THE WARDS AND PARISHES--THE PALACE
So Hawk fared west to England to see King Athelstane, and found the
king in London, and thereat was there a bidding and a feast full
worthy. So they went into the hall thirty men in company, and Hawk
went before the king and greeted him, and the king bade him welcome.
_Saga of Harold Hairfair._
_Wards and Parishes._--The earliest lists of wards which give the present
traditional names have been printed by Dr. Sharpe in his _Calendar of
London Wills_ and his _Letter Book A_. These are of about the years 1320,
1293, and 1285. Another of 1303 is in Palgrave's _Treasury_. A patent of
1299 speaks of the mayor and twenty-four aldermen. Before this time most
of the wards were called by the names of the aldermen holding them, as
said in the _Liber Albus_. There is a list of this kind, in which only a
few of the traditional names appear, in the Hundred Rolls of 1275. This
last is particularly interesting, however, as giving the names of the
city magnates of the great time just after the war of the city with the
king, when Thomas FitzThomas, the mayor, was imprisoned--some have said
never to appear again; but I find in the Close Rolls for 1269-70 (53 Henry
III.) that in that year "Thomas son of Thomas, late Mayor of London,"
entered into recognisances for a debt of £500 to Edward the king's son,
finding sureties for the same and for his fealty to the king and his
heirs.
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--PLAN SHOWING THE RELATION OF THE CENTRAL WARDS
AND THE PRINCIPAL STREETS]
Another list of aldermen in 1214 is printed in Madox's _Exchequer_,
together with a reference to one of 1211, which carries back the complete
list of twenty-four to within twenty years of the institution of the
mayoralty.
An account of the property of St. Paul's made in the first half of the
twelfth century, and printed in facsimile in Price's _History of the
Guildhall_, incidentally contains a list of about twenty wards, mostly
under the names of their aldermen. Of these "_Warda Fori_" and the wards
of Aldgate, Brocesgange (Walbrook), and of the Bishop may be cited as
especially interesting; Aldresmanesberi is also mentioned. This document
is not dated, but Mr. Round has shown it to have been written about 1130.
Hugo, son of Wlgar, and Osbert, Aldermen, occur in another deed of 1115,
and Thurstan, Alderman, in 1111. Mr. Loftie has attempted to identify some
of the wards. The Ward of Herbert, in which was the land of William
Pontearch, may perhaps be Dowgate, for a charter of Stephen gave to S. M.
de Sudwerc the stone house of William de Pontearch, situated by the sheds
of Douegate (Dugdale). What is probably a still earlier group of aldermen
is given in a Ramsay document of 1114-30, which is addressed to Hugo de
Bochland, Roger, Leofstan, Ordgar, and all the other barons (_i.e._
aldermen) of London. Another document of the same age is witnessed by
Levenoth, "Alderman." A careful comparison of these lists, together with
other sources,[140] might yield some new facts. From a cursory comparison
it seems to be evident that too much has been made of the case of the
Farndons and Farringdon Ward as evidence for hereditary _ownership_ in the
aldermanries. Most of the family names change from list to list, but a few
persist: in 1240 there is a Jacob Bland, in 1275-85 and 1293 a Rudulphus
Blond, but this may be the case in any office. On the other hand, two of
the same family name are found more than once holding different wards at
the same time, and in other cases similar names are found in different
wards in different lists; thus in 1285 there are two Ashys, two Rokesleys,
two Boxes, and two Hadstocks: a Frowick in 1285 held Cripplegate, and in
1320 a Frowick held Langbourne. The ward that can most easily be traced is
Cheap; in 1211-14 it was held by William son of Benedict, in 1275 by Peter
of Edmonton, in 1285 by Stephen Ashy, and in 1320 by Simon Paris. This is
hardly hereditary succession. But what I am concerned with is not the
tenure but the topographical origin of the wards. Many different theories
as to the origin of the wards have been put forward. Mr. Loftie, writing
of the beginning of the thirteenth century, says: "The wards, as we shall
notice more distinctly further on" (the distinctness is difficult to
find), "were in the hands originally of the landowners, and an alderman
was still very much in the position of a lord of the manor. His office was
at first always, and still usually, hereditary." After the reign of Henry
III. the aldermen no longer owned their wards. The constitution had
undergone a complete change, "and the offices became purely elective."
Mr. Price thought that the wards were divisions dating from Roman days.
Norton believed that the wards were to the city what the hundreds were to
the shire, and this view, shared by Bishop Stubbs, seems to be confirmed,
as will be shown by an independent line of reasoning.
The wards can be traced back to within fifty years after the Conquest, and
that they were even then of immemorial antiquity is shown by FitzStephen's
legend that, like Rome, London was founded by the Trojans, and
consequently had the same laws, and like it was divided into wards. In
Cambridge there were ten wards in 1086.
A study of the ward boundaries in connection with the Walbrook, the
"Carrefour," and the main streets yields most interesting results. Stow
tells us that a great division between the western and eastern wards was
made by the Walbrook, which ran from the north wall to St. Margaret's
Lothbury, then under Grocers' Hall, and St. Mildred's Church, west of the
Stocks Market, through Bucklersbury, then by the west of St. John's
Walbrook and the Chandlers' Hall, and by Elbow Lane to the Thames. On
laying down the course of this stream from all obtainable data, it is
found that it was an unbroken boundary between the thirteen eastern and
eleven western wards.
Again, the four principal cross streets form so many backbones to a series
of wards; and this in such a marked way as to show on a good map quite
certainly at a glance, that these wards were formed by aggregations of
dwellings upon either side of the roads which passed through them, exactly
as a high-road threads a village.
Bridge Ward is a narrow strip containing the Bridge Street up to the cross
of Lombard Street. Bishopsgate Ward, beginning at this same crossways,
goes all the way to Bishopsgate, the ward street passing through its
midst.
Lombard Street and Fenchurch Street furnish the midrib to Langbourne
Ward[141] in just as obvious a way. Stow thought that Langbourne Ward was
called from a stream, but this has been shown to be untenable for physical
reasons (see p. 48); and the plan of the wards shows instantly that here
was no water-course, like the Walbrook, _dividing_ wards, but a street
passing through the _midst_ of a ward. While deriving this _ward's_ name
from a brook, Stow says that Lombard _Street_ was so called of the
Longobard merchants about 1300. I find that the _street_ was called
Langbourne Strate at the end of the thirteenth century;[142] and in a
charter of Matilda to Holy Trinity, 1108-18, appears the Church of St.
Edmund in _Longboard Strete_. The first mention I can find of the ward is
also of the twelfth century; this is a demise by "Geoffrey, Alderman of
the Ward of Langebord," of land in Lime Street.[143] It is evident from
this that the name of the street and the ward was originally one and the
same--Langbard, Longbord, or Longford, as it occasionally appears. The
street was written "Lumbard Strete" in 1319.[144]
The St. Paul's documents show that important Lombards were resident in
London early in the twelfth century, and they probably gave their name to
the ward and street; two of these were Meinbod and his son Picot the
Lombard. In Paris there is a Lombard Street, and other cities have the
name. And the word is written Langeberde in old English.
Cornhill Ward, Cheap Ward, and the old Newgate Ward are just as clearly
three wards strung on the street which respectively threads them in
passing to the west gate, and properly takes the name of each ward in
passing through it.
Lime Street and Aldgate Wards lie over Leadenhall (the old Aldgate)
Street; from the look of it we might suppose that Lime Street Ward was
formerly part of Aldgate Ward, as the _division_ line is here formed by
the street which gives its name to the ward. The backbone of Tower Ward is
Great Tower Street, which passes into Billingsgate Street as East Cheap,
and on westward as Candlewick Street. Coleman Street threads the ward of
the same name, which is possibly derived from the Coleman named on p. 83,
and Cripplegate and Aldersgate Wards are formed on the ancient streets
which went to those gates.
This examination of the forms of the wards in relation to the ancient
streets which they overlie is enough to prove irresistibly that the main
streets of the city existed before the wards, and that these wards
originated not as "private property," but as units of population
inhabiting the houses along those streets, like so many villages or
townships. These streets, in turn, however long and unbroken, evidently
bore different names according to the wards they passed through.
The study of the wards might be carried further in one direction by means
of a map on which the boundaries of the parishes, as well as of the wards,
were carefully laid down. Although upwards of a hundred parishes can
hardly date back so early as the institution of wards, it is possible that
certain large parishes may have had an origin identical with the
wards,[145] and most of them probably date from before the Conquest. It
would be interesting also to compare the boundaries of the suburban
parishes with the limits of the suburbs proper as defined by the bars.
It is generally accepted that a parallel holds between the organisation of
the city and the shire, the ward and the hundred. "Hundreds and Tithings
were part of the primitive Germanic constitution." Dr. Stubbs has shown
that in Domesday several towns figure as hundreds, and the wards of the
city of Canterbury were called hundreds. Thus too, I suppose, it arose
that the reports of the wards of London were inserted in the Hundred
Rolls.
The wards in London most probably represented the groups of citizens
belonging to several gilds; they may indeed be identical with the Peace
gilds of Athelstane's enactment, according to which the population were to
be enrolled by tens and hundreds in associations for the preservation of
peace and the suppression of theft.[146] In accordance with this idea of
accounting for every man, we find that even in the thirteenth century no
one was to stay in the city for more than two nights "unless he finds two
sureties and so puts himself in frankpledge." The aldermen were
responsible for their wards,[147] and every hosteller was likewise
responsible for his guest.[148] Dr. Maitland suggests that the Aldermen
were the military captains of the burgmen. It is certain that the defence
of the town gates was assigned to the men of the several wards.
The wards, then, were in the main organisations for the executive
government, the ordering and policing of the city. "The ward-mote is so
called as being the meeting together of all the inhabitants of a ward in
presence of its head, the alderman, or else his deputy, for the correction
of defaults, the removal of nuisances, and the promotion of the well-being
of each ward."[149] This function, indeed, is explained by the very name
"ward," and the "frankpledge" was a survival of primitive adoption into
the tribe. Some recognition of this is made by Holinshed, who says the
city is divided into twenty-six wards or "tribes." It even seems possible
that the wards may at first have been formed by symmetrical numerical
units such as, say, a hundred freemen; or the space within the walls may
have been divided up into twenty or twenty-four parts in such a way as to
allow for density of population. Excavations in the city have shown that
the population clustered most thickly along the river and in the great
streets, and the wards are much more congested and regular in the central
part by the bridge than nearer the walls: the old churches also seem to
gravitate towards the same nucleus.
_Wards without._--A good illustration of the formation of the interior
wards may be found in the growth of those without the walls. Bishopsgate
Without, and Aldersgate Without, were evidently formed by clusters of
dwellings springing up on either side of the roads outside the gates.
Cottages outside Bishopsgate and at Holborn are mentioned even in
Domesday, and Fleet Street appears to have been populous even earlier. The
external wards extend to the boundary of the city liberties, or common
land, and the roads passing through them had specific street-names as far
as the several "Bars." Holborn Street, as it is sometimes called, which
passed over the Hole-burn, should properly end with the city liberty, as
does Fleet Street.
Along with the wards were a number of sokes--areas in which persons or
corporations held certain privileges. The first sokes mentioned are that
of the Cnihten Gild (pre-Conquest), and that of St. Peter of Ghent (in
1081, see p. 97). The charter of Henry I. grants that "no guest tarrying
in any soc shall pay custom to any other than him to whom the soc
belongs." They appear to have been heritable, and free to some extent from
civic jurisdiction: in the reign of Edward I. there were still upwards of
twenty in existence in London.[150] "Bury" seems to have been applied to
a manor or property surrounded by a wall or fence; "in London," says Mr.
W. H. Stevenson, "it means a large house." Bucklersbury and Bloomsbury
were the properties--post-Conquest--of one Blemund, and of the family of
Bockerel. A Saxon will makes a bequest to Paul's byrig.[151] The
termination "haw," present still in Bassishaw, is also common. A charter
of the Confessor giving Stæninghaga in London to Westminster is printed by
Kemble; Dr. Maitland in _Domesday and Beyond_ has shown that this was
occupied by the men of Staines, and that Staining Lane probably preserves
its memory even unto this day. There were forty-eight burgesses of London
who counted with Staines in 1086. He suggests that we have here a trace of
a system by which the shires garrisoned the burhs.
* * * * *
_The Palace._--There are but few references to a palace. Florence, writing
of 1017, says that Cnut "being in London" ordered Edric to be "slain in
the palace" and his body to be thrown from the walls--"into the Thames,"
says Malmesbury. Richard of Cirencester, who wrote in the middle of the
fourteenth century, but whose testimony is of the more value as he was a
monk at Westminster, says that Cnut was keeping his Christmas "in the
castle which is now called Baynard's," and after the death of Edric took
boat for Westminster. There is every reason to think that the ruler's
house in London, as in Constantinople, Venice, Aachen, and Paris, would
have adjoined the cathedral, as Baynard's Castle did. That Baynard's
Castle should have been the old royal palace would seem to agree very well
with its subsequent history; it would also explain the existence of this
stronghold held under the king within the city walls, while none of the
chroniclers speak of its site being taken from the city, and it would
explain why early in the twelfth century Henry I. should give a part of
the site to St. Paul's; for, if it had been built after the Conquest, it
would hardly have been curtailed so early.[152]
Henry of Huntingdon says that William Baynard was deprived of his estate
in 1110. It was then, I suppose, that it passed to the Clares. The
Fitzwalters, who held it after Baynard, belonged to the great family of
the Clares.[153] Baynard's Castle was probably dismantled under John when
the king quarrelled with Fitzwalter. In 1275 a patent was granted R.
Fitzwalter to alienate Castle Baynard near the city walls, with stone
wall, void areas, ditches, and even the tower of Fish Street Hill. Taking
this and the St. Paul's document together, the precinct seems to have
included the ground between the boundary of St. Paul's (along Carter Lane)
and the river and from the city wall to Old Fish Street. It must have been
an important castle, not a mere tower.
Henry II. is made by Fantosme to ask how "mes baruns de Lundres ma cité"
fared in the troubles of that time, and is told that Gilbert de Munfichet
had strengthened his "castle," and that the Clares were leagued with him.
This Montfichet's Castle is mentioned by FitzStephen, and Stow says that
it was close to Castle Baynard towards the west, and on the river; but a
document given by Dugdale speaks of Munfichet Castle with its ditch as
close to Ludgate (ii. 384).[154]
Tradition has also assigned the site of a Saxon palace close to the east
end of St. Alban's, Wood Street. It was said that King Athelstane had his
house here, which, having a door into Adel Street, "gave name to this
street, which in ancient evidences is written King Adel Street."[155] Stow
just refers to the story, but says any evidence had been destroyed, and he
was evidently disgusted at a then recent "improvement." Some accounts of
23 Henry VIII., given in the _Calendar of St. Paul's Documents_, refer to
the "clensying of certyn old ruinouse houses in Aldermanbury, sometime the
palace of Saincte Æthelbert Kyng ... and making of five new tenements." It
is curious that there is an Adle Hill, also in Castle Baynard Ward. The
records of St. Alban's show that Abbot Paul (from 1077) obtained by
exchange with the Abbot of Westminster what was said had been the chapel
of Offa's palace near the church of St. Alban's, Wood Street. This
evidently refers to the same site abutting on St. Alban's, Wood
Street.[156] It has been said that Gutter Lane is named from the residence
of Guthrum. I find it called Godron Lane in early documents, and the
tradition may possibly be true (see p. 154).
Tower Royal was a royal residence after the Conquest; Stow says Stephen
lodged there.[157] Froissart, writing of the Wat Tyler's rebellion, tells
how the king's mother fled to "the Royal called the Queen's Wardrobe."
We get in the _Heimskringla_ a fair picture of what the king's haga or
garth would have been in the history of King Olaf the Holy. "King Olaf let
house a king's garth at Nidoyce. There was done a big court hall with a
door at either end, but the high seat of the king was in the midmost of
the hall. Up from him sat his court-bishop, and next to him again other
clerks of his; but down from the king sat his counsellors. In the other
high seat strait over against him sat his marshal, and then the guests. By
litten fires should ale be drunk. He had about him sixty body-guards and
thirty guests. Withall he had thirty house carles to work all needful
service in the garth. In the garth also was a mickle hall wherein slept
the body-guard, and there was withal a mickle chamber where the king held
his court chambers." Of Olaf the Quiet we are told: "That was the ancient
wont in Norway that the king's high seat was midst of the long daïs, and
ale was borne over the fire. But King Olaf was the first let do his high
seat on the high daïs athwart the hall.... He let stand before his board
trencher-swains. He had also candle-swains, who held up candles before his
board. Out away from the trapeza was the marshal's stool."