In the time of Edward I. an ordinance was passed that "No Portuguese or Germans shall keep hostels, but that persons of those countries shall lodge with freemen of the city." It has been supposed that by "freemen" are intended native freemen, but this is doubtful, since cases occur of strangers and foreigners being admitted to the freedom for the very purpose of becoming hostelers and herbergeours. Even when this privilege was granted them, they were not suffered to compete on equal terms with the Englishman, being required to keep their houses "in the heart of the City," and rigidly excluded from the more profitable regions on the banks of the Thames.
The necessity of hostelers and herbergeours being freemen was due apparently to the survival of the old Saxon law of frank-pledge, which was still in force at the close of the reign of Edward III. No hosteler or herbergeour might entertain a stranger longer than a day and a night, unless he undertook to answer for his guest's behaviour, and he was left in no uncertainty as to the course of conduct he was expected to pursue towards the always undesirable alien. In many respects his position resembled that of a master of a workhouse rather than a speculative tradesman. Thus, at times when it was forbidden to carry arms in the City, it became his duty to take possession of his guests' arms and retain them until the strangers departed. If the latter did not comply with his demand, they were fined and imprisoned. At other times, when the regulations were not so severe, he had to tell his guests that they were not to carry arms after curfew rang, or go wandering about the streets of the City. Should it happen that urgent business compelled a guest to be absent from the hostel for a night, the keeper was obliged to warn him, with the best grace he might, that he must take care to be back as soon as possible.
Obviously there would have been much unfairness in making hostelers and herbergeours answer for the misdeeds of persons with whom they had only transient relations, if there had been no system for preventing the escape of dishonest and desperate characters who would be especially susceptible to the attractions of a great city and could not be held in check by the fatherly admonitions of an anxious host. Nor, again, was it to be supposed that the native population consisted wholly of highly moral and virtuous persons, incapable of such low crimes as burglary. To counteract the designs of these enemies of order, it was enacted temp. Edward I. that barriers and chains should be placed across the streets of the City and "more especially towards the water (Fleet River) near the Friars Preachers." From the same reign also dates an ordinance that the Aldermen and men of the respective wards should keep watch and ward on horseback at night, each Alderman keeping three horses for that object. Moreover, each of the City gates was placed in charge of a Sergeant-at-arms, who had his quarters over the gateway. It was the duty of this official to keep guard by night, and he was assisted in this task by a watchman (wayte), whose wages he had to pay out of his own salary. The regulations of the City required that each gate should be kept in the daytime by two men, well armed; and on certain occasions the Bedel received orders to summon the men of the ward to watch the gate armed. If they did not attend in person, they had to find substitutes at their own expense.
