The origin, of course, of the astounding error by which "the great master of military architecture" misdated this keep by nearly a century,[993] and took an essentially late work for one of the earliest in existence, was the same fatal delusion that castrum or castellum meant precisely what it did not mean, namely, a tower. "Castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" is the expression applied to Robert's work in 1080, and the absence of a "tower" explains the fact that Fantosme makes no mention of a "tur" when describing "Le Noef Chasteau sur Tyne," the existing keep not being available at the time of which he wrote.

We now come to our last case, that of the ChÂteau d'Arques.

"Arques," writes Mr. Clark, "is one of the earliest examples of a Norman castle."[994] It is, Mr. Freeman holds, "a fortress which is undoubtedly one of the earliest and most important in the history of Norman military architecture."[995] No apology, therefore, is needed for discussing the date of this celebrated structure, so long a subject of interest and of study both to English and to French archÆologists.

As at Colchester and in other places, the very wildest theories have been generally advanced, and archÆologists have only gradually sobered down till they have virtually agreed upon a date for this keep which is actually, I venture to think, less than a century wrong.

In his noble monograph upon the fortress, the basis of all subsequent accounts,[996] M. Deville enumerates, with contemptuous amusement (pp. 49, 268-272), the rival theories that it was built (1) by the Romans; (2) by "Clotaire I." in 553—the date 1553 on one of the additions for the structure having actually been so read; (3) by "Charles Martel" in 745, 747, or 749 (on the strength of another reading of the same date, confirmed by a carving of his coat-of-arms)—these being the dates given by Houard and Toussaint-Duplessis. At the time when Deville himself wrote the study of castles was still in its infancy, and of the two sources of evidence now open to us, the internal (that of the structure itself) and the external (that of chronicles and records), the latter alone was ripe for use. Now, at Arques, precisely as at our own Rochester, the written evidence has hitherto appeared conflicting to archÆologists, but only because the language employed has never yet been rightly understood. On the one hand we read in William of JumiÈges, an excellent authority in the matter, that "Hic Willelmus [the Conqueror's uncle] castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit;" and in the Chronicle of Fontenelle, that this same William "Arcas castrum in pago Tellau primus statuit;" also, in William of Poitiers, that "id munimentum ... ipse primus fundavit:" on the other, we read in Robert du Mont, a first-rate and contemporary authority, who may indeed be termed a specialist on the subject, that "Anno MCXXIII. castellum quod vocatur Archas turre et moenibus mirabiliter firmavit [Rex Henricus]."[997]

M. de Caumont, that industrious pioneer, whose work appeared four years before that of M. Deville, boldly followed Robert du Mont, and confidently assigned the existing keep to 1123.[998] Guided, however, by M. Le PrÉvost (1824), he held that the original structure was raised by the Conqueror's uncle, and that HenryI. merely "fit reconstruire en entier le donjon et une partie des murs d'enceinte." M. Deville, on the contrary, in his eager zeal for the honour and glory of the castle, stoutly maintained that, keep and all, it was clearly Count William's work. He admitted that his Norman brother-antiquaries assigned it to HenryI., but urged that they had overlooked the evidence of the structure, and its resemblance to English keeps assigned (but, as we now know, wrongly) to the eleventh century, or earlier;[999] and that they had misunderstood the passage in Robert du Mont, which must have referred to mere alterations. In order thus to explain it away, he contends (and this contention Mr. Clark strangely accepts) that Robert says the same—which he does not—of "Gisors, Falaise, and other castles known"—which they are not[1000]—"to be of earlier date" (M. M. A., i. 194). Lastly, he appeals, though with an apology for doing so ("s'il nous Était permis d'invoquer À l'appui de notre opinion"), to the far later "Chronique de Normandie" for actual evidence, elsewhere wanting, that the keep itself (turris) was built by William of Arques,[1001] that is, in 1039-1043.[1002]

"I went over the castle minutely," Professor Freeman writes, "in May, 1868, with M. Deville's book in hand, and can bear witness to the accuracy of his description, though I cannot always accept his inferences" (N. C., iii. 124, note). He accordingly doubts M. Deville's date for the gateway and walls of the inner ward, but sees "no reason to doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work" (ibid.). We must remember, however, that the Professor is at direct variance with Mr. Clark on the Norman rectangular keeps, for which he claims an earlier origin than the latter can concede.

Turning now to Mr. Clark himself, we learn from him that—

"it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part of the masonry, and the work of the Conqueror's uncle, Guillaume d'Arques, and it is supposed to be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the rectangular keeps known" (M. M. A., i. 194).

He adds that the passage in Robert du Mont

"has been held to show that the whole structure was the work of Henry, who reigned from 1105 (sic) to 1135, and the extreme boldness of the buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt favour this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage, similar reference is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known to be of earlier date" (ibid.).

To resume. The external or written evidence is as follows. On the one hand, we have the clear and positive statement of a contemporary writer, Robert du Mont, that HenryI. built this keep in 1123. On the other, we have no statement from any contemporary that it was built by William of Arques (in 1039-1043). He is merely credited with founding the castellum, and in none of the contemporary accounts of its blockade and capture by his nephew is there any mention of a turris. The distinction between a castellum and a turris, with their respective independence, has not, as I have shown, hitherto been realized, and it is quite in the spirit of older students that M. Deville confidently exclaims—

"Or, conÇoit-on un chÂteau-fort sans murailles? Un chÂteau-fort sans donjon, dans le cours du XIV? siÈcle, en Normandie, n'est guÈre plus rationnel" (p. 310).

As to the "murailles," Mr. Clark has taught us that palisades were not replaced by walls till a good deal later than has been usually supposed; and as to the "donjon," if, as I have established, so important a fortress as Rochester was without a keep in the eleventh, and indeed well into the twelfth century, other castella must have been similarly destitute—probably, for instance, Newcastle, as we have seen, and certainly Exeter, of which Mr. Clark writes: "There is no evidence of a keep, nor, at so great a height, was any needed" (M. M. A., ii. 47). The same argument from strength of position would À fortiori apply to Arques, and there is, in short, no reason for doubting that the castrum of William of Arques need not have included a turris.[1003]

On what, then, rests the assertion that the keep was the work of the Conqueror's uncle? Strange as it may seem, it rests solely on the so-called Chronique de Normandie, an anonymous production, not of the eleventh, but of the fourteenth century! "Si fist faire une tour moult forte audessus du chastel d'Arques," runs the passage, which is quoted by Mr. Clark (i. 194), from Deville (pp. 311, 312), who, however, apologized for appealing to that authority. This "Chronique" is admitted to have been based on the poetical histories of Wace and Benoit de St. More, themselves written several generations later than the alleged erection of this keep. Of the former, Mr. Freeman holds that, except where repeating contemporary authorities, "his statements need to be very carefully weighed" (N. C., ii. 162); and of the latter, that he is "of much smaller historical authority" (ibid.). To this I may add that, in my opinion, Wace, writing as he did in the reign of HenryII., at the close of the great tower-building epoch, spoke loosely of towers, when mentioning castles, as if they had been equally common in the reign of the Conqueror. A careful inspection of his poem will be found to verify this statement. "La tur d'Arques" was standing when he wrote: consequently he talks of "La tur d'Arques" when describing the Conqueror's blockade of the castle in 1053. There is no contemporary authority for its existence at that date.[1004]

And now let us pass from documentary evidence to that of the structure itself. We may call Mr. Clark himself to witness that the presumption is against so early a date as 1039-1043. He tells us, of the rectangular keep in general, that—

"not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have been constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh century, and but very few, if any, before the English conquest" (i. 35).

Therefore, on Mr. Clark's own showing, we ought to ask for conclusive evidence before admitting that any rectangular keep is as old as 1039-1043. But what was the impression produced on him by an inspection of the structure itself? This is a most significant fact. While rejecting, apparently on what he believed to be documentary evidence, the theory that the keep (turris) was the work of HenryI., he confessed that the features of the building "no doubt favour this view" (i. 194, ut supra).

But leaving, for the present, Mr. Clark's views, to which I shall return below, I take my stand without hesitation on certain features in this keep. It is not needful to visit Arques—I have myself never done so—to appreciate their true significance and their bearing on the question of the date. The first of these is the forebuilding. Mr. Clark tells us that Arques possesses "the usual square appendage or forebuilding common in these keeps" (M. M. A., i. 198). But this unscientific treatment of the forebuilding, ignoring so completely its origin and development, cannot too strongly be resisted. Restricting ourselves to the case before us, we at once observe the peculiarity of an external staircase, not only leading up to a forebuilding, through which the keep is entered, but actually carried, through a massive buttress, round an angle of the keep.[1005] Rochester being believed to be the work of Gundulf, in the days when M. Deville wrote, it was natural that he should have supposed "cette savante combinaison" to have been familiar to Gundulf (p. 299). But now that, on these points, we are better informed, let us ask where can Mr. Clark produce an instance of this elaborate and striking device as old even as the days of Gundulf, to say nothing of those of Count William (1039-1043)? Where we do find it is in such keeps as Dover, the work of HenryII., or Rochester, where the resemblance is even more remarkable. Now, Rochester, as we know, was actually built within a few years of the date given by Robert du Mont, and upheld by me, as that of the construction of Arques. Oddly enough, it is Mr. Clark himself who thus points out another resemblance:—

"In the basement of the forebuilding ... was a vaulted chamber, opening into the basement of the keep, as at Rochester, either a store or prison" (M. M. A., p. 188).

Lastly, both at Arques and at Rochester, we find on the first floor, near the entrance, the very peculiar feature of a smaller doorway communicating with the rampart of the curtain.[1006] This parallel, which is not alluded to by Mr. Clark, is the more remarkable, as such a device is foreign to the earlier rectangular keeps, and also implies that the keep must have been built certainly no earlier, and possibly later, than the curtain, which curtain, Mr. Clark, as we shall find, admits, cannot be so old as the days of Count William.

No one, in short, unbiassed by supposed documentary evidence, could study this keep, with its "petites galeries avec d'autres petites chambres ou prisons pratiquÉes dans l'Épaisseur des murs"[1007] (as at Rochester), with the elaborate defences of its entrance, and with those other special features which made even Mr. Clark uneasy, without rejecting as incredible the accepted view that it was built by Count William of Arques (1039-1043). And this being so, there is, admittedly, no alternative left but to assign it to HenryI. (1123), the date specifically given by Robert du Mont himself.

But, it may be urged, though there is nothing improbable in Mr. Freeman being wrong, is it conceivable that so unrivalled an expert as Mr. Clark himself can have mistaken a keep of 1123 for one of 1039-1043, when we remember the wonderful development of these structures in the course of those eighty years? To this objection, I fear, there is a singularly complete answer in the case of Newcastle, where, as we have seen, he was led by the same misconception into no less amazing an error.[1008]

In short, the view I have brought forward as to the separate existence of "tower" and "castle" may be said, from these examples, to revolutionize the study of Norman military architecture.

[943] Foedera (O.E.), xiii. 251. See p. 179.

[944] The internal evidence determines its date.

[945] "Collectanea quÆdam eorum quÆ ad Historiam illustrandam conducunt selecta ex Registro MSS. sive breviario Monasterii sancti Johannis BaptistÆ ColecestriÆ collecto (sic) a Joh. Hadlege spectante Johanni Lucas armigero. Anno Domini, 1633" (Harl. MS., 312, fol. 92). This charter (which, being in MS., was unknown, of course, to Prof. Freeman) has also an incidental value for its evidence on the Clare pedigree, Gilbert, Robert, and Richard, the witnesses, being all grandsons of Count Gilbert, the progenitor of the house. Among the documents in the Monasticon relating to Bec, we find mention of "EmmÆ uxoris Baldewini filii Comitis Gilberti et filiorum ejus Roberti et Ricardi," which singularly confirms the accuracy of this charter and its list of witnesses. This is worth noting, because the charter is curious in form, and has been described as having "a suspicious ring." It is also found in (Morant's) transcript of the Colchester cartulary (Stowe MSS.).

[946] Cart., 1 John, m. 6.

[947] Mon. Ang. (1661), ii. 66 b.

[948] Cart., 1 John, m. 6 (printed in Appendix 5 to Lords' Reports on Dignity of a Peer, pp. 4, 5).

[949] Ed. Howlett, p. 184.

[950] "In operibus Turris de Gloec' vii li. vi s. ii d." (Pipe-Roll, 2 Hen.II., p. 78).

[951] HenryI. gave land to the abbey (1109) "in escambium pro placia ubi nunc turris stat Gloecestrie" (i. 59).

[952] MediÆval Military Architecture, i. 108.

[953] Ibid., i. 79.

[954] Ibid., i. 29 (cf. "Mota de Hereford"—Rot. Pip., 15 Hen.II., p. 140).

[955] Rotuli scaccarii NormanniÆ (ed. Stapleton), i. 56. The "turris" had been added by HenryI. (vide infra, p. 333). With the above entry may be compared the phrase in one of Richard's despatches (1198)—"castrum cepimus cum turre" (R. Howden, iv. 58); also the expression, "tunc etiam comes turrem et castellum funditus evertit," applied to Geoffrey's action at Montreuil (circ. 1152) by Robert de Torigny (ed. Howlett, p. 159).

[956] Chronique de Jordan Fantosme (ed. Howlett), ll. 1423, 1424, 1469, 1470.

[957] It is even applied by Giraldus Cambrensis to the turf entrenchment thrown up by Arnulf de Montgomery at Pembroke.

[958] M. M. A., ii. 420.

[959] English Towns and Districts, p. 152.

[960] MediÆval Military Architecture, ii. 514.

[961] There is a strange use of "castellum," apparently in this sense, in William of Malmesbury's version (ii. 119) of Godwine's speech on the Dover riot (1051). The phrase is "magnates illius castelli," which Mr. Freeman unhesitatingly renders "the magistrates of that town" (Norm. Conq., 2nd ed., ii. 135), a rendering which should be compared with his remarks on "castles" on the next page but one, and in Appendix S. Mr. Clark is of opinion that "whether 'castellum' can [here] be taken for more than the fortified town is uncertain" (M. M. A., ii. 8).

[962] Skeat's Etymological Dictionary; Oliphant's Old and Middle English, p. 37. It is not, therefore, strictly accurate to say of the expression "Ænne castel," in the chronicle for 1048, that it was "no English name," as Mr. Freeman asserts (Norm. Conq., 2nd ed., ii. 137), or to imply that it then first appeared in the language.

[963] Norman Conquest (2nd ed.), ii. 189.

[964] Ed. Howlett, p. 106. Robert also mentions (p. 126) the "towers" of Evreux, AlenÇon, and Coutances as among those constructed by HenryI.

[965] "About the Tower," as the chronicle expresses it.

[966] "Henricus Rex circa turrem Rothomagi ... murum altum et latum cum propugnaculis Ædificat, et Ædificia ad mansionem regiam congrua infra eundem murum parat" (Robert of Torigny, ed. Howlett, p. 106).

[967] I can make nothing of Mr. Clark's chronology. In his description of the Tower he first tells us that "all save the keep [i.e. the White Tower] is later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh century" (M. M. A., ii. 205), and then that "the Tower of the close of the reign of Rufus" (i.e. before the end of "the eleventh century") ... was probably composed of the White Tower with a palace ward upon its south-east side, and a wall, probably that we now see, and certainly along its general course, including what is now known as the inner ward" (ibid., ii. 253). Again, as to the Wakefield Tower, which "deserves very close attention, its lower story being next to the keep in antiquity" (ibid., ii. 220), Mr. Clark tells us that Gundulf (who died in 1108) was the founder "perhaps of the Wakefield Tower" (ibid., ii. 252); nay, that "Devereux Tower ... may be as old as Wakefield, and therefore in substance the work of Rufus" (ibid., ii. 253); and yet we learn of this same basement, that "the basement of Wakefield Tower is probably late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen or HenryII., although this is no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed" (ibid., ii. 224). In other words, a structure which was "the work of Rufus," i.e. of 1087-1100, can only be attributed, at the very earliest, to the days of "Stephen or HenryII.," i.e. to 1135-1189.

[968] The very same phrase is employed by Robert de Torigny in describing her husband's action at Torigny ten years later (1151): "dux obsederat castellum Torinneium, sed propter adventum Regis infecto negotio discesserat; combustis tamen domibus infra muros usque ad turrem et parvum castellum circa eam" (ed. Howlett, p. 161).

[969] Ord. Vit., ii. 296.

[970] A curious touch in a legend of the time brings before us in a vivid manner the impression that this mighty tower had made upon the Norman mind. Hugh de Glos, an oppressor of the poor, appearing, after death, to a priest by night (1090), declared that the burden he was compelled to bear seemed "heavier to carry than the Tower of Rouen" ("Ecce candens ferrum molendini gesto in ore, quod sine dubio mihi videtur ad ferendum gravius Rotomagensi arce."—Ord. Vit., iii. 373).

[971] W. Rufus, i. 245-260.

[972] "De arce prodiit" (Ord. Vit., iii. 353). Arx, here as above, is used as a substitute for turris.

[973] "Conanus autem a victoribus in arcem ductus est. Quem Henricus per solaria turris ducens" (ibid., iii. 355). "In superiora Rotomagensis turris duxit" (W. Malms.).

[974] W. Rufus, i. 256, 257.

[975] Ord. Vit., v. (Appendix) 199. See p. 422.

[976] Robert of Torigny (ed. Hewlett), p. 153.

[977] My alternative explanation of the choice of style, namely, the importance of the keep itself relatively to the "castellum," must also be borne in mind.

[978] "[Rex] in turri de Bristou captivus ponitur.... [Imperatrix] obsedit turrim Wintonensis episcopi.... Robertus frater Imperatricis in cujus turri Rex captivus erat" (Hen. Hunt., p. 275).

[979] "In turri Cenomannica" (Annales Veteres, 311).

[980] The Tower of Rouen, we have seen (p. 334), was styled "arx regia."

[981] A fine "motte" is visible from the line between Calais and Paris (on the right); another, as I think, stood on the Lea, between Bow Bridge and the "Old Ford," and is (or was) well seen from the Great Eastern line.

[982] ArchÆological Journal, xx. 205-223 (1863).

[983] Anglia Sacra (ed. Wharton), i. 337, 338.

[984] Gentleman's Magazine, N.S., xv. 260.

[985] MediÆval Military Architecture, ii. 421, 422.

[986] William Rufus, i. 53, 54.

[987] "Egregia turris" is the expression of Gervase (Actus Pontificum).

[988] The "castrum lapideum" (compare the three "castra lapidea" erected for the blockade of Montreuil in 1149) is so styled to distinguish it from the "castrum ligneum," which occurs so often, and which Mr. Freeman so persistently renders "tower."

[989] MediÆval Military Architecture, ii. 419.

[990] Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi., 471, 472.

[991] Both writers, also, mistake a general exemption from the trinoda necessitas for a special allusion to Rochester keep.

[992] MediÆval Military Architecture, ii. 421.

[993] Mr. J. R. Boyle has shown that nearly £1000 was spent upon it between 1172 and 1177, when it was, therefore, in course of erection.

[994] MediÆval Military Architecture, i. 186.

[995] Norman Conquest, iii. 182.

[996] Histoire du ChÂteau d'Arques, by A. Deville, pp. x., 412 (Rouen).

[997] Ed. Howlett, p. 106.

[998] Cours d'antiquitÉs monumentales (1835), v. 227, 228.

[999] Colchester, in ArchÆologia, to which he refers, was attributed to Edward the Elder, and Rochester was, of course, as yet, believed to be the work of Gundulf.

[1000] Compare Professor Freeman on Falaise: "More probably, I think, of the twelfth than of the eleventh [century]" (Norm. Conq., ii. 175).

[1001] ChÂteau d'Arques, pp. 307-312.

[1002] Ibid., pp. 48, 267.

[1003] Compare the "castrum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit" at Arques with the "castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" at Newcastle.

[1004] Compare, on this point, the acute criticism of Dr. Bruce (repeated by Mr. Freeman) that "Wace (v. 12,628) speaks of the horse of William Fitz Osbern [in 1066] as 'all covered with iron,' whereas in the [Bayeux] Tapestry 'not a single horse is equipped in steel armour; and if we refer to the authors who lived at that period, we shall find that not one of them mentions any defensive covering for the horse.'" Compare also the expression of William of Malmesbury, who lived and wrote under the tower-building king, that the Norman barons took advantage of the Conqueror's minority "turres agere," these being the structures with the building of which the writer was most familiar.

[1005] "A flight of steps, beginning upon the north face, passing by a doorway through its most westerly buttress, and which then, turning, is continued along the west face" (M. M. A., i. 188). Cf. Deville (p. 298), and the plan of 1708 (ibid., Pl. XII.).

[1006] M. M. A., i. 188, ii. 432.

[1007] Report of 1708 (Deville, p. 294).

[1008] It is only right to mention that, according to the Academy, "Mr. Clark has long been recognized as the first living authority on the subject of castellated architecture;" that, in the opinion of the AthenÆum, all those "who in future touch the subject may safely rely on Mr. Clark;" that his is "a masterly history of mediÆval military architecture" (Saturday Review); and that, according to Notes and Queries, "no other Englishman knows so much of our old military architecture as Mr. Clark."

(See p. 151.)

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

The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of London, under HenryI., were given Middlesex ad firmam, the "Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex exclusive of London. The actual words of the charter are these:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Vicecomitatum LondoniÆ et de Middlesexi cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quÆ pertinent ad prÆdictum Vicecomitatum, infra Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus LondoniÆ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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