Chapter XI: The Commune of London

When in 1893, the seventh centenary of the year in which a Mayor of London first appears, I read before the Royal Archæological Institute a paper on “The origin of the Mayoralty of London,”[463] I expressed the hope that some document might yet be discovered which would throw further light upon the Mayor and on his connection with the “Commune” of 1191. Such a document I have since found. Its confirmation of the fact that a “Commune” was actually established in London is as welcome as it is important; but the essential fact which it enables us to determine is that this foreign organization was transplanted bodily to London. It has hitherto been supposed that the only change involved by the erection of the “Commune” was the appearance of its typical officer, the “Mayor,” as an addition to the pre-existent sheriffs and the aldermen of the city wards. It can, however, now be shown that the aldermen of the wards had no part in the “communal” organization, which was modelled exclusively on foreign lines, and was wholly unconnected with the old and English system.

The historian’s time can be profitably spent on minute and thorough examination of London institutions in the 12th century. For the origin and development in England of municipal liberties is still, in spite of their paramount interest, involved in much obscurity. As Dr. Stubbs has truly observed:

London claims the first place in any such investigation, as the
greatest municipality, as the model on which by their charters
of liberties the other large towns of the country were allowed
or charged to adjust their usages, and as the most active,
the most political, and the most ambitious. London has also a
pre-eminence in municipal history, owing to the strength of the
conflicting elements which so much affected her constitutional
progress.[464]

And yet, as he reminded his hearers in one of his Oxford lectures, “Mediæval London still waits for its constitutional historian.”

Occupying as it did, among English towns, a position apart, in wealth as in importance, London had a municipal development of her own, a development of which our best historians can only tell us that it is “obscure.” That obscurity, however, has been sadly increased by the careless study and the misapprehension of her great charters of liberties. Broadly speaking, and disregarding for the moment the statements of our accepted authorities, the great want of London, in her early days, was an efficient, homogeneous government of her own. The City--for the City was then London--found itself in fact, during the Norman period, in the same plight as greater London found itself in our own days. “The ordinary system of the parish and the township,” as an accomplished writer has observed, “the special franchises and jurisdictions of the great individual landowners, of the churches, of the gilds--all these were loosely bundled together.” For the cause of this state of things we should have to go back to the origins of our history, to show that the genius of the Anglo-Saxon system was ill-adapted, or rather, wholly unsuitable, to urban life; that, while of unconquerable persistence and strength in small, manageable rural communities, it was bound to, and did, break down when applied to large and growing towns, whose life lay not in agriculture, but in trade. In a parish, a “Hundred,” the Englishman was at home; but in a town, and still more in such a town as London, he found himself, for administrative purposes, at his wits’ end.

Putting aside the “English Knightengild,”--the position of which as a governing body has been far too rashly assumed,[465] and rests upon no foundation,--the only institutions of which we can be sure are the “folkesmote” and the weekly “husteng” of Henry I.’s charter, and the Shrievalty. The “folkesmote” was the immemorial open-air gathering, corresponding with the “shire-moot” or “hundred-moot” of the country, the “borough-moot” or “portman-moot” of the town. The small “husteng,” as is obvious from its name, was a Danish development, akin to the “lawmen” of the Danish boroughs. If these represented, in London, a kind of legal unity, the shrievalty, on the other hand, involved a kind of financial unity. If, however, as I have urged in my study on the early shrievalty,[466] the administrative development of London had proceeded upon these lines, it would no more have brought about a true municipal unity than the sheriff and the county court could evolve it in the shire; a “Corporation” was wholly alien to administration on county principles.

But in the meanwhile, the great movement in favour of municipal liberties, which was so prominent a feature of the stirring 12th century, was spreading like wildfire through France and Flanders, and London, which, since the coming of the Normans, had become far more cosmopolitan, was steadily imbibing from foreign traders the spirit and enthusiasm of the age. But this by no means suited the views, at the time, of the Crown, which, here as in Germany, looked askance on this alarming and, too often, revolutionary movement. When the history of London at this period comes to be properly studied, it will be found that the growing power of the Londoners, who had practically seated Stephen on the throne, and had chevied the Empress Matilda from their midst, were sharply checked by her son Henry, whose policy, in this respect at least, was faithfully followed by his successor, Richard the First. The assumption, therefore, that the Mayoralty of London dates from Richard’s accession (1189) is an absolute perversion of history. There is record evidence which completely confirms the memorable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would king Richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of the “Commune” in London.[467]

Writing mainly for experts, I need scarcely explain that the “sworn Commune,” to give it its right name--for the oath sworn by its members was its essential feature--was the association or ‘conspiracy’ as we choose to regard it, formed by the inhabitants of a town that desired to obtain its independence. And the head of this Association or “Commune” was given, abroad, the title of “Maire.” It was at about the same time that the “Commune” and its “Maire” were triumphantly reaching Dijon in one direction and Bordeaux in another, that they took a northern flight and descended upon London. Not for the first time in her history the Crown’s difficulty was London’s opportunity. Even so early as 1141, when the fortunes of the Crown hung in the balance between rival claimants, we find the citizens forming an effective “conjuratio,”[468] the very term applied to their “Commune,” half a century later, by Richard of Devizes.[469] Moreover, earlier in the same year (April), William of Malmesbury applies to their government the term “communio,” in which the keen eye of the bishop of Oxford detected “a description of municipal unity which suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization.”[470] But he failed, it would seem, to observe the passage which follows and which speaks of “omnes barones, qui in eorum communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant.” For in this allusion we discover a distinctive practice of the “sworn commune,” from that of Le Mans (1073),[471] to that of London, now to be dealt with.

When, in the crisis of October, 1191, the administration found itself paralysed by the conflict between John, as the king’s brother, and Longchamp, as the king’s representative, London, finding that she held the scales, promptly named the “Commune” as the price of her support. The chroniclers of the day enable us to picture to ourselves the scene, as the excited citizens who had poured forth overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th October, at the well-known sound of the great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul’s churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the “Commune,” like a French king or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of her own.

This much at least we may deem certain; but what the chroniclers tell us has proved to be only enough to whet the appetite for more. Of the character of the “Commune” so granted, of its ultimate fate, and of the part it played in the municipal development of London, nothing has been really known. The only fact of importance ascertained from other sources has been the appearance of a Mayor of London at or about the same time as the grant of a “Commune.” It cannot, indeed, be proved that, as has sometimes been supposed, the two phenomena were synchronistic; for no mention of the Mayor of London, after long research, is known to me earlier than the spring of the year 1193.[472] But there is, of course, the strongest presumption that the grant of a “Commune” involved a Mayor, and already in 1194 we find a citizen accused of boasting that “come what may, the Londoners shall have no king but their Mayor.” It was precisely in the same spirit that the ‘Comuneros’ of Salamanca exclaimed of their leader in 1521: “Juras à Dios no haber mas Rey ni Papa que Valloria.”

Before I explain my discoveries on the “Commune” granted to London, it may be desirable to show how great a discrepancy of opinion has hitherto prevailed on this important but admittedly obscure subject.

The first historian, so far as I know, to treat the subject in the modern spirit was the present bishop of Oxford; and it is a striking testimony to his almost infallible judgment that what he wrote on the subject a quarter of a century ago is the explanation that, to this day, has held the field. In his ‘Select Charters’ (1870), he expressed the view that

the establishment of the ‘Communa’ of the citizens of London,
which is recorded by the historians to have been specially
confirmed by the Barons and Justiciar on the occasion of
Longchamp’s deposition from the Justiciarship is a matter of
some difficulty, as the word ‘Communa’ is not found in English
town charters, and no formal record of the act of confirmation
is now preserved. Interpreted, however, by foreign usage, and
by the later meaning of the word ‘communitas,’ it must be
understood to signify a corporate identity of the municipality,
which it may have claimed before, and which may even have been
occasionally recognised, but was now firmly established; a sort
of consolidation into a single organized body of the variety of
franchises, guilds, and other departments of local jurisdiction.
It was probably connected with and perhaps implied by the
nomination of a _Mayor_, who now appears for the first
time. It cannot, however, be defined with certainty (p. 257).

And in his ‘Constitutional History’ he holds that it practically “gave completeness to a municipal constitution which had long been struggling for recognition.” These comments, on the whole, suggest rather a development of existing conditions than the introduction of a foreign institution.

Mr. Coote, the next to approach the subject, contended that Dr. Stubbs’ “view falls very far short of the reality.” In his able paper “A Lost Charter,”[473] he insisted that a charter was actually granted in 1191 to the Londoners empowering them to elect a Mayor, and that this is what the chroniclers meant when they spoke of the grant of “Commune,” for the citizens, he urged, had possessed all the rights of a “Commune” from the days of the Conqueror. With Mr. Loftie’s work came the inevitable reaction. Wholly ignoring the definite and contemporary statement as to the grant of a “Commune,” he deemed it “far safer to adopt the received and old-fashioned opinion,” and to date the Mayoralty from 1189, while, as for the “Commune,” he deemed it to have been of gradual growth, and to have been practically recognised by the charter of Henry I.

Now, whatever the grant of “Commune” implied, it certainly implied something, and something of importance. “Upon this point there is,” as Mr. Coote justly observed, “a cloud of contemporary evidence, clear, exact and positive.” He put together the versions of the chroniclers,[474] contemporary and well-informed, and their harmony is complete. The fact, moreover, that the Commune was extorted at a great crisis, proved that only when the government was weak could so great a concession be wrung from it. Lastly, the phrase of Richard of Devizes: “Concessa est ipsa die et instituta Communia Londinensium,” and that of Giraldus: “Communa seu Communia eis concessa,” correspond exactly with the formal phrases in the French charters of “Commune.” In the case of Senlis (1173) it was “Communiam fieri concessimus”; in that of Compiègne (1153): “Burgensibus villæ concessimus Communiam”; in that of Abbeville (1185) “concessi eis Communiam habendam”; in that which Queen Eleanor granted to Poitiers (1199): “Sciatis nos concessisse ... universis hominibus de Pictavi et eorum heredibus communiam juratam apud Pictavim.” But if any doubt were yet possible, it would be finally removed by the words of Richard of Devizes:

Nunc primum, indulta sibi conjuratione, regno regem deesse
cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus nec prædecessor
et pater ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcis argenti fieri
permississet.

There is no escaping from these words, and Mr. Loftie’s theory is, consequently, out of court.[475]

But what of Mr. Coote’s? With great confidence he wrote that the “Commune,” in the case of London, which had acquired all other things, expressed for its citizens the mayoralty only; “nothing else was asked or desired by them, for it was the sole privilege which was wanting to their burghal independence” (p. 287). We find, however, that on the Continent the word ‘Commune’ did not of necessity imply a Mayor, for Beauvais and Compiègne, though constituted ‘Communes,’ appear to have had no Mayor during most of the 12th century. The chroniclers, therefore, had they only meant to speak of the privilege of electing a Mayor, would not have all employed a word which did not connote it, but would have said what they meant. Moreover, his theory rests on the assumption, common till now to all historians, that the citizens had continuously possessed, from the beginning of the 12th century, the privileges granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown, in my ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ that these privileges were not renewed by Henry II. or Richard I., and that this fact strikingly confirms the explicit words of Richard of Devizes, when he states that neither the one nor the other would have allowed the Londoners to form a ‘Commune’ even for a million of marcs.

In ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (pp. 357–9) I insisted on the necessity of keeping steadily in view the annual _firma_ of London and Middlesex, and showed that it was due in respect of the two jointly, and not, as has been alleged of Middlesex, apart from London. The further publication of the Pipe Rolls has enabled me to develop this position. While the citizens, as I showed, strenuously claimed to hold the city and county at ferm for £300, as in the charter of Henry I., the Crown no less persistently strove to exact a _firma_ of more than £500. The exact amount of the high _firma_ is first recorded at the change of shrievalty in 1169. The four outgoing sheriffs at Easter of that year account for £250 “blank” and £11 “numero,” as the half-year’s _firma_. This represents a total for the year of £500 “blank” and £22 “numero,” which is also precisely the sum accounted for in 1173–4.[476] The whole sum would thus amount to £547 “numero,” by the Exchequer system. But at Midsummer, 1174, there was a great and a sudden change. Brichtmer de Haverhelle and Peter Fitz Walter came into office not as sheriffs, but “ut custodes,” in the Exchequer phrase,[477] and at Michaelmas they accounted not “de firma,” but “de exitu firme.”[478]

The sheriff farmed his county and answered for a fixed _firma_, as a tenant is responsible for his rent; the ‘custos,’ acting for the Crown, like a bailiff for a landowner, was responsible only for the actual proceeds (_exitus_). This distinction meets us even on the earliest Pipe Roll (1130).[479] It is obvious that, on the _firma_ system, the sheriff might make a profit or a loss, according as the sources of the ferm provided more or less than the rent for which he had to account. But the point on which I am anxious to insist is that the sources of his ferm were by no means so elastic as is alleged.[480] As Professor Maitland observes:

The king’s rights are pecuniary rights; he is entitled to
collect numerous small sums. Instead of these he may be willing
to take a fixed sum every year, or, in other words, to let his
rights to farm.

He further describes these rights, in the case of a borough, as “the profits of the market and of the borough court,” together with “the king’s burgage rents.” Each of these sources, again, could be sub-farmed.[481] This being so, I cannot agree with Dr. Stubbs in holding that

the sheriff was answerable to the Crown for a certain sum, and
... nothing was easier than to exact the whole of the legal sum
from the rich burghers, and take for himself the profits of the
shire; or to demand such sums as he pleased of either, without
rendering any account.[482]

For the sources of the ferm were well defined: they were limited to certain “rights.” The burgage rents were fixed; so, we believe, were the tolls; and the fines arising from the courts cannot have varied much. Outside these sources the sheriff had no right to “exact” anything from the burghers.

Here we have the explanation of an otherwise singular phenomenon. The Crown, which was receiving, as has been shown, £547 “numero” a year from the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, obtained less than half that amount when its own _custodes_ were in charge! The proceeds for the first whole year were £238 5_s._ 7_d._ “numero,” and out of this, moreover, it had to pay Peter Fitz Walter £20 for his services, and the clerks and serjeants (_servientes_) employed under him £8 10_s._; thus the net receipts were only some £200 “de exitu firme de Londonia et de Middilsexa.”[483] I infer from this that the _ferm_ extorted for London and Middlesex had been shamefully high,[484] and that this was the cause of the sheriffs being often laden with debt when they went out of office,[485] as they had to make good, out of their own pockets, the difference between the proceeds of the dues and the ferm exacted by the Crown. It is possible that this was indeed the reason of four sheriffs, as in 1130, being so often appointed; the loss would thus be spread over a wider area, and the chance of recovering the debt greater. The system, on this hypothesis, was strangely analogous to that by which, at the present day, appointment as sheriff of a county is equivalent to exaction of a fine by the Crown. Combining, as I have elsewhere suggested, the fact that in 1130 each of the four sheriffs gave £12 to the Crown to be quit of his office with the clause in the earliest charter to Rouen that no citizen should be compelled to serve as sheriff against his will, we may certainly conclude that such sheriffs were the victims of Crown extortion. But obscurity must still surround the manner of their appointment.

There remains the salient fact that the Crown undoubtedly suffered a heavy annual loss by the substitution of _custodes_ for sheriffs in 1174. As this is a fact new to historians, one is tempted to seek an explanation. The Crown’s loss being the city’s gain, it is at least worth consideration that the change virtually synchronized with the king’s arrival in London at the crisis of the feudal revolt. He was welcomed, Fantosme tells us, by the citizens, and reminded

Ke nul peiist le Lundreis traïtres apeler.
Ne fereient traïsun pur les membres colper.

In the previous year he had been assured that they were

La plus leale gent de tut vostre regné.
Ni ad nul en la vile ki seit de tel eë
Ki puisse porter armes, ne seit très bien armé.

This testimony is in harmony with the fact they gave the Crown that year (1173) a _novum donum_ of 1,000 marcs, supplemented by 100 marcs apiece from three leading citizens. It is, therefore, perfectly possible that, as Rouen obtained from Henry II. a charter increasing its privileges, as a reward for its attitude in the rebellion, London may have been similarly rewarded by what was in practice financial relief.

But the change did not last. After two years of the _custodes_, they went out of office at Midsummer, 1176, their returns, “de exitu ejusdem civitatis,” even lower than before.[486] Their place was taken by William Fitz Isabel, whose account for the three months’ _firma_ at Michaelmas shows that it, at once, leapt up to the huge sum formerly exacted.[487]

Having traced in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ the fortunes of the long struggle between the citizens and the Crown over the amount of their _firma_--fixed at £300 by Henry the First’s charter, but raised by Henry II. to over £500--I was led to test the chroniclers’ statements as to 1191 by turning to the Pipe Rolls to see if the citizens’ triumph enabled them to secure that reduction on which they insisted throughout. In the Roll of 1 Richard I. we find the _firma_, as under Henry II., to be between £520 and £530,[488] but in the Roll of two years later (1191) we suddenly meet with this bold entry: “Cives Londoniæ--Willelmus de Haverhull et Johannes Bucuinte pro eis--reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis pro hoc anno.” This sudden return to the old figure was effected at the very time of the change which the chroniclers describe. The fact is as striking as it is welcome where all is so obscure. In the following year (4 Ric. I.) we find the _firma_ again amounting to about £300; but the difficulty of ascertaining its sum where this is not given is, unfortunately, so great that until the Pipe Rolls of the reign are in print we cannot speak positively as to the endurance of this amount. In the Pipe Roll, however, of the ninth year (1197) we find the account headed (as in 1191): “Cives Lund[oniæ]--Nicholas Duket et Robertus Blund pro eis--reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis de firma Lond[onie] et Middelsexe,” and in that of the tenth year the sum is similarly stated to be £300 “blanch.” It is clear, therefore, that at the close of Richard’s reign the citizens had made good their claim to farm the city and county for £300 a year, as they had recommenced to do in 1191. The explanation of their gaining from Richard the confirmation of that success is probably to be found in their payment of £1,000, thus recorded on the roll of 1195 (7 Ric. I.):

Cives Lond[onie] M et D marcas de dono suo pro benevolentia
domini Regis, _et pro libertatibus suis conservandis_, et
de auxilio suo ad redemptionem domini Regis.

In that case the king would have dealt with the _firma_, as he is known to have dealt with the sheriffwicks of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, etc., and simply sold it to the citizens for a lump sum down. In this year (7 Ric. I.), accordingly, it is again the “Cives Lond[onie],” who, through their two representatives, account for the ferm.

It follows from this that when the citizens paid John £2,000 “pro habendo confirmationem Regis de libertatibus suis,” they did not obtain, as I had gathered from his charter, for the first time a reduction of the _firma_ to £300, but a confirmation of the reduction they had won at the crisis of 1191.

This, then, up to now has been the sum total of our knowledge: a _commune_ was granted to London in October, 1191; the ferm of the city was, simultaneously, reduced from over £500 to the old £300, as granted by Henry I.; and the Mayor of London first meets us in the spring of 1193. Of the nature of the _commune_ we know nothing; of its very existence after the autumn of 1191, we are in equal ignorance.

It is at this point that the document which follows comes to our help with a flood of light, proving, as it does, that London, in 1193, possessed a fully developed _commune_ of the continental pattern.

* * * * *

“_Sacramentum commune tempore regis Ricardi quando
detentus erat Alemaniam_ (_sic_).[489]

Quod fidem portabunt domino regi Ricardo de vita sua et
de membris et de terreno honore suo contra omnes homines
et feminas qui vivere possunt aut mori et quod pacem suam
servabunt et adjuvabunt servare, et quod communam tenebunt et
obedientes erunt maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivin[is][490]
ejusdem commune in fide regis et quod sequentur et tenebunt
considerationem maioris et skivinorum et aliorum proborum
hominum qui cum illis erunt salvo honore dei et sancte ecclesie
et fide domini regis Ricardi et salvis per omnia libertatibus
civitatis Lond[onie]. Et quod pro mercede nec pro parentela nec
pro aliqua re omittent quin jus in omnibus rebus [pro]sequentur
et teneant pro posse suo et scientia et quod ipsi communiter
in fide domini regis Ricardi sustinebunt bonum et malum et
ad vitam et ad mortem. Et si quis presumeret pacem domini
regis et regni perturbare ipsi consilio domine[491] et domini
Rothomagensis[492] et aliorum justiciarum domini regis juvabunt
fideles domini regis et illos qui pacem servare volunt pro posse
suo et pro scientia sua salvis semper in omnibus libertatibus
Lond[onie].”

Before discussing this document one may well compare it with the Freeman’s oath at the present day, as taken by the latest honorary freeman, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum (4th November, 1898):

“I solemnly declare that I will be good and true to our
Sovereign lady Queen Victoria, that I will be obedient to the
Mayor of this City, that I will maintain the franchises and
customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless in that which
in me is; that I will also keep the Queen’s peace in my own
person, that I will know no gatherings nor conspiracies made
against the Queen’s peace, but I will warn the Mayor thereof or
hinder it to my power; and that all these points and articles I
will well and truly keep according to the laws and customs of
this City to my power.”

The obligations of allegiance to the Sovereign, of obedience to the Mayor, and of keeping the King’s peace against all attempts to disturb it, remain, it will be seen, in force.

* * * * *

On the importance, in many aspects, of this unique document it is hardly necessary to dwell. Its _formulæ_ deserve to be carefully compared with the oaths of allegiance and of the peace; but here one must restrict attention to its bearing on the _commune_ of London. For the first time we learn that the government of the city was then in the hands of a Mayor and _échevins_ (_skivini_). Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English municipal institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental institution.[493] But in this document the Mayor and _échevins_ do not exhaust the governing body. Of Aldermen, indeed, we hear nothing; but we read of “alii probi homines” as associated with the Mayor and _échevins_. For these we may turn to another document, fortunately preserved in this volume, which shows us a body of “twenty-four” connected with the government of London some twelve years later (1205–6).

* * * * *

“_Sacramentum xxiiij^{or} factum anno regni regis
Johannis vij^{o}._

Quod legaliter intendent ad consulendum secundum suam
consuetudinem juri domini regis quod ad illos spectat in
civitate Lond[onie] salva libertate civitatis et quod de nullo
homine qui in placito sit ad civitatem spectante aliquod premium
ad suam conscientiam reciperent. Et si aliquis illorum donum
aut promissum dum in placitum fatiat illud nunquam recipient,
neque aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis. Et quod illi nullum
modum premii accipient, nec aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis,
pro injuria allevanda vel pro jure sternendo. Et concessum est
inter ipsos quod si aliquis inde attinctus vel convictus fuerit,
libertatem civitatis et eorum societatem amittet.”[494]

* * * * *

Of a body of twenty-_four_ councillors, nothing has hitherto been known. To a body of twenty-_five_ there is this one reference:

Hoc anno fuerunt xxv electi de discretioribus civitatis, et
jurati pro consulendo civitatem una cum Maiore.[495]

The year is Mich. 1200–Mich. 1201; but the authority is not first-rate. Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much discussed. The latest exposition is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk to the City Corporation:

Soon after John’s accession we find what appears to be the
first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body.
In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), “were
chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city and
sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the
mayor.” Just as, in the constitution of the realm, the House of
Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons,
so in the City--described by Lord Coke as _epitome totius
regni_--the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded
that of a common council.[496]

Mr. Loftie, however, had pointed out several years before that this view was erroneous:

It has sometimes been assumed that this was the beginning of the
court of aldermen. As we have seen, however, the aldermen were
in existence long before, and the question is how far they were,
under ordinary circumstances, the councillors and assistants of
the mayor.[497]

To any one, indeed, who realizes what the Aldermen were it should be obvious that the passage in question could not possibly apply to them. In his larger work, Mr. Loftie held that these councillors eventually became “identified with the aldermen,” but he brought out the very important point that their number could not be that of the wards.

The twenty-five councillors who advised the Mayor in the reign
of King John had gradually become identified with the aldermen;
and this title, which at first was applied to the heads of trade
guilds and other functionaries, was henceforth confined to the
rulers of the wards.

[NOTE]. It has been suggested that the twenty-five
councillors came from the twenty-five wards, but a chronological
arrangement of the facts disposes of this idea. There were
not twenty-five wards then in existence--moreover, it would
be necessary to account for twenty-six, if the mayor is
reckoned.[498]

As, then, they were not representatives of the wards their character is left obscure. But when we turn to the foreign evidence, the nature of the twenty-four becomes manifest at once; and we find in it conclusive proof that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. M. Giry’s able treatise on the “Établissements de Rouen” shows us the “Vingt Quatre” forming the administrative body, annually elected, which acted as the Mayor’s Council. And the oath they had to take on their election, as described in the ‘Établissements,’ bears, it will be seen, a marked resemblance to that of the “xxiiij^{or}” in London.

(II). De centum vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor, assensu
centum parium, qui singulis annis removebuntur; quorum duodecim
eschevini vocabuntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti
quatuor, in principio sui anni, jurabunt se servaturos jura
sancte ecclesie et fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam quod
et ipse recte judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam, etc.

LIV. Iterum, major et eschevini et pares, in principio sui
eschevinatus, jurabunt eque judicare, nec pro inimicitia nec pro
amicitia injuste judicabunt. Iterum, jurabunt se nullos denarios
nec premia capturos, quod et eque judicabunt secundum suam
conscienciam.

LV. Si aliquis juratorum possit comperi accepisse premium pro
aliqua questione de qua aliquis trahatur in eschevinagio,
domus ejus ... prosternatur, nec amplius ille qui super hoc
deliraverit, nec ipse, nec heres ejus dominatum in communia
habebit.

The three salient features in common are (1) the oath to administer justice fairly, (2) the special provisions against bribery, (3) the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe.

If we had only “the oath of the Commune,” we might have remained in doubt as to the nature of the administrative body; but we can now assert, on continental analogy, that its twenty-four members comprised twelve “skevini” and an equal number of councillors. We can also assert that it administered justice, even though this has been unsuspected, and may, indeed, at first arouse question.

It will, naturally, now be asked: What became of these “twenty-four,” who formed the Mayor’s council in the days of John? Mr. Loftie, we have seen, held that they became “identified with the Aldermen”; my own view is that, on the contrary, they were the germ of the Common Council. The vital distinction to be kept in mind is that the Alderman was essentially the officer in charge of a ward, while the Common Council, as one body, represented the City as a whole. In questions of this kind little reliance can be placed on late commentators; but the _formulæ_ of oaths are usually ancient, and often enshrine information on the duties of an office in the past. Now the oath of a member of the Common Council contains significant clauses:

Sacramentum ... hominum ad Commune Consilium electorum est tale:
... bonum et fidele consilium dabis, secundum sensum et scire
tuum; et pro nullius favore manutenebis proficium singulare
contra proficium publicum vel commune dictæ civitatis; et
postquam veneris ad Commune Consilium, sine causa rationabili
vel Majoris licentia non recedes priusquam Major et socii sui
recesserint; et quod dictum fuerit in Communi Consilio celabis,
etc.[499]

It is not only that this is essentially the oath of one whose function it is to be a councillor: the striking point is that it contains three provisions in common with those which bound, at Rouen, the “Vingtquatre.” The councillor was (1) not to be influenced by private favour; (2) not to leave the Council without the Mayor’s permission;[500] (3) to keep secret its proceedings.[501] I do not say, of course, that there is verbal concordance; but when we turn to the oath of the Alderman, we see at once how much less resemblance his duties have to those of the “Twenty-four.”[502] It presents him as primarily the head of a Ward, responsible for certain matters within the compass of that Ward. He has to take part with the Mayor in assize, pleas, and hustings;[503] but his functions as councillor obtain only a brief mention in his oath (“et que boun et loial conseil durrez a ley choses touchantz le comune profit en mesme la citee”).

If any doubt is felt on the subject, it should be removed by turning to the case of Winchester. There, as in London, according to the ancient custumal of the city, we find the Mayor closely associated with a council of “Twenty-four,” which, in that case, continued to exist down to 1835:

Il iert en la vile mere eleu par commun assentement des vint et
quatre jures et de la commune ... le quel mere soit remuable de
an en an ... Derechef en la cite deivent estre vint et quatre
jurez esluz des plus prudeshommes e des plus sages de la vile e
leaument eider e conseiller le avandit mere a franchise sauver
et sustener.[504]

It is clear, to me, that “the Twenty-Four” were no more elected by the Wards (as is persistently believed) in London than at Winchester, but by the city as a whole, though we must not define the Franchise. The Winchester Aldermen, on the contrary, were distinctly district officers, as in London, “whose functions related chiefly, but not wholly, to the police and preservation of order, health, and cleanliness within their several limits.”[505] Moreover, they retained at Winchester, down to a late period, their distinct character and existence. According to Dean Kitchin:

The aldermen, in later days the civic aristocracy, were
originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city,
and entrusted with the administration of it.... It was not till
early in the sixteenth century that they were interposed between
the mayor and the twenty-four men.[506]

The general powers for the whole town possessed by the Mayor and his council were quite distinct from the local powers of each Alderman in his district. For my part, I cannot resist the impression that, while the sheriff, bailiff, or reeve represented the power of the Crown, and the Alderman the old local officer, the council of twenty-four, so closely associated with the Mayor, and not the representatives of districts, were a later introduction, of different character, and representing the commercial as against the territorial element. Whether the Aldermen joined the council in later days or not, they were never, I believe, originally or essentially, a part of that body.

The chief objection, probably, to connecting the “commune” of London with the “Établissements de Rouen” will be found in the fact that the latter refer to a system based on a body of a hundred _pares_, of which body there does not seem to be any trace in England. At Winchester the _pares_ were “the twenty-four.” It is obvious that, in this respect, there is a marked discrepancy; but if the electoral body was different, the executive, at any rate, was the same. And if, as must be admitted, there was a foreign element introduced, it would be naturally from Normandy that it came.[507]

Writing in 1893, before I had discovered the documents on which I have dwelt above, I insisted on the _foreign_ origin of the London “commune,” and pointed out that the close association between London and Rouen at the time suggested that the office of Mayor was derived by the former from the latter.[508] It may be permissible to repeat this argument from presumption, although its form was adapted to a wider circle than that of scholars.

The _beffroi_ of France, to which the _jurat_ looked as the symbol and pledge of independence, is found here also in the bell-tower of St. Paul’s, which is styled in documents either by that name (_berefridum_), or by that of _campanile_, which brings before us at once the storm-tost commonwealths of Italy. It was indeed from Italy that the fire of freedom spread. With the rise of mediæval commerce it was carried from the Alps to the Rhine, and quickly burst into flame among the traders and craftsmen of Flanders. Passing into Picardy, it crossed the Channel, according to a theory I have myself advanced, to reappear in the liberties of the Cinque Ports, with their French name, their French “serements” and their French _jurats_.[509] Foreign merchants had brought it with them to the port of Exeter also, almost as early as the Conquest, and we cannot doubt that London as well was already infected with the movement, and eager to find in the foreign “commune” the means of attaining that administrative autonomy and political independence which that term virtually expressed.

Hostile though our kings might be to the communal movement here, they favoured it for purposes of their own in their Norman dominions. This is a factor in the problem that we cannot afford to overlook, considering the peculiar relation in which Normandy stood to England. As M. Langlois has observed:

Jamais en effet la France et l’Angleterre n’ont été, même de nos
jours, aussi intiment en contact ... Jusqu’à la fin du xii^{me}
siècle, les deux pays eurent à peu près les mêmes institutions
politiques, ils pratiquaient la même religion, on y parlait la
même langue. Des Français allaient fréquemment dans l’île comme
touristes, comme colons, comme marchands.

Was it not then from Normandy that London would derive her commune? And if from Normandy, surely from Rouen. We are apt to forget the close connections between the two capitals of our Anglo-Norman kings, London on the Thames, and Rouen on the Seine. A student of the period has written of these:

Citizens of Norman origin, to whom London, in no small measure,
owed the marked importance which it obtained under Henry I....
Merchants, traders, craftsmen of all sorts, came flocking
to seek their fortunes in their sovereign’s newly-acquired
dominions, not by forcible spoliation of the native people, but
by fair traffic and honest labour in their midst.... Norman
refinement, Norman taste, Norman fashions, especially in dress,
made their way rapidly among the English burghers.... The great
commercial centre to which the Norman merchants had long been
attracted as visitors, attracted them as settlers now that it
had become the capital of their own sovereign.[510]

* * * * *

It is known from the ‘Instituta Londoniæ’ that, so far back as the days of Æthelred, the men of Rouen had traded to London, bringing in their ships the wines of France, as well as that mysterious “craspice,” which it is the fashion to render “sturgeon,” although there is reason to believe that the term denoted the porpoise and even the whale. The charter of Henry, duke of the Normans, to the citizens of Rouen (1150–1), brings out a fact unknown to English historians, by confirming to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days of Edward the Confessor. And the same charter, by securing them their right to visit all the markets in England, carries back that privilege, I believe, to the days at least of Henry I.; for, although the fact had escaped notice both in France and England, it could neither have originated with Count Geoffrey nor with Duke Henry his son.

Nor does the interest of this Rouen charter stop here. Among the sureties for the young Duke’s fidelity to his word we find Richer de Laigle, the youthful friend of Becket, “a constant visitor,” as Miss Norgate, writes, “and intimate friend of the little household in Cheapside.” And does not the name of Becket remind us how “Thomas of London, the burgher’s son,” afterwards “Archbishop, saint and martyr,” had for his father a magnate of London, but one who was by birth a citizen of Rouen? Therefore, the same writer is probably justified in maintaining that “the influence of these Norman burghers was dominant in the city.” They seem, she adds, “to have won their predominance by fair means, fairly. They brought a great deal more than mere wealth; they brought enterprise, vigour, refinement, culture, as well as political progress.”[511]

Now it is my contention that political progress was represented with them by the communal idea. Their interests, moreover, would be wholly commercial, and, therefore, opposed to those of the native territorial element. If we turn to Rouen, we find its Mayor occurring fifteen years at least before the Mayor of London, and styled Mayor of the “Commune” of Rouen--“Major de Communia.” For Rouen was a stronghold of the “Commune.” It is of importance, therefore, for our purpose to ascertain at what period the communal organization originated at Rouen. In spite of the close attention, from the days of Chéruel downwards, that the subject has attracted in France, the conclusions attained cannot be deemed altogether satisfactory.

The monograph devoted by M. Giry to the “Établissements de Rouen,”[512] represents the _fine fleur_ of French historical scholarship, and its conclusions, therefore, deserve no ordinary consideration. But on one point of the utmost importance, namely, the date at which these “Établissements” were compiled, I venture to hold an independent view. The initial difficulty is thus stated by the brilliant French scholar:

L’original n’existe plus, et l’on ne sait à quelle époque
précise il faut faire remonter leur adoption dans les villes de
Rouen et de la Rochelle qui les ont eus avant tous les autres
(p. 2).

The first allusion to the jurisdiction exercised by the Commune of Rouen is found, says M. Giry, in the charter granted it by Henry II. shortly after its gallant defence against the French king. He then proceeds:

C’est du reste à la fin du règne de Henri II. que nous voyons
pour la première fois la ville de Rouen décorée du titre de
Commune (_communia_) dans un grand nombre de chartes dont les
listes de témoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 et 1189.
Dans ces chartes les mentions d’un maire, de pairs, d’un
bailli, nous font voir qu’alors déjà la ville jouissait de
l’organisation municipale que les Établissements exposent avec
plus de détails; elles nous permettent de croire que cette
constitution, à peu près telle qu’elle nous est parvenue y était
alors en vigueur (p. 28).

A footnote is appended, giving “l’indication de quelques-unes des chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles s’appuie cette démonstration”:

[1] “Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173–1181) ...
Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis” ... [2] “in
presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie
Rothomagensis (1177–1189) et parium ipsius civitatis,” etc.

The expert will perceive that these two charters “demonstrate,” not a date “entre 1173 et 1189,” but between 1177 and 1181. For if Bartholomew’s rule as mayor began in 1177, the first cannot be of earlier date; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in 1181,[513] its mention of a “commune” cannot be of later date than that year. As a matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters (from which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bartholomew was mayor earlier than 1177; but I am, for the moment, only concerned with M. Giry’s dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing the claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes:

Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient décider
même la question d’antériorité, puisqu’ils ne donnent que des
époques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen
entre 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle entre 1169 et 1199 (pp.
67–8.)

No reference is given for the date “1183,” but it must be derived from the “demonstration” on p. 29 (footnote), where a charter is mentioned which speaks of the “Communio Rothomagi” in the time of archbishop Hugh, “1129–1183.” But now comes the startling fact. It was not Hugh who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had died so early as 1164. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it proves that the “communio” was in existence, and (as M. Giry holds), the “Établissements” with it, at least as early as 1164. But the fact is that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, of duke Henry’s charter, “la _communio Rothomagi_ (art. 7) ne désigne que la communauté des citoyens” (p. 26); it does not prove the existence of a _commune_, and, of course, still less of the “Établissements.”

But I would urge that not even the mention of a true _commune_ (“communia”) in a charter proves the adoption of the “Établissements” at the time. For Henry’s grant of a “communia” to La Rochelle was made, according to M. Giry, between 1169 and 1178;[514] and yet, as we have seen, he does not deem the adoption of the “Établissements” at La Rochelle proved before 1199. In that year Queen Eleanor granted to Saintes “ut communiam suam teneant secundum formam et modum communie de Rochella.” Even this, I venture to think, is not actual proof that the “Établissements de Rouen” had already been adopted at La Rochelle, though it certainly affords some presumption in favour of that view.

It is only when we turn from this external evidence to the text of the “Établissements” themselves, that we discover, in two passages, a direct clue. In these an exception is made in the words: “nisi dominus rex vel filius ejus adsint Rothomagi vel assisia” (ii. 24, 28). On these M. Giry writes:

Les articles qui prévoient la présence à Rouen du roi ou de son
fils ne peuvent guère s’appliquer qu’à Henri II. et à Richard
Cœur-de-Lion. C’est donc des dernières années du règne de Henri
II., après l’année 1169, qu’il faut dater la rédaction des
Établissements (i. 11).

Here, then, we have yet another limit--the last (twenty) years of Henry II. No reference, however, is given for the date “1169” (unless it applies to La Rochelle--and even then it is wrong).[515] But my point is that between the years “1169” (or “1177”) and “1183” the king’s son here mentioned was, obviously, not Richard, but Henry, styled king of the English and duke of the Normans, from his coronation in 1170 to his death in 1183. And, even after Henry’s death, Richard was never duke of the Normans in his father’s lifetime. My own conclusion, therefore, is that these parts, at least of the “Établissements,” and probably the whole of them, were composed before the death of the young king in 1183, and probably after his coronation, and admission to a share of his father’s power, in 1170. Thus they may well have been connected with Henry’s charter to Rouen granted in 1174–1175.

These considerations may have led us somewhat far afield; but if I am right in deriving from the Norman capital of our kings the 12th century “Commune of London,” the origins of the Rouen “Commune” deserve our careful study. The same MS. which yielded the leading document in this paper contains two others, of which something must be said. But before doing so we will glance at one of different origin, which, in more ways than one, we may associate with the ‘Commune.’

The charter which follows is chiefly introduced for the interesting phrase found in it: “the greater barons of the city.” So far as I know, this phrase is unique; and apart from its importance for London itself, it has a direct bearing on that famous constitutional problem: who were the “barones majores”? In the present case, the phrase, surely, has no specialized meaning. It is probably a coincidence, and nothing more, that “majores” and “minores,” at St. Quentin, had a defined meaning. In M. Giry’s treatise on its _commune_ we read as follows:

Notons ici que les citoyens ayant exercé les fonctions de
jurés et d’échevins formaient dans la ville une véritable
aristocratie: on les appelait les grands bourgeois, _majores
burgenses_, par opposition aux petits bourgeois, _minores
burgenses_, qui comprenaient tous les autres membres de la
commune (p. cxi.).

And again:

À Saint-Quentin, comme dans toutes les communes, le pouvoir
était aux mains des habitants riches qu’on appelait, ainsi qu’il
a été dit plus haut, les grands bourgeois (_majores burgenses_),
parce qu’ils avaient exercé les charges municipales, et pour
les distinguer des petits bourgeois (_minores burgenses_),
dénomination appliquée à tous ceux qui n’avaient point rempli
les fonctions de juré ou d’échevin. En 1318, pendent la
suspension de la commune, ces petits bourgeois se plaignirent de
la mauvaise répartition des tailles et traduisirent devant le
Parlement les grands bourgeois, auteurs des rôles d’imposition
incriminés (p. cxv.).

The original of this charter is preserved at the Public Record Office.[516] It is assigned in the official calendar to 1189–1196, but this date can be greatly narrowed. For while it is subsequent to William’s consecration (31st Dec., 1189), it must be previous to his obtaining the legation in June, 1190, for Bishop Hugh was his open foe before he lost it, and could not act with him after that.

Willelmus dei gratia Elyensis episcopus Domini Regis
cancellarius universis Christi fidelibus ad quos presens
scriptum pervenerit salutem in vero salutari. Universitati
vestre notum fieri volumus nos dedisse et concessisse et
presenti carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et familiari nostro
Gaufrido Blundo civi Lond’ et heredibus suis totam terram
et mesuagium cum pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis
consuetudinibus et rebus cunctis que ad predictam terram
pertinent, quam terram et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis emimus
de Waltero Lorengo qui fuit nepos Petri filii Walteri[517] et
Roberti filii Walteri et eorum heres per veredictum tocius
civitatis Londoniarum (_sic_), et hoc testificatum fuit
coram nobis _a maioribus baronibus civitatis_ apud Turrim
Lond’. Que terra et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis fuerunt
predicti Petri filii Walteri et predicti Roberti filii Walteri
qui fuerunt avunculi predicti Walteri Loreng’ et jacent in
parochia Sancti Laurentii de Judaismo et in parochia Sancte
Marie de Aldermanebery, habendum et tenendum predicto Gaufrido
et heredibus suis jure hereditario imperpetuum cum omnibus
pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et cum
omnibus rebus, scilicet quicquid ibidem habuimus in terris,
in lignis, in lapidibus, in redditibus, et in rebus cunctis,
sine aliquo retenimento faciendo inde servicium quod inde
capitali domino debet, scilicet vj d. per annum ad Pasch’ pro
omni servitio. Hanc vero terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis,
ut predictum est, ego Willelmus predictus et heredes nostri
predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis contra omnes gentes
imperpetuum warrantizabimus. Pro hac donatione et concessione et
carte nostre confirmatione predictus Gaufridus Blund dedit nobis
quatuor viginti et decem libras argenti in gersumam. Et ut hec
nostra donatio et concessio rata et inconcussa predicto Gaufrido
et heredibus suis imperpetuum permaneat, eam presenti scripto et
sigilli nostri munimine corroboravimus.

Hiis testibus: Hugoni Cestrensi episcopo; Henrico de Longo
Campo fratre nostro; Willelmo de Brause; Henrico de Cornhell’;
Willelmo Puintel; Ricardo filio Reineri; Henrico filio Ailwin’;
Waltero de Hely senescallo nostro; Matheo de Alenzun camerario
nostro; magistro Michaele; Willelmo de Sancto Michaele; Gaufrido
Bucuinte; Simone de Aldermannebury; Baldewino capellano nostro;
Stephano Blundo; Philippo elemosinario nostro; magistro Willelmo
de Nanntes; Daniele de Longo Campo clerico nostro; Reimundo
clerico nostro, et multis aliis.

We have here a remarkable group of men--Longchamp himself, whose fall, in 1191, was so closely connected with the birth of the _commune_, but who is here seen, in the hour of his pride, speaking of “our brother,” “our seneschal,” “our chamberlain,” “our chaplain,” “our almoner,” and “our clerks”; Bishop Hugh, who was next year to take the lead in expelling him from the Tower, as yet his stronghold; Henry of Cornhill and Richard Fitz Reiner, who had ceased but a few months before to be sheriffs of London, and who were to play so prominent a part at the crisis of 1191; lastly, Henry Fitz Ailwin himself, who, as the ultimate result of that crisis, was destined to become the first Mayor of the _Commune_ of London.

The grantee himself also was a well-known citizen of London. In conjunction with Henry Fitz Ailwin (as Mayor) and other City magnates, he witnessed a gift of property in the City to St. Mary’s, Clerkenwell;[518] and he seems to have been the Geoffrey Blund who had, by his wife Ida de Humfraville, a son Thomas, who founded a chantry in St. Paul’s for his uncle Richard de Humfraville, and his father Geoffrey.

For the London topographer also this charter has an interest, as land in St. Lawrence Jewry, and St. Mary Aldermanbury, must have closely adjoined the site of the Guildhall itself. The sum named is a large one for the time.

I now pass to the two documents of which mention has been made above. The first of these[519] is of interest for its bearing on the “ward” system. At Rouen the “excubia” was in charge of the mayor;[520] in London, according to this document, he had not supplanted the sheriffs, by whom it must have been controlled before his appearance. This I attribute to its close connexion with the pre-existing system of “wards,” each, I take it, a unit for purposes of defence and ward, under its own alderman, with the sheriffs at the head of the whole system.

DE EXCUBIIS IN NATALI ET PASCHA ET PENTECOST.[521]

Magna custodia debet invenire xii homines sed per libitum
vicecomitis abbreviata est usque ad viii homines.

Mediocris custodia debet viii vigiles, sed ita abbreviata usque
sex.

Minor custodia debet sex, sed ita abbreviata usque ad iiij^{or}.

Debent autem escavingores[522] eligi qui singulis diebus a
vigilia Nat[alis] domini usque ad diem epyphanie videant illos
qui debent de nocte vigilare quod sint homines defensibiles et
decenter ad hoc armati. Debent autem ad vesperam in die videri
et ad horam completorii exire et per totam noctem pacifice
vigilare et vicum salve custodire usque pulsetur ad matutinas
per capellas, quod vocatur _daibelle_. Et si aliqua defalta in
custodia contigerit, escavingores debent illos inbreviare et ad
primum hustingum vicecomitibus tradere. Potest eciam vicecomes,
si vult, cogere eos jurare de defalta quod nulli inde deferebunt
nec aliquem celabunt.

DE CARTIS CIVITATIS.

In thesauro due regis Willelmi primi et due de libertatibus
regis Ricardi et de eodem rege due carte de kidellis et de rege
Johanne due carte de vicecom[itatu], una de libertate et una
de kidellis cum sigillo de communi cons[523] (_sic_) habet i
cartam regis Johannis de libertate civitatis W. fil’ Ren’ habet
i regis Henrici de libertate et H[enricus] de Cornh[illa] aliam,
Rog[erus] maior habet cartam Regin[aldi?] de Cornh[illa] de
debito civitatis de ccc marcis.

The latter portion, it will be observed, describes the custody of the city charters, and is of special value as fixing the date to that of the mayoralty of Roger, who held the office in 1213.

The regulations for the watch are decisive, surely, of the functions originally discharged by the “scavengers” of London. They were inspectors of the watch. In his introduction to the ‘Liber Albus’(1859) Mr. Riley held that--

The City Scavagers, it appears, were originally public officers,
whose duty it was to attend at the Hythes and Quays for the
purpose of taking custom upon the _Scavage_ (_i.e._ Showage)
or opening out of imported goods. At a later period, however,
it was also their duty, as already mentioned, to see that due
precautions were taken in the construction of houses against
fire; in addition to which it was their business to see that the
pavements were kept in repair.... These officers, no doubt, gave
name to the ‘_Scavengers_’ of the present day (p. xli.; cf. iii.
352, 357).

Professor Skeat adopts this view in his etymological Dictionary, and develops it at some length, holding that “the _n_ before _g_ is intrusive” as in some other cases, “and scavenger stands for scavager.” He consequently connects the word with our “shew,” through “scavage.” But no evidence whatever is adduced by Mr. Riley for his assertion that the “Scavagers” originally performed the above duty or had anything to do with it.

The last of these London records with which I have here to deal is the so-called “Hidagium” of Middlesex.[524] The explanation of its thus appearing among documents relating to the administration of London is that when London and Middlesex were jointly “farmed” by the citizens, the sheriffs answered jointly for the ‘Danegeld’ of Middlesex and the corresponding _donum_ or _auxilium_ of London. Here therefore we find these two levies side by side as on the Pipe Rolls. But though the latter was levied from the city when Danegeld was levied from the shire, it was in no way connected with hidation, but consisted of arbitrary sums payable by the principal towns. Prof. Maitland, therefore, is mistaken when, in his great work, ‘Domesday Book and Beyond,’ he makes a solitary reference to our MS., as implying that London “seems to have gelded for 1,200 hides” (p. 409). He has here confused the assessed hidage of boroughs with the arbitrary _donum_ or _auxilium_. This is shown by comparing the latter, as given by himself (p. 175), with the ascertained hidage of towns and the payments its sum would involve.

hides. [geld.] donum.
Worcester 15 £1 10 0 £15
Northampton 25 2 10 0 10
Dorset Boroughs 45 4 10 10 15
Huntingdon 50 5 0 0 8
Hertford 10 1 0 0 5

But the special interest of the entry, “c et xx libr.” (£120) lies in the fact that this amount, which was the sum paid in 1130 and 1156, was obsolete after that time, much larger sums being thenceforth exacted from London. It is, of course, just possible that the obsolete figure was retained, as a protest, on this list; but it is far more probable that what we have here is a copy _temp._ John of an earlier document, perhaps not later than the middle of the 12th century.[525]

HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE.

IN HUNDREDO DE OSULVESTUNE.

Villa de Stebehee l^{ta} hid.
Terra de Fafintune iiij hid.[526]
H[er]gotestune ij hid. Abb’is
Brambelee v hid.
Fulcham l^a hid.
Villa sancti Petri xvj hid. 2 dimid.
Hamstede v hid. iiij abb’s[527]
Lya x hid. abb’is
Tolendune ij hid.
Terra Gub’ti dim. hid.
Abbas Colcestr’ dim. hid.
Chelchede ij. hid abb’is
Kensintune x hid.
Lilletune v hid.
Tiburne v hid. Vs.
Willesdune xv hid.
Herlestune v hid.
Tuferd iiij xij d. hid.
Sum[ma] c et quater xx hid. et xi
hid. et dim.

IN HUNDRED’ DE YSTELWRKE c et v hid.

IN HUNDREDO DE SPELETHORN.

Stanes xxxv hid. Abb’
Stanwelle xv hid.
Bedefunte x hid.
alia Bedefunte x hid.
Feltham xv hid.
Kenetune v hid.
Suneb[er]ia vij hid. Abb.
Sep[er]tune viij hid. Abb.
Hanewrtha v hid. iij Abb’
Summa c et x hid.

IN HUNDREDO DE LA GARE.

Herghes c hid.
Kingesb[er]ia x hid.
Stanmere ix hid.
Terra com’ vj hid.
Alia Stanmere ix. hid. et dim.
Heneclune[528] xx hid. Abb.
Summa c et xl et ix hid.

IN DIMIDIO HUNDREDO DE MIMES lxx hid.

Toteham [5][529] hid.
Edelmetune [35][529] hid.
Mimes [35][529] hid.
Enefeld xxx hid.
Summa lx et ix hid.

Summa summarum octies c et liij hid. et dimid.

Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm’. c et xviij hid.

DANEGELD.

Middelsexe quater xx libr’ et c sol. et vj d.
Londr’ c et xx libr.

SUMMA HUNDREDORUM.

Osuluestane cc et xj hid.
Spelthorn c et x hid.
Elethorn c et xxiiij hid.
Garehundr’ c et xlix hid. et dim.
Thistelwrkhundr’ c et v hid.

Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe.

This list obviously requires to be edited by a local worker, who should collate it with Domesday. In its present form it is clearly corrupt. The amount of Danegeld due from the county implies an assessment of 850¼ hides (at two shillings on the hide), but the actual total is here given as 853½. This again does not tally with the “summa hundredorum,” which only records 809½,[530] while the detailed list of hundreds, it seems, gives no more than 725½. It should be observed that the hundred of “Mimms” is the Domesday hundred of Edmonton, while that of ‘Isleworth,’ similarly, is the Domesday hundred of Hounslow, which contained Isleworth and Hampton.