Fig. 28.—Saxon Brooch found in Cheapside.
The crossing of the great streets at Leadenhall Market was called the “Carfukes of Leadenhall” in 1357.[170]This four-ways was probably marked by a market cross like the Carfax at Oxford. At Exeter there was a Carfax,[171]and there was also one at Paris.[172]It is thus that Leadenhall Market sprang up at the main crossing of the city. Atthis centre the continuous routes change their names after the model of the usual north-, south-, east-, and west-gate streets of other towns: (1) Bishopsgate Street; (2) Gracechurch Street and Bridge Street; (3) Aldgate Street (now Leadenhall); (4) Cornhill, Cheap, and Newgate Street. The secondary crossing at Lombard Street, Stow calls the “Four ways.” At the meeting of Cheap, Cornhill, and Lombard Street was the Stocks Market, which Stow says was the centre of the city; here stood the stocks and pillory. The names Cheap, and Cornhill or “Up-Cornhill,” can be traced back to about 1100. Several other streets are named in documents of the twelfth century, as Milk Street and Broad Street (1181), Fridaie Street, Mukenwelle or Muchwella (Monkwell) Street, Candelwrich (Cannon) Street, Godrun Lane, East Cheap, The Jewry, Alsies (Ivy) Lane, Vico Piscaro (1130), Lombard Street, and Lime Street. This early occurrence of Godrun’s Lane goes to confirm the tradition that it was named from the Danish leader: there is still a Guthrum’s Gate at York. Alsie was the name of the Portreeve to whom the Confessor addressed a charter: it is interesting that Ivy Lane (it is Dr. Sharpe’s identification) may commemorate his name to this day. Eachprincipal street was a “King’s Street” orVia Regia, as in the laws of Ethelred. The laws of Athelstane provide that “all marketing be within the port (town) and witnessed by the Portreve or other unlying man.” That is in “open market.”
Fig. 29.—Coin of Alfred withMonogram of London. Enlarged.
From the moment when we first hear of it London has been a famous port and market. Tacitus speaks of it as “celebrated for the resort of merchants with their stores.” “London,” says Beda, speaking of the opening of the seventh century, “was a mart town of many nations which repaired hither by sea and land.”
In Athelstane’s appointment of moneyers to the realm London was assigned eight, this being two more than any other place. The coins of Alfred struck in the city form a large series. The monogramof London which fills the reverse of some of them is a quite perfect design,[173]and it deserves to be better known and largely used (Fig. 29).
As to the relation of Saxon and Roman London a few words may be said. Wren held that the Roman Forum was at London Stone, while Stukeley suggested the Stock’s Market on the site of the present Exchange. Excavations at Chesters and Silchester have shown that the forum in each case occupied a large “insula” right in the centre of the city, and this would agree best with Stukeley’s site.[174]It is possible that it may have extended along by the east bank of the Walbrook as far as Cannon Street. The assumption of old writers, that Roman London would be symmetrically planned, with streets crossing at right angles, is not necessarily true. The streets of mediæval London in their main lines were not more irregularly laid out than the streets of Pompeii. The recently excavated city of Silchester is more regular, but this city was probably laid out once for all, whereas London was just as probably theresult of gradual growth. In many respects, however, Silchester affords a close parallel to London.
In theConquest of EnglandMr. Green stated the view that Saxon London “grew up on ground from which the Roman city had practically disappeared.” He inferred this “from the change in the main line of communication” from Newgate to the bridge. According to Mr. Loftie’s last word, given in the Memorial volume of 1899, the London recovered by Alfred was a ruined wall enclosing nothing. The bridge stood much farther down stream than now. To protect it the king built a tower at the south-east corner of the walls. The Roman streets did not exist or were useless. He (why he?) made a road diagonally from the bridge to Westgate. The old Bishopsgate was to the east of the present one, and opened on the road to Essex, etc. My view of Alfred’s London is that the Roman city to a large degree continued to exist, and the streets were still maintained, by the new population. Here a Roman mansion with its mosaic floors would still be inhabited. There a portico would be patched with gathered bricks and covered with shingles, while by its side stood a house of wattle and daub. Here was a Roman basilican church, while in another place would befound one of timber and thatch. When a church is distinguished by being called a stone church (like St. Magnus), it is evident that others were less substantial. Garden and tillage filled up wide interspaces. In the Assise of Buildings of 1212 it is said that “in ancient times the greater part of the city was built of wood, and the houses were covered with straw and stubble and the like.” Daubers and mudwallers were much in request right through the Middle Age.[175]
Roach Smith, who had an expert’s knowledge of all the data in regard to Roman London, held that the approach was along High Street, Southwark, that the bridge was on the site of that destroyed about 1830, that Bishopsgate represented one of the chief gates, Aldgate and Ludgate being others, and that the crossing of East Cheap with Gracechurch Street was probably the centre of an earlier and smaller city. Quantities of Roman bricks, he says, have been found re-used in the walls of early houses and churches, and obviously taken from Roman buildings which occupied their sites. It is probable indeed that some Roman buildings were stillin use in the Middle Age—for instance, the so-called Chamber of Diana near St. Paul’s, and “Belliney’s Palace” at Billingsgate.
Craft Gilds and Schools.—As far back as we have any body of record to go upon we find that important men in the city were craftsmen—goldsmiths, weavers, dyers, tailors, cobblers, tanners. They held offices and owned land, and the only other class at once large numerically and important in position seems to have been the clergy. Early in the twelfth century the St. Paul’s documents twice at least make use of the style “mercator,” and still earlier in Anglo-Saxon laws we have Ceipman.
There is every probability that the craft gilds date from before the Conquest. In the twelfth century head masons, carpenters, and other craftsmen are called “masters,” and this title of university rank was always, I believe, formally conferred by an organised gild. Even at this time the members of crafts were grouped together, as witness Candlewright Street, Milk Street, and the Shambles. We hear of a weaver’s gild in 1130.[176]Even beforethe Conquest, probably, craftsmen wrought and sold their ordinary wares in the traditional open-fronted shops known as well in the East as in mediæval Europe.
FitzStephen says there were three principal schools in London when he wrote (in the twelfth century). St. Paul’s School, almost certainly, was already established at the Conquest, and the schools ofS. Marie ArchaandS. Martini Magniare mentioned in a mandate about 1135 (Commune of London, p. 117).
Churches.—So many churches can now be traced back to the twelfth century that there cannot be a doubt that FitzStephen was accurate in saying that at that time there were in London and the suburbs thirteen larger conventual churches, besides lesser parish churches one hundred and twenty-six. In other words, practically all the parish churches in London and its liberties had been founded by the end of the twelfth century; and there is every reason for supposing that many, if not most, of these churches were even then ancient.
St. Paul’s.—The cathedral we know from Bede was founded early in the seventh century byMellitus, sent from Rome in 601 and consecrated Bishop of London by St. Augustine in 604.
The fourth bishop in succession to the “Mellifluous Mellitus” was Erkenwald, “Light of London,”Christi lampas Aurea(675-693). It is said that he was son of Offa, the East Saxon king, who remained “paynim,” but Erkenwald “changed his earthly heritage for to have his heritage in heaven; ... and whatsomever he taught in word he fulfilled in deed.” He founded the monasteries of Barking and Chertsey. While he was bishop he used to preach about the city from a cart, and once, when a wheel fell off, the cart went forward without falling, “which was against reason and a fair miracle.” He died at Barking, and the monks claimed his body, but “a chapter of Paul’s and the people” said it should be brought to London. As they carried him to his own church there was a flood, but the waters of the Yla (Lea) were divided and a dry path given to the people of London, “and so they came to Stratford and set down the bier in a fair mede full of flowers, and anon after the weather began to wax fair and the people were full of joy.” And, after, they laid and buried the body in St. Paul’s, to the which he hath been a special protection against fire,nd time was when he was seen in the church with a banner fighting a fire which threatened to burn the whole city, and so saved and kept his church.[177]The shrine of Erkenwald remained from this time till the Reformation the palladium of the city.
Fig. 30.—Tomb of King Ethelred in Old St. Paul’s.
In Saxon charters the church is styled “St. Paules mynstre on Lundene,” and the full invocation appears to have beenBeati Pauli Apostoli Gentium Doctoris, which in itself probably explains the choice of it for a mission church. Like the church which Augustine built at Canterbury, it would have been “planned in imitation of the Great Basilica of Blessed Peter.” Such a basilicaof considerable size is still to be seen at Brixworth, Northamptonshire. It would have had a narthex, a nave with “porticoes” or aisles, and beyond the great arch a presbytery and apse. In front would have been an atrium.[178]
Under 961 the Saxon Chronicle says: “And St. Paul’s minster was burnt and in the same year again founded.” King Ethelred was buried in St. Paul’s in 1016, and his tomb, a fine stone chest, stood here till the great fire of London. There is no reason why the tomb illustrated by Dugdale should not be the original one of 1016 (Fig. 30). Next to it was the similar tomb of Sebba, king of the East Saxons, who was buried at the end of the seventh century. The only material memorial of the Saxon minster now existing is a tombstone inscribed in runes, “Kina let this stone be set to Tuki.” It was found in 1852 in the south churchyard, 20 feet below the surface, in an upright position, forming the headstone of a grave composed of stone slabs. The bottom portion was irregular and untooled; this, which showed that it was a headstone, was cut off to make it a tidy antiquity, but it is otherwisecarefully preserved in the Guildhall Museum, and bears a sculpture of a fine knotted dragon.
Fig. 31.—Ninth or Tenth Century Tombstonefrom St. Paul’s Churchyard.
Wren, who was a critical observer of the evidence which came to light when preparing the ground for the new church, gave but little credit to the story that a temple of Diana once stood on the site. “But that the north side of this ground had been very anciently a great burying-place was manifest, for in digging the foundations of St.Paul’s he found under the graves of later ages, in a row below them, the burial-places of Saxon times—some in graves lined with chalk stones, some in coffins of whole stones. Below these were British graves. In the same row but deeper were Roman urns—this was 18 feet deep or more.” Wren thought that the Prætorian camp had been here in Roman days.[179]
St. Peter’s-upon-Cornhillclaims to be the oldest church in London, and to have been the stool or a Romano-British archbishop. The pretension seems to have been recognised by St. Paul’s in the Middle Ages, and Bishop Stubbs was inclined to accept the archbishopric as having existed in London. As the interval in Church continuity cannot have been long, it is most likely that Mellitus reconsecrated some Roman temples or some of the old churches, as Augustine is known to have done at Canterbury. In Gregory’s letter of directions to Mellitus he says that the temples of idols ought not to be pulled down, but be consecrated and converted from the worship of devils. The Church of St. Peter must have been very ancient, as the legend in regard to it appears in Jocelyn of Furness, a writer of the twelfthcentury. Bishop Ælfric, who died in 1038, gave in his will a “hage into Sce Pætre binnon Lunden.”[180]A beautifully written Saxon charter in the British Museum, calendared as probably of the date 1038, records the gift of a messuage in London to St. Peter’s Church.[181]This church, seated at the Carfax of the city, has at the same time the most important of dedications, and took precedence, Riley tells us, over the others.
Fig. 32.—Saxon Tomb from St. Benet Fink. Restored.
St. Michael, Ludgate, is referred to by Geoffrey of Monmouth in connection with Cadwaladr: “They also built a church under it (Ludgate) in honour of St. Martin, in which divine ceremonies are celebrated for him” (Cadwaladr). It must be of early foundation when such a story could be told only some fifty years after the Conquest.
St. Mary Aldermarywas so called, says Stow,because it was the oldest church dedicated to the Virgin. It is sometimes called Elde Maria Church, and certainly dates from before the Conquest, for in 1067 the Conqueror confirmed the possession of the Church ofSt. Mary called Newchurchto Westminster, and it is evident that the title Aldermary is a comparison with this New Mary. The latter asMary le Bowis mentioned by William of Malmesbury as having suffered an accident in 1091.St. Mary, Friday Street, is mentioned in 1105;St. Margaret, Lothbury, in 1104.
Other pre-Conquest city churches confirmed to Westminster in the same charter of 1067 areSt. Magnus, described as the “stone churchS. Magni Medietus,”St. Clement[East Cheap], andSt. Lawrence[Pounteney].
St. Gregory.—In 1010 the body of St. Edmund was brought to “the Church of St. Gregory the Pope, which is situated by the Basilica of the Apostle Paul.”[182]This dedication in the name of the Pope who sent Augustine and Mellitus from Rome is probably very ancient, andSt. Augustine’snear by on the east side of the churchyard may be as ancient.St. Alban, Wood Street,was said to have been a chapel of King Offa’s, and is mentioned about 1077-1093 as belonging to St. Alban’s Abbey.[183]The old topographers say that there was something specially ancient in the structure of this church, and Newcourt thought its origin was at least as old as the time of Athelstane.
Fig. 33.—Head of Cross fromSt. John’s, Walbrook.
All Hallows[Barking] is said to have been given by Riculphus and Brichtwen, his wife, to Rochester before it passed into the hands of the Barking Nuns.[184]All Hallows, Lombard Street, was given to Canterbury in 1053 by Brithmer, acitizen (Newcourt). Earl Goodwin and his wife gave to Malmesbury the Church ofSt. Nicholas[Acon] and all their houses in 1084 (Dugdale).
St. Martin’s Vintry.—This church Newcourt puts at least as early as the Conqueror’s time, and its name of Bereman-Church confirms this (seep. 97).
St. Martin[le Grand].—Kempe thought that this religious house was first founded long before the Conquest, and that it was only refounded just before by Ingelram. The canons of the house are mentioned amongst the tenants in chief in Domesday.[185]
St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, andSt. Alphagewere thought by Newcourt to have existed as early as the Conqueror’s time, and there is ample evidence that the former was a parish church before it was attached to a house of nuns late in the twelfth century. It is mentioned in the St. Paul’s documents in 1148.St. Michael, Cornhill, is said to have been founded before 1055.St. Stephen, Walbrook, was given to St. John’s, Colchester,c.1100.[186]
St. Botolph, Billingsgate, Stow thought, was at least as old as the Confessor’s time, as the wharfby it was even then called St. Botolph’s. In a part of the cartulary of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, in the Lansdowne MSS. (No. 448),St. Augustine on the Wall,St. Edmundin “Longboard” Street,Ecclesia de Fanchurch(which it is said had belonged to the Soc of the Cnihten Gild),St. Lawrence in Judaismo,All Hallows on the Wall,St. Botolph extra Aldgate, andSt. Michael, Cheapside, are mentioned at the beginning of the twelfth century.[187]
Fig. 34.—Saxon Coffin-lid from Westminster Abbey.
Of material evidence little has survived. On the destruction ofSt. Benet Finkabout fifty years ago a fragment of a Saxon grave-stone was found, which is now in the Guildhall Museum (Fig. 32). In Roach Smith’sCatalogue of London Antiquities, No. 571, is the head of a Saxon cross (“of the tenth or eleventh century”) which was found in the old burial-ground of St. John-upon-Walbrook. I amable to identify this with the cross-head in the Saxon Room at the British Museum from a sketch of Roach Smith’s, which I have, which bears the same number 571 (see the diagram,Fig. 33). It has been said that Roman foundations have been found under some of the churches.[188]
Several of the churches outside the walls can be traced back so far as to make it probable that they were founded before the Conquest.
The Assise of 1189(?), speaking of a fire in the first year of Stephen (1136), says it burnt from London Bridge toS. Clementis Danorum; in a charter of Henry II. this church is calledS. Clementis quæ dicitur Dacorum(Dugdale, under “Temple”). It was still earlier the subject of a charter of the Conqueror’s (seep. 85). According to M. of Westminster the body of Harold I., buried at Westminster, was dug up in 1040 and thrown into the Thames, “but it was found and buried by the Danish people in the cemetery of theDanes”—“at S. Clement’s,” says R. Diceto, the London historian who wrote in the twelfth century. This is probably the cemetery of the Danes who were killed in London in Ethelred’s reign. M. of Westminster (under 1012) says many of the Danes fled to a certain church in the city, where they were all murdered. Stow says they were slain in a place called the Church of the Danes.
St. Mary le Strand.—Here Becket held his first cure. His biographer FitzStephen calls itS. Mariæ Littororiam.St. Andrew’s, Holborn, is mentioned in the somewhat doubtful charter dated 951 (seep. 60).St. Bridget, Fleet Street, was also of early foundation (Stow).St. Sepulchre’sis mentioned in the twelfth century.[189]Of the monasteries in the neighbourhood,Barkingwas founded in the seventh century,Westminsternot later than the tenth, andBermondsey, the fine new church of which is mentioned in Domesday, was probably only refounded by Alwyn Childe. A “monasterium” in Southwark mentioned inDomesday may beSt. Olave, which is spoken of as early as 1096.[190]
All the manors round about London probably had churches before the Conquest, although the only one we can be certain of is that of St. Pancras, as the place is called by that name in Domesday. Stepney Church is said to have been rebuilt by Dunstan. It still contains a small sculpture of the Crucifixion, which is probably eleventh-century work. What these little churches were like we may know from the illustrations of the Saxon church at Kingston which was destroyed at the beginning of this century, and the log church at Greenstead, Essex, which still stands.
A story in theHeimskringlashows how London was early celebrated for its number of churches and London Bridge for its crowds.[191]A French cripple dreamt that an angel appeared to him and said, “Fare thou to Olaf’s church, the one that is in London.” Thereafter he awoke and fared to seek Olaf’s church, and at last he came to London Bridge and there asked the folk of the city to tell him where was Olaf’s church. But theyanswered and said that there were many more churches there than they might wot to what man they were hallowed. But a little thereafter came a man to him who asked whither he was bound, and the cripple told him, and sithence said that man, “We twain shall fare both to the church of Olaf, for I know the way thither.” Therewith they fared over the Bridge, and went along the street which led to Olaf’s church. But when they came to the lich-gate then strode that one over the threshold of the gate, but the cripple rolled in over it and straightway rose up a whole man. But when he looked around him his fellow-farer was vanished.
THE GUILDHALL—LONDON STONE—TOWN BELL AND FOLKMOTE
The Guildhall is frequently spoken of in the thirteenth century; for instance, the Assise of Buildings of 1212 was given from “Gilde Hall.” Mr. Price, its historian, shows that at this time it must have stood near the west end of the present hall. This agrees with Stow, who says that it “of old time” stood on the east side of Aldermansbury, and adds that the latter was so named from the “court there kept in their bury or court hall now called the Guildhall.” Guildhall Yard was in 1294, as now, to the east of St. Laurence.[192]Giraldus Cambrensis tells us under 1191 how a multitude of the citizens met in Aula Publica, which takes its name from the custom of drinking there. This burgmote at the Guildhall in 1191 was probably the greatest event in London’s history, resulting in the removal of Longchamp and the establishment of the mayor and commune.[193]“Aldermanesbury” may be traced back to early in the twelfth century, and the name carries the Guildhall with it. Mr. Round points out that theTerra Giallementioned in the St. Paul’s document,c.1130, refers to the Guildhall,[194]and when further we find that aGildhalla burgensiumat Dover appears in Domesday we can hardly doubt that the foundation of the London hall dates from the time of the Frith Gilds. In the laws of Athelstane it was ordained by the “bishops and reeves of London” that the people should be numbered inhyndens(tens), and that “every month the hynden men and those who directed the tithings should gather together for bytt filling, ... and let those twelve men have their refection together and deal the remains for the love of God.”[195]
The principle, says Dr. Sharpe, of each man being responsible for the behaviour of his neighbour, which Alfred established, was carried a step further in London under Athelstane in the formation of Peace Gilds, the members of which were to meet once a month at an ale-drinking in their Gildhall.[196]Similar “Gild ale-drinkings” are spoken of in theHeimskringla, and we are there told in regard to the establishment of a “Great Gild,” that before it there were “turn-about drinkings.” All this goes together perfectly with what Giraldus says of the Guildhall of London being named from the fellowship drinkings there. He who drank to any one, Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us, said, “Wacht heil”; and he that pledged him answered, “Drinc heil.”
London Stone.—The first mayor of London (from 1191) was, as the Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs tells us, Henry FitzEylwin of Londene-stone. An old marginal note in theLiber Trinitatissays that “Leovistan was the father of Alwin the father of Henry the Mayor,whose first charter is in the priory of Tortingtone.”[197]The association of London Stone with city history probably rests in great part on the fact of the mayor’s residence having been near to it. Thomas Stopleton traces, in an introduction to theLiber de Antiquis Legibus,[198]the property and descendants of FitzAlwin. The town house of the mayor was just to the north of St. Swithin’s Church, which was attached to the property. It was bequeathed to Tortington Priory by Robert Aquillon, son of the first mayor’s grand-daughter. In Dr. Sharpe’sCalendar of Willsit appears that Sir Robert Aguylun left his “mansione” in St. Swithin’s parish, together with the patronage of the church, to Tortington Priory in 1285. At the Dissolution it was granted to the Earl of Oxford. Stow says that Tortington Inn, Oxford Place, by London Stone, was on the north side of St. Swithin’s Church and churchyard, with a fair garden to the west running down to Walbrook. It was “a fair and large builded house sometime pertaining to the prior of Tortington, since to the earls of Oxford, and now to Sir John Hart, Alderman.” Munday adds, “nowto Master Humphrey Smith, Alderman.” At this point I visited Oxford Placeand St. Swithin’s Lane, and it seemed evident that the Salters’ Hall stood on the site of Tortington Inn. Further, on turning to Herbert’sHistory of the Companies, I found that the Salters’ Company purchased of Captain George Smith in 1641 the town inn of the priors of Tortington by the description of “the great house called London Stone, or Oxford House.” The chain of evidence for the site of FitzAlwin’s house thus seems complete.
The mysterious monument, London Stone, now represented by a small rude fragment preserved a few yards away from its original site, has probably borne its present name for a millenium, and its mere name shows it to have had some institutional importance.
London. Candlewick Street. Enter Jack Cade and the rest, and strikes his staff on London Stone.Cade.Now is Mortimer lord of this city and here sitting upon London Stone I charge, ... and now henceforward it shall be treason for any that calls me other than Lord Mortimer.—King Henry VI.
London. Candlewick Street. Enter Jack Cade and the rest, and strikes his staff on London Stone.
Cade.Now is Mortimer lord of this city and here sitting upon London Stone I charge, ... and now henceforward it shall be treason for any that calls me other than Lord Mortimer.—King Henry VI.
Shakespeare here accurately follows Holinshed’s Chronicle as to the events of 1450. About 1430 the Stone is mentioned by Harding, who tells us that it marked the eastern boundary of London asbuilt by King Lud, whose palace was at Ludgate. About 1400-30 Lydgate, in theLondon Lickpenny, wrote: “Then forth I went by London Stone, throughout all the Canwick Street.”[199]
TheLiber Trinitatissays that a great fire in the time of Ralf the prior of Holy Trinity, 1148-67, burnt from the house of Ailwardin nigh London Stone to Aldgate and St. Paul’s. Of the Stone itself Stow says: “The same has long continued there, namely since (or rather before) the Conquest, for in the end of a Gospel book given to Christ Church in Canterbury by Athelstane I find noted of lands in London belonging to the said church one parcel described to lie near unto London Stone.”[200]
Holinshed says that the Kentish captain came from the White Hart in Southwark and “strooke his sword on London Stone, saying, Now is Mortimer lord of this city.” Mr. Coote has claimed that this must be an ancient ceremonial, at the same time advancing the impossible (afterWren’s acceptance of it as Roman) theory that the stone was a part of the house of the first mayor.[201]But I have come over to this view so far as to think it possible that its civic importance originated in its association with the house of the first mayor. According to Stow, “some have said this stone to be set as a mark in the middle of the city—some others have said the same to be set for the making of payment by debtors to their creditors, till of later times payments were more usually made at the font in Paul’s Church and now most commonly at the Royal Exchange.” Mr. Gomme, citing Brandon, says that London Stone entered into municipal procedure, as when the defendant in the Lord Mayor’s Court had to be summoned from that spot, and when proclamations and other important business of like nature were transacted there; and comparing Cade’s action with customs elsewhere, he seems to suggest that it was the centre for the assembly of the Saxon folkmotes. But the proximity of the mayor’s house, in which courts might have been held, gives reason enough for its being made use of as a place of proclamation.
The legend given by Harding is that “Lud, king of Britain, builded from London Stone toLudgate and called that part Ludstowne.” Here we get a clue to its name London Stone, and the idea accounts for its having been to some extent the palladium of the city, of which it seems to have been regarded as the sacred and immovable foundation stone. Stow says, “On the south side of the High Street near unto the channel is pitched upright a great stone called London Stone, fixed in the ground very deep, fastened with bars of iron, and otherwise so strongly set that if carts do run against it through negligence the wheels be broken and the stone itself unshaken.” The lines from Fabyan which head this chapter refer to this same idea of stability, and evidently imply that the stone was looked on as a talisman. Strype says that before the fire of London it was worn down to a stump. But it is “now” handsomely cased with stone “to shelter and defend the old venerable one, yet so as it might be seen.” An architect, writing to theGentleman’s Magazinein 1798, says: “It has often been called the symbol of the great city’s quiet state, from its being always believed to be fixed to its everlasting seat.” This idea of a stone of foundation has many parallels.
It was evidently a monolith, and from what Shakespeare says of Cade sitting on it, it wouldseem in his time not to have been more than 3 or 4 feet high above ground. Wren’s son says “London Stone, as is generally supposed, was a pillar in the manner of the Milliarium Aureum at Rome, from whence the account of their miles began, but the Surveyor [Sir Christopher] was of opinion,by reason of the large foundation, it was rather some more considerable monument in the Forum, for in the adjoining ground on the south side, upon digging for cellars after the great fire, were discovered some pavements and other extensive remains of Roman workmanship and buildings.”[202]Wren was an expert observer with a perfect knowledge of the Roman level in the city, and Dr. Woodward says he had made a special observation of the Roman remains in the city and promised an account of them. His evidence must be held sufficient to prove that the stone was of Roman origin, but was no recognisable part of a building such as a column. It was Camden who first suggested that it was a “miliary like that in the Forum of Rome,” being at the “centre in the longest diameter of the city.” Grant Allen thought it was an early Celtic monument preserved by the Romans. As to Mr. Coote’s viewthat it might have been part of FitzAlwin’s house, which seems to be adopted also by Mr. Round, it has also to be pointed out that the house was certainly to the north of the street, while the Stone was on the south, and St. Swithin’s Church intervened.
Town Bell and Folkmote.—An institution which must have dated from the time of the English occupation was the great assembly of all freemen in Folkmote, the final court which survives to-day in form at the election of a sovereign, when the Commons, who should have free access, are asked for their assent. Stephen was elected at the ordinary Folkmote of London, and the charter of Henry I. recognises the assembly as an existing institution. The place of assembly within historical times was the market of St. Paul’s (Forum Sancto Paulo), at the east of the cathedral against Cheap, marked by St. Paul’s Cross.
The Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs tells how Henry III. in 1257 ordered the sheriffs to convene the Folkmote “at St. Paul’s Cross, to make inquiry of the commons” as to certain customs, when the populace answered “with loudshouts of Nay, nay, nay.” The position held by St. Paul’s Cross in civic customs in later times is thus accounted for. It was no mere adjunct to the cathedral, but the rostrum of London, the Market Cross at the end of Cheap. Just by it rose the city belfry (Berefridam), which contained the great town bell. Such a Beffroi is an acknowledged mark of communal liberties, and we can understand the traditional feeling which was stirred when under Edward VI. it was destroyed. Even at this day it is the Lord Mayor who orders the Great Bell of St. Paul’s to be rung on such an occasion as the death of the late Queen. Probably the “mote-bell” summoned the citizens in Saxon times, as we know it did in the thirteenth century. Dugdale says the first mention he found of the bell tower wastemp.Henry I., when the schoolmaster of St. Paul’s was granted a house “at the corner of the Turret (id est the Clochier); but I suppose it was a thing of much greater antiquity, for upon a writ issued 15 Edward I., it was certified that the citizens of ancient time held the Folkmote there and rang the bell to summon the people.” TheGesta Stephanirecords how the citizens assembled at the ringing of the city bells and expelled the Empress Matilda.
TheHeimskringlatells of Olaf the Quiet, the contemporary of Edward the Confessor, that “in his days the cheaping steads of Norway hove up much.... King Olaf let set up the Great Gild at Nidoyce and many others in the cheaping towns, but formerly there were turn-about drinkings. Then was Town-boon[203]the great bell of the turn-about drinkings in Nidoyce. The Drinking Brothers let build there Margaret’s stone church.” One day Olaf was merry in the Great Gild, then spake his men, “It is joy to us, lord, that thou art so merry.” He answered, “Your freedom is my glee.”
We need a town bell in London. We might set it up to Alfred’s memory.
THE GOVERNMENT OF EARLY LONDON
The kynges chambre of custom men this calle.—Lydgate.
The Kings Peace.—When Alfred took over London it must have been in the main a decayed Roman city. In giving the great burh into the hands of the Mercian Ealdorman, Ethered, he was but restoring its capital to Mercia, but he must also, and mainly, have had in view the need for providing means of defence to the frontier fortress of the March country. Even so, alongside of a supreme military rule a more domestic organisation of a customary nature must have been carried on or reintroduced. It is probable that this, following the shire model, was constituted with hundreds or wards; the people met in wardmote and folkmote, and the king was represented by a Sheriff or Portreeve. London, however, was and remained pre-eminently a royal burh, and must have sharedin all the characteristics of the burhs, drawing on certain shires for upholding its defences, having a Witan, coining money, having special privileges as to residence, gilds, and markets, and being subject to the King’s Peace. As to the contributions for defence, Dr. Maitland, as we have seen onp. 105, says, “There were shires or districts which from of old owed work of this kind to Londonbury.”[204]Regarding the King’s Peace, it was provided by the laws that every crime committed, in a street which ran right through the city and likewise without the walls for a distance of over a league, was a crime against the king. In London the man who was guilty had to pay the king’s burh-bryce of five pounds. The burh was to be sacred from private quarrels—“the King’s house-peace prevails in the streets.”[205]Some such fact as this is probably the origin of that almost mythical phrase applied to the city by Lydgate and earlier writers—“the king’s chamber of London.” It is to this aspect as the great model burh that the Saxon laws of London printed by Thorpe refer.
There must have been a Burh Witan meeting periodically. A Crediton charter of 1018 was made known to the Witans of Exeter, Barnstaple,Lidford, and Totness,i.e.the Devonshire burhs. The Witan was thus a court of record or witness. Probably the Hustings court is a form of the same assembly.
Portreeves.—Fabyan says that at the coming of William the Conqueror and before, the rulers of the city were named Portgreves. “These of old time, with the laws and customs then used within the city, were registered in a book called Domysday in Saxon tongue then used, but of later days when the said laws and customs altered and changed and for consideration that the said book was of small hand and sore defaced and hard to be read or understood, it was the less set by, so that it was embezzled or lost, so that the remembrance of such rulers as were before the days of Richard the First (i.e.the institution of the mayoralty) were lost and forgotten.”
The office of Portreeve probably goes back nearly to the first settlement of the English. Bishop Stubbs, speaking generally of town organisation, says, “The presiding magistrate was the gerefa.” The king’s wic-gerefa in Lundonwic is mentionedin the Saxon Laws ofc.685 (Thorpe).[206]The charter of the Conqueror ran, “I, King William, greet William the Bishop and Gosfregth the Portreeve,” and two of the Confessor’s charters were addressed to bishop and portreeve. In theJudicia Civitatis Londoniæof Athelstane a reference is found to “the bishops and gereves that to London borough belong.” Norton says that these Laws show that in Athelstane’s time the bishops and reeves were the chief magistrates of London, and they likewise presided at county courts with a jurisdiction precisely similar. This conjunction of the spiritual and temporal powers probably explains why it is that St. Paul’s has always been linked in such a special way to the Guildhall. At St. Paul’s was kept the city banner, grants of money from city funds are made for its repair, and the mayor is a trustee of the church. This dual control seems to bear the mark of Alfred’s thought. The Portreeve certainly represented the king, and was responsible for the farm of the city. In theBlickling HomiliesAgrippa is called Nero’s Burhgerefa. It would seem as if the bishoprepresented the collective citizens. Mr. Round has recently shown that the Portreeve disappeared in the Sheriff or Vicecomes of London and Middlesex. The Waltham Chronicle says that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey de Mandeville in the shoes of Esegar the Staller, and Mr. Round conjectures that this Geoffrey is the actual “Gosfregth Portirefan” to whom the Conqueror’s charter was addressed. He also points out how the Sheriff had the custody of the Tower; and in this we may find a further suggestion as to the probability of a connection between the Portsoken of the Cnihten Gild, the Portreeve, and the pre-Conquest citadel. Mr. Round seems not to have known that his suppositions were all taken for granted by Stow, who calls the Portreeve of the Conqueror’s charter Godfrey, and then writes, “In the reign of the said Conqueror, Godfrey de Magnaville was Portgrave (or Sheriff); ... these Portgraves (after the Conquest) are also called Vicecounties or Sheriffs.” Mr. Round shows that the Sheriff, and by inference the Portreeve, represented London and Middlesex taken together. “The city of London was never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can trace themthey are one and indivisible.”[207]The author just quoted accounts for this distinction between London and other county towns by the relative importance of London; but I cannot think, as before suggested, that Middlesex was not specially dependant on London, and probably Ethered’s authority as commandant of the great burh extended over Middlesex. The acquisition of the farm of the county by the city may be an echo of this.
Stow gave a list of the Portreeves from the time of the Conquest. In the additional matter printed by Hearne in his edition of William of Newbury is given, from a register of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, what must be another copy of Stow’s authority for the early sheriffs for which he cited a book “sometime belonging to St. Albans.” Both may come from the old book called “Domysday,” by Fabyan. In the list given by Hearne the names are much less corrupt than in Stow’s list; and as it ends with the year 1222 it must have been an early document. The Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs gives still another list from the firstyear of Richard onward, and so far as they overlap, the three can be compared.[208]
According to Hearne’s list the principal governor of the citizens of London in the days of the Confessor was Wulfgar, calledPortshyreve. In the reign of William Rufus, Geoffrey de Magnaville wasvicecomesand R. del Parcpræpositus. In the time of Henry I. came Hugo de Boch’ [Bochland], v., and Leofstan, p. Albericus de Ver, v., and Robertus de Berquereola, p., followed.
In the reign of Stephen we have the names of Gilbertus Beket, v., and Andreas Buchuint, p. Under Henry II. Petrus filius Walteri was vicecomes, then Johannes filius Nigelli, then Ernulfus Buchel, then Willelmus filius Isabellæ, the last of whom was buried in Holy Trinity Church, Aldgate.
Richard I. was crowned September 1189. In his days first began to be two vicecomites at the same time, who were usually chosen 21st September. In his first year they were Henricus Cornhill and Ricardus filius Reneri.
The Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs begins with these same two names of what it calls the“first sheriffs of London, in the first year of the reign of King Richard.” It, however, places this in 1188; then follow other pairs of names as in Stow, but all a year earlier, till 1206, when Serlo le Mercer and Henry de Saint Auban are interpolated, probably by mistake, unless they merely occupied the position for the portion of a year.
From the Pipe Rolls and St. Paul’s documents many more facts as to the sheriffs can be gathered, and Mr. Round’s article on the “Early Administration of London,” in hisGeoffrey de Mandeville, must be taken as the starting-point for any complete inquiry.
The first Mayor.—The institution of the mayoralty is put in the year 1188 by the Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs. In Hearne’s list, under 1208, is entered Henry son of Alwin son of Leofstan, first of the mayors of London, who were chosen St. Edward’s day (13th October).
Stow agrees with the chronicle, and puts the institution of the mayoralty in the first year of Richard I.; but under 1208 we find an echo of the version as printed by Hearne, for Stow makes King John, in this year, grant the citizens a patent“to chuse to themselves a mayor.” Be the explanation of this what it may, contemporary documents show that Fitzalwin was already known as mayor in 1193; he probably took up the office in 1191.
Stow tells us that the first mayor was Henry Fitzalwin Fitzleofstan of London Stone, and there is ample confirmation that his father was called Alwin. That his grandfather was Leofstan, Stow must have learnt from the list of sheriffs as in the copy printed by Hearne.
There is some confusion between many Leofstans and Alwins, one of whom signs as moneyer the coins of Henry II. about 1160—Alwin on Lund. Mr. Round has shown that in 1165 a Henry Fitzailwin Fitzleofstan with Alan his brother were landholders, apparently in Essex.[209]Stow says that Leofstan was a goldsmith; but here he may be confusing another Leofstan, as this fact does not seem to have been given in the list of sheriffs. Munday contradicted Stow as to Mayor Henry’s grave being at Holy Trinity, and says he was buried at St. Mary Bothaw, and not as “avowed by Mr. Stow.” Stow’s authority, however, must have been this same list of sheriffs, for that notesthat “he was buried at the entrance to the chapter of the Church of Holy Trinity, under a marble slab.” Mr. Round has done much to clear up the history of our first mayor in theDictionary of National Biography, theArchæological Journal, and hisCommune of London; but every detail is valuable of the head of the City Republic of whom the citizens said, “Come what will, in London we will never have another king except our mayor, Henry Fitailwin of London Stone.”[210]Henry was mayor for nearly twenty years, and was followed in 1212 by Roger Fitz Alan—can he have been Henry’s nephew?
Hustings.—This court is mentioned in the charter of Henry I., and in a passage in the so-called Laws of the Confessor the Hustings Court is said to have been founded of old in imitation of and to continue the royal customs of Great Troy. FitzStephen also repeats the legend that the laws of the city were derived from the Trojans, and the passage from the Laws of the Confessor was copied into theLiber Albus. It was suggested nearly three centuries since by Munday, that “Troyweight” is the ancient standard weight of London, and carries on the legend of Brutus to this day; but this is not borne out by the facts, although it is frequently reasserted, as in Brewer’sPhrase and Fable. Munday says, “The weight used for gold and silver called Troy weight was in the time of the Saxons called ‘the Hustings weight of London,’ and kept there in the Hustings. So an ancient record in the Book of Ramsey (sect. 32, 127): ‘I Æthelgiva Countess, etc., bequeath two silver cups of twelve marks of the Hustings weight of London.’”[211]This is interesting as an early notice of the Hustings Court, which is thought by some to have originated under the Danish rule; but the word “Thing” occurs in one of the earliest English laws. It was a Court of Record; the best account of it is given by Dr. Sharpe in hisCalendar of Wills.
The Court of Hustings was not, it appears, necessarily associated with the Guildhall. A Ramsey Charter of 1114-30 speaks of a purchase of a house being completed “in the presence of the whole Court of Hustings of London in the house of Alfwine, son of Leofstan.”[212]
LONDINIUM
“London was built on the first spot going up the river where any considerable tract of dry land touches the stream. It is a tract of good gravel, well supplied with water, not liable to flooding, and not commanded by neighbouring higher ground.”—Lord Avebury,Scenery of England.
From the standing-ground of what is known of London in the Middle Ages, I have endeavoured to reach back towards Londinium Augusta. To set out adequately all the data that we have for reconstructing the Roman city would require a treatise from a specialist. I can only venture here a rapid glance in conclusion at the more salient features of the ancient town. Much in recent years has been written as to a still earlier London than that included within the circuit of Roman walls which held what is now known as the City. It is at once evident that the early city must have had a nucleus and a greater density in one part than inothers; and every evidence goes to show that this earliest centre was situated on the east side of the Walbrook at the head of London Bridge. We have the facts of the position of the Bridge itself, and the suitability of the site; the evidence that important buildings were densely packed in this district, while outside of it they were more and more scattered; and also that no graves have been found within this area. Mr. Roach Smith thought that certain remnants of thick walls found near Cannon Street in the south and Cornhill in the north were probably parts of earlier city walls. He says: “Here and there during excavations, walls of great thickness, which may be referred to walls of circumvallation, were intersected. The extraordinary sub-structures which were cut through in Bush Lane and Scott’s Yard indicate a south-east boundary wall with a flanking tower. In Cornhill another thick wall which seemed to point towards the Bank of England was met with.” Then, in a passage already referred to above, he concludes that old London Bridge pointed to the axis of this earlier Londinium, the centre or carfax of which was at the intersection of Gracechurch Street and East-Cheap. He was inclined to place the earlier north wall along the course of Cornhill and LeadenhallStreet, the east wall in the direction of Billiter Street and Mark Lane, the south in the line of Thames streets, and the west on the eastern bank of the Walbrook—an irregular square with four gates, corresponding with Bridge Gate, Bishop’s Gate, Ludgate, and Aldgate.[213]