideas then prevailing Castlereagh held himself justified in sending a challenge to the original author, as he held, of a disloyal intrigue against a colleague. In the subsequent duel Canning was wounded and the rivals simultaneously resigned. In private letters to his father and brother, Castlereagh urged that he was bound to show that he "was not privy to his own disgrace." When Canning published a lengthy explanation of his conduct, many who had sided with him were convinced that Castlereagh had been much wronged. The excuse that the protest upon which the cabinet decided against Castlereagh did not mention the minister's name was regarded as a quibble. Men widely differing in character and opinions--Walter Scott, Sidney Smith, Brougham and Cobbett--took this view. Castlereagh loyally supported the government in parliament, after Lord Wellesley's appointment to the Foreign Office. Though Wellington's retreat after Talavera had been included, with the disasters of the Corunna and Walcheren campaigns, in the censures on Castlereagh, and though ministers were often depressed and doubtful, Castlereagh never lost faith in Wellington's genius. Lord Wellesley's resignation in 1812, when the Whigs failed to come to terms with the regent, led to Castlereagh's return to office as foreign secretary (March 1812). The assassination of Percival soon threw upon him the leadership of the House of Commons, and this double burden he continued to bear during the rest of his life.

From March 1812 to July 1822 Castlereagh's biography is, in truth, the history of England. Though never technically prime minister, during these years he wielded a power such as few ministers have exercised. Political opponents and personal ill-wishers admitted that he was the ablest leader who ever controlled the House of Commons for so long a period. As a diplomatist, nobody save Marlborough had the same influence over men or was given equal freedom by his colleagues at home. Foreigners saw in him the living presence of England in the camp of the Allies. At the War Office he had been hampered by the lack of technical knowledge, while nature had not granted him, as an organizer, the powers of a Carnot or Roon. But in diplomacy his peculiar combination of strength and charm, of patience and conciliatory adroitness, was acknowledged by all. At the Foreign Office he set himself at once to meet Napoleon's designs in northern Europe, where Russia was preparing for her life-and-death struggle. Lord Wellesley paid a high tribute to Castlereagh's conduct in this situation, and Wellington declared that he had then "rendered to the world the most important service that ever fell to the lot of any individual to perform." Castlereagh wisely rejected Napoleon's insincere overtures for peace. After the Moscow _débâcle_ Napoleon's fate was affected not only by Wellington's progress in Spain, but by the attitude of the northern powers and by the action of Turkey, due to Castlereagh's opportune disclosure to the Porte of the scheme of partition at Tilsit. At home, the repeal of the Orders in Council was carried, the damage to British trade plainly outweighing the injury inflicted on France by the restrictive system. The British subsidies to the Allies were largely increased as the operations of 1813 developed, but all Castlereagh's skill was needed to keep the Coalition together. The Allied powers were willing, even after Leipzig, to treat with France on the basis of restoring her "natural frontiers"--the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees; but Castlereagh protested. He would not allow the enemy to take ground for another tiger-spring. Before the Conference of Châtillon, where Napoleon sent Caulaincourt to negotiate for peace--with the message scribbled on the margin of his instructions, "Ne signez rien"--Aberdeen wrote to hasten Castlereagh's coming: "Everything which has been so long smothered is now bursting forth"; and again, "Your presence has done much and would, I have no doubt, continue to sustain them (the Allies) in misfortune." The Liverpool cabinet then and later were as urgent in pressing him to return to lead the House of Commons. He had lost his seat for Down in 1805, and afterwards sat for British boroughs; but in 1812 he was re-elected by his old constituents; and again in 1818 and 1820, sitting, after he became marquess of Londonderry in 1821, for Orford. Early in 1814 his colleagues reluctantly consented to his visit to the allied headquarters. The Great Alliance showed signs of weakness and division. Austria was holding back; Prussia had almost broken away; above all, the ambiguous conduct of Alexander bred alarm and doubt. This situation became increasingly serious while Napoleon was giving daily proofs that his military genius, confronting a hesitant and divided enemy, was at its best. Castlereagh strove to keep the Allies together, to give no excuse for those separate arrangements upon which Napoleon was reckoning, to assert no selfish policy for England, to be tied by no theoretical consistency. At the Châtillon conferences England was represented by others, but Castlereagh was present with supreme authority over all, and it was he who determined the result. He declined to commit his country either to a blank refusal to negotiate with Napoleon or to the advocacy of a Bourbon restoration. He was ready to give up almost the whole of England's conquests, but he insisted on the return of France within her ancient limits as the basis of a settlement. Caulaincourt's advice was to take advantage of these overtures; but his master was not to be advised. The counter-projects that he urged Caulaincourt to submit to were advanced after his victory at Montereau, when he boasted that he was nearer to Munich than the Allies were to Paris. Even before the Châtillon conference was dissolved (March 18th), Castlereagh saw that Caulaincourt's efforts would never bend Napoleon's will. The Allies adopted his view and signed the treaty of Chaumont (March 1st), "my treaty," as Castlereagh called it, with an unusual touch of personal pride; adding "Upon the face of the treaty this year our engagement is equivalent to theirs united." The power of England when she threw her purse into the scale had been just exhibited at Bar-sur-Aube, when at a council of all the representatives of the powers the retreat of the allied armies was discussed. Bernadotte, playing a waiting game in Holland, was unwilling to reinforce Blücher, then in a dangerous position, by the Russian and Prussian divisions of Winzingerode and Bülow, temporarily placed under his orders. Having asked for and received the assurance that the military leaders were agreed in holding the transfer necessary, Castlereagh declared that he took upon himself the responsibility of bringing the Swedish prince to reason. The withholding of the British subsidies was a vital matter, not only with Bernadotte but with all the powers. Castlereagh's avowed intention to take this step without waiting for sanction from his cabinet put an end to evasion and delay. Blücher was reinforced by the two divisions; the battle of Laon was fought and won, and the allies occupied the French capital. In April 1814 Castlereagh arrived in Paris. He did not disguise his discontent with Napoleon's position at Elba, close to the French coast, though he advised England not to separate herself at this crisis from her allies. His uneasiness led him to summon Wellington from the south to the Embassy in Paris. He hastened himself to London during the visit of the allied sovereigns, and met with a splendid reception. He was honoured with the Garter, being one of the few commoners ever admitted to that order. When the House of Commons offered to the Crown its congratulations upon the treaty of peace, Castlereagh's triumph was signalized by a brilliantly eloquent panegyric from Canning, and by a recantation of his former doubts and denunciations from Whitbread. His own dignified language vindicated his country from the charge of selfish ambition.

His appointment as British representative at Vienna, where the congress was to meet in September, was foreseen; but meanwhile he was not idle. The war with the United States, originating in the non-intercourse dispute and the Orders in Council, did not cease with the repeal of the latter. It lasted through 1814 till the signing of the treaty of Ghent, soon before the flight from Elba. In parliament the ministry, during Castlereagh's absence, had been poorly championed. Canning had thrown away his chance by his unwise refusal of the Foreign Office. None of the ministers had any pretension to lead when Castlereagh was busy abroad and Canning was sulking at home, and Castlereagh's letters to Vansittart, the chancellor of the exchequer, show how these difficulties weighed upon him in facing the position at Vienna, where it was imperative for him to appear. At Vienna he realized at once that the ambition of Russia might be as formidable to Europe and to Great Britain as that of the fallen tyrant. His aim throughout had been to rescue Europe from military domination; and when he found that Russia and Prussia were pursuing ends incompatible with the general interest, he did not hesitate to take a new line. He brought about the secret treaty (Jan. 3, 1815) between Great Britain, Austria and France, directed against the plans of Russia in Poland and of Prussia in Saxony. Through Castlereagh's efforts, the Polish and Saxon questions were settled on the basis of compromise. The threat of Russian interference in the Low Countries was dropped.