Chapter XXX: Appendix: P

THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON. (See p. 151.)

The new light which is thrown by the charters granted to Geoffrey upon a subject so interesting and so obscure as the government and _status_ of London during the Norman period requires, for its full appreciation, detailed and separate treatment. But, before advancing my own conclusions, it is absolutely needful to dispose of that singular accretion of error which has grown, by gradual degrees, around the recorded facts.[1009]

The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex _ad firmam_, the "Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex _exclusive of London_. The actual words of the charter are these:—

"Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius erit justitiarius super ipsos homines London[iarum]."

Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (_vicecomitatus_) and the ferm (_firma_) mentioned in this passage are the shrievalty and the ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, nor of London apart from Middlesex, but of "London _and_ Middlesex." For there is never, from the first, but one ferm. It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the almost contemporary Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of "London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and Geoffrey's charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen grants him "the shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"[1010] the Empress, in her turn, grants him "the shrievalty of London and Middlesex."[1011] Further, the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this same _firma_ both as the ferm of "London," and as that of "London and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8 Ric. I. we find the phrase, "de veteri firma _Comitat'_ Lond' et Middelsexa." Lastly, the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of London—

"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ... trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.[1012]

And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and Middlesex."[1013]

The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When they are directed to the local authorities, it is to those of "London and Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." The three are, for all purposes, used as equivalent terms. There was never, as I have said, but one ferm, and never but one shrievalty.[1014]

Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" of Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex _apart from London_. This prevalent but erroneous assumption has proved the cause of much confusion and misunderstanding of the facts of the case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been assigned such prominence as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie which may derive authority in the eyes of some from the editorial _imprimatur_ of Mr. Freeman.[1015] We there read as follows:—

"It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a fact of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125).

From this interpretation of the "Middlesex" of the charter, it, of course, followed that the writer took the _firma_ of £300 to be paid in respect of Middlesex _exclusive of London_.[1016] We need not wonder, therefore, that to him the grant is difficult to understand. Here are his comments on its terms:—

"If we could estimate the reasons which led to this grant with any degree of certainty, we should understand better what the citizens expected to gain by it besides rights of jurisdiction.... The meaning and nature of the grant are subjects of which we should like to know more. But here we can obtain little help from books ... and we may inquire in vain for a definition of the position and duties of the sheriff who acts for the citizens in their subject county.... There must have been advantages to accrue from the payment by London of £300 a year, a sum which, small as it seems to us, was a heavy tax in those days. We may be sure the willing citizens expected to obtain correspondingly valuable liberties" (pp. 121-123).

Then follow various conjectures, all of them necessarily wide of the mark. And as with the ferm, so with the sheriff. Mr. Loftie, taking the sheriff (_vicecomes_) in question to be a sheriff of Middlesex exclusive of London (which he hence terms a "subject county"), is of necessity baffled by the charter. For by it the citizens are empowered to appoint (_a_) a "vicecomes," (_b_) a "justitiarius." As the "vicecomes," according to his view, had nothing to do with the City itself, Mr. Loftie has to account for "the omission of any reference to the portreeve in the charter," his assumption being that the City itself was at this time governed by a portreeve. Though his views are obscurely expressed, his solutions of the problem are as follows. In his larger work he dismisses the supposition that the "justitiarius" of the charter was the "chief magistrate" of the City, _i.e._ the portreeve, because the citizens must have been "already" entitled to elect that officer. Yet in his later work, with equal confidence, he tells us that by "justitiarius" the portreeve is "evidently intended." The fact is that he is really opposing two different suppositions; the one that Henry granted by his charter the right to elect a portreeve, the other that he did not grant it, but retained the appointment in his hands. Mr. Loftie first denies the former, and then, in his later work, asserts the former to deny the latter. But really his language is so confused that it is doubtful whether he realized himself the contradictory drift of his two arguments, both based on the same assumption, which "it is manifestly absurd," we learn, to dispute.[1017] And the strange part of the business is this, What is the "proof" that Mr. Loftie offers for the later of his two hypotheses? If the "trial" to which he refers had ever taken place at all, and, still more, if it had taken place before 1115, the fact would have an important bearing. But, in the first place, he has wrongly assigned to the record too early a date, and, in the second, it represents Gilbert Prutfot, not as a judge, but as a culprit. The expression used is, "Terra quam Gillebertus Prutfot nobis disfortiat."[1018] Now "defortiare" (or "disfortiare") is rendered by Dr. Stubbs, in his _Select Charters_ (p. 518), "to deforce, to dispossess by violence." We have here, therefore, an interesting, because early, example of the legal offence of "deforcement," defined by Johnson as "a withholding of lands and tenements by force from the right owner." But the point to which I would call attention is that, even if this writer were correct in his facts (which he is not), his "proof" that (a _vicecomes_ and a _justitiarius_ being mentioned in the charter) the justitiarius was "evidently" the portreeve consists in the fact that a _vicecomes_ had "given judgment" in a trial, and being styled _vicecomes_, was the portreeve! That is to say, the _justitiarius_ must have been the portreeve _because_ the portreeve was styled (_not_ "justitiarius," but, on the contrary,) _vicecomes_. Such is actually his argument.[1019]

I have dwelt thus fully on these observations, because they illustrate the hopeless wandering which is the inevitable result of the adoption of the above fundamental error.

We have a curiously close parallel to this use of "London and Middlesex" in the expression "turris et castellum," on which I have elsewhere dwelt.[1020] Just as the relative importance of the "Tower" of London to the encircling "castle" at its feet led to the term "turris" alone being used to describe the two,—while, conversely, in the provinces, "castellum" was the term adopted,—so did the relative greatness of London to the county that lay around its walls lead to the occasional use of "London" as a term descriptive of both together, a usage impossible in the provinces. Whether a "turris et castellum" were destined to become known as a "turris" or a "castellum," whether "Londonia et Middelsex" were described as "Londonia" merely, or as "Middlesex," in each case the entity is the same. For fiscal, and therefore for our purposes, "London and Middlesex," under whatever name, remain one and indivisible.

The special value of the charters granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville lies not so much in their complete confirmation of the view that the _firma_ of "Middlesex" was that of "London _and_ Middlesex" (for that would be evident without them), as in their proof of the fact, so strangely overlooked, that this connection was at least as old as the days of William the Conqueror, and in their treatment of Middlesex (including London) as an ordinary county like Essex or Herts, "farmed" in precisely the same way. The _firma_ of Herts was £60, of Essex £300, and of Middlesex (because containing London) £300 also.

But now let us leave our record evidence and turn to geography and to common sense. What must have always been the salient feature which distinguished Middlesex internally from every other county? Obviously, that the shire was abnormally small, and its chief town abnormally large. Nor was it a mere matter of size, but, still more, of comparative wealth. This is illustrated by the taxation recorded in the Pipe-Roll of 1130. Unlike the _firma_, the taxes were raised, as elsewhere, from the town and the shire respectively, the town contributing an _auxilium_, and the shire, without the walls, a Danegeld. We thus learn that London paid a sum about half as large again as that raised from the rest of the shire.[1021] The normal relation of the "shire" to the "port" was accordingly here reversed, and so would be also, in consequence, that of the shire-reeve to the portreeve. Where, as usual, the "port" formed but a small item in the _corpus comitatus_, it was possible to sever it from the rest of the county, to place it _extra firmam_, and to give it a reeve who should stand towards it in the same relation as the shire-reeve to the shire, and would therefore be termed the "portreeve." But to have done this in the case of Middlesex would have been to reverse the nature of things, to place a mere "portreeve" in a position greater than that of the "shire-reeve" himself. This is why that change which, in the provinces, was the aim of every rising town, never took place in the case of London, though the greatest town of all. I say that it "never took place," for, as we have seen, the city of London was never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can trace them, they are found one and indivisible.

What, then, was the alternative? Simply this. The "reeve," who, in the case of a normal county, took his title from the "shire" and not from the "port," took it, in the abnormal case of Middlesex, from the "port" and not from the "shire." In each case both "port" and "shire" were alike within his jurisdiction; in each case he took his style from the most important part of that jurisdiction. Such is the original solution I offer for this most interesting problem, and I claim that its acceptance will explain everything, will harmonize with all existing _data_, and will dispose of difficulties which, hitherto, it has been impossible to surmount.

My contention is, briefly, that the Norman _vicecomes_ of "London," or "Middlesex," or "London and Middlesex" was simply the successor, in that office, of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve." With the sphere of the _vicecomes_ I have already dealt, and though we are not in a position similarly to prove the sphere of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve," I might appeal to the belief of Mr. Loftie himself that "Ulf the Sheriff of Middlesex is identical with Ulf the Portreeve of London"[1022] (though he adds, contrary to my contention, that "as yet their official connection was only that of neighbourhood"),[1023] and that Ansgar, though one of the "portreeves" (p. 24); "was Sheriff of Middlesex for a time there can be no doubt" (p. 127).[1024] But I would rather appeal to the vital fact that the shire-reeve and the portreeve are, so far I know, never mentioned together, and that writs are directed to a portreeve or to a shire-reeve,[1025] but never to both. Specially would I insist upon the indisputable circumstance that such writs as were addressed to the "portreeve" by the Anglo-Saxon kings, were addressed to the _vicecomes_ by the Norman, and that the turning-point is seen under the Conqueror himself, whose Anglo-Saxon charter is addressed to the "bisceop" and the "portirefan," and whose Latin writs are, similarly, addressed to the _episcopus_ and the _vicecomes_. More convincing evidence it would not be easy to find.

The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the alleged "disappearance of the portreeve," with the difficulties it has always presented, and the conjectures to which it has given rise.[1026] The style of the "portreeve" indeed disappears, but his office does not. In the person of the Norman _vicecomes_, it preserves an unbroken existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of Ansgar the portreeve.[1027]

The problem as to what became of the portreeve, a problem which has exercised so many minds, sprang from the delusion that in the Norman period the City must have had a portreeve for governor independent of the Sheriff of Middlesex. I term this an undoubted "delusion," because I have already made it clear that the City was part of the sheriff's jurisdiction and contributed its share to his _firma_. There was, therefore, no room for an independent portreeve; nor indeed does a "portreeve" of London, I believe, ever occur after the Conqueror's charter.

But we must here glance at the contrary view set forth by Mr. Loftie:—

"The succession of portreeves is uninterrupted. We have the names of some of them in the records of the Exchequer. Occasionally two or three, once as many as five, came to answer for the City and pay the £300 which was the farm of Middlesex. In 1129, a few years only after the retirement of Orgar and his companions, we read of 'quatuor vicecomites' as attending for London. The following year we hear of a single 'camerarius.' The 'Hugh Buche' of Stowe may be identified with the Hugo de Bock of the St. Paul's documents, and his 'Richard de Par' with Richard the younger, the chamberlain. 'Par' is probably a misreading for Parvus contracted. In the reign of Stephen two members of the Buckerel family hold office, and we have Fulcred and Robert, who were related to each other. Another early portreeve was Wluardus, who attends at the Exchequer in 1138, and who continued to be an alderman thirty years later" (_Historic Towns: London_, p. 34).

Where are "the records of the Exchequer" from which we learn all this? The only Pipe-Roll of the period is that of 1130, in which "the farm of Middlesex" is not £300, but a much larger sum, a fact which, as we shall find, has a most important bearing. The "quatuor vicecomites" appear "as attending," not in 1129, but in 1130. The "camerarius" does not (and could not) appear "in the following year," but, on the contrary, belonged to a preceding one ("Willelmus _qui fuit_ camerarius de _veteribus_ debitis"); nor does he account for the _firma_. The _firma_ was always accounted for by "vicecomites," and not (as implied on p. 108) by a chamberlain, or by a "prefect." The "Hugh Buche" is given in Mr. Loftie's former work (p. 98) as "Hugh de Buch." He is meant (as even Foss perceived) for the well-known Hugh de Bocland (the minister of Henry I.), who cannot be shown to have been a "portreeve." No "Hugo de Bock" occurs in the St. Paul's documents, which only mention "Hugo de Bochelanda" and "Hugo de Bock[elanda]," the latter imperfection being the source of the error. "Richard, the younger, chamberlain" only occurs in these documents a century later (1204-1215), and "the younger," I presume, there translates "juvenis," and not "parvus." It is, moreover, quite certain that Stowe's "de Par" was not "a misreading for 'parvus' contracted," but for "delpare," as may easily be ascertained. No member of the Bucherel family occurs in these documents as holding office "in the reign of Stephen," though some do in the next century. Fulcred was not a "portreeve," but a "chamberlain;" and Robert, Fulcred's brother, was neither one nor the other. But what are we to say to "Wluardus" the portreeve, "who attends at the Exchequer in 1138"? Where are the "records of the Exchequer for 1138"? They are known to Mr. Loftie alone.[1028] Moreover, his identification, here, of the _vicecomes_ with the portreeve is in direct antagonism to the principle laid down just before (p. 29), that, on the contrary, it was the _justitiarius_ who should "evidently" be identified with the portreeve (see p. 350, _supra_).

Perhaps the assumption of a portreeve's existence springs from forgetfulness or misapprehension of the condition of London at the time. Its corporate unity, we must always remember, had not yet been developed. As Dr. Stubbs so truly observes, London was only

"a bundle of communities, townships, parishes, and lordships, of which each has its own constitution."[1029]

I cannot indeed agree with him in his view that the result of the charter of Henry I. was to replace this older system by a new "shire organization."[1030] For my contention is that our great historian not only misdates the charter in question, but also misunderstands it (though not so seriously as others), and that it made no difference in the "organization" at all. But I would cordially endorse these his words:—

"No new incorporation is bestowed: the churches, the barons, the citizens retain their ancient customs; the churches their sokens, the barons their manors, the citizens their township organization, and possibly their guilds. The municipal unity which they possess is of the same sort as that of the county and hundred."[1031]

And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized under a sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government of the day was to be found in the petty courts of these various "communities," and not in any central corporation. The only centralizing element was the sheriff, and his office was not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the financial claims of the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of jurisdiction. There was, of course, the general "folkmote" over which, with the bishop, he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were those of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote could no more mould these self-governing bodies into one coherent whole, than they could, or did, accomplish this in the case of an ordinary shire. Here we have a somewhat curious parallel between such a polity as is here described and that of the present metropolis outside the City. There, too, we have the local communities, with their quasi-independent vestries, etc., and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for their "folkmote" or "shiremote."[1032] But, to revert to the days of Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength varying in intension conversely with its sphere in extension, possessed the toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. Thus the original territorial system might never have led to a corporate unity. But what the sheriff and the folkmote could not accomplish, the mayor and the _communa_ could and did. The territorial arrangement was overthrown by the rising power of commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work:

"The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the aristocratic element."[1033]

At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view I have advanced on the shrievalty, because the point is of such paramount importance that it cannot be expressed too clearly. The great illustrative value of Geoffrey's charters is this. They prove, in the first place, that Middlesex (inclusive of London) was treated financially on the same footing as Essex or Herts or any other shire; and in the second they give us that all-important information, the amount of the _firma_ for each of these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we have to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view its _firma_ of £300. Sometimes described as the _firma_ of "London," sometimes "of Middlesex," and sometimes "of London and Middlesex," its identity never changes; it is always, and beyond the shadow of question, the _firma_ of Middlesex inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its amount, an endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the first Geoffrey de Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it was £300. Nearly doubled by Henry I., it was yet reduced to £300 by his charter to the citizens of London. In the succeeding reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured it from both claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II., as the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. John, we shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and the reduction was confirmed by his successor on his assuming the reins of power. For we find a charter of Henry III. conceding to the citizens of London (February 11, 1227)—

"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris _trescentas libras_ sterlingorum blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et _quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris_."

The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the forfeiture of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were restored to favour, on payment of heavy sums to the king and to his son, they received permission "to have two sheriffs of their own who should hold the shrievalty of the City and Middlesex as they used to have." But the _firma_ was raised from £300 to £400 a year.[1034] Finally, on the accession of Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the _firma_ was reduced to the original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, "it has remained ever since."[1035]

This one _firma_, of which the history has here been traced, represents one _corpus comitatus_, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036] From this conclusion there is no escape.

Hence the _firmarii_ of this _corpus comitatus_ were from the first the _firmarii_ (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London. This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the _firma_ so with the sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of Middlesex inclusive of London.

This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (_i.e._ Middlesex inclusive of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the _corpus comitatus_ to any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at the low original _firma_ of £300 a year. The change effected was simply that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037]

The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body: "Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis."

It would seem that under the _régime_ adopted by Henry I., the financial exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (_i.e._ of the financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible. This was effected either by adding to the annual _firma_, a sum "de cremento," or by exacting from the _firmarius_, over and above his _firma_, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be _firmarius_ to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the _firma_ was a low one. But if the _firma_ was a high one, he would not offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus" had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which, seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by no means above indulging in speculations of the kind. But when we make the interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, in this same reign, had acted as Sheriff of London,[1042] may we not infer that, there also, he had indulged in a similar speculation? That the shrievalty of London (_i.e._ London and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz Walter is debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas argenti de Gersoma pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."[1043]

The _firmarius_ who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would have to recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount of the actual "firma" _plus_ his payment "de gersoma," before he could derive for himself any profit whatever from the transaction. This implied that he had closely to shear the flock committed to his charge. If he was a mere speculator, unconnected with his sphere of operations, he would have no scruple in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion. What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure as the financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear that just as the _rotulus exactorius_ recorded the amounts to which the king was entitled from the _firmarii_ of the various counties, so these _firmarii_, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly fixed amount from the various constituents of their counties' "corpora." Domesday, however, while recording these sums, shows us, in many remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" being paid than that which was strictly due. The fact is that we are, and must be, to a great extent, in the dark as to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments. That the remarkable rise in the annual _firmæ_ exacted from the towns which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent on, the Conquest would seem to imply that these _firmæ_, under the loose _régime_ of the old system, had been allowed to remain so long unaltered that they had become antiquated and unduly low. In any case the Conqueror raised them sharply, probably according to his estimate of the financial capacity of the town. And this step would, of course, involve a rise in the total of the _firma_ exacted from the _corpus comitatus_. The precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed by Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the uttermost farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive use of the "placita" included in the "firma comitatus" that the sheriffs mainly trusted to increase their receipts.

But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed by the sheriffs in the towns within their rule,[1044] and exercised by them to recoup themselves for the increased demands of the Crown, we know that such means there must have been, or it would not have been worth the while of the towns to offer considerable sums for the privilege of paying their _firmæ_ to the Crown directly, instead of through the sheriffs.[1045]

I would now institute a comparison between the cases of Lincoln and of London. In both cases the city formed part of the _corpus comitatus_; in both, therefore, its _firma_ was included in the total ferm of the shire. Lincoln was at this time one of the largest and wealthiest towns in the country. Its citizens evidently had reason to complain of the exactions of the sheriff of the shire. London, we infer, was in the same plight. Both cities were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial intervention of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways varying with the circumstances of the two cases. London was considerably larger than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus while the _firma_ of Lincoln represented less than a fifth of the ferm of the shire,[1046] that of London would, of course, constitute the bulk of the ferm of Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever itself financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by itself boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of the citizens of Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:—

"Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114).

The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:—

"Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148).

I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. No one appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to the above Lincoln entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II.). We there find £140 deducted from the ferm of the shire in consideration of the severance of the city from the _corpus comitatus_ ("Et in Civitate Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). But we further find the citizens of Lincoln, in accounting for their _firma_ to the Crown direct, accounting not for £140, but for £180. It must, consequently, have been worth their while to offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through the sheriff.[1047] Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions from which they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I have said, set to work a different way. They simply sought to lease the shrievalty of the shire themselves. I can, on careful consideration, offer no other suggestion than that the hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130, represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the shrievalty for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in that year by the "quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather from the Roll that Fulcred fitz Walter had been sheriff for 1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma" is, I take it, represented in the case of the following year (1129-30) by these hundred marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have leased the shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their fellows, as representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such a post was not one to be coveted. To exact sufficient from their fellow-citizens wherewith to meet the claims of the Crown would be a task neither popular nor pleasant. Indeed, the fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites" may imply that they could not find any one man who would consent to fill a post as thankless as that of the hapless _decurio_ in the provinces of the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a later age, in the country towns of England. Hence it may be that we find it thus placed in commission. Hence, also, the eagerness of these _vicecomites_ to be quit of office, as shown by their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs of gold apiece.[1048] It may, however, be frankly confessed that the nature of this payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from the very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one would have thought that such payments would probably have been made to their fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the office rather than to the Crown. Moreover, if their year of office was over, and the city's lease at an end, one would have thought they would be freed from office in the ordinary course of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests itself is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from serving again even though their fellow-citizens should again elect them to office.[1049] But I leave the point in doubt.

The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced is that the citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, for the first time) for the year 1129-30. We have the names of those who held the shrievalty at various periods in the course of the reign, before this year, but there is no evidence that, throughout this period, it was ever leased to the citizens. The important question which now arises is this: How does this view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.?

We have first to consider the date to which the charter should be assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that Rymer, "from the names appended to it or some other evidence, dates it in 1101."[1050] As a matter of fact, Rymer assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer himself even include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of that work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till 1885 that in the Record Office _Syllabus_, begun by Sir T. D. Hardy, the date 1101 was assigned to it.[1051] That date is possibly to be traced to Northouck's _History of London_ (1773), in which the commencement of Henry's reign is suggested as a probable period (p. 27). This view is set forth also in a modern work upon the subject.[1052] It is not often that we meet with a charter so difficult to date. The _formula_ of address, as it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to a late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between the justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. But there is, unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence to enable us to fix the date with precision. All that we can say is that such a name as that of Hugh Bigod points to the period 1123-1135, and that, of the nine witnesses named, seven or eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.). This would suggest that these two documents must be of about the same date. Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty before Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to understand how or why it could be withdrawn within a very few years of its grant. In short, for this view there is not a scrap of evidence; against it, is all probability. If, on the contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am now going to advance, namely, that the charter was later than the Pipe-Roll, the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a year, to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by a permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, which we find recorded in the charter.

It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on the guess at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that the charter was earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and others have merely followed him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:—

"Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll, some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In 1130 there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for the ferm of London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and part of the account is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right to appoint the sheriffs has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens pay a hundred marks of silver that they may have a sheriff of their own choice," etc., etc.[1053]

But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers "the date of Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was subsequent to the Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to the ground.

The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs alludes, is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of the "vicecomites" varies throughout. As a matter of fact, the abbreviated forms leave us, as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, doubtful whether we ought to read "vicecomite_m_" or "vicecomite_s_," and even if the former is the one intended, we know, both in this and other cases, that there was nothing unusual in putting the office in commission between two or more. As to the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the _firma_, with which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly enough, Dr. Stubbs has overlooked the really important point, namely, that the _firma_ is not £300, as fixed by the charter, but over £500.[1054] This increases the discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs lays stress. The most natural inference from this fact is that, as on several later occasions, the Crown had greatly raised the _firma_ (which had been under the Conqueror £300), and that the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter was granted between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been tempted, by the offer of an enormous sum down, to grant (1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a reduction of the fee-farm rent ("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to which the _firma_ had been raised by the king, together with the annual _gersoma_, amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only have been purchased by a large payment in ready money.

It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry accumulated the vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his death. He may not improbably in collecting this wealth have kept in view what appears to have been the supreme aim of his closing years, namely, the securing of the succession to his heirs. This was to prove the means by which their claims should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much to suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens to the interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. In any case his efforts were notoriously vain, for London headed throughout the opposition to the claims of his heirs. I cannot but think that his financial system had much to do with this result, and that, as with the Hebrews at the death of Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them only of his "grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money[1055] by bluntly requesting a return to the system of Edward the Confessor.[1056]

In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly ignored both by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted in turn to the Earl of Essex the shrievalty of London and Middlesex (1141-42).

A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. What was the attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's charter? Of our two latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie tells us that

"Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good footing with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the Great Charter of his grandfather."[1057]

Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted by Henry II. to the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, is simply a confirmation of his grandfather's."[1058] Such, indeed, would seem to be the accepted belief. Yet, when we compare the two documents, we find that the special concessions with which I am here dealing, and which form the opening clauses of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in that of Henry II.![1059] This leads us to examine the rest of the latter document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged the two charters side by side, and divided their contents into numbered clauses, italicizing the points of difference.

HENRY I.

(1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo placito.

(2) Sint quieti _de schot et de loth de Danegildo et_ de murdro, et nullus eorum faciat bellum.

(3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo Londoniarum.

(4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea familia, neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur.

(5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes res eorum, et per totam Angliam _et per portus maris, de thelonio et passagio_ et lestagio _et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus_.

(6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in pace socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit.

(7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad suam _were_, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam pertineat.

(8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote, neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ.

(9) Et terras suas _et wardemotum_ et debita civibus meis habere faciam _infra civitatem et extra_.

(10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege civitatis.

(12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. _Quod si reddere noluerint, neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui debitum debet._

(11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum ceperit, _cives_ Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.[1072]

(13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et Sureie.

HENRY II.

(1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum[1060] de ullo placito _præter placita de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis monetariis et ministris meis_.

(2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [_et_[1061]] _infra urbem et Portsokna_,[1062] et quod nullus[1063] faciat bellum.[1064]

(3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus[1065]] se possunt disrationare secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis.

(4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem Marescalli.

(5) Omnes cives Londoniarum[1066] sint quieti de theloneo et lestagio per totam Angliam et per portum[1067] maris.

(6) [This clause is wholly omitted.]

(7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis[1068] avi mei.

(8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur.

(9) Terras suas _et tenuras et vadimonia_ et debita omnia juste habeant, _quicunque eis debeat_.

(10) De terris suis et tenuris _quæ infra urbem sunt_, rectum eis teneatur secundum legem[1069] civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,[1070] et de vadimoniis ibidem factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.[1071]

(11) Et si quis _in tota Anglia_ theloneum et consuetudinem ab hominibus Londoniarum[1070] ceperit, _postquam ipse a recto defecerit, Vicecomes_ Londoniarum[1070] namium inde _apud Londonias_[1070] capiat.

(12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque [1073]habuerunt tempore Regis Henrici avi mei.

(13) _Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis concessi quod[1074] sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,[1075] et de Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus_ (sic) _London[iarum][1076] vel aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat._

Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from the _Select Charters_ of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to the _Fœdera_ for his text (which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is taken from the transcript in the _Liber Custumarum_ (collated with the _Liber Rubeus_). Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as could be wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused my suspicions,[1077] but the collation of the two charters has led to a singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of Henry I. the citizens are guaranteed "terras _et wardemotum_ et debita sua." Now, this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. Why should the wardmoot be thus sandwiched between the lands of the citizens and the debts due to them? And what can be the meaning of confirming to them their wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned as an infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? Yet, corrupt though this passage, on the face of it, appears, our authorities have risen at this unlucky word, if I may venture on the expression, like pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr. Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion. Historians, like doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do agree their unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading of "vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage its sense by showing that what Henry confirmed to the citizens was "the property mortgaged to them, and the debts due to them."[1078]

Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing from the text as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception of the avowed addition at the close, the later charter has, in sundry details, the aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting rather than enlarging the benefits conferred. This, however, is but a small matter in comparison with its total omission of the main concession itself. This fact, so strangely overlooked, coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff as "vicecomes _meus_" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079] but explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable without it, that the _firma_ is again, under Henry II., found to be not £300, but over £500 a year.

In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the _firma_ of London, if I reckon it right, was, as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.[1080] In 1160 (6 Hen. II.) it was a few pounds less,[1081] and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) it was little, it would seem, over £500.[1082] But in these calculations it is virtually impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not only from the system of keeping accounts partly in _libræ_ partly in _marcæ_, and partly in money "blanched" partly in money "numero," but also from the fact that the figures on the Pipe-Rolls are by no means so infallible as might be supposed.[1083]

Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make any change. It merely confirms that of his father. But John, in addition to confirming this (June 17, 1199), granted a supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)—

"Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ... reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum, quod ipsi de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et amoveant quando voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus civibus Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."[1084]

Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising of the _firma_ to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in 1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).

We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during the twelfth century (_i.e._ from "1101"), but was held by them for a few years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I., appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized the _régime_ of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London, he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa" with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since, to that of the mayor himself.

The transient existence of the local _justitiarius_ is a phenomenon of great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially _local_ shire-reeve and the _central_ "justice" of the king's court. I have already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the _justitiarius_ for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend) towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the office _eo nomine_ twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086]

The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure; its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot, surely, henceforth be maintained.

[1009] On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" (Lond_onia_ or Lond_oniæ_) I would explain at the outset that both forms, the singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension is legitimate. I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth in the _Athenæum_, 1887) that "Londoni_a_" is the Latinization of the English "Londone," and "Londoni_æ_" of the Norman "Londres."

[1010] "Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."

[1011] "Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."

[1012] Madox's _Firma Burgi_, p. 242, _note_.

[1013] These words were written before the late changes.

[1014] A remarkable illustration of this loose usage is afforded by the case of the archdeaconry. Take the styles of Ralph "de Diceto." Dr. Stubbs writes of his archdeaconry: "That it was the archdeaconry of Middlesex is certain ... it is beyond doubt, and wherever Ralph is called Archdeacon of London, it is only loosely in reference to the fact that he was one of the four archdeacons of the diocese" (_Radulfi de Diceto Opera_, I. xxxv., xxxvi.). But, as to this explanation, the writer adduces no evidence in support of this view, that all "four archdeacons" might be described, loosely, as "of London." Indeed, he admits, further on (p. xl., _note_), "that the title of Essex or Colchester is generally given to the holders of these two archdeaconries, so that really the only two between which confusion was likely to arise were London and Middlesex." Now, in a very formal document, quoted by Dr. Stubbs himself (p. 1., _note_), Ralph is emphatically styled "Archdeacon of London." It is clear, therefore, that, in the case of this archdeaconry, that style was fully recognized, and the explanation of this is to be found, I would suggest, in the use, exemplified in the text _ut supra_, of "London" and "Middlesex" as convertible terms.

[1015] Mr. Freeman himself makes the same mistake, and insists on regarding Middlesex as a subject district round the City.

[1016] Even Dr. Sharpe, the learned editor of the valuable _Calendar of Hustings Wills_, is similarly puzzled by a grant of twenty-five marks out of the king's ferm "de civitate London," to be paid annually by the sheriffs of London and Middlesex (i. 610), because he imagines that the _firma_ was paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone.

[1017] "It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, but all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name he was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them power to appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already allowed to appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the portreeve in the charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" (_History of London_, i. 90).

"The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than 1115, Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is mentioned as having some time before given judgment against the dean and chapter as to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of England" (_London_, p. 29).

[1018] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 66 _b_.

[1019] Reference to p. 110, _supra_, will show at once how vain is the effort to wrench "justitiarius" from its natural and well-known meaning.

[1020] See Appendix O.

[1021] Here and elsewhere I use "shire" on the strength of Middlesex having a "sheriff" (_i.e._ a shire-reeve).

[1022] _London_, p. 126.

[1023] This springs, of course, from what I have termed "the fundamental error."

[1024] See p. 37, _ante_, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.

[1025] I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the City and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of Middlesex.

[1026] Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the disappearance of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic revolution, the history of which is now lost, but which might account for the earnest support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In another place (_Select Charters_, p. 300) he writes: "How long the Portreeve of London continued to exist is not known; perhaps until he was merged in the _mayor_." I have already dealt with Mr. Loftie's explanation of "the omission of any reference to the portreeve" in the charter.

[1027] See p. 37, _ante_, and Addenda.

[1028] See _Athenæum_, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The First Mayor of London" in _Academy_, November 12, 1887, and _Antiquary_, March, 1887.

[1029] _Const. Hist._, i. 404.

[1030] "The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early in the century" [_i.e._ by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of guild and franchise" (_ibid._, i. 630).

[1031] _Ibid._, i. 405.

[1032] This was written before the days of the London County Council.

[1033] _Ibid._, i. 630.

[1034] _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_, p. 124: "Circa idem tempus, scilicet Pentecosten (1270), ad instantiam domini Edwardi concessit Dominus Rex civibus ad habendum de se ipsis duos Vicecomites, qui tenerent Vicecomitatum Civitatis et Midelsexiæ ad firmam sicut ante solebant: Ita, tamen, cum temporibus transactis solvissent inde tantummodo per annum ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum, quod de cetero solvent annuatim cccc libras sterlingorum computatorum.... Et tunc tradite sunt civibus omnes antique carte eorum de libertatibus suis que fuerunt in manu Domini Regis, et concessum est eis per Dominum Regem et per Dominum Edwardum ut eis plenarie utantur, excepto quod pro firma Civitatis et Comitatus solvent per annum cccc libras, sicut præscriptum est.

"Tunc temporis dederunt Cives Domino Regi centum marcas sterlingorum.... Dederunt etiam Domino Edwardo Vᶜ. marcas ad expensas suas in itinere versus Terram Sanctam." This passage is quoted in full because, important though the transaction is, not a trace of it is to be found in _The Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of London_ (1884), the latest work on the subject. So, in 1284, when Edward I., who had "taken into his hands" the town of Nottingham for some years, restored the burgesses their liberties, it was at the price of their _firma_ being raised from £52 to £60 a year.

[1035] _History of London_, ii. 208, 209.

[1036] A curious illustration of the fact that this _firma_ arose out of the city and county alike is afforded by Henry III.'s charter (1253): "quod vii libre sterlingorum per annum allocarentur Vicecomitibus in firma eorum pro libertate ecclesiæ sancti Pauli."

[1037] This is illustrated by the subsequent prohibition of the sheriffs themselves underletting the county at "farm" (_Liber Custumarum_, p. 91; _Liber Albus_, p. 46).

[1038] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 2.

[1039] _Ibid._, p. 122.

[1040] _Ibid._, p. 100.

[1041] _Ibid._, p. 52.

[1042] "William de Einesford, vicecomes de Londoniâ," heads the list of witnesses to a London agreement assigned to 1114-1130 (_Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 139).

[1043] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 144.

[1044] Probably the mysterious "scotale" was among them (cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 628).

[1045] Cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 410.

[1046] The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40 "numero" _plus_ £716 16_s._ 3_d._ "blanch").

[1047] We have a precisely similar illustration, ninety years later, in the case of Carlisle. In 5 Hen. III. (1220-21) the citizens of Carlisle obtained permission to hold their city _ad firmam_ for £60 a year payable to the Crown direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") and his ferm of the shire (_Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 197, 202).

[1048] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 149.

[1049] Compare Henry III.'s charter to John Gifard of Chillington, conceding that during his lifetime he should not be made a _sheriff_, coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (_Staffordshire Collections_, v. [1] 158).

[1050] _History of London_, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie's _London_ ("Historic Towns"), p. 28: "The exact date of the charter is given by Rymer as 1101."

[1051] Vol. iii. p. 4.

[1052] _The Charters of the City of London_ (1884), p. xiiii.: "To engage the citizens to support his Government he conferred upon them the advantageous privileges that are conferred in this charter."

[1053] _Const. Hist._, i. 406.

[1054] £327 3_s._ 11_d._ "blanch," _plus_ £209 6_s._ 5½_d._ "numero."

[1055] "Infinitæ copiæ pecuniam ... cum ore imperioso ab eis exegit" (_Gesta Stephani_).

[1056] "Interpellata est et a civibus ut leges eis regis Edwardi observare liceret, quia optimæ erant, non patris sui Henrici quia graves erant" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._).

[1057] _London_ ("Historic Towns"), p. 38. The Master of University similarly writes: "He [Henry II.] renewed the charter of the city of London" (i. 90).

[1058] _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 471. The writer, being only acquainted with the printed copy of the charter (_Liber Custumarum_, ed. Riley, pp. 31, 32), had only the names of the two witnesses there given (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London) to guide her, but, fortunately, the _Liber Rubeus_ version records all the witnesses (thirteen in number) together with the place of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, and virtually to 1155.

[1059] The omitted clauses are these: "Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis Londoniarum, tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit justitiarius super ipsos homines Londoniarum."

[1060] "Lond'" (_Liber Rubeus_).

[1061] "Et" omitted in _L. R._

[1062] "Portsoca" (_L. R._).

[1063] "Nullus eorum" (_L. R._).

[1064] "Duellum" (_L. R._).

[1065] "Pertinentibus" (_L. R._).

[1066] "London'" (_L. R._).

[1067] "Port'" (_L. R._).

[1068] "Regis H." (_L. R._).

[1069] "Consuetudinem" (_L. R._).

[1070] "Lond'" (_L. R._).

[1071] "Apud Lond' teneantur" (_L. R._).

[1072] Clauses 11 and 12 in the charter of Henry I. are transposed in that of Henry II. But it is more convenient to show the transposition as I have done in the text.

[1073] "Eas habuerunt" (_L. R._).

[1074] "Omnes sint" (_L. R._).

[1075] "Yeresgieve" (_L. R._).

[1076] "London'" (_L. R._).

[1077] The first two witnesses to that of Henry I. are given as "episcopo Winton., Roberto filio Richer. (_sic_)." The bishop's initial ought to be given, and the second witness is probably identical with Robert fitz Rich_ard_. "Huberto (_sic_) regis camerario" has also a suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in the _Liber Custumarum_ as "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as, indeed, it is in the (more accurate) _Liber Rubeus_ version, where (_vide supra_, p. 367) all the witnesses are entered.

[1078] This explanation is confirmed by examining other municipal charters based on that of London. In them this clause always confirms (1) "terras et tenuras," (2) "vadia," (3) "debita."

[1079] In confirmation of this view, it may be pointed out that where this same clause occurs in charters to other towns, the words are "vicecomes _noster_" in cases, as at Winchester, where the king retains in his hand the appointment of reeve, but simply (as at Lincoln) "præpositus" or (as at Northampton) "præpositus Northamtonie," where the right to elect the reeve was also conceded.

[1080] £66 17_s._ 1_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £474 17_s._ 10½_d._ "numero."

[1081] £445 19_s._ "blanch" _plus_ £78 3_s._ 6_d._ "numero."

[1082] £181 14_s._ 5_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £335 0_s._ 7_d._ "numero."

[1083] As an example of the possibility of error, in the printed Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.) a town is entered on the Roll as paying "quater xx. lv. libras et ii marcas et dim'." The explanation of this unintelligible entry is, I may observe, as follows. The original entry evidently ran, "quater xx et ii marcas et dim'" (82½ marcs). Over this a scribe will have written the equivalent amount in pounds ("lv libræ") by interlineation. Then came the modern transcriber, who with the stupidity of a mechanical copyist brought down this interlineation into the middle of the entry, thus converting it into sheer nonsense. We have also to reckon with such clerical errors as the addition or omission of an "x" or an "i," of a "bl." or a "no." Where the total to be accounted for is stated separately, we have a means of checking the accounts. But where, as at London, this is not so, we cannot be too careful in accepting the details as given. See also Addenda.

[1084] _Liber Custumarum_ (Rolls Series), pp. 249-251.

[1085] "Contra Radulfum de Belphago qui tunc vicecomes erat in provincia illa et contra Radulfum Passelewe ejusdem provinciæ justiciarium" (_Ramsey Cart._, i. 149).

[1086] See Appendix K, on "Gervase of Cornhill."