WILLIAM the king friendly salutes Williamthe bishop, and Godfrey the portreeve,and all the burgesses within London, bothFrench and English. And I declare thatI grant you to be all law-worthy, as you were in the days ofKing Edward; and I grant that every child shall be hisfather's heir after his father's days ; and I will not suffer anyperson to do you wrong. God keep you." This charter, by which William I. sealed his peace with the Londoners,followed on stirring events.
In 1066 some fugitives brought to the city the news of the Conqueror'svictory and Harold's death at Senlac. Then the Witan met in London tochoose a king; and the citizens are especially mentioned among the electorsof Edgar Athel-ing. Preparations for another battle, for which theLondoners in particular were desirous, followed. But it appears thatWilliam did not march on London; he aimed rather at isolating it.
The defence was commanded by Staller Esegar, sheriff of Middlesex, who hadbeen wounded at Senlac, and is said to have been carried about the city ona litter. He, according to a later chronicler, finally summoned an assemblyof the " elders " of London, and these sent a messenger to carry a feignedpeace to William. But the envoy brought back sorich gifts and promises that they decided indeed to desert Edgar and tosubmit to the Conqueror. The fact of such a decision is certain, and somemen of London were among those who offered the English crown to William atBerk-hampstead.
Before he came to the city he sent before him to make preparationssuitable to his " royal magnificence," and to build a fortress. This,probably a hasty wooden structure, was the beginning of the Tower ofLondon. William's coronation took place at Westminster on Christmas Day. Itis recorded that in the second year of his reign he solemnly entered thecity, and that he then granted the charter at the instance of William, theNorman bishop of London.
In 1066 some fugitives brought to the city the news of the Conqueror'svictory and Harold's death at Senlac. Then the Witan met in London tochoose a king; and the citizens are especially mentioned among the electorsof Edgar Athel-ing. Preparations for another battle, for which theLondoners in particular were desirous, followed. But it appears thatWilliam did not march on London; he aimed rather at isolating it.
The defence was commanded by Staller Esegar, sheriff of Middlesex, who hadbeen wounded at Senlac, and is said to have been carried about the city ona litter. He, according to a later chronicler, finally summoned an assemblyof the " elders " of London, and these sent a messenger to carry a feignedpeace to William. But the envoy brought back sorich gifts and promises that they decided indeed to desert Edgar and tosubmit to the Conqueror. The fact of such a decision is certain, and somemen of London were among those who offered the English crown to William atBerk-hampstead.
Before he came to the city he sent before him to make preparationssuitable to his " royal magnificence," and to build a fortress. This,probably a hasty wooden structure, was the beginning of the Tower ofLondon. William's coronation took place at Westminster on Christmas Day. Itis recorded that in the second year of his reign he solemnly entered thecity, and that he then granted the charter at the instance of William, theNorman bishop of London.
The true significance of the Conquest for London seems to be that itsprogress towards independence was checked, that it was relegated to afitter place in a country which had a strong central government.Henceforth, except during periods of disorder, this city which had chosenkings, which had constantly exercised initiative, the action of which hadin times of war done much to decide the course of general events, was apolitical force of a less eminent rank. So strong a city was like the over-independent barons and the over-catholic church an element ofdisintegration which the Norman kings strove to bring into bounds. In thisprocess the building of the Tower was the first step, and the granting ofthe charter, which rested the claims of Londoners to law-worthiness on theking's grace, was the second.
The charter makes clear that a portreeve was a leading official of London,and a very probable theory identifies him with the shire reeve or sheriff.The part borne by the sheriff of Middlesex in the defence of the city seemsto prove that the later connection between city and shire, when thesheriffs of London were the financial officers of both London and Middlesex, datesfrom Anglo-Saxon times; and it may be that Godfrey the portreevesucceeded Staller Esegar thesheriff.
The men of London were in 1069 part of a force led by Bishop Geoffrey deCoutances against the insurgents of Dorset and Somerset. In the later yearsof the reign of William I., and in those of his sons, London suffered fromcalamities of the class known as visitations. On the 15th of August, 1078,it was burnt, more extensively, it is said, than ever before; in 1087,another fire destroyed the cathedral and much of the city; in 1091, on the17th of October, a storm blew down seven churches and more than six hundredhouses as well as the wooden roof of Bow Church; in the following March thegreater part of the city was burnt once more ; in 1114 the Thames for atime ran dry; and again in 1132 a fire destroyed London to a large extent.
But these disasters were counterbalanced by the skill of the builders whomthe Normans brought to England. Under William II. some great works wereundertaken : a wall was built round the Tower, and a London Bridge of stonewas made in place of the old wooden structure. Maurice, Bishop of Londonfrom 1086 to 1107, began that church of St. Paul which, enlarged andbeautified by succeeding generations, stood until 1666. Moreover atWestminster Rufus built the famous hall which, as the meeting-place ofparliament, was so greatly to affect London's position. In the modern cityNorman work still survives in two buildings: in the chancel, now a parishchurch, of the marvellous church of the canons of St. Bartholomew'sSmithfield, and in the nave of the parish church of All Hallows Barking.
William Rufus is responsible for another event of many consequences, the foundation of Jewry in London ; for the Jews of Rouen followed him to his English capital. From Henry I. the city received the second of its great charters. It wascustomary for the kings to compound for the royal dues in the severalshires, to let for a yearly rent all that was payable to them in a shire tothe official called sheriff, and he, at the court of the exchequer,annually accounted for this farm or rent. Any disbursements he had made onthe king's behalf were set to his credit.
As the burghs grew in importancethey strove to obtain exemptions from the sphere of the sheriff, tocompound themselves with the king for his dues, and separately to pay afarm. But in London, because the town was greater than the shire, adifferent thing happened: the sheriff of Middlesex was the sheriff orsheriffs of London. Henry I. granted to the city the county of Middlesex tohold at farm: in other words the sheriffs of London collected the royaldues of town and county, and paid in return a yearly sum to the royalexchequer. In all the counties of England the sheriff was appointed by theking : he represented the element of the crown in local government. But inLondon Henry I. gave to the citizens the right of themselves electing totheir shrievalty.
He empowered them also to choose from their own number a justiciar whoshould hold the pleas of the crown. This office was probably created by Henry I.
Moreover the Londoners were declared in this charter not liable to theDanegeld nor to certain other payments, and they received a privilege veryfavourable to their trade, free passage for them and their goods throughoutEngland and the seaports. Their tenure of all their possessions in the cityand without it was confirmed. And they acquired for their property avaluable immunity.
The rights exercised by kings and other magnates of quartering themselves or theif retainers onhouseholders were very burdensome: it was decreed that none mighthenceforward exact hospitality from the Londoners by force.
Besides such privileges and rights of property the charter was concernedwith jurisdictions. It conferred on the city jurisdictory independence,exemption from the sphere of external jurisdictions and the acknowledgedvalidity of its own law. All existing jurisdictions of churches, barons andcitizens were confirmed ; the hustings court was empowered to meet everyMonday, and injustice was forbidden in that court and in the folkmoot.Lesser benefits conceded were exemption from the unpopular Norman custom oftrial by battle, and the confirmation to the Londoners of the chases theirancestors had held in the Chilterns, Middlesex and Surrey.
The charter should be read rather as confirming and defining a state ofaffairs than as innovating it. It probably legalised old claims of thecitizens which the centralising measures of Norman kings had tended tooverride.
It discovers to us a city of which the constitution resemblesthat of a shire. There has been much discussion as to the origin of thewards into which London is divided: Portsoken, Tower, Aldgate, Limestreet,Bishopsgate, Broad Street, Cornhill, Langbourn, Billingsgate, Bridge,Candlewick Street, Walbrook and Dowgate to the east of the course of theWalbrook; and on its west side Vintry, Cordwainer, Cheap, Colman Street,Bassishaw, Cripplegate, Aldersgate, Farringdon, Bread Street, Queenhitheand Castle Baynard.
The charter makes clear that a portreeve was a leading official of London,and a very probable theory identifies him with the shire reeve or sheriff.The part borne by the sheriff of Middlesex in the defence of the city seemsto prove that the later connection between city and shire, when thesheriffs of London were the financial officers of both London and Middlesex, datesfrom Anglo-Saxon times; and it may be that Godfrey the portreevesucceeded Staller Esegar thesheriff.
The men of London were in 1069 part of a force led by Bishop Geoffrey deCoutances against the insurgents of Dorset and Somerset. In the later yearsof the reign of William I., and in those of his sons, London suffered fromcalamities of the class known as visitations. On the 15th of August, 1078,it was burnt, more extensively, it is said, than ever before; in 1087,another fire destroyed the cathedral and much of the city; in 1091, on the17th of October, a storm blew down seven churches and more than six hundredhouses as well as the wooden roof of Bow Church; in the following March thegreater part of the city was burnt once more ; in 1114 the Thames for atime ran dry; and again in 1132 a fire destroyed London to a large extent.
But these disasters were counterbalanced by the skill of the builders whomthe Normans brought to England. Under William II. some great works wereundertaken : a wall was built round the Tower, and a London Bridge of stonewas made in place of the old wooden structure. Maurice, Bishop of Londonfrom 1086 to 1107, began that church of St. Paul which, enlarged andbeautified by succeeding generations, stood until 1666. Moreover atWestminster Rufus built the famous hall which, as the meeting-place ofparliament, was so greatly to affect London's position. In the modern cityNorman work still survives in two buildings: in the chancel, now a parishchurch, of the marvellous church of the canons of St. Bartholomew'sSmithfield, and in the nave of the parish church of All Hallows Barking.
William Rufus is responsible for another event of many consequences, the foundation of Jewry in London ; for the Jews of Rouen followed him to his English capital. From Henry I. the city received the second of its great charters. It wascustomary for the kings to compound for the royal dues in the severalshires, to let for a yearly rent all that was payable to them in a shire tothe official called sheriff, and he, at the court of the exchequer,annually accounted for this farm or rent. Any disbursements he had made onthe king's behalf were set to his credit.
As the burghs grew in importancethey strove to obtain exemptions from the sphere of the sheriff, tocompound themselves with the king for his dues, and separately to pay afarm. But in London, because the town was greater than the shire, adifferent thing happened: the sheriff of Middlesex was the sheriff orsheriffs of London. Henry I. granted to the city the county of Middlesex tohold at farm: in other words the sheriffs of London collected the royaldues of town and county, and paid in return a yearly sum to the royalexchequer. In all the counties of England the sheriff was appointed by theking : he represented the element of the crown in local government. But inLondon Henry I. gave to the citizens the right of themselves electing totheir shrievalty.
He empowered them also to choose from their own number a justiciar whoshould hold the pleas of the crown. This office was probably created by Henry I.
Moreover the Londoners were declared in this charter not liable to theDanegeld nor to certain other payments, and they received a privilege veryfavourable to their trade, free passage for them and their goods throughoutEngland and the seaports. Their tenure of all their possessions in the cityand without it was confirmed. And they acquired for their property avaluable immunity.
The rights exercised by kings and other magnates of quartering themselves or theif retainers onhouseholders were very burdensome: it was decreed that none mighthenceforward exact hospitality from the Londoners by force.
Besides such privileges and rights of property the charter was concernedwith jurisdictions. It conferred on the city jurisdictory independence,exemption from the sphere of external jurisdictions and the acknowledgedvalidity of its own law. All existing jurisdictions of churches, barons andcitizens were confirmed ; the hustings court was empowered to meet everyMonday, and injustice was forbidden in that court and in the folkmoot.Lesser benefits conceded were exemption from the unpopular Norman custom oftrial by battle, and the confirmation to the Londoners of the chases theirancestors had held in the Chilterns, Middlesex and Surrey.
The charter should be read rather as confirming and defining a state ofaffairs than as innovating it. It probably legalised old claims of thecitizens which the centralising measures of Norman kings had tended tooverride.
It discovers to us a city of which the constitution resemblesthat of a shire. There has been much discussion as to the origin of thewards into which London is divided: Portsoken, Tower, Aldgate, Limestreet,Bishopsgate, Broad Street, Cornhill, Langbourn, Billingsgate, Bridge,Candlewick Street, Walbrook and Dowgate to the east of the course of theWalbrook; and on its west side Vintry, Cordwainer, Cheap, Colman Street,Bassishaw, Cripplegate, Aldersgate, Farringdon, Bread Street, Queenhitheand Castle Baynard.
No Comments, Comment or Ping
Reply to “Under The Norman Kings”
You must be logged in to post a comment.