LONDON IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 281 their party was dominant in the city. Under the command of their leader, Thomas de Piwelesdon, they were present in his army at the battle of Lewes, and fled ignomiuiously before Prince Edward, who lost the victory for the king' by too hotly pursuing them. It is related in the chronicle of Melrose that the earl of Leicester brought into the field two of the oldest and most respectable of the city magnates, who had in vain en- deavoured to prevent the populace from joining him, shut up in a strong rage, bound with iron : returning from the pursuit of the flying citizens the followers of the prince seeing the cage without defenders pulled it to pieces, and slew the unfortunate inmates 'J. This incident is told with so much circumstantiality that it is difficult to discredit it, but it should be remarked that the present chronicle, which dwells rather minutely on the assistance rendered by the Londoners to JNIontfort, does not even allude to such an event. On the suppression of the rebellion by the king's forces ample revenge was taken upon the leaders of the popular party and their adherents. Their real and personal property was confiscated, and granted to Prince Edward, who exercised his recovered authority without mercy. The old families again acquired their ascendency, but it was not long to endure. Before the close of the reign of Edward the First we discern new names among the chief office-bearers of the corporation ; the old feudal families of London gradually disappear from the calendar of mayors and sheriffs ; men en- riched by the increasing commerce of the coimtry were the legitimate suc- cessors to their station and influence in civic affairs ; and by the accession of Edward the Third the feudal divisions of the metropolis, with the excep- tion, perhaps, of the possessions of the Church, had ceased to exist. Thus much for the political state of London in the thirteenth century. It may now be interesting to make some enquiry into its material aspect. From the close of the eleventh century chronicles refer continually to destructive fires which from time to time wasted the city and impoverished its inhabitants, and to strong winds which prostrated its steeples, the natu- ral consequences of the habitations and church steeples being generally constructed of wood. The streets were unpaved, and if we may draw any inference from the fact that when the wooden steeple of Bow church fell into Cheap in the year 1170, the tallest beams sank out of sight into the earth, they must have been as muddy and ill-kept as those of Paris when they excited the wrath of Philip Augustus. Before the end of the twelfth century, however, the frequent occurrence of extensive fires compelled the citizens to adopt some necessary precautions in the structure of their habi- tations. In the highly curious regulations published on this subject in the year 1189 we are informed that "in ancient times the greater i)art of the city was built of wood, and the houses covered with thatch, reeds, and the like material, so that when any house took fire the greater part of the "" Such is Heniiiigford's account, Ci;ile, rose says it was burnt. — Ibid., vol. , i. vol. ii. p. oS-t. The chronicler of Mel- p. 229.
