THE STREETS AND THE PEOPLE
The City at this time occupied the same area as the Roman Augusta. The
conditions of marsh and moor on all sides remained very little changed
from the prehistoric days when London had not yet come into existence
save for beaten paths or roads leading to north-west and east, and a
causeway leading south. Right through the middle of the town flowed
the Walbrook, which rose in the moor and ran into the river by means
of a culvert. In the Norman time the Walbrook was one of the chief
supplies of water that the town possessed. London relied for her water
on the Fleet river on the west, on the Walbrook in the midst, on wells
scattered here and there about the City, and upon certain springs, of
which we know little. At this day, for instance, there is a spring
of water under the south-west corner of the Bank of England, which
still flows, as it always has done, along the channel of the ancient
Walbrook. But as yet there were no conduits of water brought into the
town.
Within the town there were 126 parish churches, all of which belonged
to Saxon London, a fact which is proved by the patron saints to whom
they are dedicated. The Norman Conquest added nothing to the list of
churches. Before the Conquest the only Religious House within the walls
was that of St. Martin’s le Grand, which was a College of Canons (see
p. 212). A legend describes the foundation of a small nunnery at the
south end of the ferry over the river. There was also the Cathedral
establishment. As yet there were no mendicant friars preaching in
the street and begging in the houses, nor did any monastery rear its
stately church or receive the offerings of the faithful. The parish
church had no foundations or endowments of chantry, obit or day of
memory. The Cathedral establishment was small and modest compared with
that of the thirteenth century. The Bishop lived in his palace close to
St. Paul’s. The Cathedral would be called a stately church even now; it
was low with thick pillars and round arched windows, which were already
filled with painted glass. The parish churches were quite small, and
for the most part of wood: the name of All Hallows Staining, or All
Hallows Stone, shows that it was an exceptional thing for a church to
be built of stone.
[Illustration: REPRESENTATION OF ORION
Tib. MS., B. v. (11th cent.).]
There were two fortresses in the City, as we have seen, both belonging
to the King. The modern idea of a street with its opposite row of
houses all in line must be altogether laid aside when we go back to the
eleventh century. It is, in fact, quite impossible to lay down a street
as it actually existed at that time. The most important street in the
City, Thames Street, did certainly possess a tolerably even line on its
south side; the old course of the river wall and the quays compelled
a certain amount of alignment; but on the north side the street was
sometimes narrow, sometimes broad, because there was no such reason for
an even line; sometimes a great house pushed out a gabled front into
the street; sometimes a garden interposed or a warehouse stood back,
leaving a broad space in front. As for regularity of alignment, no one
thought of such a thing; even down to the reign of Queen Elizabeth only
the main streets, such as Cheapside, possessed any such regularity. In
one of the exhibitions, a few years since, there was a show which they
called a street of Old London. The houses were represented as being all
in line, as they would be to-day, or as they were in Cheapside in the
time of Elizabeth. Considered as a street of Plantagenet London, the
thing was absurd, but no one took the trouble to say so, and it pleased
many.
[Illustration: CRAFTSMAN AT WORK ON A HOUSE
From Claud MS., B. iv. (11th cent.).]
On the north part of the City the manors, which were the original
wards of the City, were still in the eleventh century held by families
who had been possessed of them for many generations; even since the
resettlement of the City by Alfred. The names of some of the old City
families survive. For instance, Bukerel, Orgar, Aylwyn, Ansgar, Luard,
Farringdon, Haverhill, Basing, Horne, Algar, and others. On the south
part, along the river, it is probable that they had long since been
sold and cut up, just as would happen in modern times, for building
purposes. The northern quarter, however, was not so thickly built
upon, and the manors still preserved something of a rural appearance
with broad gardens and orchards. Therefore, in this quarter, the
industries of the City found room to establish themselves. It must be
remembered that a mediæval city made everything that was wanted for
the daily life. In modern times we have separated the industries: for
instance, the thousand and one things that are wanted in iron are made
in Birmingham; our knives and cutlery are made in Sheffield; but in the
eleventh century London made its own iron-work, its own steel-work, its
own goldsmiths’ and silversmiths’ work, its saddlery, its leather-work,
its furniture, everything. The craftsmen gathered together according to
their trades: first, because the craft was hereditary by unwritten law
and custom, so that the men of the same trade married in their trade,
and formed a tribe apart; they were all one family; next, because there
was but one market or place of sale for each trade, the saddlers having
their own sheds or shops, the goldsmiths theirs, and so on; a separate
craftsman, if it had been possible for such a man to exist, would have
found it impossible to sell his wares, except at the appointed place.
Of shops there were none except in the markets. Next, the workmen had
to live together because they had in their own place their workshops
and the use of common tools and appliances; and lastly, because a trade
working for little more than the needs of the City must be careful not
to produce too much, not to receive too many apprentices, and to watch
over the standard of work. Every craft, therefore, lived together,
under laws and regulations of its own, with a warden and a governing
body. The men understood, long before the modern creation of trades
unions, what was meant by a trades union; they formed these unions, not
only because they were created in the interests of all, but because
they were absolutely necessary for mere existence.
They lived, I say, together and close to each other; each craft with
its own group of houses or cottages—perhaps mere huts of wattle and
daub with thatched roofs and a hole in the roof for the smoke to go
out. And they lived in the north part of London, because it was thinly
populated and removed from those to whom the noise of their work might
give offence. One proof of the comparative thinness of population in
the north quarter is furnished by the fact that south of Cheapside
there were more than twice as many churches as in the north.
Now, when these people began to cluster together, which was long before
the Norman Conquest, in fact, soon after Alfred’s settlement, they
built their cottages each to please himself. Thus it was that one house
faced the east, another the south, another the north-west. The winding
ways were not required for carts or vehicles, which could not be used
in these narrow lanes; only for a means of communication by which the
things the craftsmen made might be carried to Cheapside or Eastcheap
or wherever their productions were exposed for sale. On the north side
of Cheapside, therefore, London presented the appearance of a cluster
of villages with their parish churches. Each village contained the
craftsmen of some trade or mystery. Perhaps the same parish church
served for two or more such villages. This part of London was extremely
picturesque, according to our ideas. The parish churches were small,
and, as I have already said, mostly built of wood; around them were
the houses and workshops of the craftsmen; the green churchyard lay
about the church; on the north between the houses and the wall were
orchards and gardens. The lane from the village to West or East
Chepe lay between the houses, winding and turning, sometimes narrow,
sometimes broad; the prentices carried the wares, as they were made, to
the market, where they were exposed for sale all day; from every one
of these villages, from six in the morning till eight in the evening,
the sounds of labour were heard: the clang of the hammer on the anvil,
the roar of the furnace, the grating of the saw, and the multitudinous
tapping, beating, and banging of work and industry; it was a busy and
industrious place, where everything was made in the City that was
wanted by the City.
We shall have to consider the gilds or guilds in connection with the
rise of the Companies separately. It must be remembered, however, that
guilds were already in existence, and that there were many of them.
(See _Mediæval London_, vol. ii. p. 108.)
We have been speaking of the northern quarter of London. Let us turn
next to that part which lay south of Cheapside. The removal of the
river wall followed, but gradually, the reclaiming of the foreshore
along the north bank.
[Illustration: LONDON WALL]
We have seen how the first ports of London—Walbrook and
Billingsgate—were constructed. The former, a natural harbour but very
small, was protected by towers or bastions on either side, and was
provided with quays, resting on piles driven into the mud. The latter
was simply cut out of the mud and shingle, kept in shape by piles
driven close together and provided with quays laid upon the piles. As
trade increased the quays increased, not only laterally, but by being
advanced farther out into the foreshore. Consider that the process was
going on continually, that not only did the quays extend, but that
warehouses and houses of all kinds were built upon the sloping bank.
The section shows what was going on. The quay (_Q_) resting on piles
driven into the bed of the river (_ab_), in front of the sloping bank
(_bc_); the warehouse erected behind it, resting against the wall: the
level space (_cd_) cleared for the wall (_W_), where is now Thames
Street: the low hill behind (_de_). The wall was in the way: without
authority, without order, the people pierced it with posterns leading
to quays and stairs; without authority they gradually pulled it down.
It is impossible to say when this demolition began; the river wall was
standing in the time of Cnut: it appears no more. When Queen Hythe
(Edred’s Hythe) was constructed, in size and shape like the port of
Billingsgate, either a postern had to be made for it, or a postern
already existed.
The reclaiming of the foreshore (see p. 125) was a very important
addition to the area of London: it added a slip of ground 2200 yards in
length by an average of 100 yards in breadth, _i.e._ about forty-five
acres of ground, which was presently covered with narrow lanes between
warehouses. The lanes, many of which remain and are curious places
to visit, led to river stairs, and were the residences of the people
employed in the service of the port.
As for the removal of the wall, exactly the same process was followed
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the people began
gradually to take down the City wall; they built against it, before it,
and behind it; and, no one interfered.
The lower part of the town was by far the more crowded: if we take a
map of London and count the churches immediately north and south of
Cheapside and Cornhill, this fact comes home to us very clearly. Thus,
there are north of that boundary, thirty-one; south of the boundary
there are sixty-eight, counting roughly. The lower part of the town
contained the wharves and the warehouses, the lodgings of the people
employed in the work of loading and unloading the ships, the taverns
and the places of refreshment for the sailors and such persons; the
narrow lanes and the absence of any historical houses in the part south
of Thames Street show that the place, after the reclaiming of the
foreshore, was always what it is now, either a place for warehouses
or for the residence of the service. A great many of the merchants
lived on the rising ground north of Thames Street. Hence we find here
a great many Companies’ Halls: here Whittington, later on, had his
lordly house in which he interviewed kings; here, in the time we are
considering, such Norman nobles and knights as had houses in the City
all lived. Thus in Elbow Lane lived Pont de l’Arche, second founder of
St. Mary Overies. The Earls of Arundel had a house in Botolph Lane,
Billingsgate; Lord Beaumont—but this was later—lived beside Paul’s
Wharf; Henry FitzAylwin, first Mayor of London, lived close beside
London Stone.
I do not suppose that any of the houses in Norman London could
compare with the palaces erected by the merchants of the fourteenth
century,—there was no such place as Crosby Hall among them; but still
they were good and stately houses. There was a large hall in which
the whole family lived: the fire was made in a fire-place with open
bars; the smoke ascended to the roof, where it found a way out by the
lantern; the windows were perhaps glazed; certainly glass merchants
appeared in the country in the eleventh century; if they were not
glazed they were covered with a white cloth which admitted light; the
two meals of the day were served on tables consisting of boards laid on
trestles; the servants all slept on the floor on the rushes, each with
a log of wood for a pillow, and wrapped in his blanket; the master of
the house had one or more bedrooms over the kitchen called the Solar,
where he slept in beds, he and his wife and family. At the other end
of the hall was a room called the Ladies’ Bower, where the ladies of
the house sat in the daytime with the maids. If you want to see an
admirable specimen of the mediæval house with the Hall, the Solar, and
the Bower, all complete, you may see it at Stokesay Castle, near Ludlow.
In the craftsmen’s cottages the people seem to have all slept on
straw. In the fourteenth century, however, we find the craftsmen amply
provided with blankets, pillows, and feather-beds.
We can, in fact, at this period, divide the City into parallel belts,
according to the character and calling of the residents. Everything
to do with the export, import, and wholesale trade was conducted in
Thames Street, and on its wharves: the porters, stevedores, servants,
and sailors lived in the narrow lanes about Puddle Dock at one end of
Thames Street, and Tower Hill at the other. That is the first belt—the
belt of the port. The rising ground on the north was the residence
of the merchants and the better sort. That is the second belt. Next
comes the breadth of land bounded by Watling Street and Eastcheap on
the south, and by an imaginary line a little north of Cheapside on the
north, this was mainly given over to retail trade, and it is the third
belt. My theory is illustrated by the names. Thus I find in this retail
belt all the names of streets indicating markets, not factories.
[Illustration: A NORMAN HALL]
The fourth belt is that quarter where the industries were carried
on: namely, the large part of the City lying north of Cheapside and
Cornhill. Let me repeat that London was a hive of industries: I have
counted belonging to the fourteenth century as many as 284 crafts
mentioned in the books; and of course there must have been many others
not mentioned.
I have called attention to the fact that in the eleventh century there
was but one Religious House in the City of London. Considering the
great number which sprang up in the next hundred years, this seems
remarkable. Let us, however, remind ourselves of an important feature
in the history of religion and of Religious Houses in this country. I
mean the successive waves of religious enthusiasm which from time to
time have passed over our people. In the eighth century there fell upon
Saxon England one of these waves—a most curious and unexampled wave—of
religious excitement. There appeared, over the whole country, just
the same spirit of emotional religion which happens at an American
camp-meeting or a Salvation Army assembly,—men and women, including
kings and queens, earls and princesses, noble thanes and ladies, were
alike seized with the idea that the only way to escape from the wrath
to come was by way of the monastic life; they therefore crowded into
the Religious Houses, and filled them all. After the long struggle with
the Danes, for two hundred years there was no more enthusiasm for the
religious life, for all the men were wanted for the army, and all the
women were wanted to become mothers of more fighting men.
The coldness with which the religious life was viewed by the Londoners
was therefore caused by the absolute necessity of fighting for
their existence. One Religious House, and that not a monastery but
a college, was enough for them: they wanted no more. But London was
never irreligious; there was as yet no hatred of Church or priest;
there was as yet no suspicion or distrust as to the doctrines taught
by Mother Church. For three hundred years the citizens felt no call to
the monastic life. In the reign of Henry the First a second wave of
religion, of which I have already spoken twice, fell upon the people,
and especially the people of London. It was the same wave that drove
the French to the Crusades. Under the influence of this new enthusiasm,
founders of Religious Houses sprang up in all directions. Already in
1086, Aylwin, a merchant of London, had founded St. Saviour’s Abbey, in
Bermondsey. In Bermondsey Abbey it was intended to create a foundation
exactly resembling that of St. Peter’s, Westminster. Like the latter
House, Bermondsey Abbey was established upon a low-lying islet among
the reeds of a broad marsh near the river. The House was destined to
have a long and an interesting history, but to be in no way the rival,
or the sister, of Westminster. Another Religious House was that of St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital and Priory, founded by Rahere, variously stated
to have been a jester, a minstrel, a man of mean extraction, and a man
of knightly parentage. His origin matters nothing; yet his Foundation
exists still, and still confers every year the benefits of an hospital
upon thousands of those who suffer and are sick. (See _Mediæval
London_, vol. ii. p. 250.)
Every one knows the Church of St. Mary Overies, commonly called the
Church of St. Saviour, across the river. That church belonged to the
Religious House founded, or rebuilt and magnified, by two Norman
knights. We have spoken of St. Giles in the Fields already. There was
a Nunnery founded at Clerkenwell about the year 1100; there was also
a House of St. John (see _Mediæval London_, vol. ii. p. 270). The
last of the Houses due to this religious revival is the Priory of the
Holy Trinity, Aldgate. This was founded by one Norman as a House of
Augustinian Canons. The Queen, Henry the First’s Saxon Queen, Matilda,
endowed it with land and with the revenues of Aldgate. It must be
acknowledged that this religious revival was both of long continuance
and of real depth, since so many were seized by it and moved either to
found Houses of Religion, or to take upon them the vows of religion.
[Illustration: THREE BISHOPS
Nero MS., C. iv. (12th cent.).]
There is one more illustration of this religious revival of the twelfth
century. This is the Cnihten Gild or Guild. One writer would see in
this guild the lost Merchant Guild of the City, of which I have already
spoken (see _Mediæval London_, vol. ii. p. 113), and in the action of
the leaders the destruction of the Merchant Guild. Others would see
in it a Guild for the defence of the City. I confess that I cannot
understand why the Merchant Guild of the whole City should be destroyed
by the action of fifteen leaders, nor how a commercial association
for the good of all could be broken up by a few of its more important
members. It would be also very difficult to make out that this Cnihten
Gild did in any sense correspond to the Merchant Guild; and I would ask
what a Merchant Guild had to do with fighting? Yet Stow undoubtedly
preserves a tradition of battle about the Cnihten Gild. The theory
that there was a Company or Guild whose duty it was to organise the
defence of the City, to be the officers of a Militia containing every
able-bodied man within the walls, seems to account for everything.
Now this body of citizen soldiers had already six times beaten off the
Danes; they therefore possessed an honourable record. When William took
possession he was careful to disturb nothing; therefore he did not
disturb the Cnihten Gild. If the object of their existence, however,
was the defence of the City, they had nothing more to do; for when
William built the White Tower in the east and Montfichet in the west,
he said to the citizen soldiers, practically, “I will take care of your
defence; your work is done.”
This may be theory and imagination. To me it seems to account for the
Cnihten Gild more naturally than the supposition of a Merchant Guild.
For one does understand the coming of a time when it was no longer
necessary to have such a Guild of defence; but one does not understand
how any time, or any combination of circumstances, would make it
necessary, or even permissible, for the leaders to surrender or to
destroy the Merchant Guild, which regulated the whole trade of the City
and was above and before all other Guilds.
The facts of the case are as follows: their meaning and importance have
been misunderstood until they were explained by Mr. J. H. Round. In the
year 1881, however, a paper on the subject was read before the London
and Middlesex Archæological Society by Mr. H. C. Coote. They are,
briefly, as follows:—
The land which now forms the Ward of Portsoken, _i.e._ the “Soc”
or “Socn” of the City, was in the hands of a certain body known as
the Cnihten Gild. There were fifteen of them whose names have been
preserved. They were Raulf, son of Algod; Wulward le Doverisshe;
Orgar le Prude; Edward Upcornhill; Blackstan, and Alwyn his cousin;
Ailwin, and Robert his brother, sons of Leofstan; another Leofstan,
the Goldsmith, and Wyzo his son; Hugh, son of Wulgar; Orgar, son of
Dereman; Algar Fecusenne; Osbert Drinchewyn, and Adelard Hornewitesume.
These men, all London citizens of position, held the lands on trust as
members of the Gild.
It was called the Cnihten Gild: the Soldiers’ Guild. They possessed,
among other things, a Charter of King Edward the Confessor. It ran as
follows:—
“Eadward the King greeteth Ælfward the bishop and Wulfgar the portreeve
and all the burgesses of London as a friend. And I make known to you
that I will that my men in the English Gild of Knights retain their
manorial rights within the city and without over their men; and I will
that they retain the good laws (_i.e._ the privileges) which they had
in King Eadgar’s day and in my father’s and Cnut’s day; and I will also
(?)[27] with God and also man and I will not permit that any man wrong
them but they shall all be in peace and God preserve you all.”
There had been Charters, therefore, of Edgar, Ethelred, and Cnut. The
Charter of Edward presupposes the existence of the Gild in the time of
Edgar. Now, under the Saxon customs a Gild was legally constituted when
the members created it; the consent of the King was an invention of
Norman times. Yet it seems probable that the Gild was first founded in
the reign of Edgar for reasons advanced by Coote.
“Immediately before that King’s accession to the throne there had
arisen a very cogent necessity for the City to look out for increased
protection—for some regular and settled means which should ensure
her citizens against sudden and stealthy attacks during that chronic
warfare to which the age had been for some time tending. There had
been a civil war caused by the disgust of a part of the nation at King
Eadwig’s unparallelled profligacy, and in that war, as it is expressly
stated by historians, the outskirts of London had suffered much. During
its pendency there had been fighting and devastation on both sides of
the Thames in the immediate vicinity of the City.”
The Cnihten Gild, therefore, appears to have been an association
founded for the purpose of providing for every occasion a permanent
standing garrison of defence. The ruling body contained a certain
number of leading London citizens: they were the officers of the Gild.
They administered the funds and property belonging to the Gild, and
were useful in repairing the wall and gates, and in providing arms. It
was only by means of the Gild, in which the members were under oath of
obedience, that such a garrison could be got together and maintained.
How many members the Gild at first contained is not known. It is,
however, probable that by the year 1125, when the fifteen named above
are described as “of the ancient stock of noble English soldiers,” the
Gild had become a small survival still owning property; though, as we
have seem, they could have had no duties to perform.
William, however, recognised the existence of the Gild and granted
them a Charter. This is lost, but the Charter of William Rufus, which
remains, refers to it.
“William, King of England, to Bishop M. and G. de Magnaville and R.
Delpare and his lieges of London, Greeting. Know ye that I have granted
to the men of the _cnihtene gild_ their gild and the land which belong
to them, with all customs, as they were in the time of King Edward and
my father. Witness, HENRY DE BOTH, at Rethyng.”
And Henry I. also granted them a Charter in which he refers to those of
his father and his brother:—
“Henry, King of England, to Bishop M., to the _gerefa_ of London, and
to all his Barons and lieges of London, French and English, Greeting.
Know ye that I have granted to all the men of the _cnihtene gild_ their
gild and land which belong to them, with all customs, as were better
in the time of King Edward and my father, and as my brother granted to
them by writ and his seal, and I forbid upon pain of forfeiture to me
that any man dare do them an injury in respect of this. Witness, R. DE
MOUNTFORD and R. BIGOT and H. DE BOOTH, at Westminster.” (_London and
Middlesex_, 1881, vol. v. p. 488.)
Sixty years after the Conquest, the Gild, realising that the original
reason for their association no longer remained in existence, proposed
to dissolve. What were they to do with the property for which they were
trustees? It was the property of the City: it had to be used for the
benefit of the City. What better, according to the light of the time,
could they do with it than hand it over to the Church and to ask for
the prayers of holy men? Accordingly they asked permission of the King
to convey the property to the Priory of the Holy Trinity. His consent
was obtained. The King appointed as Commissioners for the conveyance
Aubrey de Vere (who was afterwards killed in a street riot) and Gervase
of Cornhill, and the document was signed by the members of the Gild
whose names have been already set forth.
The following document is quoted by Mr. Coote from the records of the
Hustings Court at Guildhall:—
“Anno ab incarnacione domini Millesimo centissimo octauo et Anno regni
gloriosi Regis Henrici octauo fundata est ecclesia Sancte Trinitatis
infra Algate Londoñ per venerabilem Reginam Matildam uxorem Regis
predicti, et Consilio sancti Archipresulis Anselmi data est dicta
ecclesia Normanno Priori primo tocius regni Canonico. A quo tota
Anglia Sancti Augustini Regula ornatur et habitu canonicali vestitur
et congregatis ibidem fratribus augebatur in dicta ecclesia multitudo
laudancium deum die ac nocte ita quod tota ciuitas delectabatur in
aspectu eorum. In tantum quod anno ab incarnacione domini millesimo
centesimo vicesimo quinto quidam burgenses Londonie ex illa antiqua
nobilium militum Anglorum progenie, scilicet Radulfus filius Algodi
Wulwardus le Doverisshe, Orgarus le Prude, Edwardus Upcornhill,
Blackstanus et Alwynus cognatus eius, Ailwinus et Robertus fratur eius
filii Leostani, Leostanus Aurifaber, et Wyzo filius eius, Hugo filius
Wulgari, Algarus fecusenne (_sic_) Orgarus filius Deremanni, Osbertus
Drinchewyn, Adelardus Hornewitesume (_sic_) conuenientes in capitulo
ecclesie Christi que sita est infra muros eiusdem ciuitatis iuxta
portam que nuncupatur Algata dederunt ipsi ecclesie et canonicis Deo
seruientibus in ea totam terram et socam que dicebatur de Anglissh
Cnithegilda urbis que muro adiacet foras eandem portam et protenditur
usque in fluuium Thamesiam. Dederunt inquam suscipientes fraternitatem
et participium beneficiorum loci illius per manum Normanni Prioris
qui eos et predecessores suos in societatem super textum evangelii
recepit. Et ut firma et inconutta (_sic_ for inconcussa) staret hec
eorum donacio cartam sancti Edwardi cum aliis cartis prescriptis
quas inde habebant super altare optulerunt. Et deinde super ipsam
terram seisiuerunt predictum priorem per ecclesiam sancti Botulphi
que edificata est super eam et est ut aiunt capud ipsius terre. Hec
omnia facta sunt coram hiis testibus Bernardo Priore de Dunstap’l, etc.
etc. Miserunt ergo predicti donatores quendam exseipsis, Ordgarum
scilicet le Prude, ad regem Henricum petentes ut ipse donacionem eorum
concederet et confirmaret. Rex vero libenter concessit predictam socam
et terram prefate ecclesie liberam et quietam ab omni servicio sicut
elemosinam decet et cartam suam sequentem confirmauit.” (_London and
Middlesex_, 1881, vol. v. pp. 477-478.)
The “soc” thus transferred was the right to administer justice, civil
or criminal, to, and in respect of, the men or under-tenants of the
Gild. The right, therefore, belonged henceforth to the Prior of the
Convent who, when Portsoken became a Ward, was, _ex officio_, Alderman
of that Ward.
It is very remarkable that writers on this conveyance have always, down
to Mr. Round, assumed that the fifteen who constituted the Gild entered
the Priory and assumed the vows of the Order.
The Latin words are, however, quite clear. I repeat them: “Dederunt,
inquam, suscipientes fraternitatem et participium beneficiorum loci
illius per manum Normanni Prioris qui eos et predecessores suos in
societatem super textum evangelii recepit.”
That is:—
“Taking up the fraternity and share in the benefits of that place by
the hand of Norman the Prior, who received them and their predecessors
into the Society on the text of the Gospels.”
There was attached to every monastery a fraternity whose numbers were
not limited: their duties were not defined: probably there were no
duties except attendance once a year or so, and gifts to the House
according to the power and means of the giver. At the hour of death the
members put on the robe of the Order. The Gild, therefore, entered the
Fraternity and obtained, by their gift of this land, all the benefits
that the Fraternity would claim from its connection with the House for
themselves _and their predecessors_.
Their predecessors could not enter the House; nor could they, since
they were on exactly the same footing as their predecessors.
Round illustrates the point by a note:—
“Good instances in point are found in the Ramsey Cartulary where, in
1081, a benefactor to the abbey ‘suscepit e contra a domino abbate
et ab omnibus fratribus plenam fraternitatem pro rēge Willelmo, et
pro regina Matilda, et pro comite Roberto, et pro semetipso, et uxore
sua, et filio qui ejus erit heres, et pro patre et matre ejus, ut sunt
participes orationum, elemosinarum, et omnium beneficiorum ipsorum, sed
et omnium fratrum sive monasteriorum a quibus societatem susceperunt
in omnibus sicut ex ipsis.’ Better still is this parallel: ‘Reynaldus
abbas, et totus fratrum conventus de Rameseya cunctis fratribus qui
sunt apud Ferefeld in gilda, salutem in Christo. Volumus ut sciatis
quod vobis nostram fraternitatem concessimus et communionem beneficii
quam pro nobismet ipsis quotidie agimus, per Serlonem, qui vester fuit
legatus ad nos, ut sitis participes in hoc et in futuro saeculo.’ The
date of this transaction was about the same as that of the admission of
the Cnihten Gild to a share in the ‘benefits’ of Holy Trinity; and the
grant was similarly made in return for an endowment.” (_The Commune of
London._)
But he proves the point still more clearly when he traces the
subsequent history of the fifteen for many years after the conveyance
in act and deed outside the Priory.
The marriage of priests was a burning subject of the day. Practically,
priests in England were as much married then as the Anglican clergy are
now; they married, as will be shown presently, into families of good
position, and occupied much the same position as they do at present.
But it was resolved at Rome that celibacy should be enforced among the
clergy. The evidence of the Chronicles is somewhat conflicting. There
were two important Synods on ecclesiastical affairs—the first held in
1102, and the second in 1108. The celibacy of the clergy appears to the
historian a smaller matter than the investiture of any ecclesiastical
dignity by the hand of a layman.
Florence of Worcester (_circa_ 1118) mentions the Synod of 1102, and
says nothing about the question of celibacy, but refers the decrees on
the subject to the year 1108. He also gives in full seventeen canons
passed at the Synod of 1125 held at Westminster, by John de Cremona. He
says nothing about the Cardinal’s confusion and shame. He also quotes
the decrees of the Synod of 1127.
Henry of Huntingdon (_circa_ 1154) says:—
“At the feast of St. Michael, the same year—1102—Anselm, the
archbishop, held a synod at London, in which he prohibited the English
priests from living with concubines, a thing not before forbidden. Some
thought it would greatly promote purity; while others saw the danger in
a strictness which, requiring a continence above their strength, might
lead them to fall into horrible uncleanness, to the great disgrace
of their Christian profession. In this synod several abbots, who had
acquired their preferment by means contrary to the will of God, lost
them by a sentence conformable to his will.”
And under the year 1125, he describes the visit of John de Cremona,
with the discovery which brought his mission to a hurried conclusion.
“At Easter, John of Cremona, Cardinal of Rome, came into England, and
visited all the bishoprics and abbeys, not without having many gifts
made him.”
“This Cardinal, who in the council bitterly inveighed against the
concubines of priests, saying that it was a great scandal that they
should rise from the side of a harlot to make Christ’s body, was the
same night surprised in company with a prostitute, though he had that
very day consecrated the host. The fact was so notorious that it could
not be denied, and it is not proper that it should be concealed. The
high honour with which the cardinal had been everywhere received was
now converted to disgrace, and, by the judgment of God, he turned his
steps homewards in confusion and dishonour.”
Roger of Wendover (d. 1256) says that in 1102 Anselm excommunicated
priests who had concubines. He says that the Council of 1108 was
occupied with the question of investiture. As to the affair of 1125, he
simply copies Henry of Huntingdon.
Matthew of Westminster (_circa_ 1320) says that in 1102 Anselm,
at a Synod held in St. Paul’s, excommunicated priests who kept
concubines—or, in plain words, were married.
The Synod of 1108, he says, was occupied by the question of
investiture. About the Cardinal, John of Cremona, he merely says:—
“The said John, who in the council had most especially condemned all
priests who kept concubines, being detected himself in the same vice,
excused the vice because he said that he was not himself a priest, but
a reprover of priests.”
The three strenuous efforts made in 1102, 1108, and in 1125, show the
importance attached to the question of priests’ marriages by the Church
of Rome.
The deans of 1102, the canons of 1125, and the statutes of 1127 are a
revelation of the abuses which were then prevalent in the Church. It
would be interesting to compare these ordinances with the condition
of the Church in the following centuries. The canons (see Appendix)
declared the whole of the Church offices except marriage, viz., chrism,
oil, baptism, penance, visitation of the sick, Holy Communion and
burial, open to all without fee; they forbade the inheritance of Church
patronage; they ordered clerks holding benefices to be ordained priests
without delay; that the office of Dean or Prior should be held by a
priest; and that of Archdeacon by a deacon at least; that the Bishop
alone should have the power of ejecting any person from a benefice;
that an excommunicated person should not receive communion from any;
that pluralists should be made illegal; that priests should have no
women in their houses except such as were free from suspicion; that
marriage should be prohibited; that sorcerers should be excommunicated;
that priests who kept their concubines should be deprived of their
benefice; that the concubines should be expelled the parish; that
priests should not hold farms; that tithes be paid honestly; that no
abbess or nun was to wear garments more costly than lamb’s wool or
cat’s skin.
These regulations were stringent in the highest degree. Nevertheless
they appear to have been totally disregarded. A hundred years later,
when the Interdict was laid upon England, we find that the priests’
concubines throughout the country had to pay ransom.
For the priests did not give up their wives: they continued to marry;
they also continued to present their sons to benefices. In a word, the
law became, like most of the mediæval laws, ineffectual, because there
was no means of enforcing it and the opinion of the people was against
it. On the one hand, there was the danger of the priesthood becoming an
hereditary caste, and of benefices descending as by right from father
to son—a danger which the subsequent history of the Anglican Church
shows to have been imaginary or exaggerated; on the other hand, there
were the great dangers resulting from the enforced suppression of the
most powerful passion, the most overwhelming of all passions, in some
men simply irresistible, by denying the natural custom of wedlock. And
as history abundantly proves, these dangers were not imaginary.
As to the quarrel between Henry and Anselm, that belongs to the history
of the country rather than to that of London.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] The original word in charter is _luc_, untranslated.—ED.