and pledge of independence, is found here also in the bell-tower
of St. Paul’s, which is styled in documents either by that name
(_berefridum_), or by that of _campanile_, which brings before us at
once the storm-tost commonwealths of Italy. It was indeed from Italy
that the fire of freedom spread. With the rise of mediæval commerce it
was carried from the Alps to the Rhine, and quickly burst into flame
among the traders and craftsmen of Flanders. Passing into Picardy, it
crossed the Channel, according to a theory I have myself advanced,
to reappear in the liberties of the Cinque Ports, with their French
name, their French “serements” and their French _jurats_.[509] Foreign
merchants had brought it with them to the port of Exeter also, almost
as early as the Conquest, and we cannot doubt that London as well was
already infected with the movement, and eager to find in the foreign
“commune” the means of attaining that administrative autonomy and
political independence which that term virtually expressed.
Hostile though our kings might be to the communal movement here, they
favoured it for purposes of their own in their Norman dominions.
This is a factor in the problem that we cannot afford to overlook,
considering the peculiar relation in which Normandy stood to England.
As M. Langlois has observed:
Jamais en effet la France et l’Angleterre n’ont été, même de nos
jours, aussi intiment en contact ... Jusqu’à la fin du xii^{me}
siècle, les deux pays eurent à peu près les mêmes institutions
politiques, ils pratiquaient la même religion, on y parlait la
même langue. Des Français allaient fréquemment dans l’île comme
touristes, comme colons, comme marchands.
Was it not then from Normandy that London would derive her commune? And
if from Normandy, surely from Rouen. We are apt to forget the close
connections between the two capitals of our Anglo-Norman kings, London
on the Thames, and Rouen on the Seine. A student of the period has
written of these:
Citizens of Norman origin, to whom London, in no small measure,
owed the marked importance which it obtained under Henry I....
Merchants, traders, craftsmen of all sorts, came flocking
to seek their fortunes in their sovereign’s newly-acquired
dominions, not by forcible spoliation of the native people, but
by fair traffic and honest labour in their midst.... Norman
refinement, Norman taste, Norman fashions, especially in dress,
made their way rapidly among the English burghers.... The great
commercial centre to which the Norman merchants had long been
attracted as visitors, attracted them as settlers now that it
had become the capital of their own sovereign.[510]
* * * * *
It is known from the ‘Instituta Londoniæ’ that, so far back as the
days of Æthelred, the men of Rouen had traded to London, bringing in
their ships the wines of France, as well as that mysterious “craspice,”
which it is the fashion to render “sturgeon,” although there is
reason to believe that the term denoted the porpoise and even the
whale. The charter of Henry, duke of the Normans, to the citizens of
Rouen (1150–1), brings out a fact unknown to English historians, by
confirming to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the
days of Edward the Confessor. And the same charter, by securing them
their right to visit all the markets in England, carries back that
privilege, I believe, to the days at least of Henry I.; for, although
the fact had escaped notice both in France and England, it could
neither have originated with Count Geoffrey nor with Duke Henry his son.
Nor does the interest of this Rouen charter stop here. Among the
sureties for the young Duke’s fidelity to his word we find Richer
de Laigle, the youthful friend of Becket, “a constant visitor,” as
Miss Norgate, writes, “and intimate friend of the little household in
Cheapside.” And does not the name of Becket remind us how “Thomas of
London, the burgher’s son,” afterwards “Archbishop, saint and martyr,”
had for his father a magnate of London, but one who was by birth a
citizen of Rouen? Therefore, the same writer is probably justified in
maintaining that “the influence of these Norman burghers was dominant
in the city.” They seem, she adds, “to have won their predominance by
fair means, fairly. They brought a great deal more than mere wealth;
they brought enterprise, vigour, refinement, culture, as well as
political progress.”[511]
Now it is my contention that political progress was represented with
them by the communal idea. Their interests, moreover, would be wholly
commercial, and, therefore, opposed to those of the native territorial
element. If we turn to Rouen, we find its Mayor occurring fifteen years
at least before the Mayor of London, and styled Mayor of the “Commune”
of Rouen--“Major de Communia.” For Rouen was a stronghold of the
“Commune.” It is of importance, therefore, for our purpose to ascertain
at what period the communal organization originated at Rouen. In spite
of the close attention, from the days of Chéruel downwards, that the
subject has attracted in France, the conclusions attained cannot be
deemed altogether satisfactory.
The monograph devoted by M. Giry to the “Établissements de Rouen,”[512]
represents the _fine fleur_ of French historical scholarship, and
its conclusions, therefore, deserve no ordinary consideration. But on
one point of the utmost importance, namely, the date at which these
“Établissements” were compiled, I venture to hold an independent view.
The initial difficulty is thus stated by the brilliant French scholar:
L’original n’existe plus, et l’on ne sait à quelle époque
précise il faut faire remonter leur adoption dans les villes de
Rouen et de la Rochelle qui les ont eus avant tous les autres
(p. 2).
The first allusion to the jurisdiction exercised by the Commune of
Rouen is found, says M. Giry, in the charter granted it by Henry II.
shortly after its gallant defence against the French king. He then
proceeds:
C’est du reste à la fin du règne de Henri II. que nous voyons
pour la première fois la ville de Rouen décorée du titre de
Commune (_communia_) dans un grand nombre de chartes dont les
listes de témoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 et 1189.
Dans ces chartes les mentions d’un maire, de pairs, d’un
bailli, nous font voir qu’alors déjà la ville jouissait de
l’organisation municipale que les Établissements exposent avec
plus de détails; elles nous permettent de croire que cette
constitution, à peu près telle qu’elle nous est parvenue y était
alors en vigueur (p. 28).
A footnote is appended, giving “l’indication de quelques-unes des
chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles s’appuie cette
démonstration”:
[1] “Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173–1181) ...
Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis” ... [2] “in
presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie
Rothomagensis (1177–1189) et parium ipsius civitatis,” etc.
The expert will perceive that these two charters “demonstrate,” not
a date “entre 1173 et 1189,” but between 1177 and 1181. For if
Bartholomew’s rule as mayor began in 1177, the first cannot be of
earlier date; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in 1181,[513] its
mention of a “commune” cannot be of later date than that year. As a
matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters (from
which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bartholomew was
mayor earlier than 1177; but I am, for the moment, only concerned with
M. Giry’s dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing the
claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes:
Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient décider
même la question d’antériorité, puisqu’ils ne donnent que des
époques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen
entre 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle entre 1169 et 1199 (pp.
67–8.)
No reference is given for the date “1183,” but it must be derived from
the “demonstration” on p. 29 (footnote), where a charter is mentioned
which speaks of the “Communio Rothomagi” in the time of archbishop
Hugh, “1129–1183.” But now comes the startling fact. It was not Hugh
who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had died so
early as 1164. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it proves
that the “communio” was in existence, and (as M. Giry holds), the
“Établissements” with it, at least as early as 1164. But the fact is
that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, of
duke Henry’s charter, “la _communio Rothomagi_ (art. 7) ne désigne que
la communauté des citoyens” (p. 26); it does not prove the existence
of a _commune_, and, of course, still less of the “Établissements.”
But I would urge that not even the mention of a true _commune_
(“communia”) in a charter proves the adoption of the “Établissements”
at the time. For Henry’s grant of a “communia” to La Rochelle was
made, according to M. Giry, between 1169 and 1178;[514] and yet, as we
have seen, he does not deem the adoption of the “Établissements” at
La Rochelle proved before 1199. In that year Queen Eleanor granted to
Saintes “ut communiam suam teneant secundum formam et modum communie
de Rochella.” Even this, I venture to think, is not actual proof that
the “Établissements de Rouen” had already been adopted at La Rochelle,
though it certainly affords some presumption in favour of that view.
It is only when we turn from this external evidence to the text of
the “Établissements” themselves, that we discover, in two passages, a
direct clue. In these an exception is made in the words: “nisi dominus
rex vel filius ejus adsint Rothomagi vel assisia” (ii. 24, 28). On
these M. Giry writes:
Les articles qui prévoient la présence à Rouen du roi ou de son
fils ne peuvent guère s’appliquer qu’à Henri II. et à Richard
Cœur-de-Lion. C’est donc des dernières années du règne de Henri
II., après l’année 1169, qu’il faut dater la rédaction des
Établissements (i. 11).
Here, then, we have yet another limit--the last (twenty) years of Henry
II. No reference, however, is given for the date “1169” (unless it
applies to La Rochelle--and even then it is wrong).[515] But my point
is that between the years “1169” (or “1177”) and “1183” the king’s son
here mentioned was, obviously, not Richard, but Henry, styled king of
the English and duke of the Normans, from his coronation in 1170 to his
death in 1183. And, even after Henry’s death, Richard was never duke
of the Normans in his father’s lifetime. My own conclusion, therefore,
is that these parts, at least of the “Établissements,” and probably
the whole of them, were composed before the death of the young king in
1183, and probably after his coronation, and admission to a share of
his father’s power, in 1170. Thus they may well have been connected
with Henry’s charter to Rouen granted in 1174–1175.
These considerations may have led us somewhat far afield; but if I am
right in deriving from the Norman capital of our kings the 12th century
“Commune of London,” the origins of the Rouen “Commune” deserve our
careful study. The same MS. which yielded the leading document in this
paper contains two others, of which something must be said. But before
doing so we will glance at one of different origin, which, in more ways
than one, we may associate with the ‘Commune.’
The charter which follows is chiefly introduced for the interesting
phrase found in it: “the greater barons of the city.” So far as I know,
this phrase is unique; and apart from its importance for London itself,
it has a direct bearing on that famous constitutional problem: who were
the “barones majores”? In the present case, the phrase, surely, has no
specialized meaning. It is probably a coincidence, and nothing more,
that “majores” and “minores,” at St. Quentin, had a defined meaning. In
M. Giry’s treatise on its _commune_ we read as follows:
Notons ici que les citoyens ayant exercé les fonctions de
jurés et d’échevins formaient dans la ville une véritable
aristocratie: on les appelait les grands bourgeois, _majores
burgenses_, par opposition aux petits bourgeois, _minores
burgenses_, qui comprenaient tous les autres membres de la
commune (p. cxi.).
And again:
À Saint-Quentin, comme dans toutes les communes, le pouvoir
était aux mains des habitants riches qu’on appelait, ainsi qu’il
a été dit plus haut, les grands bourgeois (_majores burgenses_),
parce qu’ils avaient exercé les charges municipales, et pour
les distinguer des petits bourgeois (_minores burgenses_),
dénomination appliquée à tous ceux qui n’avaient point rempli
les fonctions de juré ou d’échevin. En 1318, pendent la
suspension de la commune, ces petits bourgeois se plaignirent de
la mauvaise répartition des tailles et traduisirent devant le
Parlement les grands bourgeois, auteurs des rôles d’imposition
incriminés (p. cxv.).
The original of this charter is preserved at the Public Record
Office.[516] It is assigned in the official calendar to 1189–1196,
but this date can be greatly narrowed. For while it is subsequent to
William’s consecration (31st Dec., 1189), it must be previous to his
obtaining the legation in June, 1190, for Bishop Hugh was his open foe
before he lost it, and could not act with him after that.
Willelmus dei gratia Elyensis episcopus Domini Regis
cancellarius universis Christi fidelibus ad quos presens
scriptum pervenerit salutem in vero salutari. Universitati
vestre notum fieri volumus nos dedisse et concessisse et
presenti carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et familiari nostro
Gaufrido Blundo civi Lond’ et heredibus suis totam terram
et mesuagium cum pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis
consuetudinibus et rebus cunctis que ad predictam terram
pertinent, quam terram et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis emimus
de Waltero Lorengo qui fuit nepos Petri filii Walteri[517] et
Roberti filii Walteri et eorum heres per veredictum tocius
civitatis Londoniarum (_sic_), et hoc testificatum fuit
coram nobis _a maioribus baronibus civitatis_ apud Turrim
Lond’. Que terra et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis fuerunt
predicti Petri filii Walteri et predicti Roberti filii Walteri
qui fuerunt avunculi predicti Walteri Loreng’ et jacent in
parochia Sancti Laurentii de Judaismo et in parochia Sancte
Marie de Aldermanebery, habendum et tenendum predicto Gaufrido
et heredibus suis jure hereditario imperpetuum cum omnibus
pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et cum
omnibus rebus, scilicet quicquid ibidem habuimus in terris,
in lignis, in lapidibus, in redditibus, et in rebus cunctis,
sine aliquo retenimento faciendo inde servicium quod inde
capitali domino debet, scilicet vj d. per annum ad Pasch’ pro
omni servitio. Hanc vero terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis,
ut predictum est, ego Willelmus predictus et heredes nostri
predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis contra omnes gentes
imperpetuum warrantizabimus. Pro hac donatione et concessione et
carte nostre confirmatione predictus Gaufridus Blund dedit nobis
quatuor viginti et decem libras argenti in gersumam. Et ut hec
nostra donatio et concessio rata et inconcussa predicto Gaufrido
et heredibus suis imperpetuum permaneat, eam presenti scripto et
sigilli nostri munimine corroboravimus.
Hiis testibus: Hugoni Cestrensi episcopo; Henrico de Longo
Campo fratre nostro; Willelmo de Brause; Henrico de Cornhell’;
Willelmo Puintel; Ricardo filio Reineri; Henrico filio Ailwin’;
Waltero de Hely senescallo nostro; Matheo de Alenzun camerario
nostro; magistro Michaele; Willelmo de Sancto Michaele; Gaufrido
Bucuinte; Simone de Aldermannebury; Baldewino capellano nostro;
Stephano Blundo; Philippo elemosinario nostro; magistro Willelmo
de Nanntes; Daniele de Longo Campo clerico nostro; Reimundo
clerico nostro, et multis aliis.
We have here a remarkable group of men--Longchamp himself, whose fall,
in 1191, was so closely connected with the birth of the _commune_, but
who is here seen, in the hour of his pride, speaking of “our brother,”
“our seneschal,” “our chamberlain,” “our chaplain,” “our almoner,”
and “our clerks”; Bishop Hugh, who was next year to take the lead in
expelling him from the Tower, as yet his stronghold; Henry of Cornhill
and Richard Fitz Reiner, who had ceased but a few months before to be
sheriffs of London, and who were to play so prominent a part at the
crisis of 1191; lastly, Henry Fitz Ailwin himself, who, as the ultimate
result of that crisis, was destined to become the first Mayor of the
_Commune_ of London.
The grantee himself also was a well-known citizen of London. In
conjunction with Henry Fitz Ailwin (as Mayor) and other City
magnates, he witnessed a gift of property in the City to St. Mary’s,
Clerkenwell;[518] and he seems to have been the Geoffrey Blund who had,
by his wife Ida de Humfraville, a son Thomas, who founded a chantry
in St. Paul’s for his uncle Richard de Humfraville, and his father
Geoffrey.
For the London topographer also this charter has an interest, as land
in St. Lawrence Jewry, and St. Mary Aldermanbury, must have closely
adjoined the site of the Guildhall itself. The sum named is a large one
for the time.
I now pass to the two documents of which mention has been made above.
The first of these[519] is of interest for its bearing on the “ward”
system. At Rouen the “excubia” was in charge of the mayor;[520] in
London, according to this document, he had not supplanted the sheriffs,
by whom it must have been controlled before his appearance. This I
attribute to its close connexion with the pre-existing system of
“wards,” each, I take it, a unit for purposes of defence and ward,
under its own alderman, with the sheriffs at the head of the whole
system.
DE EXCUBIIS IN NATALI ET PASCHA ET PENTECOST.[521]
Magna custodia debet invenire xii homines sed per libitum
vicecomitis abbreviata est usque ad viii homines.
Mediocris custodia debet viii vigiles, sed ita abbreviata usque
sex.
Minor custodia debet sex, sed ita abbreviata usque ad iiij^{or}.
Debent autem escavingores[522] eligi qui singulis diebus a
vigilia Nat[alis] domini usque ad diem epyphanie videant illos
qui debent de nocte vigilare quod sint homines defensibiles et
decenter ad hoc armati. Debent autem ad vesperam in die videri
et ad horam completorii exire et per totam noctem pacifice
vigilare et vicum salve custodire usque pulsetur ad matutinas
per capellas, quod vocatur _daibelle_. Et si aliqua defalta in
custodia contigerit, escavingores debent illos inbreviare et ad
primum hustingum vicecomitibus tradere. Potest eciam vicecomes,
si vult, cogere eos jurare de defalta quod nulli inde deferebunt
nec aliquem celabunt.
DE CARTIS CIVITATIS.
In thesauro due regis Willelmi primi et due de libertatibus
regis Ricardi et de eodem rege due carte de kidellis et de rege
Johanne due carte de vicecom[itatu], una de libertate et una
de kidellis cum sigillo de communi cons[523] (_sic_) habet i
cartam regis Johannis de libertate civitatis W. fil’ Ren’ habet
i regis Henrici de libertate et H[enricus] de Cornh[illa] aliam,
Rog[erus] maior habet cartam Regin[aldi?] de Cornh[illa] de
debito civitatis de ccc marcis.
The latter portion, it will be observed, describes the custody of the
city charters, and is of special value as fixing the date to that of
the mayoralty of Roger, who held the office in 1213.
The regulations for the watch are decisive, surely, of the functions
originally discharged by the “scavengers” of London. They were
inspectors of the watch. In his introduction to the ‘Liber Albus’(1859)
Mr. Riley held that--
The City Scavagers, it appears, were originally public officers,
whose duty it was to attend at the Hythes and Quays for the
purpose of taking custom upon the _Scavage_ (_i.e._ Showage)
or opening out of imported goods. At a later period, however,
it was also their duty, as already mentioned, to see that due
precautions were taken in the construction of houses against
fire; in addition to which it was their business to see that the
pavements were kept in repair.... These officers, no doubt, gave
name to the ‘_Scavengers_’ of the present day (p. xli.; cf. iii.
352, 357).
Professor Skeat adopts this view in his etymological Dictionary,
and develops it at some length, holding that “the _n_ before _g_ is
intrusive” as in some other cases, “and scavenger stands for scavager.”
He consequently connects the word with our “shew,” through “scavage.”
But no evidence whatever is adduced by Mr. Riley for his assertion that
the “Scavagers” originally performed the above duty or had anything to
do with it.
The last of these London records with which I have here to deal is the
so-called “Hidagium” of Middlesex.[524] The explanation of its thus
appearing among documents relating to the administration of London is
that when London and Middlesex were jointly “farmed” by the citizens,
the sheriffs answered jointly for the ‘Danegeld’ of Middlesex and
the corresponding _donum_ or _auxilium_ of London. Here therefore we
find these two levies side by side as on the Pipe Rolls. But though
the latter was levied from the city when Danegeld was levied from
the shire, it was in no way connected with hidation, but consisted
of arbitrary sums payable by the principal towns. Prof. Maitland,
therefore, is mistaken when, in his great work, ‘Domesday Book and
Beyond,’ he makes a solitary reference to our MS., as implying that
London “seems to have gelded for 1,200 hides” (p. 409). He has here
confused the assessed hidage of boroughs with the arbitrary _donum_ or
_auxilium_. This is shown by comparing the latter, as given by himself
(p. 175), with the ascertained hidage of towns and the payments its sum
would involve.
hides. [geld.] donum.
Worcester 15 £1 10 0 £15
Northampton 25 2 10 0 10
Dorset Boroughs 45 4 10 10 15
Huntingdon 50 5 0 0 8
Hertford 10 1 0 0 5
But the special interest of the entry, “c et xx libr.” (£120) lies in
the fact that this amount, which was the sum paid in 1130 and 1156, was
obsolete after that time, much larger sums being thenceforth exacted
from London. It is, of course, just possible that the obsolete figure
was retained, as a protest, on this list; but it is far more probable
that what we have here is a copy _temp._ John of an earlier
document, perhaps not later than the middle of the 12th century.[525]
HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE.
IN HUNDREDO DE OSULVESTUNE.
Villa de Stebehee l^{ta} hid.
Terra de Fafintune iiij hid.[526]
H[er]gotestune ij hid. Abb’is
Brambelee v hid.
Fulcham l^a hid.
Villa sancti Petri xvj hid. 2 dimid.
Hamstede v hid. iiij abb’s[527]
Lya x hid. abb’is
Tolendune ij hid.
Terra Gub’ti dim. hid.
Abbas Colcestr’ dim. hid.
Chelchede ij. hid abb’is
Kensintune x hid.
Lilletune v hid.
Tiburne v hid. Vs.
Willesdune xv hid.
Herlestune v hid.
Tuferd iiij xij d. hid.
Sum[ma] c et quater xx hid. et xi
hid. et dim.
IN HUNDRED’ DE YSTELWRKE c et v hid.
IN HUNDREDO DE SPELETHORN.
Stanes xxxv hid. Abb’
Stanwelle xv hid.
Bedefunte x hid.
alia Bedefunte x hid.
Feltham xv hid.
Kenetune v hid.
Suneb[er]ia vij hid. Abb.
Sep[er]tune viij hid. Abb.
Hanewrtha v hid. iij Abb’
Summa c et x hid.
IN HUNDREDO DE LA GARE.
Herghes c hid.
Kingesb[er]ia x hid.
Stanmere ix hid.
Terra com’ vj hid.
Alia Stanmere ix. hid. et dim.
Heneclune[528] xx hid. Abb.
Summa c et xl et ix hid.
IN DIMIDIO HUNDREDO DE MIMES lxx hid.
Toteham [5][529] hid.
Edelmetune [35][529] hid.
Mimes [35][529] hid.
Enefeld xxx hid.
Summa lx et ix hid.
Summa summarum octies c et liij hid. et dimid.
Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm’. c et xviij hid.
DANEGELD.
Middelsexe quater xx libr’ et c sol. et vj d.
Londr’ c et xx libr.
SUMMA HUNDREDORUM.
Osuluestane cc et xj hid.
Spelthorn c et x hid.
Elethorn c et xxiiij hid.
Garehundr’ c et xlix hid. et dim.
Thistelwrkhundr’ c et v hid.
Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe.
This list obviously requires to be edited by a local worker, who should
collate it with Domesday. In its present form it is clearly corrupt.
The amount of Danegeld due from the county implies an assessment of
850¼ hides (at two shillings on the hide), but the actual total is here
given as 853½. This again does not tally with the “summa hundredorum,”
which only records 809½,[530] while the detailed list of hundreds,
it seems, gives no more than 725½. It should be observed that the
hundred of “Mimms” is the Domesday hundred of Edmonton, while that of
‘Isleworth,’ similarly, is the Domesday hundred of Hounslow, which
contained Isleworth and Hampton.
XII
The Great Inquest of Service, 1212