1. _British and Roman to A.D. 449._--There is practically no record of
British London, and considerable difference of opinion exists among
antiquaries as to its very existence. Bishop Stillingfleet held that
London was of Roman foundation and not older than the time of Claudius
(_Origines Brit._, 1685, p. 43); and Dr Guest affirmed that the notion
of a British town having "preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to
rest upon" (_Archaeological Journal_, xxiii. 180). J. R. Green expressed
the same opinion in _The Making of England_ (p. 101). On the other side
Kemble held that it was difficult to believe that Cair Lunden was an
unimportant place even in Caesar's day (_Saxons in England_, ii. 266);
and Thomas Lewin believed that London had attained prosperity before the
Romans came; and held that it was probably the capital of
Cassivellaunus, which was taken and sacked by Julius Caesar
(_Archaeologia_, xl. 59). The origin of London will probably always
remain a subject of dispute for want of decisive facts.
The strongest reason for believing in a British London is to be found in
the name, which is undoubtedly Celtic, adopted with little alteration by
the Romans. It is also difficult to believe that Londinium had come to
be the important commercial centre described by Tacitus (A.D. 61) if it
had only been founded a few years before the conquest of Claudius.
The discovery by General Pitt Rivers in 1867 of the remains of pile
dwellings both on the north and on the south of the Thames gives ground
for an argument of some force in favour of the date of the foundation of
London having been before the Roman occupation of Britain. Of Roman
London we possess so many remains that its appearance can be conjectured
with little difficulty.
During the centuries when Britain was occupied by the Romans (A.D.
43-409) there was ample time for cities to grow up from small
beginnings, to overflow their borders and to be more than once rebuilt.
The earliest Roman London must have been a comparatively small place,
but it probably contained a military fort of some kind intended to cover
the passage of the river.
Extent of Roman London.
The Roman general Paulinus Suetonius, after marching rapidly from Wales
to put down a serious insurrection, found Londinium unfitted for a base
of military operations, and therefore left the place to the mercy of
Boadicea, who entirely destroyed it, and killed the inhabitants. After
this the need of fortifying Londinium must have been apparent, and a
walled city of small dimensions arose soon after the defeat of the
British queen. The earliest Roman city probably extended as far as Tower
Hill on the east, and there is reason to believe that it did not include
any ground to the west of Leadenhall. The excavations at the latter
place in 1881 threw great light upon the early history of London. The
foundation walls of a basilica were discovered, and from the time when
that was built until the present day the ground has always been devoted
to public uses. How far north the first wall was placed it is difficult
to guess. One help towards a settlement of the question may be found in
the discovery of burial places. As it was illegal in Roman times to bury
within the walls, we are forced to the conclusion that the places where
these sepulchral remains have been found were at one time extramural.
Now no such remains have been found between Gracechurch Street and the
Tower. The northern wall was placed by Roach Smith somewhere along the
course of Cornhill and Leadenhall Street. The second extension of the
city westwards was probably to Wallbrook.
In the latest or third Roman enclosure the line of the wall ran straight
from the Tower to Aldgate, where it bent round somewhat to Bishopsgate.
On the east it was bordered by the district subsequently called the
Minories and Houndsditch. The line from Bishopsgate ran eastward to St
Giles's churchyard (Cripplegate), where it turned to the south as far as
Falcon square; again westerly by Aldersgate round the site of the
Greyfriars (afterwards Christ's Hospital) towards Giltspur Street, then
south by the Old Bailey to Ludgate, and then down to the Thames, where
Dr Edwin Freshfield suggests that a Roman fortress stood on the site of
Baynard's Castle. This is most probable, because the Romans naturally
required a special protection on the river at the west as well as at the
east. So in later times when William the Conqueror planned the Tower he
gave the site at the western extremity to his follower Ralph Baynard,
where was erected the stronghold known as Baynard's Castle. Roach Smith
pointed out that the enclosure indicated above gives dimensions far
greater than those of any other town in Britain. There can be no doubt
that within the walls there was originally much unoccupied space, for
with the single exception of the larger circuit south of Ludgate, up to
where the river Fleet ran, made in 1276 for the benefit of the Black
Friars, the line of the walls, planned by the later Romans, remained
complete until the Great Fire (1666). The Thames formed the natural
barrier on the south, but the Romans do not appear to have been content
with this protection, for they built a wall here in addition, which
remained for several centuries. Portions of this wall have been
discovered at various times.
It is difficult even to guess when the third wall was erected. The
emperor Theodosius came to London from Boulogne to mature his plan for
the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. As Theodosius is
said to have left Britain in a sound and secure condition it has been
suggested that to him was due the wall of the later Londinium, but there
is little or no evidence for this opinion, and according to an old
tradition Constantine the Great walled the city at the request of his
mother Helena, presumed to be a native of Britain. There is, however,
some evidence in favour of the supposition that the wall was built at a
much earlier date. It is not improbable that early in the 2nd century
the wall was finished at the west portion and enclosed a cemetery near
Newgate. Sir William Tite, in describing a tessellated pavement found in
1854 on the site of the Excise Office (Bishopsgate Street), expresses
the opinion that the finished character of the pavement points to a
period of security and wealth, and fixes on the reign of Hadrian (A.D.
117-138), to which the silver coin found on the floor belongs, as the
date of its foundation.
The historians of the Roman Empire have left us some particulars of the
visits of emperors and generals to Britain, but little or nothing about
what happened in London, and we should be more ignorant than we are of
the condition of Londinium if it had not been that a large number of
excavations have been made in various parts of the city which have
disclosed a considerable amount of its early history. From these remains
we may guess that London was a handsome city in the reign of Hadrian,
and probably then in as great a position of importance as it ever
attained. This being so, there seems to be reason in attributing the
completed walls to this period.
Remains of Roman Wall.
The persistence of the relics of the walls of London is one of the most
remarkable facts of history. Pieces of the wall are to be seen in
various parts of the city, and are frequently found when extensive
excavations are made for new buildings. In some places where the Roman
wall is not to be seen there still exist pieces of the old wall that
stand upon Roman foundations. In Amen Court, where the residences of
canons of St Paul's and the later houses of the minor canons are
situated, there stretches such a piece of wall, dividing the gardens of
the Court from the Old Bailey. Of the few accessible fragments of the
Roman wall still existing special mention may be made of the bastion in
the churchyard of St Giles's, Cripplegate; a little farther west is a
small fragment in St Martin's Court, Ludgate Hill (opposite the Old
Bailey), but the best specimen can be seen near Tower Hill just out of
George Street, Trinity Square. Early in the 20th century a fragment
nearly 40 ft. long, together with the base of a bastion, was brought to
light in digging for the foundation of some large warehouses in Camomile
Street, at a depth of 10 ft. below the level of the present street. A
considerable portion of the old wall was laid bare by the excavations
for the new Post Office in St Martin's-le-Grand. From a comparison of
these fragments with the descriptions of Woodward, Maitland and others,
who in the early part of the 18th century examined portions of the wall
still standing, we learn that the wall was from 9 to 12 ft. thick, and
formed of a core of rough rubble cemented together with mortar
(containing much coarse gravel) of extraordinary hardness and tenacity,
and a facing for the most part of stone--Kentish rag, freestone or
ironstone--but occasionally of flints; about 2 ft. apart are double
layers of tiles or bricks which serve as bonding courses. The wall
appears to have been about 20 ft. high, the towers from 40 to 50 ft.,
but when described only the base was Roman. Upon that was raised a wall
of rough rubble rudely faced with stone and flint, evidently a medieval
work and about 2½ ft. thick; then succeeded a portion wholly of brick,
terminating in battlements topped with copings of stone.
Gates and buildings.
Although the course of the later Roman walls is clear, we do not know
with any certainty the position of the Roman gates. They were not the
same as the medieval gates which have left the record of their names in
modern London nomenclature. It follows, therefore, that the main streets
also are not in line with the Roman ways, except perhaps in a few
instances. Many ineffectual attempts have been made to connect the
Watling street in the city with the great Roman road so named in
medieval times. The name of the small street is evidently a corruption,
and in the valuable Report of the MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St
Paul's (_Ninth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission_, Appendix, p.
4) the original name is given as "Atheling Street," and instances of
this spelling are common in the 13th century. The form Watling Street
seems to occur first in 1307. Stow spells it Watheling Street
(Kingsford's edition of Stow's _Survey_, 1908, vol. ii. p. 352). Sir
William Tite gave reasons for believing that Bishopsgate Street was not
a Roman thoroughfare, and in the excavations at Leadenhall the basilica
to which allusion has already been made was found apparently crossing
the present thoroughfare of Gracechurch Street. Tite also agreed with Dr
Stukeley's suggestion that on the site of the Mansion House (formerly
Stocks Market) stood the Roman forum, and he states that a line drawn
from that spot as a centre would pass by the pavements found on the site
of the Excise Office. Besides the forum Stukeley suggested the sites of
seven other buildings--the _Arx Palatina_ guarding the south-eastern
angle of the city where the Tower now stands, the grove and temple of
Diana on the site of St Paul's, &c. No traces of any of these buildings
have been found, and they are therefore purely conjectural. Stukeley's
industrious researches into the history of Roman London cannot be said
to have any particular value, although at one time they enjoyed
considerable vogue. As to the Temple of Diana, Sir Christopher Wren
formed an opinion strongly adverse to the old tradition of its existence
(_Parentalia_, p. 266). Although we know that the Christian church was
established in Britain during the later period of the Roman domination,
there is little to be learnt respecting it, and the bishop Restitutus,
who is said to have attended an Ecclesiastical Council, is a somewhat
mythical character. In respect to the discovery of the position of the
Roman gates, the true date of the _Antonini Itinerarium_ (q.v.) is of
great importance, as it will be seen from it that Londinium was either a
starting-point or a terminus in nearly half the routes described in the
portion relating to Britain. This would be remarkable if the work dated
back to the 2nd century. Probably in the later, as in the earlier time,
Londinium had the usual four gates of a Roman city, with the main roads
to them. The one on the east was doubtless situated near where Aldgate
afterwards stood. On the south the entrance to Londinium must always
have been near where London Bridge was subsequently built. On the west
the gate could not have been far from the place afterwards occupied by
Newgate. As to Ludgate there is reason to believe that if there was an
opening there in Roman times it was merely a postern. On the north the
gate may have been near Bishopsgate or at Aldersgate. If we take from
the _Itinerary_ the last station before Londinium in all the routes we
shall be able to obtain some idea of the position of the gate entered
from each route by drawing a line on the map of London to the nearest
point. Ammianus Marcellinus (about A.D. 390) speaks twice of Londinium
as an ancient town to which the honourable title of Augusta had been
accorded. Some writers have been under the misapprehension that this
name for a time superseded that of Londinium. The anonymous Chorographer
of Ravenna calls the place Londinium Augusta, and doubtless this was the
form adopted.
London Stone.
The most interesting Roman relic is "London Stone." It has generally
been supposed to be a "milliarium" or central point for measuring
distances, but Sir Christopher Wren believed it was part of some more
considerable monuments in the forum (_Parentalia_, pp. 265, 266).
Holinshed (who was followed by Shakespeare in _2 Henry VI._, act 4 sc.
6) tells us that when Cade, in 1450, forced his way into London, he
first of all proceeded to London Stone, and having struck his sword upon
it, said in reference to himself and in explanation of his own action,
"Now is Mortimer lord of this city." Mr H. C. Coote, in a paper
published in the _Trans. London and Middlesex Arch. Soc._ for 1878,
points out that this act meant something to the mob who followed the
rebel chief, and was not a piece of foolish acting. Mr Laurence Gomme
(_Primitive Folk-Moots_, pp. 155, 156) takes up the matter at this
point, and places the tradition implied by Cade's significant action as
belonging to times when the London Stone was, as other great stones
were, the place where the suitors of an open-air assembly were
accustomed to gather together and to legislate for the government of the
city. Corroborative facts have been gathered from other parts of the
country, and, although more evidence is required, such as we have is
strongly in favour of the supposition that the London Stone is a
prehistoric monument.
The first London Bridge.
One of the most important questions in the history of London that
requires settlement is the date of the building of the first bridge,
that is whether it was constructed by Britons or by Romans. If the
Britons had not already made the bridge before the Romans arrived it
must have been one of the first Roman works. As long as there was no
bridge to join the north and south banks of the Thames the great object
of Roman rule remained unfulfilled. This object was the completion of a
system of roads connecting all parts of the Empire with Rome.
Dio Cassius, who lived in the early part of the 3rd century (_Hist.
Rom._ lib. lx. c. 20), states that there was a bridge over the Thames at
the time of the invasion of Claudius (A.D. 43), but he places it a
little above the mouth of the river ("higher up"). The position is
vague, but the mouth of the Thames in these early times may be
considered as not far from the present position of London Bridge. Sir
George Airy held that this bridge was not far from the site of London
Bridge (_Proceedings of Institut. Civil Engineers_, xlix. 120), but Dr
Guest was not prepared to allow that the Britons were able to construct
a bridge over a tidal river such as the Thames, some 300 yds. wide, with
a difference of level at high and low water of nearly 20 ft. He
therefore suggested that the bridge was constructed over the marshy
valley of the Lea, probably near Stratford. It needs some temerity to
differ from so great an authority as Dr Guest, but it strikes one as
surprising that, having accepted the fact of a bridge made by the
Britons, he should deny that these Britons possessed a town or village
in the place to which he supposes that Aulus Plautius retired.
As the Welsh word for "bridge" is "pont," and this was taken directly
from the Latin, the inference is almost conclusive that the Britons
acquired their knowledge of bridges from the Romans. Looking at the
stage of culture which the Britons had probably reached, it would
further be a natural inference that there was no such thing as a bridge
anywhere in Britain before the Roman occupation; but, if Dion's
statement is correct, it may be suggested as a possible explanation that
the increased intercourse with Gaul during the hundred years that
elapsed between Julius Caesar's raids and Claudius Caesar's invasion may
have led to the construction of a bridge of some kind across the Thames
at this point, through the influence and under the guidance of Roman
traders and engineers. If so, the word "pont" may have been borrowed by
the Britons before the commencement of the Roman occupation. Much
stronger are the reasons for believing that there was a bridge in Roman
times. Remains of Roman villas are found in Southwark, which was
evidently a portion of Londinium, and it therefore hardly seems likely
that a bridge-building people such as the Romans would remain contented
with a ferry. Roach Smith is a strong advocate for the bridge, and
remarks, "It would naturally be erected somewhere in the direct line of
road into Kent, which I cannot but think pointed towards the site of Old
London Bridge, both from its central situation, from the general
absence of the foundations of buildings in the approaches on the
northern side, and from discoveries recently made in the Thames on the
line of the old bridge" (_Archaeologia_, xxix. 160). Smith has, however,
still stronger arguments, which he states as follows: "Throughout the
entire line of the old bridge, the bed of the river was found to contain
ancient wooden piles; and when these piles, subsequently to the erection
of the new bridge, were pulled up to deepen the channel of the river,
many thousands of Roman coins, with abundance of broken Roman tiles and
pottery, were discovered, and immediately beneath some of the central
piles brass medallions of Aurelius, Faustina and Commodus. All these
remains are indicative of a bridge. The enormous quantities of Roman
coins may be accounted for by consideration of the well-known practice
of the Romans to make these imperishable monuments subservient towards
perpetuating the memory, not only of their conquests, but also of those
public works which were the natural result of their successes in remote
parts of the world. They may have been deposited either upon the
building or repairs of the bridge, as well as upon the accession of a
new emperor" (_Archaeological Journal_, i. 113).
At the beginning of the 5th century the Roman legions left Britain, and
the _Saxon Chronicle_ gives the exact date, stating that never since
A.D. 409 "have the Romans ruled in Britain"--the chronicler setting down
the Roman sway at 470 winters and dating from Julius Caesar's invasion.
We learn that in the year 418 "the Romans collected all the treasures
that were in Britain, and hid some of them in the earth, that no man
might afterwards find them, and conveyed some with them into Gaul."
2. _Saxon_ (449-1066).--We are informed in the _Saxon Chronicle_ that
about A.D. 449 or 450 the invaders settled in Britain, and in 457
Hengist and Aesc fought against the Britons at Crayford, driving them
out of Kent. The vanquished fled to London in terror and apparently
found a shelter there. After this entry there is no further mention of
London in the _Chronicle_ for a century and a half. This silence has
been taken by some historians of weight to imply that London practically
ceased to exist. Dr Guest asserted "that good reason may be given for
the belief that even London itself for a while lay desolate and
uninhabited" (_Archaeological Journal_, xix. 219). J. R. Green and Mr
Loftie strongly supported this view, and in Sir Walter Besant's _Early
London_ (1908) the idea of the desolation of the city is taken for
granted.
In answer to this contention it may be said that, although the silence
of the _Chronicle_ is difficult to understand, it is almost impossible
to believe that the very existence of the most important city in the
country could suddenly cease and the inhabitants disappear without some
special notice. Battles and scenes of destruction are so fully described
in other instances that one must believe that when nothing is related
nothing special occurred. No doubt the coming of the Saxons, which
entirely changed the condition of the country, must have greatly injured
trade, but although there was not the same freedom of access to the
roads, the Londoners had the highway of the river at their doors.
Although the Saxons hated towns and refused to settle in London, they
may have allowed the original inhabitants to continue their trade on
condition that they received some share of the profits or a tribute. The
only question really is whether London being an exceptional city
received exceptional treatment.
Saxon Settlement.
Along the banks of the Thames are several small havens whose names have
remained to us, such as Rotherhithe, Lambhith (Lambeth), Chelchith
(Chelsea), &c., and it is not unlikely that the Saxons, who would not
settle in the city itself, associated themselves with these small open
spots. Places were thus founded over a large space which otherwise might
have remained unsettled.
Origin of the Liberties.
If what is here suggested really occurred it may be that this separation
of London from the surrounding country originated the remarkable
position of London with its unparalleled privileges, which were
continued for many centuries and kept it not only the leader among
cities but distinct from all others. Laurence Gomme, in _The Governance
of London_ (1907), opposes the view that the city was for a time left
deserted (a view which, it may be remarked, is a comparatively modern
one, probably originating with Dr Guest). H. C. Coote in his _Romans of
Britain_ elaborated a description of the survival of Roman influence in
English institutions, but his views did not obtain much support from
London historians. Mr Gomme's contention is to some extent a
modification of Mr Coote's view, but it is original in the illustrations
that give it force. Londinium was a Roman city, and (as in the case of
all such cities) was formed on the model of ancient Rome. It may
therefore be expected to retain evidence of the existence of a Pomoerium
and Territorium as at Rome. The Pomoerium marked the unbuilt space
around the walls. Gomme refers to an open space outside the western wall
of Dorchester still called the Pummery as an indication of the Pomoerium
in that place; and he considers that the name of Mile End, situated 1 m.
from Aldgate and the city walls, marks the extent of the open space
around the walls of London known as the Pomoerium. This fact throws a
curious light upon the growth of the "Liberties." It has always been a
puzzle that no note exists of the first institution of these liberties.
If this open space was from the earliest times attached to the city
there would be no need when it was built upon for any special act to be
passed for its inclusion in London. "The _Territorium_ of the city was
its special property, and it extended as far as the limits of the
territorium of the nearest Roman city or as near thereto as the natural
boundaries." This explains the position of Middlesex in relation to
London. In connexion with these two features of a Roman city supposed to
be found in Ancient London the author argues for the continuity of the
city through the changes of Roman and Saxon dominion.
One of the most striking illustrations of the probable continuity of
London history is to be found in the contrast between York and London.
This is only alluded to in Gomme's book, but it is elaborated in an
article in the _Cornhill Magazine_ (November 1906). These two were the
chief Roman cities in Britain, one in the north and the other in the
south. They are both equally good examples of important cities under
Roman domination. York was conquered and occupied by the Saxons, and
there not only are the results of English settlement clear but all
records of Roman government were destroyed. In London the Saxon stood
outside the government for centuries, and the acceptance of the Roman
survival explains much that is otherwise unintelligible.
Independence of London.
Gomme finds important evidence of the independence of London in the
existence of a merchant law which was opposed to Anglo-Saxon law. He
reprints and discusses the celebrated _Judicia Civitatis Lundoniae_ of
King Æthelstan's reign--"the ordinance" (as it declares itself) "which
the bishop and the reeves belonging to London have ordained." He holds
that the Londoners passed "their own laws by their own citizens without
reference to the king at all," and in the present case of a king who
according to Kemble "had carried the influence of the crown to an extent
unexampled in any of his predecessors." He adds: "What happened
afterwards was evidently this: that the code passed by the Londoners was
sent to the king for him to extend its application throughout the
kingdom, and this is done by the eleventh section." The view originated
by Gomme certainly explains many difficulties in the history of the
transition from Roman to English London, which have hitherto been
overlooked by historians.
Arrival of Christianity.
When the city is next referred to in the _Saxon Chronicle_ it appears to
have been inhabited by a population of heathens. Under the date 604 we
read: "This year Augustine consecrated two bishops: Mellitus and Justus.
He sent Mellitus to preach baptism to the East Saxons, whose king was
called Sebert, son of Ricole the sister of Æthelbert, and whom Æthelbert
had then appointed king. And Æthelbert gave Mellitus a bishop's see in
Lundenevic and to Justus he gave Rochester, which is twenty-four miles
from Canterbury." The Christianity of the Londoners was of an
unsatisfactory character, for, after the death of Sebert, his sons who
were heathens stirred up the multitude to drive out their bishop.
Mellitus became archbishop of Canterbury, and London relapsed into
heathenism. In this, the earliest period of Saxon history recorded,
there appears to be no relic of the Christianity of the Britons, which
at one time was well in evidence. What became of the cathedral which we
may suppose to have existed in London during the later Roman period we
cannot tell, but we may guess that it was destroyed by the heathen
Saxons. Bede records that the church of St Paul was built by Æthelbert,
and from that time to this a cathedral dedicated to St Paul has stood
upon the hill looking down on Ludgate.
After the driving out of Mellitus London remained without a bishop until
the year 656, when Cedda, brother of St Chad of Lichfield, was invited
to London by Sigebert, who had been converted to Christianity by Finan,
bishop of the Northumbrians. Cedda was consecrated bishop of the East
Saxons by Finan and held the see till his death on the 26th of October
664. He was succeeded by Wini, bishop of Winchester, and then came
Earconuald (or St Erkenwald), whose shrine was one of the chief glories
of old St Paul's. He died on the 30th of April 693, a day which was kept
in memory in his cathedral for centuries by special offices. The list of
bishops from Cedda to William (who is addressed in the Conqueror's
Charter) is long, and each bishop apparently held a position of great
importance in the government of the city.
Danish Invasions.
In the 7th century the city seems to have settled down into a prosperous
place and to have been peopled by merchants of many nationalities. We
learn that at this time it was the great mart of slaves. It was in the
fullest sense a free-trading town; neutral to a certain extent between
the kingdoms around, although the most powerful of the kings conquered
their feebler neighbours. During the 8th century, when a more settled
condition of life became possible, the trade and commerce of London
increased in volume and prosperity. A change, however, came about
towards the end of the century, when the Scandinavian freebooters known
as Danes began to harry the coasts. The Saxons had become law-abiding,
and the fierce Danes treated them in the same way as in former days they
had treated the Britons. In 871 the chronicler affirms that Alfred
fought nine great battles against the Danes in the kingdom south of the
Thames, and that the West Saxons made peace with them. In the next year
the Danes went from Reading to London, and there took up their winter
quarters. Then the Mercians made peace with them. In 886 Alfred overcame
the Danes, restored London to its inhabitants, rebuilt its walls,
reannexed the city to Mercia, and committed it to Ethelred, alderman of
Mercia. Then, as the chronicler writes, "all the Angle race turned to
him (Alfred) that were not in bondage of the Danish men." In 896 the
Londoners came off victorious in their encounters with the Danes. The
king obstructed the river so that the enemy could not bring up their
ships, and they therefore abandoned them. The Londoners broke up some,
and brought the strongest and best to London. In 912 Æthelred, the
alderman of the Mercians, who had been placed in authority by Alfred,
died, and Edward the Elder took possession of London and Oxford, "and
all the lands which thereto belonged."
Under Æthelstan we find the city increasing in importance and general
prosperity. There were then eight mints at work, a fact which exhibits
evidence of great activity and the need of coin for the purposes of
trade. The folk-moot met in the precincts of St Paul's at the sound of
the bell of the famous bell-tower, which also rang out when the armed
levy was required to march under St Paul's banner. For some years after
the decisive battle of Brunanburh (A.D. 937) the Danes ceased to trouble
the country. Fire, however, was almost as great an enemy to London as
the Dane. Fabyan when recording the entire destruction of London by fire
in the reign of Æthelred (981) makes this remarkable statement--"Ye
shall understand that this daye the cytie of London had more housynge
and buyldinge from Ludgate toward Westmynstre and lytel or none wher
the chief or hart of the citie is now, except (that) in dyvers places
were housyng, but they stod without order."
In the reign of Æthelred II., called the Unready (but more correctly the
Redeless), the Danes were more successful in their operations against
London, but the inhabitants resisted stoutly. Snorre the Icelander tells
us that the Danes fortified Southwark with ditch and rampart, which the
English assailed in vain. In 982 London was burnt, and in 994 Olaf and
Sweyn (the father of Canute) came with ninety-four ships to besiege it.
They tried to set the city on fire, but the townsmen did them more harm
than they "ever weened." The chronicler piously adds that "the holy
Mother of God on that day manifested her mercy to the townsmen, and
delivered them from their foes." The Danes went from the town and
ravaged the neighbourhood, so that in the end the king and his witan
agreed to give sixteen thousand pounds to be relieved of the presence of
the enemy. This was the origin of the Danegelt. In the year 1009 the
Danes frequently attacked London, but they had no success, and fared ill
in their attempts. The Londoners withstood Sweyn in 1013, but in the end
they submitted and gave him hostages. Three years after this, Æthelred
died in London, and such of the witan as were there and the townsmen
chose Edmund Ironside for king, although the witan outside London had
elected Canute. Canute's ships were then at Greenwich on their way to
London, where they soon afterwards arrived. The Danes at once set to
work to dig a great ditch by Southwark, and then dragged their ships
through to the west side of the bridge. They were able after this to
keep the inhabitants from going either in or out of the town. In spite
of all this, after fighting obstinately both by land and by water, the
Danes had to raise the siege of London and take the ships to the river
Orwell. After a glorious reign of seven months Edmund died in London,
and Canute became master of England. The tribute which the townsmen of
London had to pay was £10,500, about one-seventh of the amount which was
paid by all the rest of the English nation. This shows the growing
importance of the city. From this time there appears to have been a
permanent Danish settlement in London, probably Aldwich, referred to
below.
There is little more to be said of the history of Saxon London than that
Edward the Confessor held his Witanagemot there. On his death the Witan
which had attended his funeral elected to succeed him Harold, the
foremost man in England, and the leader who had attempted to check the
spread of the Norman influence fostered by the Confessor. After his
defeat and death on the hill on the Sussex Downs then called Senlac, the
duke of Normandy had the country at his mercy, but he recognized the
importance of London's position, and moved forward with the greatest
caution and tact.
Before proceeding with the history of London during the Norman period it
is necessary to say something of the counties more especially connected
with London.