Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from theSelect Chartersof Dr. Stubbs, who has gone totheFœderafor his text (which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is taken from the transcript in theLiber Custumarum(collated with theLiber 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 "terraset wardemotumet 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, restrictingrather 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 "vicecomesmeus" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079]but explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable without it, that thefirmais again, under Henry II., found to be not £300, but over £500 a year.
In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) thefirmaof 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 inlibræpartly inmarcæ, 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 thefirmato £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 therégimeof 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 localjustitiariusis 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 essentiallylocalshire-reeve and thecentral"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, thejustitiariusfor 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 officeeo nominetwice 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'" (Londoniaor Londoniæ) 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 theAthenæum, 1887) that "Londonia" is the Latinization of the English "Londone," and "Londoniæ" of the Norman "Londres."[1010]"Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."[1011]"Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."[1012]Madox'sFirma 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 textut 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 valuableCalendar 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 thefirmawas 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. 66b.[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, andNorm. 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 themayor." 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]SeeAthenæum, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The First Mayor of London" inAcademy, November 12, 1887, andAntiquary, 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 inThe 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 theirfirmabeing raised from £52 to £60 a year.[1035]History of London, ii. 208, 209.[1036]A curious illustration of the fact that thisfirmaarose 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 16s.3d."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 cityad firmamfor £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 asheriff, coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (Staffordshire Collections, v. [1] 158).[1050]History of London, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie'sLondon("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 3s.11d."blanch,"plus£209 6s.5½d."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, theLiber Rubeusversion 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 inL. 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 Richard. "Huberto (sic) regis camerario" has also a suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in theLiber Custumarumas "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as, indeed, it is in the (more accurate)Liber Rubeusversion, 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 "vicecomesnoster" 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 17s.1d."blanch"plus£474 17s.10½d."numero."[1081]£445 19s."blanch"plus£78 3s.6d."numero."[1082]£181 14s.5d."blanch"plus£335 0s.7d."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."
[1009]On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" (Londoniaor Londoniæ) 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 theAthenæum, 1887) that "Londonia" is the Latinization of the English "Londone," and "Londoniæ" of the Norman "Londres."
[1010]"Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."
[1011]"Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."
[1012]Madox'sFirma 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 textut 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 valuableCalendar 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 thefirmawas paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone.
[1017]
[1018]Ninth Report Hist. MSS., i. 66b.
[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, andNorm. 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 themayor." 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]SeeAthenæum, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The First Mayor of London" inAcademy, November 12, 1887, andAntiquary, 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 inThe 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 theirfirmabeing raised from £52 to £60 a year.
[1035]History of London, ii. 208, 209.
[1036]A curious illustration of the fact that thisfirmaarose 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 16s.3d."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 cityad firmamfor £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 asheriff, coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (Staffordshire Collections, v. [1] 158).
[1050]History of London, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie'sLondon("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 3s.11d."blanch,"plus£209 6s.5½d."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, theLiber Rubeusversion 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 inL. 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 Richard. "Huberto (sic) regis camerario" has also a suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in theLiber Custumarumas "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as, indeed, it is in the (more accurate)Liber Rubeusversion, 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 "vicecomesnoster" 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 17s.1d."blanch"plus£474 17s.10½d."numero."
[1081]£445 19s."blanch"plus£78 3s.6d."numero."
[1082]£181 14s.5d."blanch"plus£335 0s.7d."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."