Part 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DE CARTIS CIVITATIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE.

IN HUNDREDO DE OSULVESTUNE.

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

IN HUNDRED’ DE YSTELWRKE c et v hid.

IN HUNDREDO DE SPELETHORN.

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

IN HUNDREDO DE LA GARE.

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

IN DIMIDIO HUNDREDO DE MIMES lxx hid.

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

Summa summarum octies c et liij hid. et dimid.

Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm’. c et xviij hid.

DANEGELD.

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

SUMMA HUNDREDORUM.

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

Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe.

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

XII

The Great Inquest of Service, 1212

It will be my object in this paper to recover and identify the fragments of a great national inquest, which seems to have escaped the notice of constitutional historians, and which, if its full returns had been preserved, might not unworthily be compared with the Domesday Inquest itself. In the course of doing so, I shall hope to prove that abstracts of these returns have been wrongly assigned by all antiquaries to an earlier and imaginary inquest, and that their belief has recently received an official confirmation. The solution I shall now propound will remove the admitted difficulties, to which the existing belief on the MSS. has, we shall find, given rise.

The bewildering _congeries_ of returns known as the ‘Testa de Nevill’--an Edwardian manuscript shovelled together, and printed by the old Record Commission in 1807--has long been at once the hunting-ground and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy. Now that the returns contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer are also at length in type,[531] it is possible to collate the two collections, and thus to remove, in part at least, the obscurity that has hitherto surrounded them.

Mr. Hall, in his preface to the ‘Red Book,’ writes thus:

The Sergeanties and Inquisitions which form a considerable part of the Feodary in the Red Book of the Exchequer, have hitherto been little known, and their true value has been by no means sufficiently appreciated. This neglect has perhaps arisen from the greater convenience of reference to the printed collection known as the _Testa de Nevill_; but as it is now very generally recognised that the text of this work is far from satisfactory in its present form, the evidence of the kindred returns contained in earlier Exchequer Registers deserves our most careful attention (p. ccxxi.).

In the ‘Red Book’ itself the returns are headed:

Inquisitiones factæ tempore regis Johannis per totam Angliam anno scilicet regni sui xii^o et xiii^o in quolibet comitatu de servitiis militum et aliorum qui de eo tenent in capite secundum rotulos liberatos thesaurario per manus vicecomitum Angliæ tempore prædicto (p. 469).

They are accordingly given, by the editor, the marginal date “1210–1212” throughout (pp. 469–574). On the other hand, the ‘Testa de Nevill’ returns were, as he shows, delivered at the Exchequer on the morrow of St. John the Baptist (25th June), 1212 (p. ccxxi.). Thus then we have, according to him, two successive and “independent returns”:

(1) The ‘Liber Rubeus’ returns made between May, 1210, and May, 1212.

(2) The ‘Testa de Nevill’ returns made in June, 1212.[532]

It is necessary to keep these dates very clearly in mind, because, although the editor accepts the ‘Red Book’ statement, and adopts accordingly the marginal date “1210–1212,” he yet, by an incomprehensible confusion, speaks of the same as the Inquisition of “1210–1211” on p. ccxxviii. (_bis_), and even as “the earlier Inquisition of 1210 entered in the Red Book” (p. ccxxvi.), and of “the two independent returns of 1210 and 1212” with “two stormy years” between them (p. ccxxiv.); while in another place he actually dates the said “returns of 1210” as belonging to “1212” (p. clxv.). He thus dates the Red Book Inquisitions in one place ‘1210–1212,’ in another ‘1210–1211,’ in a third ‘1210,’ and in a fourth ‘1212.’

Now I may explain at the outset that what I propose to do is to show that instead of two Inquests (one recorded in the ‘Red Book’ and the other in the ‘Testa’), there was only a single Inquest, with one series of returns, and that this was the Inquest of June, 1212.

As this view is in direct conflict with the heading in the ‘Red Book’ itself, we must first glance at Mr. Hall’s statement that “the date of the Inquisitions entered in the Red Book can be proved from internal evidence” (p. ccxxiii.). What he there claims to prove is that their date is between 1209 and “the early part of 1213.” Such a conclusion, it will be perceived, in no way proves that they do not belong, as I shall contend they do belong, to June, 1212. Putting aside the obvious and inherent improbability of an Inquest being made in 1212 on the very matter which had formed the subject of an Inquest only just concluded, we need only compare the returns to prove their common origin. Mr. Hall observes that at times

we come upon a passage of a few lines or a whole page or more in the MSS., headed in the later Register ‘De Testa de Nevill,’ dated in the original rolls in the 14th year of John, and corresponding entry for entry with the Red Book Inquest of the 12th and 13th years of that reign (p. ccxxv.).

But the obvious inference that the two Inquests were really one and the same seems not to have occurred to him. We will glance, therefore, at the parallel returns he has himself selected. Foremost among these is “the Middlesex Inquisition” for 1212, of which he has printed “the original return” as an appendix to his Preface (pp. ccxxvi., cclxxxii.-iv.), for comparison with the texts in the ‘Red Book’ and in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ But he warns us

that the numerous variants and the independent wording of the entries, as well as the thirteenth century note “in Libro” on the bottom of the Roll, forbid the supposition that this is really an original of the earlier Inquisition of 1210 (_sic_) entered in the Red Book.

The “original” return and the two texts all begin with the “Honour” of William de Windsor, who inherited from his Domesday ancestor, Walter fitz Other, a compact block of four manors, East and West Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, in the south-west of the county. The first entry is for East Bedfont, and the second ran, in the “original” return: “_Walterius_ Bedestfont, Andreas Bucherel, feudum unius militis.” But _Walterius_, Mr. Hall tells us, was altered in a contemporary hand to “in alterius.” The ‘Testa’ renders this as “in villa alterius,” while the ‘Red Book’ gives us “Walterius de Bedefonte, Andreas Bukerellus j feodum.” There can be no question that the ‘Testa de Nevill’ is right, and that Andrew Bucherel was the sole tenant of the fee, for the scutage is accounted for accordingly on the same page (p. 361). It follows, therefore, that the ‘Red Book’ and the “original” return have both evolved, in error, a Walter de Bedfont from “in alteri” Bedfont. Hence I conclude that the strip of parchment termed by Mr. Hall “the original return,” was not the original return, and that the error common to the ‘Red Book’ and itself demonstrates a close connection between the two.

But if this document was not the original return, what was? To answer this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How significantly close is the parallel these entries will show: