Note 1009 — APPENDICES. (continued 2)

On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" (Londonia or 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 the Athenæum, 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's Firma Burgi, p. 242, note.

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

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

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

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

[1017]

"It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, but all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name he was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them power to appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already allowed to appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the portreeve in the charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" (History of London, i. 90). "The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than 1115, Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is mentioned as having some time before given judgment against the dean and chapter as to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of England" (London, p. 29).

[1018] Ninth Report Hist. MSS., i. 66 b.

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

[1020] See Appendix O.

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

[1022] London, p. 126.

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

[1024] See p. 37, ante, and Norm. Conq., iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.

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

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

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

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

[1029] Const. Hist., i. 404.

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

[1031] Ibid., i. 405.

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

[1033] Ibid., i. 630.

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

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

[1035] History of London, ii. 208, 209.

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

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

[1038] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 2.

[1039] Ibid., p. 122.

[1040] Ibid., p. 100.

[1041] Ibid., p. 52.

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

[1043] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 144.

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

[1045] Cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist., i. 410.

[1046] The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40 "numero" plus £716 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 city ad firmam for £60 a year payable to the Crown direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") and his ferm of the shire (Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. pp. 197, 202).

[1048] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 149.

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

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

[1051] Vol. iii. p. 4.

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

[1053] Const. Hist., i. 406.

[1054] £327 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, the Liber Rubeus version records all the witnesses (thirteen in number) together with the place of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, and virtually to 1155.

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

[1060] "Lond'" (Liber Rubeus).

[1061] "Et" omitted in L. R.

[1062] "Portsoca" (L. R.).

[1063] "Nullus eorum" (L. R.).

[1064] "Duellum" (L. R.).

[1065] "Pertinentibus" (L. R.).

[1066] "London'" (L. R.).

[1067] "Port'" (L. R.).

[1068] "Regis H." (L. R.).

[1069] "Consuetudinem" (L. R.).

[1070] "Lond'" (L. R.).

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

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

[1073] "Eas habuerunt" (L. R.).

[1074] "Omnes sint" (L. R.).

[1075] "Yeresgieve" (L. R.).

[1076] "London'" (L. R.).

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

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

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

[1080] £66 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."